Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 48

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

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

→

Question

Is it appropriate or inappropriate to vote in an AfD debate in which one is the nominator? I've seen nominators voting and I've seen them not voting (ostensibly considering their nomination as a vote). DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind it's not a vote. If someone justifies their nomination in the header, and then immediately follows it with an argument for deletion, that's just an honest stylistic different. Most administrators are smart enough to realize that it's not two separate editors supporting the same position. That said, if you see the nominator checking in later in the thread such that they might confuse an administrator, it can't hurt to point it out. (Usually, it's only confusing if they bold keep twice, in a very long thread.) Randomran (talk) 02:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

As Randomran notes, it is a matter of style and is not inappropriate unless it could be confusing. The more common practice at Wikipedia is to omit it. Unless the nominator indicates the nomination is only procedural, the closer will interpret the nomination itself as an unequivocal delete opinion. Rarely someone will make a procedural nomination and immediately vote Keep. (At one of the sister projects the custom is exactly opposite, and a nominator will be reminded of s/he forgets to "vote." This is usually expressed "Delete as nom." It is completely unnecessary at Wikipedia.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Request for Reconsideration

Over the past several days, a large number of articles that I personally have been involved in have been nominated for deletion--at last count, I believe the number is up to 58, and they seem to have come from just a few editors. These are college football head coach articles from the college football project. You can review the list at Articles & Pages being considered for deletion -- we try to keep the list as current as we can.

Of course, as a member of the project (and creator of a large number of the articles), I disagree with the nominations. But that isn't the point--the point is that there are so many nominations at once that it is proving very, very difficult to respond in a timely manner. Ideally we created the stub articles and project members improve the articles as they have time. Normally, historical articles are addressed in the off-season (see CFB:OFFSEASON) and with the current season under way, the newest events tend to take attention of editors.

My purpose of writing here is not to say "you can't delete them" because, quite frankly, maybe they should be deleted if that's what consensus bears to be and that's what a real AfD will bring out. My purpose is to ask that these AfD argumentations and nominations be more considerate to the time and effort involved. Many, many such stub articles have indeed been improved to robust articles for Wikipedia (see list and conversation on my talk page), but there just flat out isn't enough time unless we drop the new weekly current event information (which is at a high volume because of the season) and devote so much time to address.

All I'm asking for is time and consideration. We need time to improve the articles, work on current topical articles, and address the AfDs all at once. It's a very high volume.

I would be thrilled to have these articles closed as "no consensus" until the off-season, when we can once again focus our attention on historical articles. This will allow continued editing efforts on the hottest topics in college football. If at the end of the season, there of course should be no reason not to re-open these AfDs without prejudice.

And, of course, if any article is found to be harmful in any way, violating copyright, containing inappropriate information, etc, then that article should be deleted immediately.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a really reasonable request. I'm glad you recognize that it's important to keep articles up to policy, and in some cases articles have to be deleted when they don't meet it. I genuinely wish we could get a working proposal that people could agree with like WP:POSTPONE. I'm sure we could protect ourselves from editors simply trying to WP:GAME the system, and keep it open for very reasonable editors like yourself. I hope there's support to do something like this. Randomran (talk) 19:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

If the result is delete, ask that the closing admin move them to your user space (or to a subpage of the project) where they can be worked on as drafts until they are ready for prime time. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Just curious... for 58 articles?--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, why not?--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm okay with that. FYI--two editors are planning to continue their massive AfD efforts, targeting coach articles as evidicned here.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Support Realistically speaking, it will be difficult to prove that all of these articles satisfy the established notability guidelines, but some of them might be salvageable, so it seems fair to give you time to do more research. IMO, it's a bit mean-spirited to nominate so many good-faith contributions for deletion at the same time. None of the ones I've looked at violate any policies - they're all sourced and neutral - so there's no rule that says we must delete them immediately. People are acting like Paul is a vandal or something. Zagalejo^^^ 08:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your input, thank you! Actually, the "one that started it all", Walter J. West, turns out is notable because of an NFL career. We will be working on the article in my workspacew to get it presentable. Had we been able to address it in a timely manner, it is likely none of this would even be happening... or at least, not happening all at once.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Five days would have been more than enough time to search and point out that they had an NFL career, instead you spent the time arguing that the afds shouldn't be valid because of when they were put up. I don't see why college football should be immune from afd request during their season, every other sport project manages to handle historical and current articles at the same time. I don't see why your project cannot either. -Djsasso (talk) 17:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

We're not trying to claim immunity during the season, we're just asking for a break on the sheer volume.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I still don't see the issue, the number of afd's up for college football at the moment is still fairly small compared to the number that show up for a number of other projects sports or non-sports. Just because someone is nominating articles you like faster than you like doesn't mean there should be a policy enforcing how many go up at a time. -Djsasso (talk) 01:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

If there was a policy for it, I wouldn't need to ask. And I'm not asking for a policy change. I'm simply asking for consideration and help and understanding. Here's an example: I just completed research and improving on one of the 58 articles, it took about 45 minutes to an hour. 58 articles x 45 minutes = 43.5 hours. Wikipedia is not my life. If editors who participate in Wikipedia have to spend 40 hours a week on their projects, then Wikipedia will attract a lot less editors and will end up with a lower-quality product. Is that what you want?--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic, 'cuz that's gotta' be really annoying, but I'll bet you'll make more headway at the talk pages of the editors involved. Unfortunately, if you can't, I'm not really of a mind to force them to do anything (or do it slower), as I really doubt we'd want to make it a blockable offense to nominate AfDs. I'm perfectly happy to userfy any articles for you, including putting them into the project's space if you'd prefer. Cheers. lifebaka++ 03:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I have added the following point of etiquette to address this issue:

If a large number of similar articles are to be nominated, it is best to make this a group nomination so that they can be considered collectively. This avoids excessive repetition which would otherwise tend to overload involved editors.

Colonel Warden (talk) 06:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

comment I've added requests for any deleted articles from the issue at hand to be moved to my userspace. So far, all but one closure has complied, with the editor (admin?) refusing to "userfy" the articles. Must it be the closing editor (admin?) who completes that step, or can it be any user/admin? See User:Paulmcdonald/deletedcoach for navigation...--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

It can be any admin, but if some admin has a really good reason not to userify something (in your case I can't see what that would be), then others shouldn't just do it instead. But most admins will just userify it for you. Protonk (talk) 20:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

- Comment just became aware of another AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ward A. Wescott for 18 more articles that was submitted on September 18. This is why I'm asking to slow down--the sheer volume is allowing us to miss some! Please, at least start with a "notability" tag.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Oppose: Hm, just noticed this, so my apologies if I'm a touch late. My rebuttal here is that there were not 58 AfDs. 58 articles were filed on, but they were grouped into just five AfDs. Beyond that, while Paul McDonald argued that the CFB Wikiproject needed to be given more time to work on the articles, the facts are that (1) many of the articles filed upon are almost a year old and have been untouched since, AfDs started on them as early as May, and they've had ample time to improve them, (2) the stance of the WP:CFB project has been for the most part that these subjects were prima facie notable as it stood and required no independent sourcing that fulfilled WP:RS, and (3) up until a couple of days ago, their efforts were entirely focused on the AfD debates instead of trying to salvage the articles. It isn't even that vital information may be lost, because all the info on most of these articles is nothing more than the years the subjects coached at the schools in question and what their won-lost records were, period: no other biographical information seems to be extant. There is nothing in policy requiring articles to be placed on indefinite hold until such time as a particular Wikiproject claims to have the time to work on them - as to that, they just had a seven-month-long "offseason" in which to improve these - just as there is nothing preventing the recreation of any deleted article for which new material satisfying WP:V and WP:N is discovered, and it's no more disruptive to the project than WP:NPP's daily tasks, where they AfD non-notable articles seconds after creation in many instances. Finally, for those who want a take on reasonability and common sense, feel free to take a look at some of the AfD discussions in question. RGTraynor 18:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Paul, as an alternative to placing the onus on the community, may I suggest that you maintain a list of coaches at the project page, and take it upon yourselves to create the articles at a more measured pace -- a pace at which you can properly assert and source notability, elimination the need for the AfDs in the first place? --Clubjuggle ^T/C 20:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

In their defense, their position all along has been WP:ATHLETE holds that anyone who has ever coached a college game at any level is notable by definition, whether or not they meet WP:RS or WP:BIO's general notability criteria. RGTraynor 20:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Are these AfDs then in effect test cases as to whether that assumption of notability is a consensus position generally. In which case you could in theory have one generic AfD for "lower tier college coach with no redeeming features", we do the AfD motion for that one, and if it passes they can all stay, if it fails they all get deleted or useified until they can show some other generally accepted standard of notability? MadScot (talk) 22:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say they're "test cases," no; using AfD as a stalking horse for a notability debate would be WP:POINTy at best. Beyond that, there are a lot of these articles: certainly a hundred, probably more, possibly a lot more. I've been an AfD regular on and off for a couple years, and I don't think I've ever seen a bundled AfD remotely that large, but I've little doubt the community reaction would be a startled WTF? at the sight and consider it obnoxious. As it stands, the AfDs are coming out based around a school at a time, which also gives those researching the subjects' notability manageable loads. RGTraynor 04:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletion spree

What do you do if a user is repeatedly using the same copy and pasted message to start deletion propositions that often have no founding at all towards the actual articles. More thought should be given, don't you think?

Melune (talk) 23:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)Melune (talk) 23:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't do the same thing he is doing, but perhaps you could list the exact AfDs where his rationale doesn't apply here. By that I mean we should be able to form a list of articles which have clear secondary sources that discuss the topic but he claims they do not. And it's ok, you can say TTN. Everyone will know who you are talking about, anyways. Protonk (talk) 23:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- two examples to start, for those not following AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch where the absence of sources is asserted, but even G Books shows multiple sources, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taulmaril, asserted to be plot sumary, where there is almost no discussion of plot in the article. DGG (talk) 07:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Have you discussed the issue with the editor in question already? That's generally a good first step. Cheers. lifebaka++ 00:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I shall ensure that the editor in question is notified of the proper process laid out in WP:BEFORE. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I think many of us have indeed tried to discuss this with the ed in question, see for example my talk page, or the multiple arb cases. But there are other editors too, and other types of topic, this is justthe most recognizable current example. I don't want to focus here on an individual. Rather, I think it indicates that some structural or procedural change is needed. I suggest one below to start, and will have some more later. But it might be well to focus discussion to look at one first. DGG (talk) 07:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed changes to WP:PROD and WP:AFD

I have started a thread at WT:DEL which discusses (in part) changes to this policy. Please join the discussion. Thank you. Protonk (talk) 04:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

What happened to my header?

I nominated Renate Thyssen-Henne for deletion after it had been recreated after a previous deletion. I followed the template I saw in the listings below, but only the text of my nomination appeared, no headline, so it looks and is confusing. Help?Wlegro (talk) 15:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh great! Now my text is embedded in the succeeding nomination about albums!Wlegro (talk) 15:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Whew, fixed it. For the future, please begin the AfD process by adding one of the standard AfD templates to the article (either {{afd1}} or {{afdx}}) as instructed at WP:AFD. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

AfD consensus and future article discussions

There is a dispute over a recently AfDed article (~~Monty Python and the Holy Grail~~ Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch) that could lead to a lame edit war about tags among several editors, if it isn't already an edit war. My question is: Does a keep consensus in AfDs prevent the option to immediately start a merge discussion? I was under the impression that every AfD consensus that is not a delete, does not preclude new editorial discussions. – sgeureka ^t•c 18:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletion discussions never preclude later editorial discussions. Period. Also, there doesn't appear to have ever been an AfD for that article, unless it's placed somewhere odd. If it is, there should really be an {{oldafdfull}} tag on the talk page. Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, copypasted the wrong article title. – sgeureka ^t•c 21:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, regardless it looks like that merge proposal is falling flat on its face. Still, it's kosher to have started it. Cheers. lifebaka++ 21:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Sadly enough, falling flat on its face for all the wrong reasons. It's always a shame when the people arguing against a merge don't bother to review any of our notability policies or content policies, and simply write oppose merge. If !voting was really !voting, such things would be discarded immediately. Unfortunately, sheer numbers are taken into account.Kww (talk) 23:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

AFD closures are non-binding beyond the remit of AFD itself. The issue of merging/renaming an article is an editorial issue and not a deletion debate, so any previous discussions on AFD have little bearing on whether you wish to initiate a subsequent merger discussion. Shereth 19:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to you both. I'll link to this thread if the merge-tag dispute continues. – sgeureka ^t•c 21:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Help

