Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 55

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 50

←

Archive 53

→

9-5 2600

If there is a reliable source to prove that 9-5 for the 2600 was a concept of some form, it should'ent be deleted. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 10:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm assuming you're referring to 9 to 5 (video game). If you wish to contest the deletion then you need to comment in its deletion discussion. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Relisting for changing consensus

Currently, per WP:DP, relisting is only allowed when there is insufficient discussion; otherwise, fuzzy cases are closed as no consensus. However, take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jak & Daxter vehicles. I felt uncomfortable closing this as either delete (because the consensus changed at the end) or no consensus (all in all, there was more support for deletion, disregarding sequence). Therefore, I boldly relisted the discussion; I believe this would be a reasonable idea for such cases (rare, but problematic when they do come up). I propose the following:

In an instance where

the entire discussion comprises two blocks of consecutive !votes, one of which clearly supports deletion and the other of which clearly supports retention;

the first block has more !votes than the second block; and

the decision (keep or delete) with the fewer number of !votes has at least 25% of the !votes;

the discussion may be relisted. !Votes with invalid reasoning, from SPA's, etc. may be disregarded with discretion.

Any opinions? (I know this seems too much number/vote-based, but #2 and #3 are there for a reason: #2 is there because if the second block has more !votes, then the discussion should be closed. #3 is there because one !vote at the end is unlikely to change anything. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Should these be deleted?

The page on Stephen Grasso is an orphan page about a living person that contains peacock language ("honed his skills") and was created by a now-non-existant user named BarryKane whose only contribution to Wikipedia consists of creating the Stephen Grasso page. I suspect that this is a self-promotion page, and am not sure how notable the subject is.

The page about David Southwell is a joke -- the peacock language is obvious, as is the fictionalization of his grandiose claims. He seems to be a non-notable ex-employee of the British Retail Consortium.

I rarely edit here, so i am hoping that a helpful person who reads this will forward the information to someone of competence. Catherineyronwode (talk) 04:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Peacock language is an editing issue, not a deletion issue. Even though you rarely edit, you can add the appropriate maintenance tags or fix them yourself, whichever works better for you.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Process physics

I can never remember the steps to re AfDing an already AfD'd article. I someone would perform the steps for me, that would be appreciated, thanks. I'll give the grounds for deletion soon after the new page is set up. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 23:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It was deleted as a result of the previous discussion so it may be speedy deletable under CSD G4. I've tagged it as such. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Good enough for me. I don't have access to the old version so I couldn't tell if it was the same version as before.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 01:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's the old version --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Too complicated

Getting an article deleted has become 2-3 orders of magnitude more complicated than creating a new article. This makes it almost impossible to protect WP against people who are dumping borderline nonsense. Please have a look at the activities of User:Logger9 who claims to be professor "at a four-year university": he has created an empire of articles controlled but by himself, linked mostly internally, loquacious, overcharged with footnotes nobody can check within reasonable time, and not free of copyright infringements. This has gone on almost unnoticed for months, and now it's terribly complicated to clean up. -- Paula Pilcher (talk) 17:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Walled Garden refers to what you are describing. The copyright issue is the easiest by far to use to get things deleted. We cannot have material on the project copyrighted elsewhere. If you are able to show exactly where sections of an article come from, and can show multiple sections from different sources in a single article, you successfully call into question the copyright of the entire article. Use WP:CSD, specifically the G12 criteria, to tag the article for speedy deletion. I have G12 deleted the one article you placed up for AFD already. Your listed sources were spot-on, and a quick check of them showed that entire paragraphs were indeed lifted from the external sources.

Find the sources of paragraphs in two or three articles from the same editor, and you are now showing a pattern. At this point, you will be bringing his entire editing content under suspicion. If you can show this much, it's likely time to file a report on the situation in general, and get additional eyes going through the work. There have been several serial copyright violators reported at WP:AN in the last few months, so that's one place to get more eyes involved. If there is a better place to report a serial copyright violator, I'm sure someone else will tell it.

While the other problems are not non-issues by any means, IMHO the copyright issue is the one that can most easily and most quickly get action going. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Articles such as Glass transition and Crystal growth do not seem at all suitable for deletion and suggesting that they might be is not a constructive approach. The issue here seems to be the usual one of two cooks in one kitchen. Please see dispute resolution for better ways forward. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

If there are copyright violations at their core, then that trumps most other aspect of suitability. I'm not saying there is such, but the OP for this thread was already able to find such in one other article from the subject. One article does not make for a serial copyright violator, but such violations in 3-4, and it would be time for a serious look at them all. I already did Google searches for random phrases from several of the other articles, and found either nothing or scads of WP mirrors. So hopefully the one was an aberration. We shall see. - TexasAndroid (talk) 23:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

After removing some copyright violations, this problem seems solved for the moment; it's not at the core of the issue anyway. Of course the problem with User:Logger9 (and it is a massive problem) must be resolved elsewhere. Yet I maintain: it is so easy to bring material in - it should not be that difficult to get nonsense out. The deletion manual is terrible long; it lets the procedure appear more bureaucratic than it actually is. -- Paula Pilcher (talk) 09:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Automating more of the AfD process

I've suggested over at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive48#Articles for Deletion needs more automation that the 3-step manual process for starting an AfD be reduced to one step. Wikipedia:Requested moves already has this; all an editor has to do is put the template on the talk page in question, and a 'bot updates everything else. "prod" has automation, too, but using a different mechanism. I suggest using the 'bot that manages requested moves to also handle AfD entries. We have the technology. --John Nagle (talk) 20:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I have mixed feelings on this. Here's what I said at WT:DELPRO when this came up...

IMHO getting an article deleted should be "hard". We are here to create articles, not make them go away. However, sometimes an article has to be deleted and we have policies and guidelines that state when we must do that. Having to learn those policies, guidelines, and what hoops to jump through to propose an article for deletion keeps the load on AFD manageable. If we had a convenient "button" for proposing an article for deletion that any passerby can push if they think an article "sucks", we'd likely have a thousand or more AFDs a day.

That being said, there are tools that make the process easier. Twinkle is one of those but even that requires one to create an account and activate the tool.

--Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't have strong feelings one way or the other. As Ron points out, Twinkle already automates the process. So there shouldn't be much harm in letting people who for some reason can't use a TW-friendly browser automate it. (It used to be that getting the courage to mess around in your monobook.js file was a bar to using TW, but since it's in Gadgets, that's gone away.) I don't see a lot of difference between a bot completing the process and a script doing the same.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

What's required is that the process described at WP:BEFORE is followed. An improved process should incorporate a checklist of these steps. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Technically, no, BEFORE is not required, just highly suggested. Discussion to make it required have historically failed. Cheers. lifebaka++ 00:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Weird edit outcome

talk to me 13:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

– thanks to Ron's patience and skill with a plunger.--Fabrictramp

Whenever I try to fix the formatting of this AfD [1] by changine the open ref that's hiding everything below it into a link, it auto signs everythign and vandalistic comments that look like they're coming from me pop up. I'm a little sleepy, but I can't quite figure out if this is some sort of booby trap that was set up or something? Very weird. I've never had anything like that happen before. Thanks for whoever can resolve whatever the issue is. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Seems like it's the ~~~~'s that are tripping you up. No idea how they got in there unexpanded, but the software thinks you are trying to sign things. Someone would have to track down all those comments and see who signed them -- I need to sign off in 5 minutes, so I may not get a chance to puzzle it out.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I see the open ref has been in there from the start, so that's why the ~~~~'s didn't expand from the get-go.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I think I've fixed it as well as it can be fixed. Also removed the "poop" comment. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you sir. Makes sense now. The way it unfolded with the vandalism and my signature made me nervous. But it all makes sense now. Thanks again for fixing it up. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Redirect of "18-1"

The redirect created 22:21, October 22, 2008 by Dannsfw at 18-1 goes to 2007 New England Patriots season. This redirect page was recently linked by 89.172.6.55 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) in two articles: Boston here: [2] and Choke (sports) here: [3] after a few tries. I reverted the Boston link placement in a "See also" section as vandalism.

I have a feeling this redirect meets CSD-G3 per the vandalism reason, but unfortunately the creation of the redirect has gone unnoticed for 258 days so I don't know if it still meets the criteria due to its longevity. Since the article it redirects to states: "The Patriots ended the season at 18-1, becoming only one of three teams to go 18-1 along with the 1984 San Francisco 49ers and the 1985 Chicago Bears, both of whom won their respective Super Bowls.", I think the redirect unfairly singles out the Patriots among these three teams and probably among other teams in other sports who have had similar 19 game seasons. However, I also have a feeling that suggesting an AfD debate for the redirect would result in some unneeded time taken away from constructive editing since this title really should have been speedied in the first place. If I were to nominate 18-1 for speedy deletion, would CSD-G3 still apply even after the lengthy existence of the redirect? Sswonk (talk) 04:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

G3 definitely applied. A low-use page does not get a pass merely because the vandalism went undetected. That might not be true for a heavily edited or linked page where there is a presumption of more eyeballs on the page but this clearly was snuck in. Confirming that assessment, the history showed that the redirect had already been speedy-deleted twice before. Rossami (talk) 05:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

ERP System Selection Methodology

I don't think this topic merits an article on its own. I think it should be deleted or merged with Enterprise Resource Planning. I do applaud the amount of referencing, but the two links that were added were to promote a consultancy company. I've not been through the deletion process before and would appreciate some guidance. Thoughts? Nelson50^T 14:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not particularly knowledgeable about the subject, but it looks at first glance like there's probably something worth merging there. I suggest starting a merge proposal at Talk:ERP System Selection Methodology or Talk:Enterprise Resource Planning before attempting an AfD. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it's fine. I see two reasons to keep: This shows we've got an apparently non-biased expert in the subject working hard on the article. This particular case is of interest to me because it's a case involving a subject matter expert (or at least someone more knowledgeable than most), and we've seen far too much rapid alienation of such, when we should be striving to include such whenever possible. This seems like such a case. I say work with her, not against her. Then, the article itself is a solidly written, well built article. It has multiple citation sources supporting it, and while some sections do need citations of their own, and while I concede the article is of limited public appeal, I see no reason to redirect an article which meets all our guidelines and policies. Instead, I suggest you bring to the article talks any concerns you have about the subject, and ask for additional sources/citations for sections (like the Vendor Demos subsection), which currently lack. ThuranX (talk) 17:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:BEFORE which explains the preliminaries. Foremost amongst these is discussion on the article's talk page. I have made a start there... Colonel Warden (talk) 17:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

question

For folks that are interested in closes. I posted a question about adding a close date and time to XfD items: posted at: XfD thread — Ched : ? 14:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

AfD take 2

A lot of people have been complaining about how DRV is not AfD take 2 on the DRV talk page. In the discussion, it has been referenced how some people take an article to AfD four times, all resulting in "keep" results. The fifth time, a lot of people are clamoring that we already had this discussion before, but the closing admin discounts those arguments as WP:NOTAGAIN and closes as "delete." On the other hand, if the article is deleted on the first shot, there is no systematic way to contest the deletion based on the merits of the article, rather than the closing procedure. The only way right now, it seems, is for scores of angry people to come on my talk page demanding to know why their article was deleted. So this is my proposal:

After a reasonable period of time after the first AfD closes as "delete," anyone can put an AfD tag (or perhaps we could make a special template just for this purpose) on a blank (deleted) article and send it to AfD again. An admin will notice this, and subsequently restore the article history. Proceed as a normal AfD.

