Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion

Deletion Suggestion

I nominate the following article for deletion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_(film)

There is no press for this. No reviews online. It sounds like the filmmaker created this wiki page to promote his home made movie. Wiki shouldn't be used to promote films. Because of the lack of press, or any sources to verify any of this articles claims about the movie's budget and details, then it's an useless article. I have proposed the small press publisher Titus Books for deletion as I believe the page is an advertisement for selling goods. It even lists the soon to be released titles. Any thoughts?

Request for Deletion

Could somebody please put Monday Night Mayhem up for deletion as failing reliable sources and verifiability requirements? Due to my lack of an account (and lack of a wish to make one) I do not have the capability to do so? Nevermind, disregard this post: I thought this was an internet radio show but apparently it has radio syndication.

New York Anime Festival

First, this looks legit, and second, I found out about it on the Comic Con site. Therefore, deletion shoukld be denied. NoseNuggets 5:19 PM US EST Mar 2 2007.

Zeitgeist The Movie

How come you guys deleted Zeitgeist_The_Movie? I cached it on google and it seemed long and detailed and now the page is protected? What gives? Here is the cached version:

http://tiny_url.com/325bhk

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrbutter (talk • contribs) 16:16, July 16, 2007 (UTC)

Speedy keep if renominated within a short period of time

Is there an AFD policy that allows for speedy closure of AFD debate if an article is renominated within a short period of time after surviving an AFD? I don't mean AFDs where there was no consensus or no discussion on previous nomination. For example on today's AFD there's an article nominated that just survived AFD (and via a near WP:SNOWBALL to boot) less than 2 months ago. And I've seen it happen on numerous occasions where someone has renominated an article over and over until they get the result they want (a blatant violation of WP:IDONTLIKEIT). And of course memories are still strong of the worst offender of the lot, the repeatedly nominated GNAOA article (I won't spell it out: first word is "Gay"). So does such a policy exist? If not, there should be one that puts a moratorium on renomonating an AFD-survived article for, say, 6 months or so. That also allows ample time for articles that conditionally survive AFD (i.e. on the assumption improvements are made) to address whatever issues exist. Perhaps a "commented-out" note can be placed at the top of AFD-survived articles to indicate to anyone about to place the AFD (or PROD) tag that the article survived AFD on such and such a date and cannot be renominated until such-and-such a date. I sure someone can create a bot to do that. Thoughts? 23skidoo 15:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely something like this should be the rule. There has not been consensus before, but there should be now. I think the simplest requirement is to make it exactly symmetrical with deletion: A non-consensus close may be reopened at any time. A keep close may be reopened only with permission from Deletion review. Fair's fair in both directions. Yes, consensus can change--so in that case, perhaps after 6 months or a year an article can be renominated without deletion review, but then an article should be able to be reinserted without deletion review just the same way. I would like to see some argument for why it should not be just the same in both directions. The goal is not to remove content, but to remove bad content, and we can do this best if we do not repeat discussions once we have finished. If this is too radical, then lets say , not reopen after a keep within 6 months without deletion reviews, as the first step. I can so no argument without it, except for those who think that the bias should always be to delete. (which is fact is against even current Deletion policy--the default if undetermined is to keep). DGG (talk) 08:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Darn skippy! although it should be a year after the AFD process. Like DGG said, consensus can change, but re-nominating an article after consensus was achieved just to get another chance at your goal is pitiful and un-excusable behavior. An article I was very interested in was deleted recently, what I ask would happen if I recreated it. If you guessed speedy delete you would be correct, and re-noming an article over and over is no different, it should be speedy-kept. Viperix 10:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no need for such a rule (please, we don't need more rules), if people renominate an article soon after a Keep AfD and they don't provide a very compelling reason to do so (sockpuppets in previous one, copyvio, false info provided, ...), they are most of the time easily and swiftly told where to go with their AfD (though always civilly, of course :-) ). If they just keep on doing it, they will get warned (and if needed blocked) for a WP:POINT disruption anyway. While in most cases a fast renomination is a bad idea, no rule is needed. As it already says in the deletion policy: "Renominations: After a deletion debate concludes and the page is kept, users should allow a reasonable amount of time to pass before nominating the same page for deletion again, to give editors the time to improve the page. Renominations shortly after the earlier debate are generally closed quickly. It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome." Nothing more is needed. Fram 11:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I've generally noticed that when something is renominated shortly after it's first attempt, it does get speedily kept for this exact reason. The 6 month idea of DGG above is WAY too long... I think 2-3 months is more than enough time for reconsideration after a failed AFD. (Although, a no-consensus verdict can, IMHO, be renominated immediately---but even then, I'd wait a few weeks to let the crop of current reviewers change.)Balloonman 15:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I thought of the 6 months as a minimum--obviously, we need some experience. But three months would certainly help, and would deal with the real POV-pushers, so lets start with that: 3 months after a keep. I agree that it should not apply to no-consensus--since the option to a no-consenus is often just a continued listing, perhaps there should not be a fixed minimum. (Incidentally, I think that in any relisting, the original commentators should be re-invited--and, generally, additional ones requested at appropriate project pages. It gets to be like jury-shopping otherwise. The reason for a fixed minimum time is that anything other than that will simply be ignored. There should always be the alternative of taking to deletion review if something essential like copyvio or blp is uncovered. DGG (talk) 04:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Why have a time limit at all? If a deletion discussion results in delete, you generally must go to DRV to get the article undeleted (yes, I know it can be re-created from scratch, but that is simple editing, which can also be done on an article that is kept). Why not a similar rule for a keep? Why is one community consensus treated differently from another? I agree that a no consensus is a no consensus, but a consensus should be respected all the same. This might also have the side benefit that it would discourage frivolous nominations, where people just throw stuff against the wall to see what sticks, because a poorly researched nom that resulted in a keep would need a DRV to start a new AfD. The process would be similar: someone would have to get consensus for an argument that the previous discussion was defective, or present new evidence or a new argument to overturn the keep and start a new AfD discussion. Consensus is consensus, and overturning it should require a new consensus, regardless of the previous outcome. Dhaluza 15:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's not creep along here. In practice, some recreations are allowed without a DRV, and some are not. In practice, frivolous renominations are often speedily closed. I don't see the need for hard and fast rules, required re-invitation of previous participants, or anything else (if that were required in cases of no consensus, we're just asking for repeated no consensus results). While I agree there's a bit too much WP:IDONTLIKEIT out there, there's a thousand times more issues with WP:ILIKEIT. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I wish I could agree with those who feel we don't need another rule. In this case we do. On too many occasions I have seen articles that have survived AFD through Keep consensus simply get re-opened and then the consensus becomes Delete, and often it's because the people who voted Keep before weren't aware the article had been renominated. I just see too much "gaming" of the system, either through good faith (people not aware the article had already survived AFD) or through trying to push an agenda. Not everyone is aware of the DRV process and that's not the point, anyway. I'm talking about articles that are kept and are renominated within simply too short a period of time. All this said, the fact the previous nominations are now being signified automatically is a big help. I have on a number of occasions voted Keep based upon the fact an article has been renominated too quickly -- but that's not always the strongest argument. Maybe what's needed is a version of DRV for articles that survive AFD. 23skidoo 16:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The version of DRV you are looking for already exists, and can be found at WP:DRV, as a challenge to the closure of an XfD. However, DRV regulars are well aware that an article can be nominated again after a suitable time, so for keep/merge/no consensus XfD results, the claims for review that are very likely to gain traction are 1) closer misread the consensus already in the XfD or 2) closer forgot that policy (not a guideline) required deletion.

If we introduce a rule against repeat AfD nominations, the natural consequences will be 1) to have more DRVs seeking the overturn of keep/no-consensus XfDs and 2) DRV will be more likely to overturn keeps and no-consensus. I thus fail to see how a rule will limit repeat nominations; it will just shift them to another forum that normally draws significantly less attention. GRBerry 18:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Notification as part of deletion process

Our deletion process would suck less if http://wikidashboard.parc.com/ was used to identify the main contributors of an article put up for deletion and they were notified. WAS 4.250 09:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

If a. the notification is done automatically and b. editors having done little changes to the article are not notified, then I would see really no problem with that. WP:BOTREQ? Tizio 09:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Interesting link, thanks for posting it. It would be a good tool for notifying contributors, but unfortunately it needs to be done manually for now. Dhaluza 10:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