Maybe this isn't the best place to ask, but I just messed up trying to propose the article Anastasia Shirley for deletion by creating its deletion page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anastasia Shirley before putting the deletion template on the article. Can anyone help? N p holmes (talk) 09:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Fixed it. The only thing you got wrong was not using the template to start the AFD debate. Hut 8.5 09:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Is there anything more I need to do? N p holmes (talk) 09:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

No, the debate is set up properly now. Hut 8.5 09:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. N p holmes (talk) 10:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Searching before nominating

I propose the following change, not primarily to deal with fiction articles, but more generally. Many bad nominations here on all sorts of subjects from different people often seems to show the assertion that there are no sources to be found, yet a simple search of the googles in the obvious way finds some or even many. I suggest that in the nomination for this reason, or a reason of notability where such sourcing is relevant, that the nominator be required to include links to at last a preliminary search. Normally it would at the least require the relevant parts of Google for the topic, selected from G, G Books, G Scholar, the main and archive sections of G News--or some equivalent searches as appropriate. I do not mean to canonize Google, nor is a web search always sufficient, but as a practical matter at this point most even though not all topics will be found in at least one of them. I assume that people finding them will add them to the articles. Obviously, in some cases the articles may need deletion anyway, and searching would not always be relevant. But for at least 90% of the material brought to AfD, it would at the very least help the discussion--if none is found, it facilitates accurate deletion or at least gives those who wish to check further a starting point. Some people already do this and it clearly helps informed discussion in such cases. DGG (talk) 07:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:BEFORE already says "If the article lacks adequate sourcing, consider a quick Internet search to verify that no reliable sources exist." (I'll also admit that I haven't read BEFORE in ages, and generally let my gut feeling decide when an article should be taken to AfD - although I usually prefer merging. For fiction articles, the noise-to-signal ratio in GHITS is huge anyway, so why bother with Google?) – sgeureka ^t•c 10:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

FYI, that is the newest line in WP:BEFORE, since I only added it last week. That wording was intentionally designed to be a non-dictatorial and non-WP:CREEPy way to politely suggest that nominators take the time to look for sources. Jclemens (talk) 22:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

What might work though is to automatically add the external google links to the top of new AfDs, like a cross between the toolbox in FACs and what is being done with {{prod-nn}}. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

*Comment: Here – Here. And as DGG has stated earlier and in previous discussions, this is not a condemnation of any individual. However, as part of the AFD process it should be required that at least a basic search should be done and provided as part of the AFD nominators statement. ShoesssS ^Talk 13:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The nomination process is already difficult enough as it is; seeing a complaint here at this talk page that it is highly confusing, especially for newer users, is not only perennial but nearly perpetual. I have to oppose this proposal if, for no other reason, that it adds unnecessary layers to an already complex process. "Lack of sources", while often the complaint in deletion debates, is not the only reason to nominate an article for deletion, and it is not reasonable to force nominators to go through the steps of performing specific Google searches when it is unhelpful. Now, I could see a request to modify {{Lx}} to automatically include a link to relevant Google searches to facilitate the discussion, but beyond that, requiring the nominator to perform and post links to Google searches is little more than instruction creep. Shereth 13:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

* Comment: Likewise. It's been a longstanding pet peeve of mine that so many AfDs obviously come from the nom taking a five second glance at an article and presuming that it doesn't cut it. It's willfully careless at best, and many of my Keep votes have attached something along the lines of "This new information only took me ninety seconds to research." I'm all in favor of Shoessss' suggestion. To Shereth's comments, I can only say this: isn't it our responsibility not to AfD articles without even an attempt at research? Heaven knows I've been tarred with the deletionist brush, and have AfDed a few hundred articles in my time, but I'm quite happy to take the extra step. It isn't as if I don't often do it anyway. RGTraynor 13:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, for one thing, there is the issue that not every AfD comes about as a result of lack of sources. WP:SYN comes to mind. Adding a required step to AfD nominations when it does not apply to all nominations is unhelpful. In any event, yes, it is generally expected that those of us performing the nomination have, at the least, done a minimal amount of searching to back up the claims being made that none exist. Requiring that this be done and that a subsequent set of links be posted, though, seems to be an implicit lack of faith on our part in assuming that the nominator has not done their part if they aren't posting certain links. In any event, the responsibility to demonstrate that the information added to an article (and ultimately, the article itself) can be sourced is first and foremost the responsibility of the editor who wishes to add the information; requiring nominators to do this footwork is absolving the original editors of this responsibility. Yes, this requirement would cut down on the number of frivolous nominations, but in all honesty, what percentage of AfD nominations are "frivolous"? Increasing the complexity of AfD nominations to weed out a few frivolous nominations seems not worth the effort, to me. Shereth 14:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Reply: No, of course no one's suggesting that a notability search should be required of WP:NOR AfDs, for instance; that's a bit of a straw-man. It is, however, no more an AGF violation to deal with the obvious fact that many AfDs go out without any research whatsoever than it is to restrict admin powers to duly appointed admins. I'd stay away from the word "frivolous," because it's likewise inaccurate: while I agree that few "frivolous" AfDs are filed, as many as one in ten aren't at all "frivolous" - they're just underresearched, and that's the problem we're discussing. As far as Fram's comments below, two things: first off, we all know there are a number of grounds valid in AfD which cannot be used in SD, and secondly ... err, do we want inexperienced editors in AfD? I don't. RGTraynor 15:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I think I'm being misunderstood, and that might be my fault. The primary beef I have with this is that I do not believe the benefit of weeding out a small percentage (10%) of "underresearched" nominations outweighs the cost of forcing the remaining (90%) to undergo an additional, unnecessary step in the process and that this amounts to process creep. If it is implemented, how will it work? Will we apply it to all nominations, or only certain types? If so, does that mean we now have to start categorizing discussions based on the type of "violation" being argued? Will they be required to do a "literal" Google search or just for any terms? Will a generic web search suffice or will they be required to perform a scholar search and a books search? Creating these requirements is arbitrary. As has been stated, it most certainly is good practice for nominators to do their homework prior to the nomination and I have no problems with adding language to the process to state this fact. Creating it as a requirement, however, I strongly oppose. Shereth 16:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

As long as there are no requirements before an article is created, no more requirements should be added to the deletion process. Of course it's best practice to do a basic (or more complex) search before nominating anything, but it is also a basic requirement to only create articles on notable subjects, and it should be a basic requirement to always include at least one source about the subject. There is no good argument (IMO) why every not-IP editor would be able to create an article, but only more thorough, patient, ... editors are allowed to nominate an article for deletion. We already have the equivalent of speedy deletion for obviously baseless AfD's in "speedy keep", there is no need to add any more requirements. If an editor makes a lot of incorrect AfD nominations, talk to him or her. Don't turn inexperienced editors away from AfD by adding even more "things to do when you want to delete an article". Fram (talk) 14:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm with the above comments about it being a bit WP:CREEPy to require a search to be performed before all AfD nominations, though it is of course good practice to do so most of the time. I like the idea above of adding search links to templates, and I believe {{afd2}} would be the best choice (not anything in the {{lx}} family, as they're also used in other places). If anyone would like, I could draw up some code for it, just ask. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 15:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a wonderful idea, even though I think its already laid out in BEFORE. Searching for citations is certainly part of the normal editing process, and if that can be reasonably done, then there's no reason that it should be nominated in the first place for lack of sourcing (other forms of deletion notwithstanding). Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 15:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

It is laid out in that part of the instructions; I would support a change in the page to make each step there mandatory, and a nom incomplete unless they are done. But among them, only a few yield any noticeable result so it would seem better to go point by point. I don't want to be radical about it. I like to do things one step at a time.

As for some objections: I did not propose it to be needed except in cases where it is relevant, which will be perhaps 3/4 of the time. My feeling is that it will be helpful for deletion also--information makes matters clearer--I'd except a lower percentage of implausible claims of notability, and a quicker concentration on the issues. I am not trying to increase the percentage of keeps, but the accuracy of decisions. It will ease participation, if each individual participating doesn't gave to investigate from the beginning. Newbies and inexperienced users who want to nominate for deletion, will be helped, not hindered by this--it will help them organize their case, and also instruct them gently by alerting them privately if they are being absurd. I am made very uncomfortable when people come to afd in good faith, and get laughed at. Since it is in fact not always obvious just what to search for, the result of this search which will include the link to the search, will show what was done, so more experienced searchers can see and correct it. Some people here do not know how to search well, but most afd regulars do, and we should teach them. Benefits all around. DGG (talk) 22:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

If you're going to require !sourcing before nominating for an AfD, why not require sourcing before creating? So any article that doesn't have AT LEAST ONE SOURCE is a candidate for speedy deletion? AfD then can be merely a discussion as to whether the existing sources are reliable, or actually address the subject of the article. But unsourced articles would be outtahere. After all, if the article creator couldn't even find one source, never mind a good one, why assume anyone else will be able to? MadScot (talk) 23:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I suppose I could agree to this - if we are to throw out nominations on the procedural grounds that the nominator didn't bother performing and posting the results of a search, there's no reason not to throw out articles whose editor cannot be bothered to perform and post the results of a search for sources ... Shereth 23:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I can't see that flying. It seems both WP:CREEPy and WP:BITEy. Now, I have no objections to tagging things for sourcing immediately upon unsourced creation, but we don't want to shoot newbie editors' articles on sight. :-) Jclemens (talk) 00:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, the more so in that the instadelete cowboys at NPP would absolutely jump all over this: "Aha, this article doesn't have sources!!! Let's speedy it!!! Who cares that it was created eleven seconds ago!" RGTraynor 02:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I oppose this as a repeatedly rejected proposal, instruction creep and unnecessarily burdensome to the majority of nominators. I would support including the {{Find sources}} template inside {{Afd2}} template for ease of discussion. I would also support placing a time restriction on AfD of 24 hours. Anything less than 24 hours old that needs to be deleted in 5 days and no more can be speedied. If it is clear that the article doesn't meet the speedy criteria, it can be nominated or prodded 24 hours after creation. But I oppose any more imposition of best practices on deletion debates as policy. Protonk (talk) 02:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

That's kind of the reaction I expected, and why I asked. You shouldn't really have asymmetric requirements. We ask people to source before creating. We ask people to check sources before AfDing. That's balanced. Unbalance one, you have to rebalance with the other. So just ask. MadScot (talk) 03:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Your heart is in the right place, but I don't think there's any way to realistically enforce or police it. I'd like to think that most people do a decent search before they nominate an article anyway. But what if a consensus of editors results in deletion? Then it doesn't matter what the nominator did or didn't do. And what if the nominator was wrong, and sources were found? To me, that's a success of the process, not a failure. That's someone who thought the article should be deleted, came up with a good reason, and then someone responded by fixing the article. That's entirely a good faith, civil discussion, and how AFDs should be resolved. It's hard to tell when someone is being malicious or reckless, and most of the time those editors will be stopped by a consensus of reasonable editors. So what's the problem? Randomran (talk) 04:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

For the record, my comment supporting the idea of expanding CSD criteria to include all articles without sources was tongue-in-cheek; I would never seriously suggest that we throw minutes-old articles to the lions because a new editor didn't know better and didn't put in a citation. It was more meant to illustrate the absurdity of requiring AfD nominators to do the work that the original editors should have done in the first place. The burden of proof should be upon those adding information to prove it is verifiable/notable, rather than for those challenging the material to prove it is not. Shereth 16:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Articles are often written by beginners who do not fully understand wikipedia. This is right and appropriate and should be encouraged, because its how we recruit new editors. We're not an academic subject--you don't study us first and then contribute, but learn the rules as you go along. It's the responsibility of those deleting articles to discriminate between the teachable and the unteachable, and offer the appropriate help so as to educate them. But in moving to delete an article, one should first of all know what one is doing. Proceeding through an AfD is activating a complicated machinery, and taking the time of many experienced people--and risk offending a potential contributor. Before doing that, one should know the relevant rules and investigate the article.