Any thoughts? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that this presumes that the first AfD was erroneous. In which case the close was erroneous....which is a procedural point to be challenged at DRV. Have I missed the need for this? Fritzpoll (talk) 17:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

That was my thought on reading it too. If the original AfD close was wrong or clearly omitted something, then DRV is indeed the correct venue. If, conversely, someone can solve the problems highlighted in the previous AfD, then the article can be recreated (G4 is disallowed if it's not substantially identical) and re-AfDed as normal. I really can't see a situation where this proposal would help, am I missing something? ~ mazca ^talk 17:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, while I know you mean well with this, I can see it adding to the tendency to take articles to AfD over and over and over until someone gets the result they want. :( --Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

An article deleted the first time does not need a new AfD because any user can simply be bold and create a new article. As long as the new version is truly a new version (and not a repost which would be speedily-deleted) and makes a good-faith attempt to address the substantive issues that got the earlier one deleted, the new version stands until and unless it is nominated for its own deletion.
I think your proposal is based on the assumption that the process is unbalanced. I see the fact that we allow renominations to be a necessary balance to the fact that anyone can easily create an article, including creating new articles at the same title and on the same topic. Yes, people can abuse the process through repeated renominations - they can equally abuse the process through repeated recreations. We already have process control for both forms of abuse. Even to a process wonk like me, a formal re-AFD is unnecessary for the scenario you describe. Rossami (talk) 17:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Question: The tallest buildings in the world past, present and future

I came across this article from a link on WT:SKY; it apparently has many image copyvios and large portions of it are speculative pieces of information that seem to fail WP:CRYSTAL. But, should the article be nominated for deletion? At the very least I think the notable portions of it should be merged with List of tallest buildings in the world or List of tallest buildings and structures in the world, but I'm not sure if deletion is the way to go. Could someone take a look at it? Thanks, Rai•me 20:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe you have answered your own question. You say I think the notable portions of it should be merged and as we all know, a merge is wholly incompatible with deletion. Looks like a good candidate for cleanup, but perhaps outright deletion is not the way to go. Shereth 20:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Cheers, Rai•me 21:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Alternatively it could be renamed History of the tallest buildings in the world which would change its scope and make it more suitable as an article in my opinion. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Which is a superior title in any event - good suggestion. Shereth 21:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Good idea - I will do that now. Cheers, Rai•me 21:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The result of silly !votes:

I cannot prove it, but after seeing all the AFD comments citing Google-hits as a reason to delete or keep an article, it appears the real world is taking interest. Today, Larry Summers, the chief economic adviser to Barack Obama, cited the change in Google-searches related to the recession as a sign the economy is improving. [4] So I'm not sure if that shows Wikipedia has had a positive or negative influence on things. 00:44, 18 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MBisanz (talk • contribs)

It doesn't show that Wikipedia has had any influence on things. As far as I know, Google Trends was not created for Wikipedia's benefit. :) —Emufarmers^(T/C) 03:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

This sort of thing predates both Google and Wikipedia. See Recession index. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

End of the Night

The AfD on the page is going to the old AfD. I forget how to fix this, but if someone says how to do it I will try to remember. Also, as the page was swept in a deletion last time, it may fall under recreation guideline for speedy deletion? ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Link fixed - [5] - previous AfD was for a song of the same name by a different artist, so G4 doesn't apply. Black Kite 17:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Question on group nom

I know I am allowed to nominate related articles, but how related? I was thinking of nominating the NWA Wisconsin X Division Championship, the NWA Midwest X Division Championship, and the NWA Florida X Division Championship all for deletion all at once. They are not contested for in one promotion. The only relations between them is they are all X Division championships and are apart of the National Wrestling Alliance governing body. So would it be alright to nominate them based on those relations? This may be a dumb question, but I thought it would be better to ask first.--WillC 10:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

A lay reader's opinion: they seem similar enough to me. Maybe WP:WikiProject Professional wrestling would provide more knowledgeable input? Flatscan (talk) 03:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Mass-nominations

How would I go about mass-nominating 2798 articles for a single AFD? I don't know how to tag them. If there's a tool, I don't know about it. Help, please? (For further details see AN/I.) Lara 05:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

How was that list created? I don't know, but if Germany covers their politicians like the US does, people like Claus Peter Poppe are very likely to be notable. On the other hand, articles like that are very unlikely to be improved anytime soon on the english wikipedia. Here's the German version, in case anyone is interested. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The issue isn't with notability. It's about the various issues listed in the AN/I, such as sheer volume and the unreferenced BLP aspect. There seems to be a leaning agreement to delete them, but it needs wider attention, I think. So I wanted to do a formal discussion through AFD, as recommended by Julian, who ran the list from the editor's contributions, I believe. Lara 06:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

You might try WP:BOTREQ, although I think it may be unnecessary to put an AfD tag on each article. Maybe you could put it on WP:CENT, and link to JC's list? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

John Willison (musician)

While looking into another issue, I came across this page. I asked about it on the help page, and a couple people suggested it may be worthy of afd. I have my hands full with the other issue, don't know diddly-squat about music, so apologize for dropping the baby off at the orphanage, but I'll stick to the little I can do well --SPhilbrick T 21:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

It looks as if the subject may well be notable within the Classical Music world but I can find nothing more than passing references via Google. The same applies to the article on his wife Carmel Kaine. Both were created by User:Joshuawillison who appears to be inactive, no edits since January 2007. I shall post this question at the classical music project. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

DeleteQueue

I've been spending some time recently overhauling the skeletal 'DeleteQueue' extension in SVN. As the name implies, this is a framework for allowing the software to keep track of, and largely automate the process of, deletion processes on a wiki. There isn't much documentation around at the moment (doesn't help that the extension currently doesn't work); I've tried to explain the work at User:Happy-melon/DeleteQueue. I am also keen to get input from the community here about what we'd like to see in a queued deletion system, to ensure that it has the maximum possible flexibility and utility here. So if you have any thoughts or comments on such an extension, please do drop me a note over at User talk:Happy-melon/DeleteQueue. Happy‑melon 16:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Deletion request

the following article Fairfield Area School District needs to be deleted because the topic it is about no longer wants it up. but the problem is, all of the pages don't exactly explain how to remove an article, it just talks about why an article should be removed and reverts back and forth between the same 3 or 4 pages. so can someone please just delete this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evilmaster23 (talk • contribs) 23:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, the topic is a school district, an inanimate object which by definition can have no wants one way or the other. The administrators of the school district or the students of the district may want it down but that's different. Or the creator of the page may want it down. Regardless, their desires don't really enter into it. It's a public topic and as long as the topic meets Wikipedia's generally accepted inclusion criteria, the article stays up. If you think that it does not meet the encyclopedia's inclusion criteria, you should follow the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to list pages for deletion which will explain how to open a dedicated discussion page where you can make your case to the community. Rossami (talk) 01:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Evilmaster23 is the creator of the page. If we would have known that, CSD G7 could have been recommended but now there are 2 keep !votes in the article's AFD. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

By the time he/she asked, there were at least a few non-trivial edits to the page made by other editors. AfD was the better course. Rossami (talk)

Proposal: No consensus default to merge

Having seen many AfDs with a fair balance of keep, delete, and merge !votes, I would like to propose this:

Under the following conditions:

the AfD discussion has a significant case for a merger;

a viable, uncontroversial merge target has been suggested for the article; and

the closing admin determines that there is no consensus;

the admin may, at his/her discretion, close the discussion as no consensus, with a default to merge.

How does this sound? (Note: by "uncontroversial" I don't mean that the action of merging is uncontroversial, but rather the merge target.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of that idea, but I have inclusionist tendencies. Anyways, admins can close as merge, if they thing it's appropriate, but I guess this would for when there's (say) 5 deletes, and 5 keeps, and merging wasn't suggested by either group? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
At first look it seems like a bit of instruction creep to me. Even though merges often happen after afd discussion it's still an editorial decision. If an admin closes an afd as no consensus, there's nothing stoping a merge based on regular old talk page consensus.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
It's unnecessary. "Merge" is a form of "keep". Once the decision has been made to not delete the article and to preserve the pagehistory, normal editing resumes. The weight of "merge" vs "keep as is" opinions in the XfD discussion should inform future decisions but that part of the close is no more binding than any other ordinary editor boldly merging a page after an equivalently robust discussion on the article's Talk page. (Arguably, it's even less reliable than a Talk page decision since so many XfD participants say "keep" without clearly expressing whether they mean 'keep as is' or 'keep history but change content'.)
If the closer thinks there is a good reason to merge, just do it. The other editors can endorse or overturn that decision on the respective article Talk pages. Rossami (talk) 18:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Largely echoing the above, but I've always understood "merge" closures at AfD to be non-binding (in the sense that editorial discussion on the talk page can always overturn such a closure). I have in the past performed "merge" closures on debates where there was only a minority explicitly opining to merge, since it seemed like a logical result of the debate. As always, this sort of thing should fall under the discretion of the closing administrator (applied with a liberal dose of common-sense and clue) but there is no real need to codify it. Shereth 18:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. In general, in closes such as these, I call it "no consensus to delete"; and strongly suggest a merge. ~ mazca ^talk 22:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Mazca says it. No consensus means exactly one thing: That there is no consensus to change anything. But if there is no consensus to change anything, then that also means that there is no consensus to merge. So merge cannot be a default outcome. The default outcome has to be the status quo before the discussion, everything else would mean the closing admin could decide what to do instead of assessing what the community wants. If the consensus really is not for merging, then policy cannot say it should happen anyway. And if there is consensus afterwards to merge, it will not be hindered by a genuine no consensus closure. Regards So Why 23:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I oppose no consensus defaulting to merge, even under the limited conditions. However, I support these closing rationales:
- "no consensus to delete" + any of "substantial support for merger", "discuss merger on article's Talk page", "substantial support for separate article" more likely to accompany keep
- merge if a consensus exists, which may occur with less than majority support if the non-merge recommendations fail to address the merge arguments, e.g., WP:PRESERVE keeps or WP:Notability deletes
  Flatscan (talk) 04:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I oppose default to merge, but I can say some rules of thumb from the time (way back) when I was closing these things: (1) If the "no consensus" is because there is controversy between merging and deleting, the close should probably be "no consensus to delete, but consensus is clear that there should be no separate article, hence I will merge the content". (2) If the controversy involves people who want to keep outright, I think some judgement is needed; if the merge process preserves all, or almost all, of the content, merging is not such a drastic action, and a closer being bold and merging (if s/he agrees this is a good idea) shouldn't be too controversial, and it can be undone if someone disagrees. If the merge involves cutting away two thirds of the content, merging is a considerably bolder step, and I would in general default to outright "keep" and let someone else merge if that is what should be done. All this assumes that all parties are making reasonable arguments, and that the controversy is legitimate. For instance, if one side has ignored/overlooked issues over verifiability, then the outcome needs to reflect that. Nobody, admin or non-admin, should be inserting incorrect information into an article just because some people on an AFD said so. Such cases are rare, but I have encountered them. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- Two things I thought of after reading Sjakkalle's comment: the closer isn't required to implement the merger if closing as merge, {{afd-mergeto}}/{{afd-mergefrom}} tagging is sufficient; and closers should be careful to distinguish between evaluations of consensus and personal opinion. Flatscan (talk) 04:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
oppose default to merge. Sjakkalle (14:44, 25 July 2009) ilustrated the range of possible outcomes in various circumstances, which makes a single default outcome inappropriate. --Philcha (talk) 05:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Agree with what's been said above. Mergers may make sense, but they're not within the charter of AfD. Articles are deleted or kept, with retention being the default outcome, period. Any !vote other than a delete is inherently a "keep and..." suggestion. Jclemens (talk) 06:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, almost. I "count" "transwiki" as a "delete" !vote when determining whether or not the AFD is "NACable". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. No consensus should be closed as no consensus. The closer should feel free to make a suggestion, but should not confuse the suggestion with his reading of consensus. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
No consensus, I rather thought, meant no consensus. If there were a consensus for "merge" then clearly there would have been a consensus. That said, I am not always sure that the weighing of arguments is always clear, as counting !votes as a means of determining consensus is not officially how this is "done." Collect (talk) 12:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
"No consensus" means simply that the administrator doesn't hit the delete button. There is nothing to stop an administrator from then making a bold decision to merge, or recommending a merge, if he believes that is the correct decision, but in this case it should carry no more authority than an ordinary editor making the same bold edit (i.e. it can be reverted and then discussed on the talk page). DHowell (talk) 05:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I always took no consensus to mean the Wiki equivalent of a hung jury.--WaltCip (talk) 21:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

FC Barcelona honours

(Misplaced; Moved from a section of an unrelated AfD.) --John Nagle (talk) 18:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I am from Turkish Wikipedia. I am a supporter of Fenerbahçe SK. Today, one of user has used deleting tag for [6] which means Fenerbahçe SK honours and said " That article deleted in English wikipedia". That is deletion nomination: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fenerbahçe SK Achievements. And I asked myself if my teams honour page is being deleted, others would be deleted as a equlity in Wikipedia. Thanks--Kızıl Şaman (talk) 18:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Search template

Would anyone object if we added {{Search}} or {{Findsources}} to the AFD template? I'm thinking it should go right under the "Article (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) — (View AfD)" line, so that the top of an AfD looked like this:

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

I'm not sure how to make this work automatically in the template, but I think it would be a useful and appropriate feature. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

This was proposed and discussed at WT:Articles for deletion/Archive 48#Searching before nominating. It was added to {{Afd2}}, then reverted. It seems reasonable to revisit now. Flatscan (talk) 03:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

That discussion focused primarily on requiring the nominators to search for sources, which this would not do. My thought is more about adding convenience for people reading and responding to the nomination.