If it needs to be done manually for now, it should be required -- the process is totally unfair to occasional contributors without it. There will undoubtedly be comments that it is burdensome--fortunately, those who will feel most burdened are those who are most familiar with WP and best able to organize the writing of an acceptable automated procedure. We have tolerated this gross violation of basic decency far too long. Is there--finally-- enough support to require it in the deletion policy? DGG (talk) 01:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

BOTREQ, please! There's currently a note on {{afd}}, but that really isn't enough...a bot would be awesome (a la the bot that notifies speedies when you forget to do it yourself). I'm leaving a note at BOTREQ, see here. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 01:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that, the articles contribs should be able to explain why their article violates WP:THISORTHAT and whether or not it could be fixed. Viperix 02:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I continue to believe this is not a requirement. I have no objection to a bot, provided it has clear opt OUT mechanisms. But lets not ever pretend that a failure of notice is a signficant procedural flaw. GRBerry 02:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

But it is! How many articles could be saved if someone put some work into them - deletionists are running amock with "fails WP:DELETEMECOSIEXIST" simply because nobody knows the article is at AfD, and therefore nobody goes and improves it. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 02:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

If an article is capable of being improved, it probably shouldn't be at AfD in the first place. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 14:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, but look at how many articles are improved and kept after the AfD or DRV. We have too many people who have neither the vision to see how an article can be improved, nor the motivation to actually do the work, running around as self-appointed wiki-critics starting AfD on articles because they don't like the way the article exists now. I think one simple step is to require these critics to make their objections on the article talk page first, rather than airing their complaints on AfD. AfD should not be the first step in the process of deciding what to keep and what to toss out. This is also a basic courtesy, just like notifying the article contributors (after discussion on talk fails to find a reason to keep), and notification should also be mandatory, whether done manually or automatically. Now that we have a tool that can easily and objectively identify the major contributors, there is no reason not to do this (other than deletionists not wanting to hear arguments from the other side). Dhaluza 14:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this suggestion. Awhile back I was looking for an article that I had contributed to, only to find it deleted. It would be great if a message appeared on your talk page when an article you have worked on is being considered.--George100 09:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree too. It's fine if this needs manual work rather than being automated as AFD initiation seems too easy currently and this encourages frivolous use. Colonel Warden 17:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

So, this can be automated? Is at least notification of the creator automatic? I noticed that Twinkle, when I use it, does that automatically. Could a bot automatically notify the top 3 to 5 contributors to a given article if it is nominated? It would seem to be very useful. I'll post this as a suggestion for the Twinkle staff as well. • Lawrence Cohen 20:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It an difficult algorithm to produce to generate a good list of major contributors, the most efficient way I can see is to count number of days relative to current day the editor has edit the page, for example this formula: $\sum _{i=1}^{\mathrm {now} }E_{i}\cdot {\frac {i}{\mathrm {now} }}$ where E is if user edit the page at that day (0 or 1) and i is the day in question, from day one to now. Example: if the editor made ten edit on day 4 and three edits on day 13, and now it's day 34, he would get a editabillity point of $0\cdot {\frac {1}{34}}+0\cdot {\frac {2}{34}}+\cdots +1\cdot {\frac {4}{34}}+0\cdot {\frac {5}{34}}+\cdots +1\cdot {\frac {13}{34}}+\cdots +0\cdot {\frac {34}{34}}={\frac {17}{34}}$, i.e. the same weigth as someone made only one edit, but on day 17. _→AzaToth 21:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps just an ignorant question not knowing the full limitations and needs of the TW tool, but wouldn't it be practically simpler to do a simple count of the history and then sort by the Top 5 users, and then notify them as well as the article creator, and then have TW also do a deletion sorting notification? That would cover a tremendous amount of visibility... • Lawrence Cohen 13:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It would be a rather missleading value, as someone made 40 edits one day two months ago would then have a higher value than someone made one edit each day the last month. _→AzaToth 13:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't thought of that, true... in general, though, would this be an implementable idea? • Lawrence Cohen 13:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Example

For example, based on this, if TW sent an AfD for it:

http://wikidashboard.parc.com/wiki/Main_Page

The notifications would go PFHLai, Monotonehell, Brian0918, David Levy, Raul654, and TwoOneTwo (page creator), plus whatever Deletion Sorting option the TW user may specify. That's what I had in mind. • Lawrence Cohen 13:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

For when you're sick of wading through sewage

WP:MISSING - exercise your writing muscles and show you can also create something that would never see AFD - David Gerard 12:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Deletions seem to be vandlaism or harassment

There have been 2 proposed deletions made for the writer and actress Vanna Bonta. Both seem bogus and unsubstantiated and make flkay and lame claims. How can situations like that be avoided when it's obviously trolls?!