And, Protonk, you misinterpret the purpose of speedy. We do not delete everything unless it is clearly outside the criteria. We delete only those that are clearly inside the criterion. anything else ,we prod or send to AfD or mark for improvement. Speedy is for things we can be absolutely certain about, where 2 people by themselves can be sure without showing it to the community. Anything that might possibly need discussion is not a speedy candidate. (I point out that the absolutely correct immediate deletions that need no discussion make up about 1/3 of all the total submissions to Wikipedia.) Anything that can be improved does not belong in speedy. (but that part of things should be continued there, not here.) DGG (talk) 19:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea of including {{Find sources}} template inside {{Afd2}}. Why don't we do that? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no problems with that idea. Nor do I find the notion of changing the wording of the various AfD pages to encourage this kind of behavior problematic. It is only the suggestion of requiring this of the nominators that I take issue with. Shereth 21:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

the problem with the template is the one you mentioned above -- that a literal google search on the article title is not necessarily the way to go. My own view is that there is no substitute for human intelligence, when it's actually used. Still, Ican see no reason not to include it. As a first step. DGG (talk) 18:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

How about using this as a compromise, then? I agree that a literal Google search is often lacking when it comes to a search for sources. However, this leads to the issue of deciding precisely what kind of Google search we would mandate the nominators undertake? It is an inherently arbitrary sort of thing, and enforcement of arbitrary rules tends to become, well, arbitrary. So, instead of tacking on new requirements, a compromise could exist in adding the above referenced template as an aid to preliminary searches? Shereth 18:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, though perhaps seen not asa compromise, but as a first step. I suggest G, GS, GB, GN and the GN archive--obviously not all will berelevant in a particualr case, but if its going to be built in it has to be general. It will at least show people the need to check, and possibly to further. Small steps are fine. (BTW, I didnt intend to be arbitrary, just to require the use of whatever the ed. thought an intelligent search. If they did a poor search, someone would fix it further. Same is true, of course, of what you suggest.) DGG (talk) 18:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

It might get too crowded, but maybe searches with quotes and searches without should both be included. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

what I hope, is that any search at all being there, will encourage people to look at it and see its possible deficiencies DGG (talk) 23:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like there are a lot objections to adding the searches to the template here, maybe we should be bold and add it. I'm sure a bunch of people will support and oppose the addition, but they're not going to participate until after it's added. DGG, you're an admin, do you feel confortable doing it? Leave the quotes issue off for now. Let's just see how it works. I have a feeling that both the keep and delete arguments will quickly gain in their relevance to the particular topic. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll support it in principle, assuming it doesn't make the templates too crowded. :-) Jclemens (talk) 05:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. It won't show up live until a new nom comes through since the template is subst'ed. Shereth 16:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose per Mascot any mandatory requirement to search before AFDing. It's also instruction creep. There are plenty of times when a topic is fairly obviously non-notable and making nominators jump through hoops for this causes an undue delay. Stifle (talk) 14:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- The search links would just be there for convienance. No one will be required to use them. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
  - I oppose those too. Anyone who wants to link to {{findsources}} for an AFD can do so. Stifle (talk) 11:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Maybe tracking as an alternative? I don't like mandating a particular technique, even though I agree that a good faith search is a part of the preparation for AFD based on lack of sources. Most of my noms aren't for lack of sources, so I would hate to have go through some extra pile of steps that are completely unnecessary for a particular nomination: I don't nominate Weedwhacker Slim's Fifth Studio Album for lack of sources, I nominate it for WP:CRYSTAL violation. What's necessary is to track the appropriateness of a persons AFD nominations: if 80-90% of an editor's AFD nominations are resulting in deletes and redirects, that editor is doing due diligence on his nominations. If he's getting snowball keeps, he's not. That seems like something a bot could easily track. The question would be precisely what to do with the results, and how to avoid gaming the results. I could easily see a group of editors deciding to pile on and snowball keep all of TTN's nominations just to get him in trouble, and we would want to avoid that.—Kww(talk) 12:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
THe mandatory searching thing is silly... if people want to make bad nominations without researching, they'll be exposed by the same people that would, under this rule, be calling them out for not searching. So it's just needless rulecruft. Anyway, I did like the idea of including the "find sources" link on {{afd2}}, which Stifle has now removed... those were really useful links that would speed up the process of checking for sources. Removing that seems a step backwards. --Rividian (talk) 14:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that people who are inclined to make bad nominations in bad faith won't be deterred. The idea, as I understand it, was to minimize bad nominations made in good faith by providing many helpful tools. I, too, would like to see the find sources link returned to template:afd2. Jclemens (talk) 15:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we should address the issue of the "find sources" link directly, and try to get a feel for which way consensus goes? Shereth 16:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I figured the idea was to give a 1 click tool to help people rebut or corroborate nomination claims. There may be a point in saying that we shouldn't be linking to google in a template (as it is non-affiliated and commercial), but google=searching for me and everyone I know. Protonk (talk) 17:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Hoax article

Mi Xu Sanchez. Prodded twice; tag deleted. Aille (talk) 21:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Gone. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Relist

Is it just me, or are there more relistings going on than ever before? We need moar adminz. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 03:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

It's that baaaadddddaaaassss closing script. Relisting used to be a huge pain in the ass. Now it is two clicks. FWIW, I don't mind too much. Protonk (talk) 03:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Some of them have a clear WP:ATD consensus, yet are relisted anyways. Why relist something when the keep !voters admit it could reasonably be merged to someplace else? Jclemens (talk) 03:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Because I don't feel like taking the heat for a contentious NAC, basically. I won't relist anything with more than 3 votes total, though, unless all three are crazy or different. It doesn't bother me that much that these things get relisted since I see a lot more closures immediately following relisting. IMO, relisting > constant 4 day backlog. Protonk (talk) 03:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

What is that badass closing script that people speak of? Is it responsible for most AfD debates now apparently being closed a day or so early and WP:AfD/Old nearly always being empty? Sandstein 07:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

There are several in use. You can find them at Wikipedia:WikiProject_User_scripts/Scripts#Deletion_and_other_processes. The one I use is Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/CloseAFD. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

But looking at the current scripts (it's been a while since I last did so), it looks like User:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD is even more badass. Try them both, see what you like.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

We always needs teh moar adminz. 'Tis the truth. But really having a lot of relistings isn't a problem, as long as things get closed eventually. I think it's because there are more non-admins working on AfD recently, which is really cool because it means more potential admins and more work closing AfDs. Besides, we just gotta' wait a few months for that backlog to work its way back up. Cheers, guys. lifebaka++ 04:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

There's a discussion at WP:DPR#Relisting about this very subject. Stifle (talk) 14:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

22 of the 73 submissions (so far) today are relists. A few had no discussions at all so those I understand but the others should have been closed as no consensus. It seems that reviewers have a finite number of reviews they can do. If we keep increasing the number of relists we simply keep increase the current number of discussions. Then more do not reach consensus and they get relisted. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 16:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Klipfontein

This user's page redirects to the article Peter Blum, As you can see by this it is pretty much a redirect gone wrong. I think this page needs to be deleted and recreated as Peter Blum or is there another way around this?.--intraining ^{Jack In} 02:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

There's an article at Peter Blum. If he wants to undo the redirect, that's easy enough. Go to the user page. After it redirects to Peter Blum, there will be a little message near the top that says "Redirected from User:Klipfontein". Click on that, and it will take him back to the redirect, and then he can create a user page if he wants one.—Kww(talk) 02:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Blanked the userpage (which he can revert if he wants) and welcomed the user. Move was done fine, so no action needed. lifebaka++ 02:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

You might want to clue him in about subpages. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. Done. lifebaka++ 02:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow that was very fast, I will leave the user a message on his talk page to let him know.--intraining ^{Jack In} 02:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Ronald Presley for deletion

There are no third party references, seems more like an advertisement. Should be deleted.74.73.176.161 (talk) 18:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

There's currently an AfD for the article. If you'd like to comment in it, feel free. It's located here. Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Did I break the afd3 template?

Something weird going on about adding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Where do you want to go today?. Sorry if my fat fingers busted something, and I have no idea how to fix it... __Just plain Bill (talk) 23:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks to be working fine. {{afd3|BLAH}} resolves to {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BLAH}}. Cheers. lifebaka++ 00:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

... and the log page entry now looks OK. All good. __Just plain Bill (talk) 00:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

"Add a new entry"

Why does the "add a new entry" link even exist? It's out of line with the proper afd process, and many n00bs don't know how to file afds properly. They just click "add a new entry" and create a red linked discussion. And I seem to be the only one who ever notices red linked discussions, so I'm always the one removing them. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

You were doing such a great job, no one wanted to interfere. But seriously, that likely is a bad place for that link. It should point to the start of the process, not the final page. I can't see an instance where that link is useful, as a link is provided to add afd3 when you are filling out afd2. Worst case, an editor should know to simply to to the current days log (a couple lines lower) and open it up to add the afd3 part. PHARMBOY (TALK) 20:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Ack

Why is today's afd log showing up in a category? Can someone fix that please? I've gone through all the afd debates and I can't figure out which one is causing the category to show up at the bottom of the afd log. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:33, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Er, what's the category, and where does it show up? I'm not seeing anything unusual, assuming you are talking about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 October 18. --MCB (talk) 23:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see anything either when I looked earlier. I assume whatever it was is fixed. Either that or the otters got some "funny" seaweed... ;-)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Not a vote tag

Why not make the notavote template (or a variation thereof) an automatic and standard addition when nominating articles? We could add it to the {{subst:afd1}} template. After all AfD really isn't a vote and there shouldn't be stigma attached to reminding people of that. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe you mean {{afd2}}. The first issue I see with this is that it'd make the logs a bit bigger, since every AfD on the log would involve two tranclusions. Perhaps a text-based boilerplate reminder instead? It should serve the same purpose. Cheers lifebaka++ 14:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Participants in most AFDs don't need reminding that AFD isn't a vote. Only a minority of discussions need to have this tag. Stifle (talk) 14:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Stifle. It should only be used when needed.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Unnoticed violations in AfD

While browsing through contributions I found one editor User:Painjoiker had apparently deleted delete opinions from an Afd on Rammstein's sixth album (an article it seems he was involved in editing) which at the time appears to have gone completely unnoticed. Anyone have any suggestions as to where to take this? In the past warning tags have proven fruitless as he also continuously recreates deleted material (even when the page is salted it is re created under a different name), removed speedy and AfD tags etc. Even if the indecent went unnoticed at the time I don't think it should be ignored. Rehevkor ✉ 12:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

When you discover it, I would recommend making the notice on the Admin's noticeboard. Or you can drop a note to any admin active at the time. (This issue is taken care of for now.) Rossami (talk) 16:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Okey dokey. Cheers for the assistance! Rehevkor ✉ 17:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old

MAy I urge people to not add new days to this page to soon? October 17 was already added, even though none of the discussions is at least five days old, and October 16 is already done, even though more than half of the discussions have not had their full five days period. From WP:DPR#AFD "Every day, the day page (i.e. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Year Month Day) that is more than five days old should be moved here" (my emphasis). From WP:GTD#Closure: "After 5 days of discussion, a volunteer will move the day's list of deletion discussions from the active page to the /Old page." The last pages of the 17th had only 3 1/2 days of discussion, and the already closed AfD's of the 16th had only 4 1/2 days of discussion. Looking at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 October 16, the first discussion was closed after 3 1/2 days, the one for FwNES after 4days and 6 hours, the one for Peter Anthony after less than 4 days, and so on and so on. I have argued previously against the extension of thefive day period, but I think the least we can do (except speeies of course) is to wait until the five days are clearly over, i.e. only listing it on "old" when (today-afdday = 6), i.e. listing the 17th only on the 23th and so on. Fram (talk) 10:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there a way of having a bot do the move at the right time, instead of relying on a volunteer, in order to maintain consistency? --MCB (talk) 18:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

MathBot should do that already, if given a chance. Judging by the older page history he always adds them with his first edit after 16:00 UTC. --Amalthea^Talk 19:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

So we should just put a warning on that page for people to not add dates themselves? Fram (talk) 13:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawal of AFD

I see nothing on the page about the withdrawal of AFDs by the nominator. Can I make the following suggestion, that if an AFD attracts the interest of the community (say five other editors make their thoughts known?), that once it goes past a certain point, it runs regardless of the changed mind of the nominator.

Let me give a practical example - this lengthy and heated AFD was closed this morning because the original nominator withdrew their nomination. I then instantly renominated it on the basis that the withdrawal of the nomination seems to lead to an instant close of the afd but that seems to be an administrative action which takes no account of the debate - indeed, that type of close is one where, for all practical purposes, the AFD never happened because the community discussion becomes irrelevant.

This in turn means that an instant re-nom by another editor should be fine because the first AFD never actually happened in regards to determining consensus. If we are saying it's not fine to do an instant re-nom, we have a number of other problems. First, AFD could be used as a protective tool to protect non-notable articles - I (or more likely a meat-puppet) nominate my pet article, then withdraw the nom, thus protecting it for a number of months or I could let the AFD run until it looks like it's going against me and then I pull the nom, thus protecting me that way.