It looks like it was reverted with the overused "no consensus to add this" excuse, which is incompatible with WP:BOLD and WP:IAR -- and even WP:CONSENSUS itself. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

So does anyone object to doing this? Does anyone else think it's a good idea? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Can't see any good reason not to, and a few reasons to. Overall, a good idea. Cheers. lifebaka++ 03:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. This is

Done now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Great Neck South Middle School

Can you delete this? I made a mistake for nominating that for deletion. I have changed the article to redirect. Hagadol (talk) 21:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

No need to delete. I've removed your tag and just closed the AfD instead.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Keep / Merge / Delete style

As opposed to the style we use here with each person weighing in in chronological order, I'd like to suggest the method used by the French wikipedia. What they do is divide the page into three sections: Keep/Merge, Delete & Comments. Each person places their opinion in the correct section with a little plus of minus icon.

Any thoughts?? Joe407 (talk) 03:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not necessarily a bad system, but equally I can't see how it's any great improvement on our current one. It makes the debate a little easier to evaluate quickly and possibly a bit neater, but it also makes connecting people's "votes" and comments harder, and could lead to more direct vote-counting closes. If en-wiki had always been using that system I doubt it would need changing, but equally I don't think it's in any way worth the drama of changing, given that there aren't any strong advantages. It fulfils the same purpose in a fairly similar way. ~ mazca ^talk 10:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
The purpose is not to count numbers, but to look at reasoning. "Me too" type !votes would likely be way too heavy, and the concept of colloquy would be lost, not to mention the fact that later events can change my !vote for sure, and, I trust, those of others. BTW, I have also !voted "userfy" and "delete/merge" as well -- which would likely be rather odd as separate sections for each XfD since many XfDs get only a handful of !votes in the first place. Collect (talk) 11:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
That sort of sorting has been tested before here. In my opinion, it tended to polarize the discussions very quickly and subtly biased the community away from consensus-seeking. The problem is that users in that voting scenario (and it does become voting) will make a snap decision about their vote, then write a comment to rationalize that first impression. When you encourage people to write prose instead, they are more likely to lay out their reasoning and reach a conclusion last. I believe we get better decisions when we encourage that sort of thoughtful discussion nad discourage things that look even more like voting than we already do.
On a more mechanical level, the other problem you get in that format is that you disrupt the chronology of the debate. It easier to count noses but much harder to see when the debate changes in a way that may invalidate some of the earlier opinions. For example, it's not uncommon for a discussion to start with lots of "delete" opinions, then either someone brings new facts to light or rewrites the article and the majority of subsequent opinions are "keep". In a chronologically organized discussion, the closer can easily see that cusp and weight the earlier opinions appropriately. In an opinion-organized discussion, it's far harder to identify that cusp. Rossami (talk) 13:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- Going off Rossami, corralling into different sections means a Delete will be less likely to read the arguments put forth in the Keep section, and vice-versa. That's not really a way to achieve consensus through discussion. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 14:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I think this is a bad idea. It is different from RfA in that 1) RfA has more !votes, to make vote-counting statistically valid. 2) If a person makes a strong point at an RfA, others' !votes will naturally follow, so the percentage is a somewhat good gauge. This phenomenon, while possible, occurs less frequently at AfDs. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I prefer the chronological order, so that early deletes can be discounted if later keeps bring up better sourcing or demonstrate that the article has been improved. Jclemens (talk) 06:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
- Agree with Jclemens. The debate often, and the article sometimes, evolves over the course of the AfD. The chronology is important. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
  - I agree with Jclemens. Often editors don't return to comment after new evidence has been posted contradicting their statements. Ty 09:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
    - Agreeing with King of Hearts, Jclemens, et all. The divided method is easier for vote counting, the chronological is far better for discussion and consensus building. htom (talk) 15:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Seconding what KOH said, I also feel that AFD is not a vote and therefore the numerical counts of the three types are unimportant. Remember that AFD deals with content and that RFA deals with editors, so while a !voting style system may work at RFA, the nuances of content do not lend themselves as readily to simple Supports and Oppo positions. MBisanz ^talk 15:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
There you go. It's not about the votes. See the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion, which explains that factoring AFD discussions as votes makes determining consensus harder, not easier. Uncle G (talk) 17:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I also prefer the style we have now. It's easier to follow the ebb and flow of the discussion.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
OK. Sound like this is a discussion that has been had before and people really appreciate the current system. Thank you all for explaining what you like about the system and I do agree. To my mind it would be nice if there was a way to have a long discussion easier to read "at a glance" but it sounds like that is something people are looking to avoid. As Rossami (and others) wrote, we don't want an article to rise or fall just on the number of votes.
Be that as it may, does anyone have an idea that would help with readability or an overview of some sort? Joe407 (talk) 05:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- I wish that closers would always explain their closes, and that the explanation would serve as a summary of the discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
  - I agree. A rationale should always be given for closure. There is nothing more annoying than not knowing how the arguments were wighed against eachother.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
    - Same here. Not only does it make an outcome that went against my view easier to accept, it also helps me see how others are evaluating arguments and consensus, which is good feedback both for my AfD arguments and closes. And for the record, if I forget an explanation (except where it's blindingly obvious -- if there's nothing but delete votes, I'm going to assume anyone can figure out how I weighed them *grin*), I'd appreciate a gentle reminder on my talk page. Like any human, reminders that start with "you stupid..." don't get a good reception. :)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
      - WP:BOLDly added. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
        This was previously discussed at WT:Articles for deletion/Archive 53#Proposal: Requiring the closing admin to say more than "The result was . . .". I think that the wording "recommended, but not required" is acceptable, but there may be support for modifying it. I strongly prefer extended rationales where appropriate, but they are often unnecessary. Flatscan (talk) 04:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
    - I've gently nudged a couple of closing administrators about this in the past. At least one had a user talk page that was flooded with "please explain your closure at X" requests. Showing one's working is the obvious way to avoid this. Of course, one might like to have a talk page filled with requests to explain onesself. It seems like making far more work for onesself unnecessarily, to me, though. ☺
      There have been some truly excellent AFD closures over the past few years. I've seen several closures for particularly contentious discussions where the closing administrator even went so far as to provide a breakdown of the closure, showing how rationales were weighed, on the discussion page of the AFD discussion. Uncle G (talk) 03:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
      - Yep, on the whole, I try to avoid closing AfDs that are contentious enough to require an explanation. Jclemens (talk) 04:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
        By the nature of time zones, I often find that by the time I can close any AfDs, they've been on /Old for about 18 hours and any that are left tend to be some real stinkers - hence, I often find myself writing substantial rationales! ~ mazca ^talk 06:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
        
        It seems otherwise. That closure could have done with a good rationale, and is a moderately good case in point. Within the hour someone was on your talk page asking for your rationale, where your closure had none. This is what happens with rationale-free closures. Whereas adding a rationale nips in the bud some if not all of the resultant back and forth. More in the AN/I discussion. Uncle G (talk) 07:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Clearwater Paper Corporation

I would like to request that the Clearwater Paper Corporation (which I created) be deleted. I originally created it on my user page, then copied and pasted it to create it as an article, but this made a warning that it had been copied pop up, so I went to move it, but the name is still being used. I deleted all the content, so that it would get a "speedy deletion" tag, but if this is faster, could someone please ddelete it?

Also, I got a warning for not enough resources, even though I cited them at the bottom of my page. I did not use direct quotes, just a general summation of information I found on several sites (which I cited in the resources section of my page, which I made as a heading, as I seemed to be getting the coding wrong). So I did not use footnotes, which I believe may be the reason for the warning. I would like to know how to solve this problem, as it would be extremely difficult to refind and quote all the information, as I originally copied it down with paper and pencil as I looked it up, summing it up in point form, and then rewriting it in my own words on the article.

Could someone please advise me on these two problems???

Scixx (talk) 17:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Article has been deleted as requested. As to the notice about a lack of sources that you recieved, it probably was due to the fact that there were few inline citations in the article. While it is always preferable to have them (you might want to read Wikipedia:Citing sources for advise on how to do this), if you can at least provide references in the form of links, it can always be cleaned up to look better. Shereth 17:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Burden of proof

Conclusion: The creator of an article should provide cites; however, before nominating an article for deletion the nominator should make an effort to confirm that sources don't exist. SilkTork *^YES! 11:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

It has been brought up several times before, but the question remains, who has the burden of proof, the creator or the nominator of the article? WP:BURDEN states:

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. (emphasis original)

On the other hand, WP:BEFORE states:

When nominating an article for deletion due to sourcing or notability concerns, make a good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources aren't likely to exist.

This is seemingly a contradiction. In current practice, WP:BEFORE clearly supersedes WP:BURDEN in deletion discussions; a section meant to give advice should not take precedence over policy. On the other hand, not following WP:BEFORE is contrary to the larger goals of creating an encyclopedia. I would suggest this: In order to prove verifiability, sources must not only be found, but also actually added to the article. After all, an article that can be sourced but is not sourced by the end of the deletion discussion often ends up never being sourced, and is no better than an article that cannot be sourced. Instead of claiming that sources exist, why not be bold and add them? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I will agree with that on the condition that the nominator is required to add sources found by any other editor during a deletion discussion. Really, there should be no reason to NOT do this, but I've often seen editors go to great lengths to prove their initial nomination was "right" even in the face of good sources being brought up by other editors. Jclemens (talk) 18:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

There are plenty of reasons not to require an editor to add sources someone else came up with. Let's say I do a good faith search, and can't find notability for the subject of article x. Editor B comes along and says it's notable because there are sources of dubious reliability. I am not going to add them myself if I don't think they meet WP:RS, nor should I be forced to. Even worse, let's say Editor B comes along and cites a book I don't have access to. Should I be required to add a source I've never seen? Even if I'm happy to withdraw the nom, there's no way in hell I'm going to associate my name in an edit summary adding a source I've never seen. The end result will be that conscientious editors will refuse to be involved in any way with nominations (have fun with all the articles about pet goldfish that will never get deleted), and the problematic deleters will quickly find there's no real way to enforce this, because what admin is going to permanently block someone for refusing to add someone else's source to an article?--Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm appalled to think that someone would even think that a nominator should ever be "required" to add sources found by someone else, or even ever do anything indicating they are following the deletion discussion. In case you forgot, WP is a voluntary effort. That said, something that SHOULD be required is for the closer to consider any brought up in the discussion, even if it's not actually added to the article meanwhile (as well as check to see if any were that weren't brought up). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 20:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Why not? The nominator has asserted that something doesn't belong in Wikipedia. They should then shepherd their nomination, incorporating content that benefits the article, and withdrawing their nomination if sufficient sourcing is found per WP:HEY. To do anything else is irresponsible on the part of the nom. Yes, it's a volunteer project, and the nominator VOLUNTEERED to start a process. Why is continuing it to the logical conclusion burdensome? I've met my fair share of editors who would follow articles through the AfD process, and consistently dispute new sourcing added to the article. Originally, I thought that a nominator should just butt out, but then I realized the activity was correct... just in the wrong direction. Wikipedia isn't an adversarial legal system, so there's nothing wrong with AGF'ing that a nominator is capable and willing to include new sources that come up. Jclemens (talk) 23:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem I see here is that you are assuming all sources brought up in the AfD will be quality sources. Yes, quality sources do come up in AfDs, and should be added by anyone, including the nom. But not all sources brought up in the AfD are quality sources.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, not explicitly, but that's a fair criticism. If a source stinks, then the nom should feel free to say so. If he's being blatantly unreasonable in his assessment, that would be evidence that he wasn't acting in good faith. Jclemens (talk) 01:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I do not see these as being mutually exclusive. If an editor has indeed made a good-faith effort to find sources and come up empty, then we must in turn assume good faith that they followed WP:BEFORE and therefore WP:BURDEN comes in to effect. I think the problem arises in the fact that BURDEN is easy enough to prove (either the authors come up with the source or do not), but asking a nominator to prove that BEFORE has been followed is considerably more difficult as it is hard to prove a lack of something. Shereth 20:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Shereth. After nomination (that is, after the nominator has made a good-faith effort to confirm that sources establishing notability are not available), the nominator plays no special role. Additional editors then comment on the validity of the deletion proposal. Editors can also try to improve the article. If the article improves mid-discussion, additional editors can point this out. Mentioning possible references in the discussion is no substitute for the article actually improving. The deletion discussion is about the article, not what the article might be. If at the time of closing, arguments in favour of deletion due to sourcing or notability concerns have not been invalidated by changes in the article, the closing administrator should consider them. I don't see the issue here. Sancho 22:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Redundant question, because, and no offence is meant by this, but it's basically wiki-lawering. These phrases have been inserted into guidance and policy in order to protect positions, and as can be seen they aren't especially helpful. Best practise in these circumstances is to simply ignore the two pieces of advice and concentrate on the specific case at hand and work out what the best thing to do is. What's the best practise when faced with unsourced material? Look for a source, and if you can't find one, ask the person who inserted it, prudently removing the contentious material to talk or even remove completely if required. If that would reduce the article to a blank page, then offer the article up for deletion on the basis that you have been unable to source it, if you believe that such an article has no place on Wikipedia and that the article title is not better served being redirected somewhere. Remember, the rules aren't there to be followed, they are there to help us work out what the best practise is. Best practise is to try and improve Wikipedia, and we do that by either sourcing material or flagging it up for discussion, possibly removing it prior to such a discussion. A lot of our guidance would probably be better served being presented in a flow chart form than as dusty words which have accumalated generations of flotsam and jetson. Hiding T 22:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Articles are not required to contain citations. If, in the course of an AFD, it is established that satisfactory sources exist, then this is sufficient. Placing citations in the article then becomes a formality - the sort of task which wikignomes might undertake. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

