Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
I don't like this page's name. I want to rename it to Articles for discussion or something else.
Please see Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Rename_AFD. Note that all of the "for discussion" pages handle not only deletion, but also proposed mergers, proposed moves, and other similar processes. AFD is "for deletion" because the volume of discussion has made it necessary to sub-divide the work by the type of change.
You mean I'm not supposed to use AFD to propose a merger or a page move?
No. Please use WP:Proposed mergers or WP:Requested moves for those kinds of proposals.

AfD nominating process still so lousy that it introduces bias[edit]

Multiple steps, fraught with potential for error. Discourages editors who don't want to negotiate this nonsense. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 00:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Have you tried using Twinkle? It takes care of most of the tedium for you. KDS4444Talk 11:29, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Hobbes Goodyear (talk · contribs), the process is a mess. And while, yes, I use Twinkle, that doesn't really address the problem fully. All Twinkle does is change the problem to, discourages editors who don't know about Twinkle, or aren't tech sophisticated enough to know how to install it. If you really wanted to make it easy, there would be a "nominiate for deletion" tab on every article, in the default interface. Of course, that might not be what we want to do. If we made it that easy to nominate articles, AfD would probably melt down. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:24, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
KDS, I have not used Twinkle but will give it a try if I ever start nominating more than once in a blue moon. RoySmith, saying "melt down" does give me pause--we are probably already at or beyond capacity to properly address the current volume. Thank you both for your comments. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 22:28, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
I usually clean up incomplete nominations (from User:Cyberbot I/AfD report‎) - it's interesting that most of the time, IP editors are much better at following instructions than registered editors. There seems to be a pretty big misunderstanding about how AfD works: a lot of inexperienced (and even a few experienced) editors think that simply placing an AfD tag (no rationale on talk page or here or anywhere) is enough, and don't check back when I or someone else removes said redlinked tag. Perhaps it's for the better, though, since most of those would probably end up speedy kept... ansh666 20:42, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Margret Bird[edit]

@Hahc21: one user proposed deletion, two objected. One poor counter argument given. Page deleted? discussion was here Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Margaret_Bird Jonpatterns (talk) 11:45, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:Deletion review. ansh666 15:49, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Agree that this decision needs reviewing. At the very least it needs some explanation rather than simply "result was delete". JASpencer (talk) 19:56, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
@Ansh666: Thanks for the heads up, I did find the Deletion review page after searching for a bit. It says not to engage in the review process before discussing with the closing reviewer, which I have now done here.
@JASpencer: Margaret Bird has been restored, the reviewer meant to Keep, but went for Delete by mistake. Jonpatterns (talk) 14:03, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Request for early closure[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States v. Article Consisting of 50,000 Cardboard Boxes More or Less, Each Containing One Pair of Clacker Balls is currently running but every comment has been in support of it. I would like to ask if this could be closed early as it is currently also at DYK with an intent to run it on April fools day. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I was going to, but I don't think there will really be any issue with letting it run the full length - there are only 3 days left, which is 4 days before April 1st. ansh666 22:45, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
And, closed by User:Royalbroil. ansh666 06:59, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Marlene Lawston[edit]

Can someone please complete the nomination process for me? Here is my reason for putting it up for deletion:

I see no evidence of this actress meeting WP:NACTOR, WP:ANYBIO, or WP:GNG. She only had two supporting roles and three single-episode guest appearances, no awards or nominations for these roles, no social media pages (e.g. Facebook or Twitter) to show any fan base, no contributions to the entertainment industry, and no significant coverage in any major entertainment news articles except for brief mentions that mainly focus on the films she was in or listings on movie websites like Rotten Tomatoes that have listings for virtually every actor in the world. (talk) 21:39, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Canvassing in a previous debate:[edit]

I didn't notice it at the time, but a page I nominated for deletion was the subject of a WP:Canvassing campaign.

--Harizotoh9 (talk) 10:45, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

That's probably the most benign canvassing campaign I've ever seen - encouraging people to follow WP policy completely. Of course, that doesn't change that it was canvassing, but I don't think it had much of an effect: their reasons were mostly policy-based and likely would have been made by others (and indeed were). And, besides, who can argue with a group of people mobilizing to improve the 'pedia? Hopefully some of them stick around. ansh666 10:56, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
I wish all campaigns were as thoughtful as that. --NeilN talk to me 18:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Armtech SMOLT[edit]

Could someone please complete the nomination process?

I’ve explained my rationale on the article’s talk page [[2]]. I would also like to point out that there is no indication that more than one of this gun even exists. “SMOLT” appears to be a name that was made up by the guns owner to refer to his customized revolver.