Maybe the process of withdrawal and renom has already been codified somewhere but I cannot find it. Suggestions? comments? brickbats? --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I think I'm missing something here -- looks like it was closed as a "no consensus", with the withdrawal just being mentioned as one of several factors in that decision.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

That was after it was re-opened by one admin (who redirected my 2nd afd) and then re-closed by the original administrator... anyway, that's just an example and I'm more interested in discussing the general principles and if we need to make a mention of it in the guidelines. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. In general, I follow what Rossami laid out -- if there's one contributor making a good faith argument that's not a flavor of keep (merge and redirect are flavors of keep in my mind), then early closure is not an option. If after early closure someone comes up with a legitimate reason for deletion, I have no problem reopening the discussion (and have done so on at least one occasion in the past).--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:33, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The general principle is articulated at Wikipedia:Speedy keep. If a nominator argues for deletion, then every subsequent participant in the discussion disagrees and the nominator withdraws the nomination, it may be closed early. If even one subsequent participant argues in good faith for a decision other than "keep", the discussion fails to qualify for early closure and should continue for the full 5 days. (Note: For the purpose of deletion discussions, "merge" and "redirect" are variations of "keep" since they do leave the pagehistory intact. The discussion about merger or redirect should then be completed on the respective article Talk pages.) In the example you cite, the nominator could have withdrawn and closed the disucssion right up until 16:27, 3 Nov when user:T-rex argued for deletion. From that point forward, early closure was out of order. Rossami (talk) 16:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Rossami's summary of policy. The AfD of Zeituni Onyango mentioned by Cameron Scott was discussed in a thread at the Administrator's noticeboard. Given the high public interest in Zeituni Onyango's immigration issue, and the recent expansion of the article, I think it would be hard to assemble a consensus for deletion any more. Check the further discussion at Redvers' talk. Beyond that, you could open a WP:Deletion review. Redvers admits that his procedure looked rouge but the end result seems to me within the realm of reason, since he provided a rationale and it's been reviewed on a noticeboard. Further discussion is possible either at DRV or at WP:AN, if you think he should not have done this, or if you want to start a new deletion debate. EdJohnston (talk) 17:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't - no consensus looks fine to me. My point was that, "withdrawn" is effectively "this never happened", which is why I wanted to clarify here what should be done in future. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I do love how option number one (take it up with the closing admin) is now almost always completely ignored in favour of DRV, bitching on noticeboards or opening a new debate. However, that's not why I'm here. I'm here to say that legislating on the basis of an exception never results in good legislation.

In this case, my closing summary was poor. The revised one (which all involved now conclude should have been done without reopening, I think) is my opinion all along, just with a bad shorthand in saying "withdrawn by nominator" as the reasoning.

To try not to base case law on exceptions: in general, since AfD is not a vote, the closing admin in a minority of debates (the vast majority are easy closes) must use a mixture of judgement, discretion, bare headcounting (but not actual tallying), common sense and precedent when closing a debate. This means we need to, and do, give latitude and also provide several oversight abilities, of which asking the admin in question is the first step, not the last. The withdrawal of a nomination pretty well sinks most AfD debates, especially if the nominator gives an argued rationale for why the nomination no longer applies. Couple that with a clear no-consensus debate and you've got a quick close. Actually, couple a withdrawal with almost any other reasoning to give up and you've got something cast iron. This is even more true when people aren't having a deletion debate but instead are talking content issues.

As for saying that a withdrawn debate in effect never happened, well, yes, I can see where you're coming from; but that assumes that the default state of WP articles is non-existent. In fact, the principle (which I don't altogether agree with) is that the default state for an article here is existing: the community has always argued that a crap, misleading, pointless article on a subject is better than a red link. This is insane, but has been true since time began. On that basis, we can't pretend that the debate didn't happen when it was closed because the nominator has withdrawn. A different rationale for a debate is needed to start over, but not 42 minutes later. That's where talking to the admin involved provides a useful delay; thence to DRV, where the debate can happen with the content part removed. If DRV overturns it, the debate can go again, but probably in the right venue or without the extraneous content debate.

Wow, that was long-winded guff, wasn't it? ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 20:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The way I see it, once the nominator puts it up it's in the community's hands. The nominator is NOT the AFD's "daddy". They can withdraw or change their minds, but what really matters is the consensus. I usually withdraw if someone brings up a good argument or new evidence, just as a matter of good faith. But that doesn't mean we should withdraw, especially if other people at the AFD aren't persuaded the same way that I am. Randomran (talk) 19:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree. In the case where a nomination brings a flood of "keep" arguments that are highly persuasive, no one argues to delete, and the nominator says "Alright, I screwed up nominating this and I withdraw the nomination", there's no point to continuing the discussion. On the other hand, where there have been delete arguments other than the nominator's, the discussion should be left to run its course (though of course the nominator should be free to express that (s)he changed his/her mind.) If other members of the community also think the article should be deleted, and continue to think so even after the nominator's change of heart, the discussion should continue. The nominator does not own the discussion once it begins, (s)he is just one more voice. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

What does VfD stand for?

And shouldn't that be at the top of the article? I still haven't figured it out... ScottJ (talk) 19:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I am referring of course to Wikipedia:VfD which doesn't seem to have its own talk page. ScottJ (talk) 19:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

VFD stands for "votes for deletion", which was the original name of this process. I suspect that the archived discussions of that page are linked somewhere from this page or the deletion policy talk page. Protonk (talk) 19:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm asking not so much for myself but for future users who find their way to Wikipedia:VfD without having any idea of what it stands for. Shouldn't it be explained somewhere on that page? ScottJ (talk) 19:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

It's in the Glossary, which should perhaps be more widely publicised to newer editors. Grutness...wha? 22:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem was that WP:VfD was transcluding Wikipedia:Votes for deletion, which was a redirect to Wikipedia:Deletion discussions, so Wikipedia:Deletion discussions was showing up at WP:VfD instead of it also being a redirect. I've fixed that, by replacing it with a normal redirect. Dunno' what to do about having the source of the abbeviation be more publicized, though. Cheers. lifebaka++ 00:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

What is this?

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Young Choppa. An article hiding out in the AfD subpages? Soundvisions1 (talk) 01:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Interesting find. How did you come across that? (It's been hiding out there since 2006!) It does not look as if it would meet our inclusion guidelines; in fact it would likely be speedied. So, what's the procedure? First move to article namespace and then delete as CSD A7? I wouldn't think it would have to go through Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:10, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) Apparently. No [real] AfD by that name was ever created. I can trace it back a bit. User:Youngmoney204 (who hasn't edited in over a year) created Gutta-Squad in January 2006, about an unsigned rap group which lists as a member, "Young Choppa" (article was speedied a month later). Somehow the user got the form of an AfD title and later created a bio on the member by that name. As an orphaned page with no good reason to be found, it just sat around. Anyway, I just speedied as an A7.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Candidate for deletion?

Several people on the talk page of Personal life have suggested that the article should be deleted, and I'm afraid I have to agree. It seems to be pointless waffle. The multi-stage deletion nomination process looks too complicated for me, so I mention this here in case anyone wants to run with it. Before I go, I can't resist quoting this gem: One may be told by friends and acquaintances to "get a life" - in the sense of promoting fuller participation in socially approved activities, often outside the private sphere. So that's what they meant... Matt 05:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.43.205 (talk)

Take a quick look

I met this person and did several portraits of her, so if might be helpful if another person look at it. If it's a good article, then I'll add some of my shots to the body, which are really good, but I don't want to waste my time photoshopping and uploading a pic that will end up stranded without any article. --David Shankbone 08:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Preloaded debate instructions

When one uses the preloaded debate instructions for Template:Afd2 for, say, PAGENAME, step 4 says: "Use the below line as your edit summary: [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGENAME]]". However, that's not a particularly useful edit summary, because Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGENAME is the page being created. I'd rather recommend an edit summary such as "first deletion reason", because at least that wouldn't be redundant. Unfortunately, my MediaWiki skills are not sufficient to help me find where the preloaded debate instructions are kept. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

It says (if one were to create one for Song of the South (song)):

3. Edit today's AfD log and copy the following line to the top of the list on that page:
        {{subst:afd3|pg=Song of the South (song)}}
4. Use the below line as your edit summary:
        [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Song of the South (song)]]
5. Save this page.

What it wants to say is to use that edit summary with the log page edit, I think. I agree that it could be clearer though, by combining steps 3 and 4. --Amalthea^Talk 11:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I apparently misread the instructions, although as indicated above I still would like to know where they are kept. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, it's at {{Afd3 starter}}. --Amalthea^Talk 18:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Congradulations

Things have really slowed down at WP:DRV. You guys must be doing a great job in closing the AfDs in a way that makes most people happy. Keep up the good work. -- Suntag ☼ 11:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

A general question

This is an basic question that is probably going to get a not so basic answer. My reading of the AfD process is that the nomination should be made based on one or more of the policies or guidlines. The discussion should be based on this as well. And finally it should be closed based on an admin looking over the actual discussion, not simply counting "Votes". For example a recent AfD for Lotus was closed as a "No Consensus" even though, by the end of the Afd, a great percentage of citations that were given (and added to the article) fall under the "do not" use area of policies and guidelines. The article now has citations to download bootleg audio and video, press releases, advertisements, blogs, re-printed and re-worded press release, trivial mentions and so on. There might be some legit stuff in there but editors desperate to save the article grabbed anything they could find on Google and stuck it in the Afd leading other Editors to simply look at the quantity of "articles" and voice a "keep". Despite these issues being brought up the AfD was still closed as "No Consensus". Another example is "The End of An Error" AfD where, at the time (September 6, 2008 dif) it was nominated, this album was not released. While it was nominated because it failed WP:NALBUMS it was closed as a "keep" based on the "votes", not because any of the guidelines or polices about notability were met. The primary discussion was about if the album was real or not by finding press releases. (Or, in other words, WP:NOTCRYSTAL which, in regards to albums, "should be discussed only in the artist's article".) One of the "keep" comments was "It's a real album from a real band. And it's really coming out. It has 3 different sources to cite that this is the truth". When the AfD ended the article looked exactly the same - no new citations had been added and the existing ones were all (and still are) one or two line press releases, or album details with track listings. There are many examples of this type of AfD disucssion, and my frustration is growing that Wikipedia maintains that the AfD is not a vote, yet it seems to be. I spend time looking at an article, reading the links and/or looking for other citations and refs that could be used - that meet the existing polices and guidelines - and trying hard to back that up with actual policy and guidelines. In other words I do try and follow the "How to discuss an AfD" policy/guideline. So my basic, general question, really is this: If AfD is really a "vote" we should state that or remove the comment "The debate is not a vote" from the section. If it is "a place for rational discussion of whether an article is able to meet Wikipedia’s article guidelines and policies" than shouldn't the overseeing admins enforce this? And have the "final" say based on that as well? A peer review is fine but asking "Does the article meet Wikipedia policy and guidlines?" and having a AfD closure based on an admin only looking at "delete" or "keep" seems counter productive to the whole process. Soundvisions1 (talk) 06:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Ideally, we should be judging the consensus in these discussions. However, no one really knows what consensus is or how to judge it, so we fudge it as best we can. Really, we're somewhere between the two extremes of it being a straight vote and only the best argument winning. So, strength of argument is mostly used when positions have similar support, and amount of support is used when positions have arguments of similar strength. This lets a 1:1 keep:delete AfD be closed as delete when keep arguments are crap, but 10:1 AfDs usually go towards the side with more support. There are two major reasons for this second part. First, generally arguments made by established users aren't crap. Second, if there's that much support behind a position, it's pretty much asking for a lynch mob to close it any other way (of course, sometimes closing either way is asking for a lynch mob, but that's another story entirely). Understandably, admins are hesitant to stand up and scream "LYNCH ME!" DRV also is extremely likely to overturn a closure like that, too.

While the examples you've brought up might be places where the process is broken, in my experience it generally works just fine. I'm not really convinced that anything needs to be done to this page in response to this, though I'm open to suggestions anyways. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll echo lifebaka's comments but add some thoughts that no process is perfect. We strive to close these discussions based on policy and hard evidence but our closers are human and they sometimes make mistakes. Sometimes, those are errors of fact (misreading a discussion, overlooking a policy, etc) and sometimes they are errors of motivation (bias whether conscious or unconscious to avoid conflict - lifebaka's "lynch me" example - or to support a preconceived end). We should do everything we can to minimize those errors but they will always occur.
That said, the evidence suggests that they occur at a strikingly low rate. The number of deletion decisions that are overturned at DRV (as a percentage of total deletion nominations) is amazingly small. That tells me that in the vast majority of cases, our closers do read the policy and the discussion very carefully in their attempt to judge both the consensus of the debate and the relevant facts. The fact that a few closers may not yet understand why Wikipedia considers voting to be evil is not a good reason to abandon the whole process.
In the specific situations you used as examples above, you generally have two options.