True, however finding the sources and refusing to add them to the article just because it is "sufficient that they exist" is just making a point at the possible expense of the article itself. But then there are a lot of editors who prefer debating at AfD to actually improving the article in question. pablo_hablo. 18:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

There are certainly lots of armchair editors who prefer to express their opinions rather than do editing work. But the only point one might make about this is that you get what you pay for. There is no great practical problem in this case because AFD discussions are usually linked to from article talk pages and so it is all there for any future reader who wishes to look. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I agree fully with Hiding's comment about tackling each case separately. Furthermore, I don't see a contradiction between the two statements that this RfC questions. I believe that keeping unverified statements out of the encyclopedia is of the utmost importance, and it appears that both WP:BURDEN and WP:BEFORE are written with this in mind. Certainly no editor should insert material that isn't verifiable (and hopefully no veteran editor would insert any material at all without sourcing it), but this doesn't mean that other editors cannot build upon material that isn't properly written in the first place. It is indeed good practice to look for sources before nominating something for deletion, but it isn't something to chastise if an editor doesn't follow through.

If I had to put these statements up to battle against each other, I'd easily choose WP:BURDEN over WP:BEFORE. Given the option of whether to keep around existing unencyclopedic material in hopes that one day it will evolve into encyclopedic material, or get rid of it and require editors to start it from scratch while properly sourcing it, I'd choose that latter any day. Following WP:BEFORE, while being the polite and reasonable thing to do, isn't a necessity and editors who do not follow this provision do not do as much damage to this encylopedia as editors who do not initially verify material. So I guess my point is that while both provisions help the encyclopedia, WP:BEFORE is indeed just a suggestion, while WP:BURDEN is a necessity for the creation of verifiable material. But I don't really see them as logical contradictions and I believe that they both can help the encyclopedia when applied at the right moments. Them From Space 01:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I feel exactly the opposite. Better a guilty man go free than an innocent man go to prison. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

This discussion comes at the core issue from a different angle, but #Upgrade WP:BEFORE to a guideline? is similar enough to be useful reading. Flatscan (talk) 04:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
- I see that this discussion has been listed on {{cent}}. Outside input might be helpful. Flatscan (talk) 04:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
No offense to the user bringing up the discussion, but I agree broadly with hobit. The distinction in the text isn't important save for wikilawyering. A lot of pixels get filled up about the interaction and apparent contradiction between BEFORE and BURDEN, but no substantive problem exists in practice. We want editors to present sources for facts or at least assert that sourcing exists. We also want nominators to do some legwork prior to nominating. Sure enough, those of us who feel that wikipedia should include more tend to talk about BEFORE a lot and those of us who feel that wikipedia should include less tend to talk about BURDEN more. Honestly very little of note has come out of changing policy just to suit the discussions of these two camps and any change to policy will at best be minimized through careful parsing of the text and at worst result in some bad outcomes in articles or AfDs. Also, as flatscan notes, this is well traveled ground in general. Protonk (talk) 05:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
- Precisely. In my eyes, giving one or another person an absolute burden of proof would be a mistake -- ideally, I should think that all editors involved have a responsibility to research and present their case in good faith and to the best of their ability, so as to enable discussion amongst the community at large about the most appropriate outcome. Whether arguing for deletion or inclusion, one has a responsibility to make one's case. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
The answer is to stop asking the question. (tongue not entirely in cheek) More precisely, the burden is on no one more than the other; although I suppose in practice it's technically on the nominator given how "no consensus" AfDs are closed, but that's kinda ignoring the spirit of the law for the letter of the law. --Cybercobra (talk) 04:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
The burden should always be on the person proposing deletion of entire articles. Contemporary sourcing policies aside, Wikipedia has a history. Current sourcing rules got their impetus from the Wikipedia biography controversy of mid-2005, and standards before then were much laxer. Moreover, they have developed over time since their inauguration; at one point, an article was considered to be quite adequately sourced if it had a general bibliography. There are hundreds of thousands of articles that predate current policies, that probably were researched in some fashion, and that were not referenced to contemporary standards because that was not thought necessary at the time. The model followed was that of printed encyclopedias, which typically contain at best a brief bibliography or "further reading" section at the bottom of their longest articles. (I have never read a print encyclopedia with individual reference notes for sections or paragraphs. They may exist.) Because of this, any interpretation of WP:BURDEN that is thought to justify deletions of whole articles, perhaps created by no longer active editors, may well lead to the unacceptable result of deleting useful material because no one has thought to update it to contemporary standards. This is what Template:Unreferenced and Template:Refimprove are for, and no further harm should be done in those circumstances. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Well put; thank you for bringing up changes over time. +sj + 09:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is the correct place to put this opinion. Feel free to move it.

Perhaps I'm jaded by new page patrolling and seeing a lot of attack pages about somebody's classmates' hairy legs'. However, I think the burden of adding sources and improving an article should be up to anyone who thinks there is a reliable source. Article rescuing should be left up to people who think the article can be rescued. While the nominator should go ahead and check if there's any reliable resources nearby that can help improve the article, there's always the possibility that xy don't have the time or energy to go to the library, or anywhere else for that matter. I know google isn't considered a "reliable source" for knowing when an article should or shouldn't be included, etc. You end up with quite the dilemma when you put too much burden on one person. I dream of horses (T) @ 19:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Another thought

The burden of proof and burden of action must be on two different parties. Right now, the burden of proof is on the nominator to prove something should be deleted, and the burden of action is on those defending an article to poke holes in the nominator's rationale and/or improve the article such that criticisms no longer apply. Giving one "side" both burdens is unworkable. Jclemens (talk) 05:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The "burden of proof" is on the process, not the nominator or any subsequent commenter or !voter. pablo_hablo. 19:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
- Nevertheless, if the nominator or others make no credible argument that an article be deleted, it is kept by the AfD process, yes? Jclemens (talk) 20:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
  - This is the process' default, as I understand it. pablo_hablo. 00:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
The burden is on the nominator, just as it is on everyone else at AFD, to put deletion policy into practice, to search for sources themselves, double-checking one another. Thinking of this as analogous to a courtroom may be causing confusion. AFD is not a court. This is not a burden of proof. It's a burden of effort. It's effort that everyone should help shoulder, nominator and all participants. AFD produces its best results when everyone makes the effort, and its worst results when no-one does. Uncle G (talk) 04:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
I think the burden should be on the author/editor. I, for one, get annoyed with editors putting a two-sentence "article" on here and expecting others to do the actual work for them. If the editor felt the topic was relevent and notable enough to belong on here, they should have the responsibility of at least meeting the basic requirements like Providing some sources. Expecting others to do it for you isn't "collaboration", it's just lazy and irresponsible. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- And who, then, is responsible for cleanup? Should we throw out the 50+% of Wikipedia that's got some cleanup tags on it? The problem with such an approach is that it presumes that the encyclopedia can always be improved by deleting, rather than fixing, something. Yes, it may be frustrating to find articles that lack something or another, but the fact is that many of these have very real value, and that a volunteer project tends to attract people who write about what they care about, not people who cleanup and add sources to other people's contributions. There are some, sure, but far from enough. Fact is, making the deletion advocate work to demonstrate the inappropriateness of an article keeps the checks and balances working. Jclemens (talk) 06:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not talking about articles that need some cleanup or a couple more sources. I'm talking about the ones that have nearly no content and no sources. If I see an article that has a fact tag or two on it, I sometimes help it out. But a perfect example was a recent bilateral relations "article" that was a total of 5 sentences. First sentence was an explaination of the title (ie X-Y relations is the relations between X and Y. The next two sentences were "The capital of X is (fill in the blank)". "The capital of Y is (fill in the blank)". Zero sources. No assetion of notability. Nothing. Now why on earth should I be responsible for "cleaning up" that article? There is nothing to clean up. The article is essentially non-existent. The author didn't give enough of a damn to actually write anything or source it, but you want me to do his work for him? I've helped rescue articles, but there was at least something to work with. The ARS (which I found to be no help) runs around working on these. Fine. If nothing else, AfD's improve many articles. I see more many articles that have had nothing done to them get a flurry of activity just because of an AfD. They get improved and kept. But that improvement wouldn't happen without the AfD. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

These are different beasts

WP:BURDEN is a content policy, part of verifiability, so is concerned with verification of specific information contained within articles. It doesn't mandate any burden of proof for notability, which is a completely different concept, depending on multiple sources showing substantial or significant coverage. There is no conflict between a policy that says that article content should be verifiable, and a process that says that people that want articles to be deleted should give evidence of how they don't meet our inclusion guidelines. We'll never get to offer "proof" for anything, but the burden of evidence is that specific facts should be sourced by the people adding them to an article, and if none can be found for anything then it's a no-brainer deletion, but evidence for notability, which is the decider for inclusion or deletion of an article in Wikipedia, should be sought by everyone who participates in a deletion discussion. I've been accused before of being a "usual suspect" in favour of inclusion[7] but in fact what I do with any deletion discussion that catches my interest is to first look for sources, and then decide whether to call for deletion or keeping or commenting or staying silent, so there's no issue about whether the burden falls on whether I want to keep or delete, because I don't make my decision until I have looked at the evidence. As examples of how those who want articles to be deleted should present their cases, in preference to "per nom" or "no sources" or "not notable" etc., I would present some of my own arguments:[8][9][10][11][12][13]. The burden of evidence in a deletion discussion falls on everyone, i.e. everyone should offer evidence for their position. WP:BURDEN is about inclusion of specific content within an article, and is only relevant to deletion if nothing in an article can be verified by a reliable source. I've just read through what I wrote and realised that it's very long-winded, but I don't have time now to edit it down. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Protonk, Luna Santin, and Phil Bridger have hit the nail firmly on the head: We want editors to present sources for facts or at least assert that sourcing exists. We also want nominators to do some legwork prior to nominating. — I should think that all editors involved have a responsibility to research […]. Whether arguing for deletion or inclusion, one has a responsibility to make one's case. — The burden of evidence in a deletion discussion falls on everyone […]
I add two points, one of which is already in the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion and has been for a long time now, the other of which is based upon expected behaviour formally encoded into our various policies over the years and underlying them even when not so:
- AFD is supposed to work by everybody putting deletion policy into practice, checking whether and what sources exist, their depths and their provenances, so that all of the holes in the layers of Swiss Cheese do not line up. Everyone, nominator included, has to do their part so that we know, with confidence, that we have come to the right outcome in any case. A zero-effort rationale, be it for keeping or deletion, and be it from nominator or anyone else, inspires zero confidence that the right outcome will happen.
- I work according to User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage#What to do. This is, as noted, the procedure taken in the first place from our very own deletion and verifiability policies. I recommend it to everyone.
Uncle G (talk) 04:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
WP:BURDEN refers to verifiability rather than notability. WP:BURDEN is a policy and WP:BEFORE is not, so where the two collide, WP:BURDEN wins. However, it is not always a case of a collision; it is well-established that where no CSD applies, the default state of affairs is that the article is not deleted, and anyone wanting to have it deleted must make a case to do so. Stifle (talk) 12:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree with the above discussion. However, I would add that the burden can shift. The creator has the burden to assert notability, then the nominator has the burden of making an argument for deletion. If sources exist readily, then the nominator also has the burden of adding those. Once an obvious case is made, the burden has shifted to the creator and rescuers. Once they have shown a real effort to find reliable sources and verify its notability, then the burden shifts back to the nominator to show how the rescuers are wrong in some way. That's how it's worked, if imperfectly, in the recent past. Bearian (talk) 01:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN vs WP:ILIKEIT

As Stifle said in the section above, the default no-consensus position is that the article is kept. In many cases, this seems not to be about sourcing, but about ILIKEIT. Too often articles that are unsourced and/or unnotable are kept by default because someone said keep in some way, without addressing the fundamental issue.