Thanks. (talk) 17:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done --NeilN talk to me 18:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Jennifer Grünwald[edit]

Hi, I have nominated Jennifer Grünwald for deletion the reasons below. Would someone please complete the process of nomination?

The subject of this article doesn't meet the notability creiteria for creative professionals. The subject has created no works of note, is not widely influential, nor has the subject's work gained any particular critical attention. The article also contains original research in the form of commentary from individual's acquainted with the subject, claims not substantiated with secondary sources. Claiming that a minor background character in a comic is named after a person should not be enough reason for inclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:05, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Grünwald. ansh666 02:50, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Talk pages of AfD[edit]

I'm just writing here to confirm that talk pages of AfD discussions are supposed to remain blank. I've had someone raise a concern over this, as several people have been using the talk page of a now closed AfD discussion as a place to discuss the deletion, the article in question, and so on. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 04:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

After a cursory read-through I don't believe there's anything in any of the policies/guidelines/info pages/essays about deletion, but, yes, I'm fairly certain that per accepted practice AfD talk pages aren't supposed to be used at all, and especially not after the AfD has closed. There are other places that are more appropriate for discussion (user talk, drv, etc.) that are recommended in the related pages. Maybe it should be codified if it isn't already. ansh666 04:52, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I would recommend that it be codified, as it could otherwise be a way to circumvent a page's deletion by using it as a general discussion page for the article. It could also be used as a way to abuse the system as well. Basically the page in question is the AfD talk page for the Belle Knox article, as it was being used as a general forum. The talk wasn't that bad, but I could see where it was gearing up to become pretty troublesome. Plus when you figure that the page was deleted and it'd already been run through deletion review, I don't see where further championing or demonizing the deletion (or anything done to the page when it was existent) in that particular location was really all that helpful. The basic complaint was that I was involved and that it hampers free/open discussion. I can concede the involve part (although I maintain that the end result would have been the same), but I don't really think that what was going on was an appropriate use of the AfD talk page. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 05:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Speaking of which, is there an appropriate use of the AfD talk page? Really the only thing I've seen it used for before now is IPs creating the discussions there, since they can't do it on the actual project space page (and I guess maybe because of the AfC process being in WT: as well). ansh666 05:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
  • In my opinion, not really. Any comments about the AfD should be on the page when it's currently running. After it's finished, there's no reason to discuss the AfD unless you want to have it overturned, which should be done at deletion review. The basic problem about using the talk page during the AfD is that it can lead to a discussion fork with people using both pages, which can get confusing for all involved. Using the talk page afterwards kind of makes it easy to use it as a place to complain and generally not be productive at all. The point of AfD is to get a semi-definitive opinion about the page. Anything after that should either be at deletion review or on someone's talk page, as it could otherwise be very easily misused as a way to circumvent the article's deletion or to have random chatter about the page. If they want the page to be re-added, then any talk should take place at DR or it'd otherwise be considered generally unhelpful and basic complaining. If they're there to cheer on the deletion then that's equally unhelpful since it doesn't really improve anything. Nor does discussion over elements that are only applicable when the actual page is present in the mainspace. I figure that after a page has been deleted and the page's deletion upheld at DR, there's no reason to further discuss the page anywhere but on someone's talk page or potentially on a WikiProject's talk page. Basically put, there's never a good reason or time to use an AfD's talk page. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 06:02, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I pretty much just want to get this unofficial rule made official because there's no good reason to use an AfD talk page at any point in time, and I want to avoid people trying to say that protecting an AfD talk page is censorship or not promoting open discussion. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 06:09, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Sounding off on AFD talk pages is a perfectly good way to allow disgruntled editors to let off steam after pages get deleted. If we don't allow that steam to go somewhere its going to lead to more DRVs and more complaints at ANI. Is this really a good idea and what harm is the steam letting doing? I'm firmly against prohibiting it. I see no harm at all. Spartaz Humbug! 07:59, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oh, so people actually use AfD talk pages? ansh666 08:06, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
  • They aren't allowed to edit the closed AFD so people sometimes continue discussions they found interesting or whinge like crazy over the deletion/outcome. Sometimes they are lone voices shouting into tumbleweed and sometimes there is a chorus. Its not that common but it does happen and I can't see the benefit from shutting this down. Spartaz Humbug! 08:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
  • The problem is, if they have a problem with its deletion they should go through DR. Otherwise using it to blow off steam is pretty much just using it as a forum. I mean, their arguments aren't really being constructive and I'd say that it could be even more ANI bait because you'd essentially have pointless arguments and drive by sniping comments. For example, if you have a nn director that's deleted and he gets 50 friends to clamor on the AfD talk page, how is that helpful? Almost nobody watches the talk pages of AfDs and it'd be easy for arguments to form. Plus again, there's nothing constructive to be gained by using it as a location to vent frustrations. It should go through DR or it should be on a user page where something beneficial will come of it. Not to mention it could be used as a way to circumvent deletion decisions. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 14:40, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Plus you run a very strong risk of undermining AfD decisions because you're essentially saying "the Afd is over, but you can keep arguing your point on the talk page". It'd be seen as a way to just continue the discussion... without the admin oversight a regular AfD would have. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 14:51, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
I've seen one or two examples where AfD talk pages have been used for what appear to have been legitimate discussions while the AfD has been ongoing - from memory, one involved a complex discussion about a source which was being used as evidence for notability, and moving the discussion to the talk page ensured that the discussion could continue without swamping the AfD itself. As for their use once an AfD is closed, this seems highly questionable - I would suggest that policy be amended to state that they not be edited once the AfD is closed - and that if necessary, they should be locked from editing. We shouldn't be providing 'forums' in obscure places, away from oversight. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