Nominate the discussion for a Deletion review. Decisions which were made by nose-counting where the nose-counts ignore the clear weight of policy the other way do usually get overturned.
Give the article the benefit of doubt for now and see if the people who argued to keep the page live up to their implicit promise to improve the page. If it remains unimproved after a reasonable period of time (generally measured in months), feel free to renominate it for deletion. When you do so, make sure that you provide a link to the prior discussion and be explicit about your evidence that the article was unimproved during that time.

Either way, remember that Wikipedia has no deadline. If it didn't get cleaned up this round, be patient. Meta:Eventualism has more on that line of reasoning. Hope that helps some. Rossami (talk) 17:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, yes I give two examples but as I said I can give more if need be. I did take one of the above to DRV and it seemed I was being asked "Why? The album is out now so what is this about?" rather than "Yes it was a 'keep' discussion based on WP:NOTCRYSTAL and the citations given do meet any of the criteria laid out in WP:NALBUMS so it does need to be 'fixed'." So I am still at a loss. Here is an active AfD I am involved in - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cher Doll Records. Before I put on the PROD I did a search to find information that would bring it up to meet WP:BIO but could not find anything the co-existed with the policy and guidlines for being "significant" or more than "trivial". The Prod was seconded but then removed because a band on the label was notable and a single by that band could be found on eBay for "hundreds of dollars". When discussion about their sources being not acceptable and citing guidelines as to why the editor concluded "I am a good editor, but you have no use for good editors, only ROBOTIC ACCOUNTANTS. Fuck you" and now, over the last few days, other editors have taken to saving the article by using not only the first editors sources but finding other interviews with artists on the label, reviews of records (that, of course, would mention the label), articles about other labels that mention this label, the business owners personal blog and even the suggestion that the owner be emailed (has been emailed) to supply information or to come in and edit the article herself, all are being used go for a "keep". (Talk:Cher Doll Records - "A source is imnottalwayssostupid blog, which would seem to be that of Nancy Ostrander. I have been reticent to use it as a ref as it doesn't explicitly say it is hers. What do others think on this? I've emailed the address given." and User talk:Soundvisions1 - "To find the answers to your greater curiosity, I suggest you contact Nancy Ostrander. There is an email address on her blogger profile. Maybe she could put this information online in a way it could be used as a reference.") (EDIT: This is the most recent comment being made: "I've heard back from her. Part of the email says, 'there are a few things on the entry (such as the quote about "Bucket" by Neutral Milk Hotel being a Cher Doll 7") that are pretty obviously untrue ... Unfortunately the most reliable source about the label appears to be me (even the 33 1/3 book about Neutral Milk Hotel gets some dates wrong).' I've emailed back with suggestions." So now the Article is, in a sense, being overseen by the label owner and the AfD's "consensus" is being swayed by references that, if one if to believe the above post, are not accurate or true.) What is the real concept of having all the policies and guidelines when, in an AfD, they can all be ignored? I am having real issues at the moment overall. It is hard to try to follow the "rules" when editors are invoking WP:IAR because they are either fans of the subject or because they feel the the guidelines do not apply to how they see it. I can read, and have read - several times - WP:GNG's definition of "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive. and read the footnote about what is "non-trivial" and "trivial" and it seems clear to me. However other editors read it and seem to get something like "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject by name, and original research may be needed needed to extract the content. Significant coverage can be trivial and may be less than exclusive. And these are the loudest voices at times in AfD's. If an AfD is a "keep" based on the use of bootlegs, press releases, self published articles and such to establish notability does that also mean editors can go reword the related policies and guidelines to reflect the "consensus" here that, in a "keep" AfD, shows that those sources are allowable? And is the reverse of that also true? Soundvisions1 (talk) 22:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Courtesy break

Note on Lotus (rock band) - some of the sources added to the article by its creator were inappropriate and have been removed. A few more still need to be removed. There are plenty of good sources in the article. We've been through this in the AfD discussion and I don't see any point dragging this out here. If two good sources exist, that should be more of an argument for keeping than the inclusion of several bad sources are for deleting. You seem to be under the impression that every source used in an article needs to be in-depth coverage of the subject. It doesn't. Brief mentions and short articles are perfectly acceptable if they are reliable and can be used to verify any information in an article that may be challenged, and let's face it, with some deletionist editors, that's every statement in an article.--Michig (talk) 10:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I think if there were two sources/refs that covered the subject, per definitions found at WP:GNG, in depth, such as a Rolling Stone cover story and a Time Magazine cover story, than it would be enough to establish notability. Fact verification is another issue and I agree with you on that. But that is not the overall question, AfD's should not be about 'fact checking", they should be about "notability" overall and the the question in that regards is about "what" sources are being used as well as "how many". A printed press release about the subject in 50 publications, for example, does not make the subject automatically notable. A one line mention of the subject in an article, or many articles, is defined as "trivial" and does not mean the subject should have their own article. I think you are confusing sources used to "verify" a fact with sources used to establish notability of a subject, and maybe that is what needs to be refined in AfD's. Thanks Michig.

A basic example:

On September 11, 2001 a plane flew into the World Trade Center. In itself this one line implies something notable. An Editor should first check to see if, on September 11, 2001, a plane did fly into the World Trade Center and, in doing so, might find many sources on the subject. There is a very good chance an editor will find that the topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. This article would be safe from AfD because of the sources that were found to establish notability as well as verify the facts.

On June 6, 1997 a plane flew over the World Trade Center. This one line sort of implies that a plane flying over a building is notable. An editor could check to see if something happened on June 6, 1997 that would make a plane flying over the World Trade Center notable. If nothing could be found and the article was sent to AfD how would the discussion go? Logic would say "Nothing happened on that day to make a plane flying over, or near, the World Trade Center notable therefor it is non notable". But the world of AfD (right now, to me) is not logical because an editor could find sources about the World Trade Center and sources that mention planes near the World Trade Center or other tall buildings and use them to show the article is notable. Other editors could enter and use these sources to verify that the building exists, that planes exist, that there are airports in the area and that on the date given planes were flying in the area, maybe even over the building. At AfD, if there were more "keep" opinions, because of "all the sources", than "delete" opinions ,based on the articles failure to establish notability, what would the outcome of AfD be? A "vote" would show "keep" but AfD is, conceptually, a place to show, based on Policy and Guidelines, if an article either meets or fails notability and in a case such as this there would be nothing to establish the notability of the article subject - which is that On June 5, 1997 a plane flew over the World Trade Center. Invoking the Ignore all rules Policy would also "keep" the article because, even though none of those sources prove why the articles subject is notable, there might be interest in the fact that a plane flew over the World Trade Center on June 5, 1997.

A music related example:

The Two Brothers band is playing all over the country. The band has released their own CD. They have many fans. An editor should first look for sources that establish this subject notability. Per Policy and Guidelines an editor should look for feature stories or in depth articles that address the subject directly in detail and should disallow the sources that are not allowed per Policy and Guidelines. If these sources could not be found the article should be either PROD or sent to AfD. (Or CSD if it met one of those criteria) At AfD editors can come in and try to search for sources as well. Michig pointed out that an editor can come in and start to verify facts. This is a needed process, but doing this in an AfD makes it appear appears that there are many sources and this is when editors jump into the discussion without reading the sources provided and comment about how many sources there are, thusly establishing the subjects notability. So, in this example, after the AfD the article looks like this:
The two brothers band ¹ is playing all over the country ². The band has released their own CD ³, ⁴. They have many fans ⁵

==''Notes''==

1. "The Two Brother band rocks!" (Reprinted bio on a music site)

2. "Amazing live concerts!" (List of live dates on a music site)

3. "Two Brothers band rocks at home" (One line press release containing date of release on a music site)

4. "Two Bothers band proves they have what it takes" (Track listing with a portion of a press release about their CD, entitled "We Got What it Takes", on a music site)

5. "Two Brothers band set to rock this town" (Two paragraph "article" about an upcoming live show that uses a tour press release as a source and says "the band is known to play to many fans at their concerts" in a college papers 'events' section.)

==''External Links''==

1. Myspace

2. Facebook

3. Personal blog

4. Official website

Now you have an article that has verified certain things - yes they are a "real" band, yes there are two bothers in the band, yes they have put out a CD, yes they play live, yes there are people at those shows. However there is still nothing cited to establish notability. Some editors have said that the content of the sources does not matter, it is the fact there "are" sources and that is what matters. I do not see where any policy of guideline says that. Yes, Policy and Guidelines say there needs to be sources both for establishing notability and to verify facts. But there are also, in some subject specific guidelines, detailed sources you can not use and there is good reasons behind that. Self-published sources explains this fairly well. A bio is an example of a "self published" source. It can be used to verify certain facts, such as band members, but could not be used to verify self made comments of notability. As you also mentioned Lotus here is a perfect example. A press release about the bands tour contained this statement Armed with a massive light rig and one of the most energetic shows on the circuit, Lotus proves why they have become a go-to act for late night festival slots. The exact wording or very minor variations of it, can be found in numerous sources. At the Afd these sources were treated as valid when they were pointed out, however when they were laid out on the article talk page some of them were removed, but it was when the AfD closed. None of this has to do with "deltionist" vs "inclusionist", it has to do with how discussions go at AfD's and how the "comments" relate to Policy and Guidelines, and at what point do the overseers step in and "close" based on the actual discussion, not just the words "keep" or "delete". Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Those particular sources in the Lotus article had no bearing on the AfD discussion, and again you are ignoring the good sources (of which there are plenty) and concentrating on the bad ones. If we expect "a Rolling Stone cover story and a Time Magazine cover story" to establish notability that is not realistic. Any reliable source is sufficient, and there are plenty of magazines, newspapers, online music sites, etc. that are professionally run, independent, and are reliable sources. Substantial articles in these sources constitute the essential "multiple significant coverage in reliable sources". We do not and cannot expect Rolling Stone and Time magazine articles for every subject here.--Michig (talk) 17:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not talking only about one AfD, but I did use the specific one you mention to illustrate where, in order to save the article, editors found whatever sources they could find and used them in an attempt to establish notability. This discussion is not about one AfD, nor is it about if two sources are enough to establish notability. It is about a few Afd issues, one of which is that, when an extreme amount of non-acceptable sources are brought into an AfD in order to "sway" the "vote", an Admin, who is not involved in the AfD, should step in and mention it, or at least take note of that when dong the close. Also I used Time and Rolling Stone as examples of notable sources that would be obvious and did not mean to imply that those are the only sources to be considered. You seemed to have read that wrong so let me rephrase it - I think if there were two sources/refs, per definitions found at WP:GNG, that showed the topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.. And as long as editors understand that "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive. everything should be fine. (Editors should also read the footnote which helps to further define "trival"). Of course along with definition's found at WP:GNG the issues of external links, citations and notability are important and editors should check with External links style guidlines, in particular the Links normally to be avoided sub section; and the Sources policy as well as subject specific notability guidelines such as Criteria for musicians and ensembles, in particular criteria 1, "except"; Notability (people) guidelines, in particular "Basic criteria" and "Additional criteria - Any biography". And these are what should be looked at when discussing an AfD (And making one as well) by both participants and the closing admins. Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I would be surprised if an admin was swayed by any number of trivial mentions when closing an AfD, and neither would most experienced editors when contributing to the discussion. In the case of the Lotus article, I put a lot of links forward on the talk page that needed to be sifted through to find the valid sources for that article. Some of them proved to be good ones. There are sources out there that are obviously reliable, sources that are obviously not, and plenty somewhere in between where experience and judgment needs to be used. Over the course of many music-related deletion discussions I have become aware of several sources that I had previously never heard of but which have subsequently proven to be acceptable as reliable sources. It isn't just the 'big name' publications that can be used as reliable sources. For albums, for example, there is a list at Wikipedia:Albums#Review_sites that are accepted to be reliable independent sources for professional reviews. Another key thing to bear in mind is "Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive", i.e. an article can be primarily about an album, or even about another artist, but if it includes significant coverage of the band/artist in question, it can be valid for notability purposes.--Michig (talk) 19:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Overall I do not disagree with that and hopefully never gave indications that I felt only 'big name' publications or websites should be used. I have a lot more I could offer on the subject but this talk page is not the place for it, nor is this discussion about that. As far as AfD discussions go I do not think an overseeing admin is "swayed" at all, because that is not their "job". What I do get is that their "job" is to "oversee" the discussions and, when closing, read the comments, not just the "votes". But I do not see that always happening, thusly my purpose of asking and giving examples. I can agree that an in depth review of something can equate to "notability" of that subject, and it can hint at the notability of the creator of the subject. How that review is laid out is critical. It can be an in depth review and discusion of each song on an album but does it mean the studio it was recorded in is also notable? The label? The producer? The person who made the coffee each morning? As long as there is a mention where is the line to be drawn? And if this comes into an AfD when does the admin step in and say "It is nice that all this work is being done but all of these sources are..." I take the AfD process seriously and it is why I do try to say more than "Keep" or "delete". Soundvisions1 (talk) 21:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