If every sentence of an article would be removed by WP:BURDEN we shouldn't be defaulting to keep just based on a few editors ILIKEIT statements. We need closers who are a little more skeptical about default keeping when the rationale for deletion hasn't been addressed by those who want it kept. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

BURDEN applies to specific assertions, not to articles, and only to contested statements, so taken to a ridiculous extreme, we would end up with stubs like "World of Warcraft is a computer game". Stubs are not a problem, and stubbiness is not a reason to delete an article. THAT is the real reason why BEFORE and BURDEN aren't in conflict. Jclemens (talk) 21:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- Jclemens, you're right about BURDEN... but that doesn't stop people invoking it inappropriately, any more than people idiotically invoke WP:BURO to complain about lack of bureaucratic process. I have a case of this at High-stakes testing with an anon that (1) agrees that a short driver's license test is (or can be) a high-stakes test, and (2) demands proof for the assertion that a test need not be many hours long to be a high-stakes test (and so forth). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Surely the burden of proof is on everyone to search for, examine, validate, and consider sources.
Personally, I've noticed a disturbing tendency among AfD nominators to bring an article to AfD in the apparent hope that someone else will do a lot of work finding sources. (If nominators really did search for sources properly, there would be no reason to have an article rescue squadron.)
WP:BURDEN's main application is about unsourced negative information in BLPs. It does have wider ramifications for the rest of Wikipedia, but I think that conceptually, it sits under WP:NPOV as much as it does under WP:V. WP:BEFORE is specific to deletion discussions.
I remain totally of the view that WP:BEFORE should be a guideline, and I'm totally confused about why there's opposition to taking this simple and productive step.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 08:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no contradiction: The WP:BURDEN of verifiability is to cite a reliable source that supports a specific statement, when challenged. To the extent that that a deletion nomination is a challenge to the article's entire content, that burden can be met by a single third-party reliable source supporting a single fact about the article's topic. In many deletion nominations, that burden is already met by the article itself, unless it is completely unsourced or original research; in which case if the article is not a hoax or extremely obscure, that burden can be met easily. On the other hand, the burden of WP:BEFORE is to make sure that there is a valid reason for deletion in line with deletion policy, to look for sources and also ensure there is not another reasonable option (such as editing, merging, or redirecting) before nominating an article for deletion. Finally, the the burden is then on everyone participating in the discussion to read the article, look for sources themselves, judge their reliability, independence, and significance, and to consider reasonable options other than deletion which are in line with policy. I also think that WP:BEFORE should be a guideline (if not policy), and do not understand the opposition to it. It seems to me to be based on a belief that deletion should require little or no effort beyond making nominations and arguments, while demanding that people adding content should jump though as many hoops as possible to ensure their contributions stick. DHowell (talk) 04:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the main perception of a contradiction here is along the lines of what Smerdis of Tlön mentioned earlier, that some people seem to believe that WP:BURDEN is some absolute rule that can be used to remove every unsourced claim in every article, when that was never its intent. The wiki principle of "successive approximation of truth/reality/whatever" requires policies that allow some wiggle room. Both of these rules help the wiki process happen, as long as they aren't taken as absolute rules. WP:BURDEN is strongly worded, and it seems to be giving many newer editors the idea that it is absolute. Gigs (talk) 02:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:BEFORE - mention article history?

BEFORE advises that the article's talk page be consulted. It also advises making a good faith attempt to determine what sources may exist and what evidence of notability there may be. There's no specific mention of looking at the article's history, where those things might possibly be found, having been removed due to poor editing or vandalism. Examining each page in the history would be impractical, but at least looking at the history of edits and a few of the pages would seem advisable. I don't know if this ought to be mentioned in BEFORE, or if it can be assumed that a good editor will understand that could be informative without it being mentioned. Шизомби (talk) 18:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

It's a good point, and something I encountered just this week. I'll see about adding a small note. Jclemens (talk) 18:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
For what it's worth, checking the history of an article to see whether it has been recently vandalized is a general procedure that is recommended to everyone, readers and editors alike, in the Wikipedia:General disclaimer that is hyperlinked to at the bottom of every page that you see here. Uncle G (talk) 03:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- Do you think my addition is overly redundant, then? It doesn't appear to have been reverted. Jclemens (talk) 04:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
  - I think it makes sense to mention it again in BEFORE. I see cases where noms definitely have not taken the step of examining the history; this may not help, but it might. Most of the rest of BEFORE is mentioned in other places as well; the discussion at the top of this page as to whether BEFORE should be a guideline is somewhat funny because at least parts of BEFORE are actually given as policy on other pages. Also, for what it's worth, the General disclaimer is more a general note to the reader (or may or may not edit) regarding the possibility of vandalism. Mentioning vandalism in BEFORE is a reminder to editors who participate in AfD of specific things in an article's history that may indicate it should not be sent to AfD. Шизомби (talk) 01:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Checking the history is a good way to make sure that the article hasn't been "hijacked" like what happened here a few years ago. Some goober replaced an article about a notable 70s era band with one about a non notable rapper. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Preview mode

When adding an AfD tag, the instructions on how to go through the whole process are only visible in preview mode. because of this I've just made a complete pig's ear of a nomination. is this is a stupid way of doing things, or is this a stupid way of doing things? Totnesmartin (talk) 18:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect. They are conditional upon the existence of the per-article sub-page. In other words: If you've already done the second step, you won't see the instructions for doing the second step. This is far from being stupid. And Template talk:AfDM is the place for this discussion. Uncle G (talk) 08:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/African admixture in Europe

The above discussion was not posted to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 August 6, so the discussion is past due, it's 10 days old. I have just added it to the list. But it does require the attention of an administrator. Wapondaponda (talk) 06:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

That's an interesting AFD. Joe Chill (talk)

To say the least. Wapondaponda (talk) 05:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

A pet peeve

I have to rant for a second... If you are going to vote to "Keep" an unsourced article because "there are sources" (as shown through a google search or something) then please fix the problem by accutally reviewing and adding some of those sources to the article! ... ok, rant over.

Seriously, I do think "lack of interest" should be a factor in deletion discussions. Perhaps not at a first nom... but, if no sources have been added after a reasonable time, and the article is re-nominated for continuing to be unsourced, that should be seen as an indication that the article may not be worth keeping after all. Blueboar (talk) 18:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Just a note, but WP:N requires that sources exist, not that sources be placed on the article. So, if one AfD finds that such sources do exist, a latter AfD making the exact same complain is somewhat spurious. I do agree that sources, when found, should generally be used in the article, though, simply as good practice. Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't actually find this to be a problem. Of course I haven't really frequented AfD in months, but when I did the problem was more disingenuousness about sourcing than unwillingness to edit the article. Protonk (talk) 19:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes there are too many articles, and not enough time. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

When an individual statement is challenged, WP:V says that the burden of providing a citation to a reliable source rests with those who add or want to keep the information. If no source is provided, eventually the statement can (and should) be removed from the article. When the same problem exists writ large, ie when an entire article is unsourced, surely there is a similar burden. Those who want to keep the article have the burden to provide sources for it. And if no sources are provided, there comes a time when the article can (and should) be deleted. Blueboar (talk) 20:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, not under the current deletion policy. Being unsourced is ground for a cleanup tag, but we cant delete an article for which sources do exist but are just not included.·Maunus·ƛ· 20:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... I suppose part of my problem is that, as things currently stand, we are having to use AfD for the wrong reasons... ADF only looks at articles with WP:N in mind, but we are using it to resolve WP:V issues. What is needed is a method for challenging and "removing" completely unsourced articles under WP:V. We either need to amend the deletion policy to account for article wide verification, or we need to set up a seperate method for "removal" when an article has severe Verification issues. I think I need to raise this at WP:V and see where we should go from there.

Thanks for letting me rant folks. Blueboar (talk) 20:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Wel,, there already are editors working under this rather extreme definition of WP:V. I don't agree with that approach, but it is possible under WP:V to challenge any an all unsourced statement and remove them. The problem is that we hjave a lot of good articles written in the olden WP days before inline citations became standard that do not have sources but which are verifiable none the less and the loss of which would make wikipedia a poorer place. ·Maunus·ƛ· 21:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

While I'm keen on WP:V, removal of articles with severe Verification issues looks like a bad idea. WP:Notability requires at least 1 decent independent source that shows that someone other than those involved has taken notice. If that exists, the article should generally be kept, or in a minority of cases merged. Later editors can had citations for specific aspects of the topic. For example if a good source was cited for the subject's being a best-selling book / film / recording / etc., I'd include the article so that later editors can well-sourced commentary on the work's production, style, quality, etc. --Philcha (talk) 21:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

For manga a clear keep is 2 non-trivial reviews from 2 reliable sources. With just one source the article risks to be unbalanced. Those reviews can come from any RS manga website regardless its language. We have articles which notability is sustained with just French or German reviews. Another clear keep is the adaption into anime series or TV drama. --KrebMarkt 07:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I definitely sympathize with Blueboar. It would save people a lot of headache down the line if people would take the extra 2 minutes to add a source to an article when they dig one up in the course of an AfD. It is all fine and well to say that the policy only demands sources exist and not necessarily be included in the article, but let's be realistic - half the reason for citing sources is so that readers can further their research by delving into said sources, and not simply relying on a statement that "sources exist". Failing to include the sources in articles is a disservice to readers and future editors. Shereth 21:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Blueboar, why don't you find the sources yourself and add them to the article? I find that some editors at the deletionist end of the spectrum edit as though their only role is to find articles to send to AfD and argue doggedly for their deletion, forgetting that they themselves can and should also improve articles. I've seen several nominations for AfD and prod that say "unsourced, not verified", when it was clear the editors hadn't made any effort at sourcing. Turkish-Lebanese relations is a good example. Fences&Windows 22:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- I could not agree more with Fences and Windows here. Time and time again we find nominations from those who even admittedly "can spend an hour chopping down a character list, but...get bored after five minutes while looking for sources." In another discussion, a different editor said "The possibility that this thing was covered by any third party source should be 0." Well, without dealing with "possibility" but actually checking to see the reality, I found that subject is indeed covered by name and by USA Today, Fox News, etc. Sure we can debate the nature of that coverage, but even a simple Google News search shows that it is not "0". And yet in that discussion like so many, we have the same hit and run "per noms" by the usual suspects that reflect no actual effort to verify if sources exist. Criminy! Even when I argue to delete as in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rooby Foo, I still try to add something original to the discussion, including evidence of looking for sources, and at least one edit to fix something in the actual article under discussion. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
  - In a perfect world, people would spend more than 5 minutes looking for sources before nominating an article for deletion, and people would spend the extra 2 minutes to add sources to an article when they find them. It's the old WP:BURDEN vs WP:BEFORE argument again, when in reality these aren't conflicting goals in the least. A little bit of extra work now usually means a lot less work later, and hopefully at some point we'll all be a little better at remembering that. Shereth 22:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
    - There are times when I feel as if why am I even having to argue with accounts that clearly are making no efforts to look for sources of any kind and when a glance at their edit history reveals they rarely do. It is one thing when I argue with someone who has oodles of featured articles under his/her belt, but more often than not is with those who simply do not like lists or articles on fictional elements and so do not want them to be saved even if they actually can be. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

While I sympathize with Blueboar, it's not just limited to AfD. 99.9% of my Wikipedia contributions are adding things someone else could and should have already added. That's what makes this a collaborative encyclopedia. If the person who is arguing keep listed the sources at the AfD, I add them to the article as I check them out. Sometimes it's a wasted effort, but I was checking out their source anyway, so why not? (If the person argues "keep because there are sources somewhere" and can't be bothered to even list them, I don't consider that much of a keep argument.)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

My pet peeve is that I always seem to be running around like a headless chicken trying to save things from AfD that neither the original author nor the deletion nominator could be bothered to fix, leaving me and folks like me as sort of one-armed paper hangers on amphetamines trying to source things when most everyone else doesn't seem to care. What Wikipedia needs is a few hundred people who love to clean up un- or under-sourced articles that other people have created. Jclemens (talk) 00:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

That one reason why some editors don't like to join Afd. The ominous feeling to clean-up the wreckage left behind by others. --KrebMarkt 07:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

User:LibStar

Moved from WP:ANI

Extended content

As some of you know, there has been massive disruption caused over the deletion of bilateral relation articles. Discussions have gotten quite heated, with people being sent to ANI over these articles, disscusions of RFCs, and editors being booted.

