Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion

"Articles for deletion" or "Articles for redirect"?

Editors are currently discussing within Afds whether this process is an "Article for deletion" or "Article for redirection." As if every article is considering "worth saving." Most elementary school articles are now being redirected to the School Board (or whatever). Notability implied.

I tried to "Rfd" a Redirect that was causing a loop in a School Board article and was summarily dismissed by an admin who said that the article had just been Afd-ed (unknown to me) and it "had been decided" to redirect it.

I think we need a separate board to "delete and redirect" articles (separate selection on template) so that there is no confusion. That way no one, not even an admin, can "rescue" a non-notable topic/article from oblivion. Student7 (talk) 14:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Since most elementary schools get the same sorts of coverage as high schools, its odd one is accepted now but the other is not. Need to just have a set rule in place is to what is allowed and what isn't, having a discussion at the proper place for maximum exposure, and then stick to it, instead of having to go through this same debate time in again in AFDs. And you certainly shouldn't just decide on your own to wipe out hundreds/thousands of articles for elementary schools, simply because you don't like it. Some AFDs for elementary schools end in keep, others delete/merge/redirect. Seems to be determined at random, based on who shows up to comment and the personal opinions of the closing administrator. Dream Focus 14:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I disagree that most elementary schools get the same sorts of coverage of high schools. For example, in the United States, many newspapers give a significant amount of coverage to high school sports and, in many cases, none to elementary school sports. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

If the goal of the nom is to redirect the article from the start, AFD is absolutely the wrong place. There's no admin action required to redirect, and that discussion should take place on a talk page or centralized location if multiple articles are in question.

A redirect decision from an actual AFD (with "delete" in mind) is completely appropriate if other !voters believe the topic can be discussed at a larger article, an oversight that the nominator possibly made.

Inclusion within an article is not equal to being notable. It simply means that in context of the larger article, that topic is deemed important to discuss (and ideally backed by sources). Notability is a measure to determine if we allow a stand-alone article on a topic, and that's it. --MASEM (t) 14:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Why not simply rename Articles for Deletion to Articles for Discussion, and merge the current requested mergers process with AfD. There are 16,000+ pending requested mergers and very little, if any, participation. As a result, it is already a fairly common occurrence for merge discussions to take place here. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 15:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

A long overdue reform that never seems to gain enough traction. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. There are some articles that can't/shouldn't be technically deleted but the majority of the content should be deleted; for example, List of Doctor Who serials by setting is regarded by most WikiProject Doctor Who editors as something that is more suitable for the Doctor Who Wikia than Wikipedia, but because the problems are "fixable" in theory (but not in practice), AfD is not the right venue. Sceptre ^(talk) 05:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree with the assesment by Sceptre and could say the same about Bus related articles. I have three of these at AfD with an intent to Merge/Redirect because I know if I discuss on the talkpage or within the project there will be no consensus for action but by bringing them to AfD the wider community pays more attention to the problem and consensus for an action is formed. The D should be changed to Discussion so that we can deal with these situations. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 12:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC) effectively. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 12:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Does Allan Martinson qualify as a candidate for deletion?

There in only one (offline) reference in the article, and I cannot pick out any sources that would be usable in my scant search of the 166k hits that I got after weeding out the social networking site, Yahoo, YouTube, and WP. Someone please advise. 98.28.12.216 (talk) 13:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The subject seems to have been involved with several high-profile startups, so you think there'd be some notability - and some coverage to back it. But I can't find much. That's in English, mind - someone who speaks Estonian might have better luck. I cleaned up the link farm a bit, but it still needs attention. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

List of AfD's which require editor attention

I'm trying to come up with an automated, frequently updated list of AfD's which could use urgent attention from editors. Take a look at User:Snotbot/AfD's requiring attention and the question on the corresponding talk page if you're interested. Thanks. —SW— ^talk 21:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Should nominators have to check the history?

I just had an article of mine nominated for deletion because two editors hijacked it to promote the subject while removing the sources in the process. I think that it is a common courtesy to check the history before nominating. SL93 (talk) 01:43, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• It's already very strongly encouraged to look at the history, because you need to inform the article creator and you have to look at the history to find out who that is. If there's obvious suspicious changes like the wholesale removal of content, it's easy to spot. But I don't think any more than a cursory glance is necessary. Reyk _YO! 01:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Requiring the addition of lines between debates?

No, not a policy proposal; I'm suggesting that we rework the code. I believe that it would be helpful for there to be a simple line either at the bottom of all AFDs or at the tops, so as to make it more obvious where the sections on daily logs begin and end — we have these lines in article sections (they're produced by two-equals-signs headers, but not the three-equals-signs headers that individual AFDs use), and they make section divisions quite clear. In cases of vandalism, ill-formed nominations, or users who have disabled the edit-section option for themselves, it's not immediately obvious where one stops and another starts. What possible downside would there be? Nyttend (talk) 03:59, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I've seen only a few particularly long and confusing AfDs, but I rarely browse the daily logs. ---- (4 hyphens) renders as a horizontal rule. They should go at the top (users have a tendency to place new comments at the very end) and be enclosed in <includeonly> tags. Flatscan (talk) 05:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Clarification - merging during AfD?

We are trying to figure something out over at the new Wikipedia:WikiProject Merge (please join). Is it acceptable to merge an article to another page while an AfD is in progress? D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)