I personally have made entries to the Vanna Bonta related articles including references of various newspaper articles, interviews, reviews -- checking on the users who proposed "Vanna Bonta" article and also "Quantum fiction" article for deletion, it's notable that they have made entries of debatable social relevance, that they are timed and orchestrated in tandem.

What do we need to do to remove the proposal for deletion? And how can trolls be prevented from trashing celebrity or personality pages? And aggravating fans!? Thanks Tikka72 —Preceding comment was added at 09:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

CORUANS or country or regions used as names

Surerly this is an interesting concept - where else can one look up such a list?

enginemanEngineman 09:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xcal

Could someone WP:SNOW that please, for the good of all that it sane? Cheers, The Hybrid T/C 19:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Do we need deletion request notification?

Currently, this page states:

While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion.

If this should be changed or deleted is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Guide to deletion#Deletion request notification. — Sebastian 20:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

How to discuss an AfD - <s> vs <del>

In the interest of not using out-dated HTML, I think <del> should be used instead of <s>, and changes should be made to this article to make future readers use it. The same effect is achieved, and it's more semantic. What's more, in inserting text, <ins> should be used over <u>. For example, if I make a mistake then I can correct it. — metaprimer (talk) 11:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Category:Guantanamo Bay detainees

Posted to Wikipedia talk:Guide to deletion as well, simply because I'm not sure where this is appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawrence Cohen (talk • contribs) 17:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I've been looking through Category:Guantanamo Bay detainees, and I'm fairly concerned about it. Virtually all of these people are allegedly "notable" for a sole event: having been captured by the United States government for alleged terrorism or terror-related activities. Nearly every single article, hundreds of them, is the same. I sent three to AfD yesterday (I could have merged them all into one AfD but I wanted each reviewed independently in case I was mis-reading things):

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdullah Gulam Rasoul
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fahed Nasser Mohamed
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zahid Al-Sheikh

I would venture, from reviewing at least 50 casually today, that

1. WP:BLP1E applies in virtually all cases. The articles are not biographical in any real sense.
2. Each is allegedly "notable" for having been captured by the US government.
3. All sourcing is functionally primary-only.

I compared it on the AfDs to, "the article is functionally a reprinting of the US allegations towards this man who may or may not be a terrorist, who may or may not be guilty of something. We can't tell, since there are no 3rd party RS about him, just primary sources from the US government. In essence, this is the equivalent of writing an article about a crime suspect, sourced to nothing at all but official documents about the crime released by the prosecuting state attorney."

I think that per our policies as I've read them, we could conceivably delete hundreds of these BLP violating articles on non-notable people under AfD. However, I'm not sure how best to approach this. Virtually every single article was created by User:Geo Swan, and he already seems somewhat annoyed at me for having processed AfDs on a few of these articles. I'm not sure if launching an AfD with over 600+ articles is the right way to do this, but these articles seem to be inappropriate for us to have.

My questions: what should we do with this? Sending them off to AfD a few at a time each week would be pointlessly slow, repetitive, and just lead to hours of repeated statements (again, each article is the same basically--insert a new name, with a minority having different traits and sources). Speedy deleting out all articles in the category would be bad, as I would venture something like 5%-10% would certainly pass AfD and would require inspection. Should I just review each, make a massive list, and then send them all (easily over 200-400 articles) to one very long-running AfD? Any advice would be appreciated. • Lawrence Cohen 17:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