18 April 2009: Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force created
30 sections on ANI.[14]
6 sections at Articles for deletion main talk page.[15]

A compromise which the majority accepted, but which a handful of editors, including Libstar ademently refused to accept, was merging several of these articles into List of diplomatic missions of Argentina, for example.

Now Libstar, who was the most adement to comprimise is putting the redirects for these articles up for deletion.

I was just alerted to:

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 August 14

Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2009_August_14#Argentina.E2.80.93Suriname_relations

Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2009_August_14#Argentina.E2.80.93Hungary_relations

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 August 19

Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2009_August_19#Argentina.E2.80.93Nigeria_relations

I am interested if this is the correct forum to talk about Libstar's refusal to comprimise, continued disruption, battle mentality, and refusal to work towards comprimise. Based on a quick glance at Libstar's talk page and talk archive, a RFC maybe in order, but I would like the communities opinion on this, and what is the best way to settle this dispute. Please advise. Ikip (talk) 14:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

If this consensus to compromise exists, why not provide a link to it at the redirect discussions? Raising it here would seem to be the 'path of greatest drama'. pablo_hablo. 14:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Pablomismo, I did above, it was a proposal which I am grateful that, despite our continued differences, even you and I agreed upon."Support with caveat give by Fram below" in case I didn't tell you this before, thank you greatly. Ikip (talk) 14:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I meant provide the link in the redirect discussions themselves for the benefit of other editors. pablo_hablo. 14:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I just finished that, the 3 redirects are above. Thanks for the suggestion. Ikip (talk) 14:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

What admin intervention are you looking for here? If you think there's consensus to keep, then just use that as the basis of your entry in the XfD discussions. Tarc (talk) 19:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Good question, I am just wondering how to handle this situation, and I will gladly move this discussion elsewhere if necessary. Maybe WP:AFD?

When there are hundreds, even a couple of thousands articles involved, mass AFDs can be rather disruptive, that is the spirit of the other nearly 30 times this issue has come here. Ikip (talk) 20:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Response by Libstar

Ikip claims this is compromise which the majority accepted, looking at it closely there is no clear consensus nor did many of the regular editors who appear in bilateral AfDs actually participated in this discussion.
Even if it was one form of consensus, consensus can change, since that discussion in May, I would say about 150 more of these bilaterals have been deleted. If anything consensus shows that unless there is improvement in stubs listing diplomatic missions, the article is deleted not redirected.
If anything, I would prefer redirect to Foreign relations of X, over List of diplomatic missions... bilateral articles are part of foreign relations of series of articles.
accusations of WP:BATTLE, is a bit WP:KETTLE, bringing it here when I have not violated any policy does not require admin intervention (the whole purpose of ANI). there is no policy saying that redirects cannot be put up for WP:RFD. If consensus shows a WP:SNOW keep then so be it. but arguing because you don't like the fact consensus may have changed is WP:BATTLE. LibStar (talk) 00:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

21 support, 14 oppose. 60%. The consensus you claim below was just with 3 editors. Ikip (talk) 00:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

including 1 admin. 14 opposers in my opinion means no consensus not clear consensus. LibStar (talk) 00:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Redirect the remaining pages

I suggest we redirect all of the remaining pages:

Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force/Articles

(which don't have footnotes and are mere stubs) to the List of diplomatic missions of...

Those editors who want to later merge that material can. I will start redirecting these pages, unless anyone objects...Ikip (talk) 14:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

this request here is not what WP:ANI is for. LibStar (talk) 00:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

since Ikip put this ANI they have redirected a few more pages despite another editor being consensus not to do this User_talk:Aymatth2#Stop_redirections_without_discussion. LibStar (talk) 00:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I would like other editors comments on this, as LibStar wrote, "Even if it was one form of consensus, consensus can change" Ikip (talk) 00:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

would you oppose if we put the Argentina redirects to AfD as an article not a redirect? that would settle the debate once and for all? LibStar (talk) 00:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)`

No, the redirects themselves were supposed to be a comprimise. Just because you ignored the compromise, doesn't make it any less so. Creating a brand new battlefield, then making conditions is not a comprimise.

I went immediatly to ANI this time and am seeing if there is interest for an RFC about you or the entire section of articles, because of your complete lack of comprimise before.

I always wondered what you would do when you ran out of editors contributions/articles to delete, now I know: you are now staring on the redirects.

A brand new WP:BATTLEfield lasting many more months, with you starting the majority of the battles, no thanks. Ikip (talk) 00:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

there is no consensus that all bilateral articles should be kept or redirected. and as such each one that is of questionable notability has had to go through AfD. other editors have suggested group nominations or even blanket deletion of all Groubani (talk · contribs) stubs so we can actually start again. this was vehemently opposed by inclusionists who wanted individual AfDs. LibStar (talk) 01:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

RE: "I have not RfD any of Aymatth2‎ redirects." whose redirects did you RFD? Ikip (talk) 01:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, those are the redirects created by me. These deletions doesn't have anything to do with my reverted comments about User:Russavia, an editor you attempted to get booted, does it? Ikip (talk) 01:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

please discuss content, not contributors. using such tactics is typical of wanting to WP:BATTLE and a form of personal attack. LibStar (talk) 01:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

It is a legitamate, nagging question. Um, LibStar, who put the redirects up for deletion orginially, selecting only one editor, me. Stating the clear facts is never a personal attack. I am not calling you any name at all. Just curious that you would decide to delete these redirects now. Ikip (talk) 01:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

it is clear you are here to try to create a battle by mentioning another user that has made multiple attacks on me. I'll let the RfDs run to see what the consensus is. LibStar (talk) 01:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

And then nominate many more, no thanks, we already lived through that battle you helped create. Is your plan to target all redirects? Ikip (talk) 01:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

nope, no intention to do any of Aymatth2 redirects. LibStar (talk) 01:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

How are Aymatth2 redirects different than mine? Ikip (talk) 01:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

we are going round the bend. Aymatth2 did all his redirects to Foreign relations of X. I do not support redirects to List of diplomatic missions. If any other user did the same thing, I would also RfD. LibStar (talk) 01:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, Libstar, that is really easy, if you would have asked, I would have gladly redirected to List of diplomatic missions, and I will do that now. I also want to mention that you never alerted me to these redirects being deleted, not required, but nice to know.

we could have avoided this entire battle your started. Ikip (talk) 01:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:KETTLE, you have been a willing participant. LibStar (talk) 01:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

A simple quick message LibStar, why didn't you redirect them yourself? I am really concerned with how you handled this, I think this vividly shows why it has been so difficult for so many editors work with you. Ikip (talk) 01:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate redirects

I would like to highlight some examples of inappropriate redirects that have occured recently such as this when the two countries cleary have some very significant third party coverage. nor do I understand this redirect. LibStar (talk) 01:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

LibStar, it is so ironic that the editor who has possibly deleted the most bilateral relations articles is now arguing that I made inappropriate redirects. This is like a bear arguing that someone ate his rabbits before he was able too.

You are now arguing against those redirects like many editors have argued against your deletions. Irony.

If we want to talk about inappropriate redirects, lets talk about how many articles for deletion you have put up for deletion and failed? Or how many editors have expressed concern about your deletions? Ikip (talk) 01:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

because you did these redirects unilaterally, if an AfD comes out as keep I accept the result. AfDs are a forum to achieve consensus from many editors. your comments again reveal an intent to WP:BATTLE. LibStar (talk) 01:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Obviously this is not getting anywhere. Where should we move this. Someone will inevitably want to move this argument somewhere, maybe Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/LibStar?

RE: Battle, actions speak much louder than words. I await your answer about Russavia. Ikip (talk) 01:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Awesome! [16] Does this mean you wont put this article up for deletion, you can undue ALL my redirects if it means the articles will be expanded and saved by yourself. If that happens, it makes all of this wikidrama almost worth it...Ikip (talk) 01:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

this one is clearly notable and would you agree an inappropriate redirect on your part? does anyone see a pattern of inappropriate redirects in the last 24 hours? LibStar (talk) 01:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Can I collapse this discussion now LibStar? Ikip (talk) 01:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

yes. I consider it over. LibStar (talk) 01:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Views sought on Andrea Cagan

Lacks any substantial referencing and stands out more as an advertorial for some pretty insignificant authorship, there seems no readily available source of sound citation. Bizzarely Cagan appears in List of biographers, somehow a 'ghost' for US celebs doesn't really seem to belong in a list that includes Antonia Fraser and Plutarch. Cagan maybe a controversial delete because of her authorship of "Peace Is Possible" which has been heavily used as a cite in Prem Rawat and related articles. The Cagan book IS NOT that dealt with at Peace Is Possible (book).--Nik Wright2 (talk) 07:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Is there any sort of unofficial/official community guideline...

...for how many articles is too many to bundle into one AFD nomination? I did a fairly exhaustive audit on a group of articles of questionable notability just now and came up with over 300 of them (I tried to get an exact count, but I gave up at around 220) that I don't think should stand as standalone articles. Now, many of those are clearly going to be more suitable to merge to a parent article, but the amount I'd seek to list at AFD is still going to be staggering once the merging is all done. I can't imagine bundling, say, 150 articles together into one nom would go over too well, but I don't think 150 nominations that are basically the same would, either. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 10:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

S'pose I'll start with PROD, and see if that whittles it down a little too, but I'll still be interested in getting a response to this question. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 10:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no official limit. I have seen AfD's that have covered several thousands of articles (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Claus Peter Poppe) but that it something of a rarity. A good rule of thumb is this : Are the articles substantially similar, both in terms of content and problems, that a user can make an informed decision without having to perform a detailed review each and every article individually? If so, a mass AfD is probably acceptable. However if the issue is not eminently clear and obvious, you don't want to swamp the participants with having to dredge through dozens upon dozens of articles at once. Shereth 14:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I definitely can group the articles together into bundles where they're in similar states, and that should push it down to about 20-30 articles per bundle I'd think (still a lot, but manageable). Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 15:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Just adding my two cents on bundling. Personally, I think we should still expect editors to go through every article bundled in an AfD. However, my rule of thumb for bundling is how closely related the articles are and whether I could reasonably expect someone to !vote keep on some and not the others. For example, if I was listing an author for AfD, it might be reasonable to bundle in the article on his self-published book, because their notability are closely intertwined. (And if the author is notable and the book is not, the book would get merged to the author). However, if I'm nominating 20 different baseball players, each will have different sources and it could easily be that 3 are notable and 17 are not -- bundling doesn't really help the discussion.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

How'd you know this was about baseball players? :P I still think I can group them into very cohesive bundles, but by that rule it would be more like 7-8 per bundle than 20-30. This is going to take a while to put together one way or the other, so I'm definitely gonna mull it over for a while. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 16:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

In limbo

AfD/Annie jr has not been closed nor has it been relisted, but the discussions of its day have been archived. —SlamDiego_←T 13:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

That might have something to do with it not appearing on the 11ths log page. Anyway, I've relisted it. Cheers. lifebaka++ 13:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for that. The nominator had some struggle with procedure, and for a time the nomination was in significant disorder; I guess that it hadn't been fully corrected. —SlamDiego_←T 14:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

What do people think of this article for deletion?