← Now here is a perfect example, one that I have nothing to do with but one that seems to follow lifebaka's comment above of (of course, sometimes closing either way is asking for a lynch mob, but that's another story entirely), of why I started this thread. I ask everyone to take some time to read List of bow tie wearers DRV. I would say that this type of DRV is a possible reason why some admins who close a MfD or AfD simply count the number of "keep" and "delete" opinions rather than cite policy (or not) during a close. To a lesser degree (I say "lesser" because the overall discussion is not as heated or lengthy) there is also the Perry the Platypus DRV that relates to my question(s) here. Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Engineering and computer science

I'm hoping someone can help me get up to speed. Notability issues for engineering and computer science are hard for me, because I know that most of the papers that engineers and computer scientists write, especially if they're academics or government-funded, are written for the purpose of keeping the funding coming, in the sense that most of them don't result in actual products or deployed software. If someone got a patent on a device, or wrote a paper in a reputable, peer-reviewed journal about either a product that hasn't been built or an algorithm that hasn't been widely used or cited, and I have reason to believe that's not going to change, is that device or algorithm notable enough to survive AfD? I'm also wondering if it's notable enough for GAN, but I wanted to ask here first. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 22:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

P.S. When I say "I have reason to believe", I mean something like this: there's a history of a particular company, lab, academic or engineer cranking out patent after patent that doesn't lead to any product (presumably because the company is following a legal strategy of involving intellectual property rights), or writing paper after paper that manages to get published, but never gets cited or used by anyone other than the researcher and their students. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 22:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Forgotten AFD

Could someone have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dublin statues and their nicknames. The AFD was created in June but a tag wasn't put on the article and it wasn't added to the daily log so it's just loitering in Category:AfD debates (Society topics). regards, ascidian | talk-to-me 17:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Tagged as G6: It's four months old and no one actually voted to delete it anyways. If the nom really wants it gone, renomination seems like the best idea. Jclemens (talk) 17:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I closed it instead, 'cuz it still got some outside participation in the months it was technically open. Article's now sitting at Statues in Dublin, by my editorial preference. No point deleting it, though. Cheers. lifebaka++ 17:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

That works too, although I was worried about it appearing to be precedent-setting when, in fact, no conclusion was ever reached. Jclemens (talk) 17:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! seems like a reasonable outcome. ascidian | talk-to-me 17:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Pointless article duplication

Advice needed. A user has created an article called Best of Led Zeppelin, which is simply a rehash of a pre-existing article called Early Days and Latter Days. Should such an article be nominated for deletion? It's simply duplicating existing article and I don't think a redirect is appropriate since, the package was never officially called "Best of Led Zeppelin", see [1]. MegX (talk) 23:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest seeing what you guys can work out editorially first, but it can be nominated if you believe that it really needs to be deleted. Likely, a RFC or similar is a better choice, however. Cheers. lifebaka++ 02:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Advice sought--is this an AfD candidate?

Two issues: First, I am tempted to list Habitat (pressurised enclosure) as a candidate for deletion, but I'm really unsure, and I don't want to come across as somehow who willy-nilly nominates articles because they're imperfect. The article is really poorly written, but I recognize that this can be corrected with good editing. My reason for considering AfD is because it appears to be about a single commercial product manufactured by a single company, and it reads a bit like an advertisement. So I would like others to offer their opinions on it.

The second thing I want to know is this: When I do come across an article like this that I think potentially should be deleted, should I just go through the AfD listing process, or is there somewhere I can go for a second opinion before listing it? I don't need to ask everytime; I recently listed Millennial era and was confident that it would be deleted, which it was after 11 editors unanimously agreed with my feelings. But I have seen some editors get criticized for excessively listing articles at AfD, especially when those articles survive. How do I avoid this sort of thing? Unschool (talk) 09:00, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The article looks kind of spammy/non-notable. If you feel it should be listed I don't think that's too far astray. As for your second question, I would first check out the project talk pages (if there are links to them). Even though those folks might be more inclined to keep the article than the average wikipedian, they should have some insight. Beyond that there isn't really a "holding pen" as far as I know for articles that might be deletion candidates. My advice would be to start only from unambiguous cases and once you get a feel for how AfD works move to others. The other thing is to do research! If you do google searches and list your results in the nomination (just as a piped link, not actually listed), you will prevent many claims of "it shows up in search XYZ." You will also stop yourself from nominating articles which might actually meet the inclusion guidelines. Hope that helps. Protonk (talk) 03:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

- Personally I would not nominate this article; in fact I would vote for keeping it. (It's on a very specialised topic, but not so bad now that the spam has been removed. The main remaining problem seems to be that the title word "habitat" is a trademark. There should be a neutral word.) But in my opinion it would be acceptable to nominate this for deletion. Don't worry about being attacked for trying to do the right thing. That happens to the best editors. Some of the attacks are justified, others aren't. So long as you are prepared to learn from the outcomes of your AfDs (and you don't start masses of them simultaneously before you have the experience) you should be OK. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, everyone. I feel pretty good about what has been done to the article, between myself and User:TastyPoutine, the article has gone from this to this, and it just looks a whole lot better. Again, thanks for the advice. Unschool (talk) 02:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

A proposal that needs discussion and wider input

Wikipedia:Proposed Deletion for a Hoax

Uncle G (talk) 15:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:BEFORE

I've been seeing a LOT of AfDs where sources are immediately found by doing a Gnews search. I mean whole ABC news articles on the exact topic (for example). I'd like to make the following change to WP:BEFORE

From:

If the article lacks adequate sourcing, consider a quick Internet search to verify that no reliable sources exist.

To:

If the article lacks adequate sourcing, do a quick Internet and News search to verify that no reliable sources exist.

Thoughts? Hobit (talk) 13:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

- Support I'd be in favor of making that a suggested/encouraged approach (and the word "consider" implies that). I doubt that it could become an enforcable policy (for how could you prove that one did or did not do it?) AND there are some notable topics that just aren't on the internet much. Personally, I can think of several articles I'm involved with that if the AfD nominator had bothered to do that, it would have saved a lot of efforts.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is enforceable. Most people do this, I think. But how do you know when they don't? "Trust me, I did a search." And if someone finds something on google that they didn't, maybe that just means they weren't 100% thorough. If an AFD starts, and it closes as no consensus or keep because someone found some good sources, then the AFD process is working exactly as it's supposed to. It's a discussion about how to save the article, or what to do with the article if it can't be saved. Randomran (talk) 13:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

We just had this discussion at #Searching before nominating. Starting it all over again doesn't seem productive to me. Fram (talk) 13:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

In all honesty I missed that. I think the arguments against are largely hooey (passing off work to others because you can't be bothered to do a trivial search?) and not doing this creates more work overall. That said, consensus wasn't clear above, so I guess we run with the status quo for now and hope consensus changes... Hobit (talk) 14:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Too many AFDs are proposed on the basis that an article lacks sources. The presumption is that this is a reason to delete but this is the mistake - a lack of sources is not a reason to delete. We need to start pushing back on these AFDs so that nominators get the message that the onus is on them to show that sources cannot be found. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- That's not what WP:BURDEN says. Randomran (talk) 14:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  - Indeed, the situation is quite the opposite : the onus is on those adding information to back it up with sources, not those challenging the information. Shereth 15:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
    - Sure, but CW is correct. An article not having sources is not a reason to delete per policy. WP:BURDEN is good and true, but also not a reason to delete. Hobit (talk) 15:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
      - Per WP:DEL#REASON which you link to : "Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to, the following ..." Per WP:V, also policy (of which WP:BURDEN is a subsection) : "Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed." If the whole article is unsourced it may be removed; we call this deletion. Shereth 16:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
        That's a fairly long logical leap. If you think that is the case, please discuss at WP:DEL#REASON and get it added there in a more direct way. I don't think you'll find anything near consensus to do so. Hobit (talk) 17:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
        WP:DEL#REASON has the disclaimer stating that it is not all-inclusive of every deletion rationale; therefore there is no pressing reason to add "lack of sources" to that list when it is covered already in policy, WP:V. Failure to meet any policy is a potential rationale for deletion. Shereth 18:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
        Again, I don't think this view has anything resembling consensus. Deleting article due to a lack of sources in the article has never carried the day at any AfD I've ever seen. That is, I've never seen an article get deleted where people agreed sufficient sources existed, but deleted the article because they weren't in the article. Have you? Hobit (talk) 18:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
        I think it has happened a few times, specifically concerning articles that have undergone multiple AfD's with promises of "we will source it" and no action. I don't really consider it to be a terrible idea. At some point we have to worry about just letting OR or uncited claims sit on wikipedia forever. Protonk (talk) 19:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
        
        I also believe that the lack of consensus you refer to deals more with the proposed speedy deletion criteria for "no sources cited". Protonk (talk) 18:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
        That certainly, but I've been involved in many deletion discussions, both in AfDs and talk pages about deletion, and I've never seen anyone seriously argue that an article having no sources is a reason for deletion when those sources exist. Hobit (talk) 18:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
        I'll look for the archived discussion, but I've seen a CSD proposed as well as some "14 day, non removable deletion tag" for no sources. Neither were very popular. Protonk (talk) 19:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
        
        I agree with Hobit that the lack of cited sources isn't a reason for deletion, but the lack of appropriate sources should be--That is, if there are sources out there, but they aren't in the article, the proper course of action is to always add them. If and only if no such sources can be found after a good faith search should an article be considered for deletion, in which case, it is to be deleted for failing WP:V. Jclemens (talk) 18:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Oppose It's not practical in all cases to perform an internet search for sources, that is why an editor should be asked to 'consider' it rather than commanded to do it, practical or otherwise. --neon white talk 15:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Under what situation is it not practical? Hobit (talk) 15:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

For instance if the term contains extremely common phrases or words that would make searching almost useless. For example [[2]]. How do you search a term like that to find anything relevant?--neon white talk 18:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Meh. This has been discussed before, recently. The answer there was no. The answer here is going to be no. It isn't a matter of practicality but a matter of irrelevance. What google search should I do? Should I put the article name in quotes? Should I filter wikipedia, wikia, and other mirrors? Should I search for common synonyms? Should I do a search in a news archive service? Should I search google books for related terms? At what point is it sufficient to call a search exhaustive? How do we prove that a search was done? If we change WP:BEFORE from a suggestion to an imperative, then we have to ask these questions. Blood Angels gets 600k hits on google. "Blood Angels" gets 249k. Yet you would be hard pressed to find a reliable source on the Space Marine chapter called the Blood Angels. It might exist, but I'm not sifting through 249 thousand sources to look for it. I am also not interested in just assuming that a reliable source exists because of the search hits for that text string. If I am required to search, what is the appropriate outcome? Do I list the AfD after that search? Do another search? Furthermore, what burning problem does this solve? An AfD is made on an obviously notable subject. Sources are shown at the AfD. The result is keep. Life goes on. If, for some reason, the result is delete, then DRV will reverse it. We don't need some procedural criteria which requires the nominating editor to effectively prove a negative. Protonk (talk) 16:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

It took me about 30 seconds to find a major reliable and definitive source for Blood Angels. Verifiability is not at all a problem for a topic of this sort. But nominators don't search for sources in such cases because they don't want to improve the article - they actively want to destroy it. Such nominations violate WP:BEFORE because there is no good faith attempt to consider improvement or other alternatives first. If a nomination provides no evidence that the multiple points of WP:BEFORE have been addressed then it should be speedily closed as inadequate. Deletion is too serious a matter to be made on a casual basis and that's why the process clearly indicates that it should be a last resort after all other alternatives have been tried and failed. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

...Games workshops makes and sells the fiction, rulebooks and miniatures for the Blood Angels. They are not an independent source on the blood angels. I'm not sure what you mean to tell me by linking that. It certainly is possible to construct a search for the topic, however, as you have shown, your search reveals what you consider to be a reliable source and so my search would have been inadequate. Rather than discussing the merits of the source we would be discussing how I was violating some instruction. Protonk (talk) 00:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The source in question is a reliable source per our guideline. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