A blanket rule about AfD talk pages is unwarranted. Conversations there are sometimes productive, sometimes not, just like everywhere else on Wikipedia. Lagrange613 16:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

  • At the very least I do think that the AfD talk page shouldn't be edited after the AfD is over. There's just too much risk of it being abused or for people to assume that it means that the rationale reached at the AfD's conclusion holds less water. I mean, there's no real reason to post on the talk page after an AfD is over. I can see from the examples where in some rare cases the talk pages can be used while the AfD is currently open, but the problem is that once the AfD is over there's really no constructive use for it. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 03:33, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
  • But look at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Datacoin, which provides a helpful post-closing note about the disposition of a userfication request. A discussion on the admin's talk page [3] explains the reasons for this post-closing annotation, which is now easier to find for anyone else interested in resuscitating the topic than it would be in any other location. --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
  • That's still pretty much an exception to the rule. I'm still concerned about the potential misuse. I mean, in my experience I've seen more people abuse this than anything else. I can guarantee that if I were to unprotect the AfD talk page for the Belle Knox, it'd soon fill up with people just continuing to make arguments for or against the page's deletion, harassment, attempts to circumvent the article's deletion, and so on. It's fairly rare that I've seen anyone use an AfD talk page to any good effect. Most of the time when people do make comments on the talk page, it's almost always moved to the main page for the AfD or deleted/removed. After it's gone, most editors, the vast majority of them, won't use it for the things you're citing here. I have a strong feeling that if we were to look at the history of AfD talk page usage, we'd see more cases of abuse than people using it in a beneficial fashion. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 05:13, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) No one has mentioned here the benefit of using an old AfD talk page to post notice of a subsequent AfD.  Then, the talk page is ideal to post links to discussions with the closing admin(s).  The AfD talk page is ideal because editors who have the AfD watchlisted get notifications.  Note that DRV talk pages are also used from time to time. 
Unscintillating (talk) 05:34, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I have to ask though, wouldn't the comment be better off posted on the talk page of the closer? By that I mean that if you have reason to suspect that a page's deletion or retention would merit further discussion, wouldn't it be better to ask the closer to re-open the AfD (or take it to deletion review) or to just open a new AfD? Leaving it on the talk page doesn't seem to really get any good consensus and it runs the risk of being completely ignored. Not everyone leaves the pages on their talk list. I know that I frequently remove the AfD pages from my watch list after they close because I figure that any further discussion would and/or should take place in DR or on a usertalk page. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 06:34, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
I would oppose as instruction creep any codification of this "do not use AfD talk pages" idea. In the rare cases when they are being used disruptively, I would think our existing guidelines are already adequate to justify a request to move the conversation somewhere better. VQuakr (talk) 06:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I just think that we need to have some sort of cutoff for comments, otherwise it really doesn't do anything helpful. I know that I'm unlikely to win this battle, but I just really think that allowing unfettered access to the talk pages of an AfD will rarely prove helpful. In most situations it's just someone trying to tack on a "keep" or "delete" vote after the final decision, try to recreate part of the article in the talk page, use it for spam purposes masquerading as a keep/delete rationale, or will use it as a forum. I think that a large percentage of this comes from the fact that unlike talk pages on the various articles in the mainspace, WikiProjects, and templates, talk pages of AfDs are almost always ignored by both admins and non-admin users. Part of me saying that the talk pages shouldn't be used comes from the idea that much of the use is redundant to other areas that already serve these issues, but it's also because we don't really have enough people who would be willing to overlook all of the various edits that happen on the talk pages of AfDs. I'm sure that if I were to comb through the various AfDs out there, I'd probably find quite a bit of abuse of the system. It's just that because nobody really watches those pages, anything posted is largely ignored. Putting some sort of ground rules or limits on what talk pages for AfDs can do probably wouldn't be seen as disruptive and would largely just reinforce the standard that is already in place for various AfD talk pages. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 07:09, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
The contention that "nobody really watches those pages" is, if true, an argument against adding instruction creep. If it's just people blowing off steam with no effect on actual outcomes on Wikipedia, who cares? If they're making personal attacks or whatever then we already have the tools to deal with them, as VQuakr pointed out. Otherwise, if a tree falls on a talk page.... Lagrange613 16:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