I've been looking at and trying to regulate Christian J Simpson for awhile now. It has primarily one editor, whom I suspect is the subject of the article. The entire article reads like his resume and its only citations are his home page and his Facebook fan page. Should/could this be nominated for deletion on grounds of notability? Thanks --Torsodog^Talk 19:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why not--there are plenty of better articles nominated for AfD. I'd recommend following WP:BEFORE first, as well as cleaning up the article--inline links to wookiepedia? Um, yeah. Jclemens (talk) 19:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I notified the creator of this discussion. Ikip (talk) 23:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Old open discussion

There's an AfD from 11 August which is still open at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vinyl Life. It looks like the AfD didn't get added to a log page. I've added {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vinyl Life}} to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 August 11 but I'm not sure if anything else needs doing. --JD554 (talk) 12:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Well it has been speedied now. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Upgrade WP:BEFORE to a guideline?

A suggestion that would, perhaps, help reduce the number of WP:SNOW closures and improve the signal-to-noise ratio at AfD?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean it would reduce the number of WP:SNOW closures by switching them to procedural speedy closures? Seems CREEPy to me; individual nominators would be expected to essentially provide proof of their compliance with WP:BEFORE, and guidelines for evaluating such proof would be difficult to define at best. I just don't think this is what guidelines are intended to do- policies and guidelines are intended to be descriptive. I personally strongly believe in providing a detailed description of my research when making a nomination, and would encourage all editors to do so as well. If this becomes a trend (i.e., a large percentage of nominations give proof of WP:BEFORE compliance), then we can talk about guideline status. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, the WP:CREEP thing is a very good point.

The result I want is more compliance with WP:BEFORE from nominators. I think that more compliance would lead to fewer bad nominations and hence fewer speedy closes (whether under WP:SNOW or speedy). But it's a question of how to achieve it.

The eventual destination I propose is a new WP:SK ground: "There is evidence the nominator has not complied with WP:BEFORE" but I don't think we can get there without upgrading WP:BEFORE to guideline or policy status.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you're absolutely right, that for a new speedy keep criterion, you'd probably want WP:BEFORE to be a guideline or better. The problem I see is evaluating compliance with the "good-faith attempt" to find sources; not only is there the issue of whether the nominator shows sufficient research, but you also have to define "sufficient research", preferably in an objective manner, to keep evaluating such compliance as quick as possible for reviewing admins. Plus, I believe someone made a point in an earlier discussion on something like this, that requiring such proof constitutes an assumption of bad faith in itself.

Now, what I would consider appropriate is to define serial failure to follow WP:BEFORE (as evidenced by a large number of speedily- or WP:SNOW-kept nominations on the part of an editor) as disruptive editing, and furthermore, loosely permit the "education" of users who don't do a good job of complying with WP:BEFORE. I don't mean browbeating or harassing such users, of course, but I do mean ensuring that such users understand that the Wikipedia community strongly encourages providing evidence of such compliance. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:44, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

As I've commented before, the devil is in the details. (For the record, I'm strongly in favor of WP:BEFORE.) How do we define compliance with WP:BEFORE? Make it mandatory to say "I did a search?" Make it mandatory to add a link to a search? (Links to searches, unless there are fewer than a dozen hits, are rarely useful). And how widespread of a problem is this really? If it's only a few editors, deal with the editor. If it's widespread, then we need to really put our thinking caps on to make sure this will really solve the problem.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

No, I think that's too strong. I think the starting point has to be an assumption of good faith that nominators have complied. It follows that all that's left is some kind of negative consequence when there's evidence of non-compliance, e.g. speedy closure of the debate. But baby steps... first thing would be to seek consensus to upgrade WP:BEFORE to a guideline. Without requiring evidence of compliance from nominators, of course.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time thinking of what would be evidence of non-compliance. Speedy closure alone wouldn't be, because someone can easily f-up their search without meaning to. Could you give me an example?--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

If I may... Multiple occurrences of AfD nominations, by the same nominator, where people provide details of decent sources located through a quick Google search on the article title/opening words (there are other search tools of course). Those would serve as evidence, for a reasonable belief the nominator is not practicing due diligence in nominating articles. (By contrast, something like alternative titles for a 'foreign-language' film could reasonably cause a nominator to miss possible sources.) –Whitehorse1 00:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Common sense support. Excellent idea, becasue many articles that are kept or rescued could have been improved through regular editing. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Question: It's already a set of instructions on the Articles for Deletion page, will adding the "guideline" banner to those instructions have a positive benefit? Nominators should already follow the instructive‑guidelines for the process area in which they participate. –Whitehorse1 00:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Support While I support minimizing policy creep I think some improvements can be made to the afd process, upgrading WP:BEFORE is a good initiative. Considering that just about every participant is (hopefully) going to do a search on google and scholar.google I think it would be nice if the nominator would have the courtesy to link to those searches. Not as 'proof' but as a simple timesaving device for those involved. Sometimes ghits are ambiguous and do not constitute notability but that is what the discussion itself is for, no? Unomi (talk) 00:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Solution in search of a problem. If someone nominates an article that has sources, people find the sources, add them to the article, and the article is kept. Google searches in particular are rather useless as a form of pre-vetting as I've seen Keep comments that say "one of those sources must be reliable" and delete comments saying "it isn't on Google". The key is finding specific sources on the article that are reliable. Further, we just expanded AFD to 7 days on the basis of infrequent editors coming along to add sources, so adding a new reason why we can violate the rule we just created seems a bit odd.

Finally, it is too vague. SK 9and the other deletion guidelines) are for unambiguous situations. Would we really speedy close an AFD because a person neglected to put {{advert}} on the article (pt. 3 of BEFORE) or because it was a non-controversial deletion, but the person prefers AFD to PROD to get more input (pt. 11). If the concern is people being too lazy to copy/paste to Google, then we can easily add links to Google Scholar, Google Books, etc from the AFD page so anyone can click on them and document sources or confirm that it appears there are none. MBisanz ^talk 01:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

You want to make a section of a page a guideline? Why? Not sure what's going on here. I do think it would be incredibly awkward to have a guideline stuck in the middle of a page. And I think that we need to encourage fewer multi-day-long discussions for obvious deletion candidates. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Strongest possible oppose AfD is not a court system, this is going to lead to 'throwing out' or badgering AfDs that don't follow the 'guideline'. No. I've had many articles deleted with a one sentence nomination and a 10 second google (the answer here would be PROD, except we have people who go through the PROD category and force AfDs, making it a tad pointless). You aren't going to get me to follow this for obvious cases, not sure why you expect newcomers to. You don't even present the problem you're attempting to solve; how is a few people voting speedy keep any different from a SNOW close after 4 keeps? BJ^Talk 01:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Nope. Per my reasoning the last few times this has been suggested. Protonk (talk) 01:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Hell no.. Yet another Inclusionist hoop to jump through, providing a guaranteed 'bad faith' excuse to void any nom by asserting more loudly than the nom can refute that the nom didn't do enough due diligence in BEFORE. ThuranX (talk) 02:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Oppose. I was going to add some comments, but MBisanz has beaten me to everything I wanted to say—particularly the part about linking to unanalyzed Google search results, which is becoming a bane of many AfD discussions. Deor (talk) 03:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Support Why should any deletionist mind saying "I searched and didn't find anything"? If you look at WP:SCISSORS the concept is explicitly referenced there. So if inclusionists and deletionists agree in principle, why can't we find a way to word it appropriately? As long as it doesn't modify PROD or CSD, I'm good with it. Jclemens (talk) 04:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- While I agree, it would be great if a simple statement of "I searched for sources but didn't find any" would be great, I doubt it would satisfy a great many people- despite WP:AGF. If a simple statement is all that's needed, it becomes a shibboleth to people unfamiliar with the process, and there's genuinely no way for reviewers of the AfD to confirm this search. But if the nominator needs to validate that claim... then we have WP:CREEP and need to somehow define what qualifies as an appropriate search. Like Fabrictramp said above- the devil's in the details. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 10:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  - I can't speak to others' desires, only to my own. If someone says they conducted a good faith effort to find sources, they're asserting a fact that can be checked. If I found a nominator who said they searched for sources and found none, and there was either gross incompetence or outright falsehood, that would be at least grounds for closing the AfD as disruptive editing: we need to be able to rely on editors to report such things honestly--perspectives differ, but if the nom says "Google found nothing" and I repeat the search and find tons of major newspaper hits, then that AfD has been opened using a grossly innacurate premise. Jclemens (talk) 16:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment I think it's a useless endeavour, because compliance with it is nearly impossible to demonstrate. I'm tempted to support it just for the sheer joy of watching the waves of hypocrisy: those same editors that spend all their time arguing that WP:N doesn't have to be followed because it's "only a guideline" will spend their next breath screaming that WP:BEFORE has to be followed because it's a guideline!.—Kww(talk) 04:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Yes, BEFORE should be a good faith part of the process, and to just nominate an article without even bothering to check can be bitey, but unless we change WP:V's line that "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material", this would be in direct conflict with established policy. If a editor is nominating tons of AFDs that do seem to easily pass a quick google test, that's cause for an RFC/U. --MASEM (t) 04:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Previous discussions (reverse chronological order): WT:Articles for deletion/Archive 51#Speedy close nominations, WT:Articles for deletion/Archive 48#WP:BEFORE, WT:Articles for deletion/Archive 48#Searching before nominating Flatscan (talk) 05:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Oppose For the many good reasons presented. Verbal chat 10:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
support I've seen AfDs with overwhelming "delete" majorities yet where evidence of notability was easy to find - no-one had bothered to look, and in one case I suspect no-one had any intention of looking, because that AfD looked to me like harassment as part of a personal feud. WP:V's "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material" is not the only relevant policy, as WP:DELETE says improvement is always preferable to deletion. Reversing a dubious "keep" result is easy enough, just re-AfD in 6 months (BTW earlier to-day I !voted "merge & redirect" in a re-run of a Dec 2008 AfD), while reversing a dubious delete looks much more difficult - do AfDs closed as other than "keep" have to show a prominent link at the top to WP:DRV? RFC/U (MASEM 04:19, 12 May 2009) is not an adequate remedy for accidental or malicious misuse of AfD, as it's too slow and toothless. Making it hard to prevent improper deletion will add to the hassle in the short term, but will then take the bitterness out of AfD when it becomes clear that the process is fair. --Philcha (talk)
Neutral comment: I don't think it's a bad idea, because everyone definitely should check to see if an article can be fixed before they nominate it for deletion. But the real problem isn't the strength of the wording of WP:BEFORE, but how we tell if someone isn't doing it. Really, we should be dealing with this by judging someone's results. If people frequently start AFDs that end in "keep", that might be a sign they don't really care about article quality, and just want to stamp stuff out. Randomran (talk) 16:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Hell no - I've had many, many cases of where editors accused me of not following WP:BEFORE when all it was was that they dug up some nonsense blogs and trivial offhanded mentions in local papers and republished press releases and insisted that the topic was obviously notable and blah blah blah. Saying that it's a requirement would just be another verbal club for the rabid anti-deletionists to try to excuse keeping every last bit of nonsense they can come up with a half-hearted wildly inappropriate rationalization for. From the AFDs I've seen there are for too many keeps that have no reason to be kept, and no consensus defaults to keep in practice, so adding yet more reasons to keep bad content is the last thing we need. Wikipedia articles need to demonstrate notability on their own. If someone can claim that people should try to get sources before nominating something for deletion, we can just as easily say people should have made sure reliable, nontrivial third party sources giving some info that would demonstrate why anyone would care should be found before the article was made in the first place. That's where it should be. On top of that, it's difficult to prove a negative... notability is always going to have to be proven, not that something isn't notable. That's just the only way things can work, short of banning any editor who participates in an AFD making claims that sources meet notability standards when they clearly don't from ever participating in AFDs again. Keep voters should have to prove it, period, and if they can't then it deserves to get deleted. DreamGuy (talk) 16:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- Clarification Needed Are you saying you followed BEFORE but didn't mention it, didn't bother following BEFORE and it wasn't relevant or necessary to do so in those cases, or that you did follow BEFORE and said as much but were accused of not doing so based on flimsy, potentially bad faith evidence? Jclemens (talk) 16:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  - Typically it's some aggressive editor claiming that I "violated" BEFORE and therefore should be ignored because he found some personal blog or press release that he's going to pretend is a reliable source and how horrible it is that someone could dare to nominate something for deletion when there's some personal website or whatever out there mentioning this person in a trivial way. And so forth and so on. WP:BEFORE is already the latest attack club by people who can't come up with any real complaints. DreamGuy (talk) 21:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Break

I closed this, because it was obvious to me that Wikipedians are unwilling to accept that any burden of proof whatsoever should fall on the nominator. After reading the remarks above I'm extremely cynical about the prospects of requiring nominators to do any real searching for sourcing.