It isn't intellectually independent from the content creator. This honestly isn't the place to debate whether or not it is an independent, reliable source, but I can assure you, it isn't. We can't really speak of Games workshop "reporting" on a games workshop creation any more than we can speak of Hasbro "reporting" on a new toy. It isn't reportage in any sense of the word. It is either exposition or advertisement. Games Workshop makes money selling figurines. In order to sell more figurines they invent a new army (or in this case, a space marine chapter). In order to fully use that army, I need to buy the figurines (From Citadel, a fully owned subsidiary), the guidebook (that codex you mentioned), and in order to get the whole package, I can pick up some fiction from Black Library (owned by GW). The source is at best the equivalent of a press release and at worst purely promotional. I really wish you would account for the possibility that I might know what I am talking about here. I have spent close to 25 hours scouring databases and news archives for pretty much every Warhammer 40K source out there. I understand which parts of that fictional universe have been covered by multiple, independent sources and the list is short. Blood Angels (to stick with this example) may actually be among them as they are the subject of a board game and a video game, which means they might be mentioned in some reviews. But again, back to my original point, I could have searched google using the string "Blood Angels" -Wikipedia -wiki -wikia and dismissed the IGN and gamespot reviews of the game (for the purposes of discussion). I could consider that a good faith look. But if you searched and said "this codex is RS", then we wouldn't be having this discussion. We would be talking about how the AfD should be closed because I obviously didn't do a good faith search. That's not an acceptable outcome. Protonk (talk) 01:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

It's a reliable source and if you don't understand this, you should read WP:RS until you do. You have subsequently introduced the concept of independence. This is largely irrelevant as, in this case, the codex is definitive canon which is a more important concept for verifiability. Anyway, my point is that you said that it was difficult to find a reliable source on this topic and it isn't - it is is trivial. In any case, such arguments are no reason for nominators to fail to make searches per WP:BEFORE as you can't tell what you're going to find until you look. Many/most editors don't even seem to take that first step. Colonel Warden (talk) 02:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Only independent sources contribute to notability. Anything published by Games Workshop is completely irrelevant in terms of whether the article should be kept.—Kww(talk) 02:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

We were talking about verifiability per WP:BURDEN which is policy. Notability is something else again - a lesser guideline to be used with common sense. If one finds that there are ~250,000 search hits for something then common sense indicates that it is notable. An AFD nomination in such a case is quite inappropriate since, at the very least, the title is a useful search term and so redirection would always be preferable to deletion. This is another point made by WP:BEFORE which a search will highlight. Nominators should not be shooting in the dark and it wastes everyone's time if they do. Colonel Warden (talk) 02:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

We can bandy about this all we want. You know as well as I do that the result of sourcing articles to those codexes was almost unanimously deletion. We can also quote WP:V if you care to talk about policy: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." The point stands. If you somehow feel that I've introduced this foreign notion of "independence", then take a look at WP:RS : "Wikipedia articles should use reliable, third-party, published sources.". Either way, this is getting pretty tiresome. Protonk (talk) 04:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

No, on checking I find that the voting on AFD for that group of articles was 10-6. The AFD ought to have been closed as no consensus but a tiny handful of editors were allowed to delete a group of articles that got about a million hits a year. And we now see that Blood Angels is back as a blue link so the deletion was worse than pointless - it was an afront to all the editors that worked upon the material and is contrary to our principles: "Remember, whatever you write here will be preserved for posterity.". This example clearly shows that the current AFD process is broken, is being abused and that the bar to time-wasting, disruptive nominations needs to be raised. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think people who are trying to enforce WP:V, WP:OR, WP:RS and WP:N appreciate being called abusive or disruptive, and you need to assume good faith. These are all considered reasonable causes for an AFD, by a consensus of Wikipedians. Randomran (talk) 17:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I tend to forget that you treat WP:N as a triviality. However, both sides of this debate should at least learn how to get a true Google count. Try actually looking for the 250K hits ... they don't exist. Editing the "start" field in the Google search to "start=n" makes it list starting with the nth hit. It gets a little rough right at the end, because Google's algorithms for discarding duplicates isn't quite deterministic. http://www.google.com/search?hl=ja&lr=&pwst=1&q=%22Blood+Angels%22&start=580&sa=N shows pretty clearly that there are only 556 actual hits, not 250K. That's still a fair number of unique sources, but not overwhelming. I've never understood why Google bothers with such an unreliable estimate, but that field bounces all over the map, and rarely corresponds to the actual number of returned items. It seems worst when you have a quoted phrase of extremely common search terms.—Kww(talk) 04:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Kww, you are wrong (sorry!). Distnct google hits returns the number of distinct hits in the first 1,000 results. Repeat the action you just took for "Microsoft" or "Wikipedia", and you'll also get a few hundred results. DIstinct hits can never give more than 1,000 hits, even when there are millions of them. Distinct hits should only be used whene the number of hits is small to start with (below 2,000 or so), to weed out duplicates. IF you want to get a more accurate number of hits, and make it easier to find potentially reliable sources, narrow the search down: this gets it down to some 60,000 hits. Fram (talk) 07:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree it's been discussed. But when news articles on the topic show up at ABC or the NYT as the first or second news source, it is just wasting everyone's time. Can we make people look? Of course not. But when a simple news source search shows tons of notability, I want everyone to agree that the nom didn't do his job.Hobit (talk) 16:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Wait, huh? You want everyone to agree that who did a bad job? 16:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I think he's proposing something similar to what I had previously proposed a WP:UWT (since we seem to have one for everything else) that anyone can slap on the nominator's talk page that says "Thanks for your nom. Next time, try searching first"--politely, of course. Jclemens (talk) 16:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Correct. Thanks for saying it better than I did. Hobit (talk) 17:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Support the wording change. We may not be able to make it mandatory, but I don't think making the expectation more forceful actually hurts anything. If it matters, I am the author of the current wording. Jclemens (talk) 16:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no qualms with beefing up the wording as such, although I seriously doubt it's going to change things one way or another. Shereth 16:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

How about this

Rather than insisting on searching, how about this:

When nominating an article for deletion due to sourcing concerns, a good faith attempt should be made to confirm that such sources aren't likely to exist.

Hobit (talk) 19:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no issues with this. Shereth 19:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with this. ... even if it will be hard to verify that they did, indeed, make a good faith attempt. But at the very least, it's good advice. Randomran (talk) 19:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

This is fine. I don't relish the prospect of this snippet being used to send nasty-grams to editors (that way lies drama), but I'm never going to send one, so I won't object on that basis. Protonk (talk) 19:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it'd be better to point "sourcing concerns" to WP:V instead of WP:RS, but the text is great. Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Particularly WP:BURDEN. Randomran (talk) 21:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I like this modification (it's a briefer version of advice at Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Nomination) and agree that it should point to WP:V rather than WP:RS. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I seven this. ;) — ceranthor ^(strike) 23:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Woot, done. Please feel free to change if I didn't do what people thought I should have. I personally would have preferred WP:RS rather than WP:V, but I guess that works too. Hobit (talk) 01:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I too think it should point to RS - V is much too general. But otherwise a good start. DGG (talk) 00:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Policy has said to look for sources first for a long time

Asking editors to look for sources themselves before nominating things for deletion on grounds of verifiability is not a new thing. This idea has been in our policies for some several years. Before it was converted to prose form in February 2007, Wikipedia:Deletion policy used to look similar to what can now be found at User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage#What to do. See this version of deletion policy, for example. Earlier versions of deletion policy, such as this one from January 2006, said to "Follow the procedure at Wikipedia:Verifiability" and only if it failed to come back and consider deletion. At the time Wikipedia:Verifiability was where the procedure was, and it looked like this. Looking for sources onesself was step #4. Indeed, this step has been in the verifiability policy since Martin Harper's original formulation of it in 2003. Following that procedure before nominating articles for deletion has been explicit deletion policy since July 2004. This procedure has been in our content and deletion policies for several years. Uncle G (talk) 18:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a very important point and has to be reenforced and made as clear as possible in the relevant policies. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Little late on this but it is not the fact the editors look for a "source", it is the fact that when at an AfD some editors will find "any" source. This is what I am trying to get a grasp on. For example, in my case, I will spot an article that is lacking sources and citations and start looking for some, ones that correlate to the existing Policy and Guidlines. If all I can find are press releases, user submitted "news", myspace, facebook, blogs, concert listings, release dates and so on I will go ahead an do the nom. What is happening a lot now is that some Editors will simply do a search, find lots of hits and start tossing all of the above, and more, into the AfD as "look at all these sources!" They do not bother to read the "article" or they just assume that a press release in Rolling Stone is more valid than the exact same press release on the subjects myspace page. There was a recent AfD where a few (two, maybe three) editors were so desperate to save the article they put everything they could find into the AfD and the article. Some could say it was good faith but I am still trying to figure out what policy or guideline says it is ok to use bootleg audio and video as proof of "notablity". Soundvisions1 (talk) 03:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
  - That is actually a good thing. As mentioned here, the proper study of encyclopaedists is finding, reading, evaluating, and using sources. That you've managed to get past the finding stage is actually a good thing. Many discussions don't get past that, or even to it in the first place (and AFD is the worst for it — look what happened at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talk page and what happened to the article as a consequence). The next stages are the reading and the evaluation. So read the sources and deal with their depths and their provenances. If they are not indepent or not reliable, or don't document the subject in depth, then you can argue that they should be discounted on those grounds, and that they do not show that the Primary Notability Criterion is satisfied. Uncle G (talk) 15:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
  - Are you referring to the Lotus (rock band) AfD again? The article's creator included some links to (legal, as far as I could tell) live show download sites. These had no bearing on notability. Lots of other sources that were neither download sites nor press-releases were added. Trouble is, some editors consistently ignore good sources and keep harking on about a few bad sources, as if the existence of bad sources is a reason for deletion. It isn't. Neither is notability based on the proportion of sources in an article that are 'good'. If any 2 sources in an article about a musician or band constitute significant coverage in reliable sources (these could be sources that you've never heard of before), then that article passes the WP:MUSIC guideline. Too many AfD's take up far too much time and effort because people ignore good sources and argue (sometimes at enormous length) that articles should be deleted because such and such is not a reliable source "because it includes a line from a press-release", or "that looks like a blog to me", etc. Forget about the bad sources at AfD and concentrate on the good ones. The bad ones can be dealt with later. Only if there are no good sources should an article be deleted. Also bear in mind that sources do not only exist to demonstrate notability. Verifiability is just as important, and what may appear to be trivial mentions may be included if they reliably back up facts in an article. Getting back to the issue of searching before nominating, sometimes adequate sources are easily found from a Google/Google news search, and I find it very disappointing when people bring things to AfD without carrying out such a search. It is even more disappointing when those editors refuse to admit their error when sources are presented during an AfD, and just as bad when editors misrepresent guidelines to try to influence an AfD (the "they haven't released 2 albums on a major label so fail WP:MUSIC" argument is particularly annoying). I would go as far as treating persistent nominations of this type (CSD and PROD also) the same way as we treat vandalism, as it does just as much, if not more damage to this project. Put the first one or two cases down to inexperience, but if editors keep doing it, block them. --Michig (talk) 17:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Michag can't you just let this go? You start off your rant with the comment "Are you referring to the Lotus (rock band) AfD again?" yet you are the one bringing that up - again. Did you bother to look at the date of my post? November 15, which is the date you and I stopped the discussion on the topic below. So move on Michig. I won't even bother to respond to the implication I should be blocked because I follow the policy and guideline at Wikipedia when making noms or being involved in discussions. On the topic and to reply to Uncle G's posts: I look at the guidelines and they are fairly clear in most cases. What Uncle G says it 100% true in regards to finding sources to establish notability. "If they are not indepent or not reliable, or don't document the subject in depth, then you can argue that they should be discounted on those grounds, and that they do not show that the Primary Notability Criterion is satisfied." Soundvisions1 (talk) 19:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I did not imply that you should be blocked - please re-read my comments, and you have raised this particular AfD at least twice outside the AfD discussion itself. My comments were based on dozens of AfDs that I have participated in, only one of which involved you as far as I remember. My post above had two sections: the first about looking for good sources at AfD rather than concentrating on the weaker ones, and the second about editors who bring articles to AfD in clear contravention of policy, i.e. making no effort to search for sources. The first part was in response to your comment above. The second was addressing the topic of this discussion. If at any point I believe you've done something that merits being blocked, you'll be the first to know, and I have no reason to believe this at present - I don't see how my comment above could reasonably have been interpreted they way you interpreted it. The key point is that AfD is about determining notability by looking for good sources, and should not be about arguing until the cows come home about sources that have no bearing either way. If none of the sources found are good enough, by all means make that point, but if good sources are present, AFD isn't the place for cleaning up the rest of them.--Michig (talk) 19:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Mergers at AfD

Which best describes current practice regarding mergers taken to AfD?