  • But at the same time, you've got to understand that since a lot of these pages aren't being watched, we won't know exactly what goes on in these pages unless someone reports it or unless someone stumbles upon it. So in theory you could have someone dox someone in an AfD talk page after the fact, or post something incredibly hateful/mean, or post something that would merit an autoblock for whatever reason. Part of the reason I don't think we've had an overwhelming issue with it in the past is that there's always been this unsaid rule that they aren't supposed to be used. But if people do think that it can be used, then what? Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 08:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
  • But everyone who participates has the page on their watchlist and we have lots of pages with no watchers anyway. Wikipedia does not supervise its editors or require them to edit in specific places so they can be watched over by adults. The whole tenor of your argument is disturbingly patronising. Spartaz Humbug! 15:15, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Not everyone who participates has the AfD on their watchlist. I'd say that at any given time I've had about 1-5% of any given AfD on my watchlist, although I do go through my history to see if there are any updates on a currently running AfD. After it's over, I don't really check them anymore and I'll remove the closed AfDs from my watchlist. I don't mean to sound patronizing, just that unfortunately I've seen enough on Wikipedia to where I don't think it's a truly great idea to be completely free with an area that is essentially unmonitored 98% of the time, especially when there's a good chance that the majority of the people editing are IP and SPA type editors. I just think that it'd be a good idea to have some sort of rule to point to when (and it's when and not if) someone abuses the talk page of an AfD. Otherwise what can we do? They can just thumb their noses at us and tell us that there isn't any rule to prevent them from using the talk page as a forum. We can't police every page, but a small rule or coda would really help stem any potential post-AfD gripe-fests that brew up on various AfD talk pages. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 07:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I can see legitimate uses for the AfD talk pages, but I would support a CSD/MfD criterion that allows deletion of such a page if it's being used solely for ongoing argument about the AfD post-closure. There are other places for virtually everything else, and what remains (e.g., unfounded griping about the participants) doesn't belong anywhere on Wikipedia. However, I could see this as not even requiring a new rule; those who gripe about a closed debate on the talk page are simply trying to circumvent the rule against continuing the discussion after its closure. That should be equally subject to being reverted under the current rule. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 15:23, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
  • It'd be nice if we did have an official forum to point people towards for post-AfD gripe sessions, but that would bring it's own troubles I suppose. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 07:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I have occasionally used AfD and DRV talk pages. I tracked the statuses of Quantum Leap episode articles – some nominated there, some later – at WT:Articles for deletion/Thou Shalt Not.... Flatscan (talk) 04:34, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose prohibition of posts on XfD talk pages. It is an appropriate place for meta-questions, post-close questions, and process questions. I appropriate questions can be ignored or reverted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:33, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

April Fool's nominations[edit]

We should probably put the kibosh on any new April Fool's nominations. I'm running out of terrible puns to put on the ones that pop up and they're slightly disruptive. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 07:49, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Hence my question at WP:AN about whether they should be on the log. The only problem with that would be that nobody could ever find them (unless they're mandated to put them on the April Fools' Log, I guess). By the way, good job with the puns, and University of Alabama really doesn't deserve one anyways. ansh666 07:54, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I wonder if a good alternative would be to move them all down to the bottom and mark them as April Fool's jokes? It'd be a little tedious at first, but it's a good alternative otherwise. Or we could create a page for April Fool's nominations and move them there. I think that there's a little merit for keeping these, just out of humor, but I would like a way to have them without making it difficult for people to find the actual valid AfDs. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 10:13, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I've moved the joke nominations to their own section at the bottom. Feel free to revert if anyone wants, although I'd prefer for the joke submissions to stay at the bottom for the time being so the real AfDs can be more easily seen. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 10:21, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Please contribute to the Machel Waikenda AfD discussion[edit]