My position remains that a lot of articles are only at AfD because sourcing material is hard and remarks above show that certain editors think they should be able to get other people to search for sources instead. But I do not believe a discussion here can change this, because too many editors are very comfortable with AfD as it is.

However, representations on my talk page are asking me to re-open it, so as a politeness, I'm doing so.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 07:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I hope you won't take this the wrong way, but this isn't the first time this has been suggested or debated and there are more issues at stake than the binary determination of whether or not we wish the burden of proof to fall on a nominator. Elevating before to a guideline or enacting some parallel policy which has the same effect impacts not only the intended targets, editors who make sloppy AfD noms, but also impacts any other AfD nominator in a fashion that we haven't sketched out here completely. It also affects editors who undertake a sub-par search for a topic (because they don't know anything about it). It affects editors who don't nominate articles for lack of sources (beyond the narrow exceptions noted above). It provides yet another site of conflict where editors can argue with each other at AfD about their behavior, not the article. It provides potentially another "tripwire" early close scenario which ends up at DRV or re-nominated. That said, the idea isn't bad. People who consistently back uninformed or underinformed AfD nominations should face some pushback. I'm happy to engage with people over a possible solution to that problem but I don't want to pick a solution that burdens everyone else unless we are completely sure it is the best option. Protonk (talk) 07:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, it makes more work for nominators. It unequivocally shifts the burden of work and proof; it requires a higher standard of behaviour from nominators. That's the point.
  I do nominate articles at AfD from time to time, and I'm willing to accept some additional hoops to jump through. I see this as acceptable collateral damage from a needed change.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 07:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  - I agree that shifting the burden of proof (as it were) is among the things that it does. What I'm trying to say is that the other things it does are also worth discussing, so distilling this idea to just a discussion of where wikipedians feel a burden should lie is not accurate. Protonk (talk) 08:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

This supports my view so perfectly that I should probably declare here that I did not in any way engineer it.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

support the principle, and work out the details. Even now if there is an incomplete or botched nomination, someone straightens it out. Protonk, this unfairly burdens nobody. Everyone should be doing it in the first place. It's not punishing them--its asking them to either help the article get rescued or else facilitate the deletion. My prediction is that a good many of the times a proper search being done, and finding nothing relevant, will make for an easier agreement to delete, without people having to vote to keep or delete blindly or themselves search every item nominated. We're balancing the work one person does for one article with helping everyone else for them all. It will prevent things from getting to DRV, because we'll have better discussions at afd. I delete maybe 10 or 20 articles a day, and I check each one of them if there is any chance there might be information or a check would be relevant. Someone nominating a few articles a week can check them. Its a reasonable requirement. DGG (talk) 04:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- Unfair burdens is one of the arguments against this. It isn't the only one so I'm disinclined to continue debating only the burden itself. Protonk (talk) 04:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Unfair burdens is one of the arguments for this. (Fixed it for me)...—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 14:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment WP:BEFORE is already policy in that it forms a clear part of the deletion process. To make this clear, I suggest that we take some editors who make a habit of flouting it to Arbcom and get appropriate sanctions levied. This is already in my mind as its becoming a farce to have articles nominated when a search immediately reveals thousands of sources. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I think from the discussion above, it's clear that it isn't even remotely accepted as policy.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that there are editors who do not follow it, just as there are numerous editors who are routinely uncivil and do not accept they they should be more polite. This does not mean that it is ok to deliberately ignore it and it is time to start enforcement per WP:DISRUPT. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:KETTLE for the claims that people should be more polite (as you're one of the most uncivil AFD voters I've seen). And "enforcement per WP:DISRUPT" is just a joke. You already make more than enough highly aggressive and false accusations as it is without publicly stating your intention here to escalate such uncivil behavior. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a personal battleground. You need respect editors in AFDs more, not less, and what you are suggesting is just wikihounding every time you disagree with someone. DreamGuy (talk) 21:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Excellent - we have a volunteer. I shall explain the process in detail this weekend. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Based upon your recent post to my talk page all you've done is demonstrate exactly why you are a poor judge of what WP:BEFORE means and what counts as actual sources demonstrating notability and that you're willing to post comments on talk pages insisting people follow rules you've invented up in your head. If you keep this up all you're going to end up doing is get yourself blocked for harassment. DreamGuy (talk) 19:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

So it is ok to treat people who violate BEFORE as disruptive but not people who violate N or NOT? Protonk (talk) 21:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Many of the people complaining about WP:BEFORE "violations" have already demonstrated that they don't understand what it means anyway. DreamGuy (talk) 19:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose I have not seen where this would help the encyclopedia, and I have seenw ehre it can harm it. This is Rulescreep For Wikilawyers, and I for one am not interested in Yet Another Stick to Beat People I Disagree With being made a guideline, thanks. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Oppose First, I haven't seen where AfD is occurng flippantly. I think the Good Faith guideline outweighs the need for a WP:Before. If someone is actually doing an AfD nominaiton because of an agenda, or has an axe to grind there are avenues at Wikipedia, where concsesus decides. No article is lost and can be resurrected if the AfD is shown to be in bad faith. Second, I think that it is good to question the notability of an article if it is in doubt, and AfD is a way to do that. AfD itself, as we all know, is a process of consensus. It takes a number of days and consensus is developed, one way or the other. AfD is not swooping in and deleting the article in a day or an hour. Even a Wikipedia Speedy deletion can be held up until consesus is taken. It seems to me there are many avenues open already and an effective process is in place. I think that the burden of proof should fall on those opposing the nomination (and I don't like saying that). And I have to agree with those who said that this is just one more way for the nominator to have to take heat. Anyway, this is from my limited experience here. Ti-30X (talk) 02:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

For a recent example, see the case of User:Tyrenon who was banned from AFD for spamming AFD with numerous frivolous nominations. This case demonstrates that the guideline is already operative - if an editor tries the community's patience then they are likely to be sanctioned. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose this promotion would effectively render a core content policy, Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence, meaningless and unenforcable. As explained above, this proposal is also an open invitation for violating Wikipedia:Assume good faith. --Allen3 ^talk 14:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN is consistent with WP:BEFORE as it states, "Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed, but editors might object if you remove material without giving them sufficient time to provide references, and it has always been good practice, and expected behavior of Wikipedia editors (in line with our editing policy), to make reasonable efforts to find sources oneself that support such material, and cite them.". Failure to follow WP:BEFORE in this respect is therefore a failure to follow policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose The proposed guideline is exceedingly vague indeed -- including having to make a specific judgement on whether the topic might "potentially" rate an article. Alas -- WP:CRYSTAL applies -- the requirement I think is relevant is notification of the primary author if still active on WP. Which is not in this proposal <g>. Collect (talk) 15:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Oppose as unnecessary, as Rulescreep and per User:Allen3 above. Dougweller (talk) 16:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose WP:BEFORE is a good idea, and in an ideal world would be followed by all participants in an AfD - not just the nominator. In this ideal world nobody would comment or !vote without thoroughly checking the sources. However, this is a project staffed by volunteers who learn by doing things, necessarily making errors along the way, and it doesn't need any more sticks to beat inexperienced, inept or mistaken editors. pablo_hablo. 19:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose just a stick to hit nominators over the head with. It would just generate pages of discussion about the research of the nominators, no thanks. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Strongly oppose. As I've said elsewhere, I believe that we are gradually getting away from the idea that the author has any responsibility at all to even try to source an article, which I believe is the opposite thing we should be doing. Further, my experience has been many times that it's not the lack of a search that becomes the issue, it is a debate over whether or not what is found establishes notability. Whether you find the articles or I find them, if we disgree about whether they establish notability or not, we're going to debate. And yes, as was stated above, I believe this to be little more than an inclusionist hoop, that hopes to slow the process down more. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Oppose. The article creator and editors should properly source an article. However, I do believe that the closing admin should evaluate whether anyone has tried to find sources during the AfD debate. I believe that most do take this into account when summarizing the discussion. If no improvemnets are made after a keep decision, the artcile can be renominated and teh afct that no proper sourcing has been done would then become a significant factor in the deabte. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely support. The many opposes here seem to be detached from from the real world of AfD, where nominators routinely do not even care to indicate whether they have searched for sources or not. They just drop a "NN-neologism" or "NN-something". Asking AfD nominators to carry out a basic search for sources, before they claim that no such sources exist has nothing to do with a BURDEN, it's a simple courtesy, before they pass the monkey to other uninvolved editors. It will also reduce the strain on the already over-burdened AfD circuit. Expert content providers on Wikipedia are rare birds, and we cannot expect them to produce first class and properly sourced articles in the first go. They dont monitor Wikipedia religiously, and are unlikely even to respond within the 7-day AfD window. I'm particularly disappointed by MBisanz' comment "If someone nominates an article that has sources, people find the sources, add them to the article, and the article is kept". Afd is not for article improvement, and why should "people" and not the nominator do some of this work. It's conflicting with WP:PRESERVE, which is also policy. It appears that the opposers have seen many bad articles, I have seen a lot of terrible nominations. Power.corrupts (talk) 01:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

- Your comment shows an incredible disrespect for the other editors commenting here, and a completely ignorant dismissal of their concerns. Where will the benchmark be set for an acceptable pre-nom search? YOUR search $tring and mine may differ. Four combinations? eight? At what point do we accept that some shit on WIkipedia is just bullshit, and not obscure shit? Nothing would get nom'd as that creeps up and up... soon it'll be 'well if google got nothing, did you Bing it? did you go to the library? Did you call the company listed?' Further, it's obnoxious instruction creep. Why should we have to do all the work for those who won't do it themselves? ThuranX (talk) 05:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

"Why should we have to do all the work for those who won't do it themselves?". Why should I have to pick up the pieces behind nominators in order to stop articles on perfectly notable subjects being deleted? Those who nominate an article should make a decent effort to check if the topic is notable; failing to do so is plain lazy, and passing the buck. Deletionists can and should improve articles too, rather than just being the self-appointed filters of Wikipedia. Following WP:BEFORE is no hardship, unless your only goal is indiscriminate deletion. Fences&Windows 02:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Mild oppose The editors whose articles are most often seen at AfD are newbies, whom we must not turn away (some of them will be WP's future), and victims of harassment (I've seen it, and saved an article that had a 7-1 majority for "delete"). However as Colonel Warden pointed out above, WP:BEFORE is already part of the procedure for AfD. I suggest we we have some sort of template that's applied (automatically if possible) to all AfDs, reminding nominators, other "delete / merge / redirect" voters and the closer that a good faith attempt to find sources that show notability is required, and that violation will have consequences. --Philcha (talk) 07:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Inclined to support. What is the status of WP:BEFORE right now if it is not a guideline? I wonder if it would be possible to add some additional functionality to Wikipedia that might assist BEFORE. It states "consider sharing your reservations with the article creator or notifying an associated wikiproject, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page." Could a way be created to have such concerns posted on the talk pages of the article's creator, active editors, wikiproject, and article discussion page with a single edit? Or would that possibly be undesirable for some reason (easy way to vandalize/spam talk pages, I guess). Or should it be assumed that the creator and active editors have the page on their watchlist? Perhaps more should be done with PROD; having a type of WP:BEFORE AfD PROD. I somewhat dislike that an article be sent to AfD if the editor has not followed BEFORE in some minimal way at least; e.g. having previously tagged the article or participated on the discussion page. I will continue to mull this over and post again at a later time, hopefully. Шизомби (talk) 19:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I think it's fair to say its status is "encouraged in theory and widely disregarded in practice", because no burden of proof can possibly be allowed to fall on the poor nominator, who might after all be a newbie. Unlike the content creators and article writers, who are of course all fully aware of WP:BURDEN from the moment they register.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 13:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Strong support So many excellent articles are put up for deletion all the time, and the nominators are always saying: Someone else fix this. We need this. Ikip (talk) 22:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Strong Support! I agree we need this! Too many people are too eager to destroy what others have labored so hard to create, without bothering to discuss what they see is a problem before hand, or bothering to spend three seconds Googling for sources themselves. Dream Focus 00:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Oppose: even with its current status, I've seen it used by 'Keep' advocates to denigrate the good faith of nominators, often based upon turning up the most trivial of sources. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)