No, you should not AFD them. The WP:BLP1E argument you are endorsing would say to merge them to a common article. As such, an AFD nomination would be contrary to your expressed opinion, and violate WP:POINT. What you should do if you hold this opinion, per {{sofixit}}, is start actually implementing the merge yourself. We've also had test cases before. See User:Geo Swan/working/Guantanamo related articles which have been nominated for deletion for prior deletion discussions. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ibrahim Daif Allah Neman Al Sehli for one of those where merge was most thoroughly discussed. I've discussed merging with GeoSwan a couple times in the past, and while I do believe they should generally be merged, I have no interest in doing the work myself. GeoSwan doesn't believe that the merged article is viable (way too long), see discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jabir Hasan Muhamed Al Qahtani and the test merge at the multiple sub-pages of User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/List of Guantanamo Bay detainees. GRBerry 18:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the analogy to a criminal prosecution is far too weak. Criminal prosecutors operate under some level of oversight, and can expect to be sued or even charged criminally if they over-step the bounds of the law. These "articles" are more like bios of gulag prisoners based on rumours released to the media by anonymous Chekists. It's a disgrace to the 'pedia. I would suggest a mass AfD, which will probably result in "no consensus" and a DRV followed by further dispute resolution, but them's the breaks. <eleland/talkedits> 19:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree with Eleland--he advocates a procedure biased towards his view of the articles, which i think profoundly wrong. That the US has detained these people is a matter of individual international concern for every individual one of them. It is fairly obvious from the matter presented in the articles that the "Checkist" statement of the evidence against them in many cases would not lead a reasonable person to think them guilty--though for the three articles nominated first there is a good possibility that one might think otherwise. these are fair articles, drawing no conclusions about guilt and showing no bias. The previous ed. raised the argumentum at Stalinum, a variant of Hitlerium. the processes of the US in this matter must be seen in their own light--even thinking the worst, there is more material public at this point than was the case for almost all of Stalin's victims at the time of their "trials". Even for the show trials, there was no real defense. I am a little puzzled at the accusations of POV creation--is it being alleged that the POV is to have this material here in order to help them, and simultaneously that the material presented is prejudicial to them in terms of BLP? I do not see how they are both true. the POV seems to be a desire to present encyclopedic information about people who have become invovled in a notable way with matters of great public concern. DGG (talk) 01:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a matter of concern, but each individual does not warrant his own article. In fact, just posting an article on each invites people to pile on unverifiable information for those who were not individually notable enough. Send them to AfD in batches with a note for each regarding the main non-Gitmo claim of notability to help the AfD evaluators. Doczilla 10:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I will certainly oppose any batch nominations, unless for a batch where none of them has any possible claims whatsoever. It does not reassure me that some of the first nominated were those where there was in fact some other notability--for the things which had gotten them into Gitmo in the first place, if nothing else DGG (talk) 20:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Plush Movies

Can someone close this, Conncensus is already established for delete Jack The Pumpkin King 03:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• The article in question was deleted for failing to comply with the project's verifiability policy. --Aarktica 12:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Patience . . . Doczilla 10:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Administrator's decision

What's the point of having a Afd discussion among editors, if a single administrator is merely going to make a decision. The discussion about Prince Pierre of Orléans resulted in five Keep votes and five Delete votes - but Sandstein decided that that meant "the result was delete all." I showed that when this child was born there was a four page article in one of the most popular French weeklies. Clearly we should have just asked Sandstein first and not wasted our time with a discussion. What standards are there for administrators closing these debates? This is not the first time I have seen an administrator just decide things based on his own opinions. What would have happened if another administrator had closed the debate? Would the result have been different? Noel S McFerran 17:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

You can always list this for review at Wikipedia:Deletion review for this specific case. • Lawrence Cohen 17:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

You can also contact the Admin directly. I've done that before and the Admin reconsidered his decision.Balloonman 17:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Not biting n00bs to become actual necessity

m:Edit Wikipedia Week is happening.

A perennial press story is "I was bitten as a n00b on Wikipedia" - every random interaction with a random en:wp editor is taken as representative and officially sanctioned.

So we need people to be on extra special good behaviour.

(For those about to point out to Mr Pot that he is of similar blackness to Messrs Kettle, Jimbo emailed me directly asking me to please be much nicer on wikien-l in particular. And I can't say it wasn't deserved. *cough*)

Main sticking point I can see is notoriously prickly individuals who are also notoriously good encyclopedia writers. I won't go so far as to name any of those who spring to my mind, but I'm sure you have your own list. If they can be convinced this is a good idea then they should provide a suitably shocking example of niceness.