An intention to merge is wholly incompatible with nomination at AfD. Due to GFDL attribution, the history must remain visible – deletion is precluded, and any such AfD should be speedy closed as ~~disruptive, bad-faith, or WP:POINTy~~ inappropriate toned down Flatscan (talk) 04:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC).
- Leroy Jethro Gibbs added Flatscan (talk) 05:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC), outcome endorsed at DRV Flatscan (talk) 04:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
A good-faith intention to merge is an acceptable justification for filing an AfD in some cases. Merge/redirect is a valid AfD outcome. AfD attracts a wide range of editors who would not have seen discussions on the article's Talk page.
- Taser controversy
Either party in a merge dispute may file a procedural nom, including those who oppose the merge.
- Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations

My impression is that practice is somewhere between (1) and (2). (2) is generally discouraged, but happens infrequently and is allowed to run for the full duration. (3) was heavily opposed, but there was a lot of drama in that specific case.

I asked a related question at WP:VPP, received no responses, and copied it to Help talk:Merging and moving pages#Mergers at AfD. Flatscan (talk) 04:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

A disputed redirect might be appropriate for AFD in certain cases. But a disputed merge is probably something that should involve other WP:DR processes. I can't think of a situation where people disagree about whether to merge, so the compromise is to delete. ... that said, there are situations where the larger population thinks they should delete. But then it would still be odd, maybe even bad faith for someone proposing a merge to then propose deletion after their merge proposal is shut down. Randomran (talk) 05:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I know I've seen it, but can't think of the article: the nominator thought it should be merged, but after the article was analysed, every statement that could actually be verified was redundant, so there wasn't anything left to keep. As for the main question, I think a good-faith intent to merge or redirect is a valid reason to bring an AFD. I understand why people object, but it can be the only place that a community-wide, semi-enforceable consensus to redirect or merge can be obtained.—Kww(talk) 05:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom does think that a deletion debate is sometimes preferable to an RFC about an article... I'm of mixed feelings on this. Truthfully, I wish there were a way to solicit feedback from a wide range of editors on a merge, the same way we do for deletion. I think AFD gets a bad rap because it's "article for deletion", when really it's an "article for discussion" -- what the heck do we do with this article that seems to fail fundamental guidelines? Randomran (talk) 05:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's deletion processes have only one mandate - determining whether or not the pagehistory should be kept. If it's an unsuitable topic for the encyclopedia or if there is no redeeming value to the history, the page should be deleted. Otherwise, mergers and redirects and content changes are all variations on a "keep" decision. If there is no nomination to actually delete the pagehistory, Wikipedia:Speedy keep clause 1 would make the discussion eligible for immediate closure (though the implication above that the nomination is in bad-faith may not be supportable - most are new editor errors, not deliberate disruption). Nominations to merge, redirect or change content should be sorted out using other discussion processes. They are not proper topics for AfD. If the Request for Comment process is not working well, we need to fix that process, not bastardize the already overloaded processes here.
Incidentally, while AfDs do tend to get some degree of community visibility, policy and long-standing precedent is that a recommendation to merge a page is no more binding than any equivalently well-attended discussion on the article's Talk page. So a nomination here generally won't achieve the "decisive" end that the nominators usually want when they make these non-delete nominations. Rossami (talk) 05:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree partially with Rossami but I've always felt that the concerns about mergers don't always match up with what we see. An example of a merger we would like to avoid at AfD would be a complex merge of one page into another (or several), like Celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks to Reactions to the September 11 attacks. That requires subject matter experts, deflecting SPA's and weighing presentation of content WRT WP:UNDUE. That's distinct from merging Eldar Harlequins into Eldar (Warhammer 40,000). The former should never be merged from an AfD. The latter, practically, can be. I don't think articles like that should, but they don't represent the reason why mergers are eschewed. Protonk (talk) 15:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with Rossami. AFD is not fundamentally about the preservation of page history. It is about whether Wikipedia should have an article on a particular topic. AFD is neither about the current state of the article, nor about the technical requirements to preserve page history, it is only about the question whether a particular topic should have an independent article. All possible answers to "should we have an article on this topic" are legitimate, including "we should cover this topic as a section in that other article". If the AFD is closed with the consensus being that the topic should not have an independent article, then we can decide whether to delete the page entirely, or merge it into another page. In the latter case, we need to preserve edit history, but that's a technical issue. If we keep a redirect from the old page, then the edit history is automatically preserved. If we do not keep a redirect, then we can move the old page to a subpage of the merged page's talk page and then delete newly created redirect, which will have no nontrivial edit history. But GFDL requirements are just a technical issue for the closing admin to deal with, they have no relevance to the deletion discussion itself. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Copy that. If only because we close AFDs with outcomes other than delete/keep all the time. Randomran (talk) 17:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
  - I agree with Carl as well. Granted, merging and redirection aren't deletion, but they are ways of dealing with subjects that should not have a full page article. Since the issue is sometimes contested as to whether there should or should not be an article on a subject, and talk page discussion tends to attract those with a strong interest in the article, skewing the weight of a discussion, a wider discussion attracting more neutral and uninterested members of the community can be a good option. And in practice, people argue to merge/redirect at AfD all the time, and discussions are closed as such quite frequently. So to respond to the original question at the top, I think 1 and 2 are acceptable. 3 is disruptive, as nominating an article for deletion (or merger, redirect, etc.), when you don't really want it to be merged, redirected, deleted, etc., is pointy. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all the responses. I agree with the points made by Kww and CBM.
- I see that this usage is scope creep from core deletion. Are merges frequently or rapidly escalated to AfD?
- Regarding Mergers for discussion, there is WP:Proposed mergers, but it's an optional step and poorly subscribed. Most merges don't require wide visibility or extra process, so a new formal process would probably be overkill.
- I understand that (3) is generally considered disruptive/pointy, as the nominator actually opposes the nomination, on its face. Thus, only an editor supporting the merge may nom, but this asymmetry may be offset by unmerged being the current state. Flatscan (talk) 04:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I would encourage anyone still following this thread to please see the extensive comments being offered at DRV by some very experienced admins on the topic of AfDs and merger recommendations. Rossami (talk) 00:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Merge outcome

I found lists of valid outcomes here:

WP:Articles for deletion (lead): a list of resulting actions, not the actual outcomes
WP:Deletion process#Articles for deletion page: NO CONSENSUS, REDIRECT, MERGE are described as variants of KEEP

I support clarifying the distinctions between each outcome, not conflating the non-deletes together simply because they don't require the delete button to implement. A difficulty is that merge describes a range of possible implementations (zero to all content merged), a content issue, but one that may affect an editor's !vote. Appending a percentage – Keep or Merge 100% – seems silly and adds a burden to the closer. Flatscan (talk) 05:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Just in case it's not clear enough from my prior comments, I strongly oppose the proposed expansion of AfD's mandate. Mergers are ordinary-editor actions which can and should continue to be sorted out on the respective article Talk pages. Many thousands of mergers are discussed and decided without ever resorting to AfD. That's a very postive thing for the encyclopedia.
There is no burden on the closer because the page returns to ordinary editing as soon as the deletion discussion is completed. The closer is under no burden to to decide whether the consensus was "keep", "100% merge", "partial merge" or any variation. The closer merely has to decide if there was consensus to delete. Everything after that returns to the responsibility of the ordinary editors working on the article's content. (By the way, the facts uncovered in the AfD discussion and the opinions expressed as a result of it become part of the page's history and should be carefully considered just as if the same discussion had been held on the article's Talk page. It's just no more binding than the rest of the discussion about the article's fate.) Rossami (talk) 15:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- - Your position has been clear to me. I recognize opposition here and at the linked DRV, but I saw enough support expressed to attempt a more directed discussion. Flatscan (talk) 23:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- I tend to view it as an abdication of responsibility when the closer takes a discussion where there was a consensus to merge, and closed it with "I'm not deleting, go discuss the merge again." If there is consensus that the topic under discussion should not have its own article, the closer should say so. This can happen either because there is consensus to delete, or because there is consensus to merge the content with a different article. This does not mean that a merge cannot be done without going to AFD, but it does mean that if the AFD conversation is clearly in favor of a merge the close should reflect that. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
  - My view is that a "merge" closure is a suggestion, saying that there is consensus here that a merger should be done, and so if anyone wants to do it they should feel free. So there isn't any need to discuss a merger again, you've already got consensus for it (unless it meets significant opposition, in which case you might not have had consensus in the first place). At the same time, because AfD doesn't get the input from the editors at the merge target article, it should not represent any sort of mandate that a merger must be done. Outside of the delete/!delete result, an AfD has the exact same weight as any other editorial discussion, and we shouldn't try to represent it as having anything else. Cheers. lifebaka++ 03:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
    - However, the stereotypical "I'm not deleting, discuss the merge on your own if you want" close does give the impression that a separate discussion is needed. That's why I think it's such a suboptimal way to phrase an AFD close. Moreover, an AFD consensus that a topic should not have a separate article does have more weight than a random editorial discussion - that's the whole point of AFD. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:10, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
      - I agree with CBM that a close rationale should at least mention a merge or redirect consensus if one exists. I think that a solid AfD consensus should carry more weight than nearly any other discussion, not because it's AfD, but because it's 1) well-attended by a wide range of editors, 2) with consensus evaluated by an admin. Flatscan (talk) 23:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
      - I completely agree with the first part. So, how about we change it to suggest such a statement in closes? That should pretty much alleviate your concern, I'd think. As for the second, Flatscan pretty well sums up my opinion on it. Cheers. lifebaka++ 21:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
        Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Closure already has a sufficient description, in place since at least the end of 2005. I found it after some browsing around, so it may not be prominent enough. I could not find an appropriate place for a brief insertion in either Wikipedia:Deletion process#Articles for deletion page or Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators. Flatscan (talk) 04:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'm somewhere in the middle on this. Merging definitely is an editing issue, but there are times when a merge or redirect needs to be enforced. Dildozer is a good example of this. The discussion at AfD resulted in a redirect/merge closure. The lone keep !vote waited a month and then reverted the article. So we are back to an article that makes no assertion of notability, but will probably be reverted again if someone changes it back to a redirect. (I can come up with more examples if anyone needs them...) --Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

If an editor makes edits or reverts against a consensus then it should be dealt with the same way all disruptive behaviour is. --neon white talk 22:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Quite coincidentally, said editor has now been indef blocked for disruption and sockpuppetry. I've reverted the article back to a redirect.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I think a comment of mine may have started this discussion, and I apologize for not following up on it. I think that in practice a central place such as AfD would be a good place to discuss proposed merges that are contested and cannot be compromised--the pages at WP:MERGE and related are probably in need of being adjusted to reality. The problem is more that a "merge" can be anywhere from 100% to 1% of the content, and a limited time AfD is not usually the best place to discuss just what should be merged. This typically takes subject awareness and in practice, a good deal of alternate proposals and compromises.

But a redirect or a merge is not in any sense a form of keep--if an afd is seen as a discussion of whether there should be a separate article, a decision to merge or redirect is a decision that there should not be a separate article., That seems to me exactly the case with a delete. The difference is the preservation of the edit history--in all three cases, though, its a removal of the article. I suggest rewording things here to that effect. DGG (talk) 09:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely that "merge and redirect" is much more like delete than keep. A merge/redirect results in the topic no longer having an independent article, just like deletion. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Except you still have the original article history so that if users want to try improving the old page in user space, there is no admin action needed to recover it. Yes, this means a user has to know how to stop at the redirect page instead of letting the redirect take them all the way through, but that's an educational barrier, not a technical one. --MASEM 12:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Re DGG: if you do change the description in this way, it may be worth announcing it on a village pump or on AN, since I doubt many admins follow the discussion here. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

@DGG: While I have seen a separate process Help talk:Merging and moving pages#Mergers for discussion occasionally mentioned, I received no responses when I posted that discussion to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). I agree that nuanced merges are poorly suited for AfD, and I see the possibility that a merge consensus could be used as a fixed point to push towards less merged content. I favor the "separate article" interpretation of AfD myself, but I see substantial opposition expressed here. I created #Outcome table to present various interpretations together, and I have some interest in working on an essay. Flatscan (talk) 05:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)