Only two people have contributed to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Machel Waikenda, and the discussion has been open for more than two weeks now. Dear all: Please contribute to the discussion. Thank you! —Unforgettableid (talk) 01:00, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Madison Eagles[edit]

Need an admin to complete this nomination - the fifth. Reasons are on the talk page. (talk) 02:47, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madison Eagles (5th nomination). ansh666 06:47, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

User doesn't like AFD nom[edit]

I nominated A Billion Hits for deletion, but the creator of the article is repeatedly trying to 'close' the discussion and remove the AFD template from the article. I'm not sure if this is the right venue, but I don't know what action I should take. Adabow (talk) 05:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I've given the creator a final warning - if it is removed again, raise the matter at WP:ANI. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:35, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

The Center for Early Education[edit]

Can someone complete the nomination process for me? Here is my rationale for nominating it

No evidence of this school meeting notability guidelines. Being a private elementary school with unusually high tuition costs is not enough to merit notability and the statement "Since then the School has become regarded as one of the top elementary schools in the nation" is a fallacy. All of the references in the article are from the school's website and there is little to no mentioning of it in major education news sites and agencies. There are many other schools called "The Center of Early Education," none of which seem notable either. West Hollywood, California#Primary and secondary schools already mentions this school and the few content of this article can be added there if needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Center for Early Education. ansh666 22:43, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion: Make AFD discussion pages more friendly[edit]

This may have come up before; if so I'd be curious to see the results of the previous discussions.

I've observed that when clicking on the "this article's entry" link from an article that is at AFD, the page that comes up, for instance this one, provides no instructions or examples of how one should proceed if they wish to express an opinion on the matter. There isn't even any ready indication of where one can go to learn more about what's going on.

I'd like to suggest that some boilerplate text be added when such pages are created making it more clear to those who may be unfamiliar with the AFD process what their options are, where they can go for more information, etc.

Off the top of my head, it could be something like: "This is the article for deletion discussion for (article name). This article has been nominated for deletion on the following grounds: (nomination reason). More information regarding Wikipedia's deletion policies can be found at (link). You are welcome to express an opinion regarding whether this article should be kept. Typically opinions include one or more of the following summations: Keep, Delete, Merge (linked appropriately), Redirect (linked appropriately), etc."

TL;DR: I think it would benefit the project if AFD dicussion pages included an explanation of what was going on and options for expressing one's opinion, for those who might be unfamiliar with how AFD works. DonIago (talk) 13:29, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Support - A very short little guide, with links to WP:AADD, WP:GNG etc. would be really nice and avoid many pitfalls for newer editors.--cyclopiaspeak! 13:33, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support and suggest that a pilot scheme be run to assess what is required and how well it works. Since we use standard substed templates I suggest the pilot runs for a calendar month, and is left in place while it is assessed. Then it can be turned off if required or modified. Fiddle Faddle 14:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Might want to make it one of those show/hide boxes, so you don't have to navigate off the page to see it, but you can also make it go away once you've read it. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Only thing is I would not include the reason for removal as that is something that might be edited or changed in the main discussion thread as the AFD proceeds, and being duplicated in the header may create a discontinuity. But providing all the article page links and sourcing links, and with links to how to participate in an AFD, are all good stuff. At minimum, the header should remind people this is not a vote, that inappropriate canvassing (on or off Wiki) is inappropriate, and to keep comments civil and focus on the article and not the editors. --MASEM (t) 14:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough. Possibly the text could list the original reason for nomination with a comment that said reasoning might evolve in the course of discussion. Alternately it could always reflect the most current grounds for deletion, but I can see that being more complicated and possibly error-prone. Since I'm commenting anyway I'll add that in an ideal world I think there would be links to previous deletion discussions (including their rationales/results) as well. I think the main thrust of my argument here is that at a glance the discussion should have all pertinent information in a format that's nevertheless as friendly for those unfamiliar with the AFD process as is reasonably possible. DonIago (talk) 15:09, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Next steps?[edit]

I'm going to go out on a limb and call this a consensus to revise the AFD discussion pages even if we may have varying thoughts on the particulars. This is a bit beyond the scope of my normal interactions with the project...what do we do next? DonIago (talk) 15:13, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

82nd Street Academics[edit]

82nd Street Academics is alive and well and I don't understand why it would be nominated for deletion Ronald Tompkins Executive Director

I believe you're looking for the discussion here. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 12:42, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

AFD for 2013-14 LFL Australia season[edit]

Can someone please complete the nomination for me? Thanks. (talk) 22:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I would appreciate some assistance if you wouldn't mind. This has been left uncompleted for too long. (talk) 14:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)