Also, have to hit the village pump, the admin boards etc. Those who do lots of janitorial work cleaning out the sewers of en:wp (vandal-chasing, newpages patrolling, RC patrolling, etc) and basically see the bad side of people all the time need to be brought on board as well. This is somewhere n00bs can really be bitten.

Ideas please? Not doing this is not likely to be an option. n00bs will be actively recruited, and it's absolutely vital everyone understands why it's bad to react in the obvious way to the blithering depths of human stupidity. - David Gerard 15:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

What you say??? --Aarktica 16:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Any idea as to how this will be promoted? If there's no simple way to tell everybody, that week could go down in history as Newbslaughter Fest. Doczilla 05:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

If n00bs are going to be recruited, could there a prominent notice on someplace n00bs won't typically see, like Watchlist pages, that people who shouldn't be biting n00bs here can't dismiss and ignore? Like our current fundraising note, but without the dismiss button? Maybe also quickly and neatly crackdown on people being prickish to n00bs as well who won't get on board? • Lawrence Cohen 06:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think a prominent notice like that would be most prudent. Doczilla 21:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Using redirects instead of proposing Afds

In the past few weeks Charles has proposed as Afds a number of individuals who are descended from royalty but whom he considers not to be notable. I've voted in favour of deleting most of these articles. Yesterday Charles edited a number of articles of similar individuals by redirecting each of them to another article.[1] I wrote to him about this matter and he replied that he had done it on the advice of an administrator. I consider it inappropriate for an editor to unilaterally delete an article by redirecting it to another article. I think it more appropriate for other editors to be able to discuss this matter and for the community to come to a consensus. I am not debating the notability or lack thereof of these individuals, merely the process used. What do others think? Noel S McFerran 13:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I think as long as one-liners are directed appropriately to a list and valid information isn't lost, discussion is neither needed nor efficient. It's easy enough to remove the redirect on the original article and add more information if desired. -Bikinibomb 13:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

That's not what is happening here. There is information on the original page which is being redirected, and that information is not duplicated on the page to which it is now redirected. If there were Afds, I'd probably vote "delete" in many cases. But I think that Charles' practice sets a bad precedent. Anytime somebody wants to get rid of an article, it can be blanked and redirected to some other page. Noel S McFerran 18:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

No such action should have been taken while AfDs were in progress. Did Charles mention the AfDs to the admin? Has anyone else seen the actual wording of the advice the admin is said to have given as it originally appeared? Doczilla 21:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes. To delete an article, and to make it into a redirect, are alternative ways of getting rid of a separate article; one of them requires a specific debate and a supermajority consensus, while the other only needs a single editor to make the edit. Certainly I think an AfD consensus of keep should not be frustrated by making the article a redirect. However, I wonder if we should avoid specific instruction creep and tackle this sort of disruptive editing by contacting individual editors. Disruptive editing is blockable and making an article a redirect as a way of getting rid of it is certainly disruptive. Sam Blacketer 22:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello all. Best course of action to get a direct answer would be to leave me a note on my talk page. The advice was given to me by DGG, but his page is archived frequently and I can't find it when looking for it. There are also some comments across miscellaneous talk pages stating the same. Regarding redirecting while Afd was in process, no, I have never knowingly done that and have checked to make sure I wasn't redirecting someone up for nomination. If I have, it is an unseen error on my part. I have been discussion many, many Afds over the past week or so and discussion has specifically been about criteria for deletion, etc. Charles 23:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The difference between redirecting and deletion is that redirecting can be undone by any user. So personally I'd see redirecting a questionable article, especially to another one which contains most of the useful information from the first, as an editorial decision which falls within WP:BRD and shouldn't necessarily require an AfD. If someone disagrees with me they can always revert me and discuss what to do with the article. What's not a good idea is to edit war over the redirect (best to take it to AfD if you can't get agreement on the talk page), or to redirect when consensus is against you, for example, by redirecting an article which has just been kept as a result of an AfD, or redirecting articles of a type which are regularly kept at AfD. There's also a line between being bold and disruptive which depends partly on scale - redirecting hundreds of pages in quick succession would be a good way to cause a scene. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Episodes for a discussion of a recent case like that. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 00:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Opened-but-unlinked old AfD

I just came across this old nom in Aaron Brenneman's contribution history. Does anything need to be done with it, like officially closing, or actually listing?--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 15:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd delete it. His edit summary indicates that he intended to come back and nominate later, but he stopped contributing. It was never transcluded or linked on the article. GRBerry 18:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The best approach is to contact the user and ask what he wants to do about it. Since this particular user has not contributed since February 26, 2007 (the same day he created the AFD), one can presume that he has left Wikipedia. I have moved the AFD into his user space and will leave him a note just in case he ever comes back.

--Richard 18:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Checking before creating

It there any way of checking if an article is considered notable enough to be on here before creating it? Buc 18:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

There's no nice, neat way to check it. Refer to the information at the top of the article's talk page because you may see that it has received a rating as mattering. You may need to check with participants in a relevant WikiProject. Refer to Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Familiarize yourself with past discussions of notability in the AfD pages. Ultimately, though, you use your best judgment. Doczilla 18:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

If there are multiple sources independent of the subject itself, it's most probably notable enough. --ais523 18:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

AFD sockpuppetry

I have blocked the accounts Doctorfluffy and AndalusianNaugahyde as sockpuppets of Pilotbob (per checkuser), who I note is presently blocked for 24 hours for querulous AFD nominations. Multiple not-a-votes from these accounts should not be taken as indicating any sort of consensus - David Gerard 15:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Closing an Afd

Who exactly has the authority to close an Afd? I had always presumed that it was an adminstrator. But today the Afd Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_November_9#Princess_Frederica_of_Hanover was closed after only fourteen and a half hours by User:Rudget who specifically says on his talk page "I am not an administrator". I do not disagree with the keep decision - merely with the process. Noel S McFerran 22:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I am wondering this as well, although Rudget, in all subsequent conversation, has been thorough and answers all questions. Perhaps he should be directed to this conversation. Charles 23:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Generally, non-administrators are permitted to close only non-controversial AfDs. Even more than an administrator, a non-admin who has participated in the debate or has been involved in editing the article should not close an AfD. This is frequently a subject brought up at deletion review. I think there has been some dispute in the past but it seems that in practice non-administrators can close an AfD as a delete, and then put a speedy deletion tag on the article with an explanation pointing to their close. Sam Blacketer 00:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I will be able to participate at a later time today. Rudget _zŋ 11:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that users who commented on AFDs weren't allowed to close the decision, until the comment above was published, which, unfortunately for me, was after the closure of the AFD in question. For a reason I can't currently work-out, I didn't provide a rationale for the deletion on the page, as I had done here or a reason in the edit summary, as I did here. I probably shall refrain from closing AFDs, as to be honest, in light of this recent evidence I am not all that good at doing it, and will most probably cause some more confusion and edit warring as I did with User:Charles and User:UpDown. However, I will most probably close snow keeps as I can't forsee any arguments against it, or for any other reason, such as "nomination withdrawn" AFDs. I would like to thank the users here who have given me some very good advice on what to do here, and I will move onto another process here, hopefully learning the rules a little better. Regards, Rudget _zŋ 17:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Permit me to clarify the process. Non-administrators may close non-ambiguous keep decisions only. Non-administrators may not close "delete" decisions primarily because it is a waste of everybody's time. Non-admins don't have the magic "delete" button so they can't finish the job. They can, as Sam said, put a speedy-delete tag on the page, but by the speedy-deletion rules, the deleting admin must verify that the speedy tag is appropriate before carrying it out. In the case of an AFD decision, that means navigating to the decision, reading it, essentially re-closing it and then returning to the page to carry out the deletion. The whole time this process is going on, we have a significantly increased risk that pages will fall through the cracks and that the community consensus will not be carried out. (We know that's the case because it's happened rather frequently in the past.) If the decision is "delete", no matter how obvious it is, the closure should be left to an admin who can actually carry out the deletion.
On a related note, non-admins should not attempt to close ambiguous decisions. The prevailing argument there is that the close calls demand someone with experience and the confidence of the community to make the call. In general, that means an admin. If a non-admin already has that experience and support, that's far more likely to be a sign that he/she should be made an admin than a sign that the process is broken. Rossami (talk) 04:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

As a matter of consistency and prudence, non-admins just really shouldn't close any discussions, not even the ones that they technically can. It will get closed, after all. Doczilla 18:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Disagree with the Doc, there. Please do close non-ambiguous keep discussions that have run their time and that you haven't participated in, as it makes admins' jobs easier. It's also good practice in case you want to become an admin. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I think there is a key phrase here---have run their time---I see too often a non-admin closing debates after less than 24 hours. Unless the nom is an obvious bad faith nom or deserves to be deleted due to a speedy criteria, I don't think it should be deleted by a non-admin UNTIL AFTER at least 3 or 4 days.Balloonman 19:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Disagree, the "key phrase" is non-ambiguous (or unambiguous) because that's what WP:DELPRO says, to the extent the time is in policy, it relates to the unambiguous status of the result. Though the guideline could be said to be a bit ambiguous itself on this point as it says one thing in one sentence and another thing in another sentence, but that's a topic for discussion here.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 19:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Anytime a debate is closed with less than 24 hours is not enough time to get a sense of if all relevant discussion has occurred. Even if the article has a dozen keep/deletes, I personally oppose non-admin closing it soon after a debate has begun because caters to people with an agenda on the subject. Just last week we had a non-admin closure after 2.5 hours on an AFD. He rationed that 4 people (3 of whom edited the article heavily) voted to keep it that it was a snowball. If the AFD has had sufficeint time AND unambiguous, then I have no problem with non-admin closures. But it's a two parter---I think a lot of non-admins want to get "credit" for closing AFD's thus rush it.Balloonman 20:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree that ambiguity is more significant than time. However, AFD runs for a significant length of time because of what can happen during that time - we've seen things that were snowballing turned around during the discussion. We've seen it both ways from sockpuppet problems, from delete to keep based on research and article improvement, and from keep to delete based on research demonstrating that what everyone thought wasn't so. So closing early is closing an ambiguous discussion, it hasn't settled to the final state yet. GRBerry 20:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like the ambiguity issue is up for discussion at WT:DELPRO. Also please see my comments there on the non-powers of admins, time is certainly an issue, but no more so than for admins. This affects non-AFD XfD's and should be discussed further at WT:DELPRO.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 21:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

How to delete a nomination in error?

The AfD notice got removed from a page that had been AfD'ed, and in perusing the edit summaries I didn't see the removal, so I nominated it again. Will I cause unspeakable horrors if I delete the second nomination page? --Fabrictramp 17:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I was going to agree with you, and suggest that you both delete the 2nd AfD and also remove its entry from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 November 12. The downside is that if, in the future, Benetin gets re-created and then brought to a second AfD, whoever opens the second AfD will get a warning that they are re-creating a deleted file! (since Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benetin (2nd nomination) will have existed once already). You can image how confused that person is going to be! Better just leave things as they are. EdJohnston 04:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Prod response to suggestion of merge destination

"When discussing merge destinations for a particular article, it is disruptive for participants in that discussion to prod (or nominate for deletion) the proposed merge destination article while the other discussion is still going on. If this isn't in a guideline somewhere, it should be." (see here for the orignal quote). Does this sound reasonable? Is it in a guideline already? Should it be if it isn't? Carcharoth 00:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if it's a guideline, but hopefully it somehow takes into account pages that have a merge tag for months with no discussion or action.--Fabrictramp 00:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point. I didn't mean that. I meant cases where an AfD discussion is in progress, with merge destinations being discussed. And then someone participating in that discussion goes and reads the suggested merge destination and promptly tags it for deletion. That seems, to me, to be disruptive of the original discussion. Carcharoth 01:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that there could be two scenarios here. 1) The PROD tag is applied in error. In which case, the first person seeing the tag and disagreeing with it can simply remove the tag. Problem solved and no disruption to the original discussion. 2) The target article itself fails to meet Wikipedia's inclusion standards in which case it is ulikely to be a viable merger target. I don't really see a disruption there either, nor do I see any point in waiting to start the clean-up process. I guess you could have a third case - a PROD tag added in bad faith but that's really just a variation of the first scenario since it can be removed by any editor for any good-faith reason. I don't yet see a reason to clutter up the policy for this situation. Rossami (talk) 02:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Two problems with your "scenario 2" that I see Rossami: First, this seems to be a collateral attack intended to disrupt the process and it could result in the earlier deletion of the target without discussion; Second, and more important, depending on the alleged grounds for deletion merger could solve the problem for both articles, e.g. in the case of notability or an article being little more than a definition.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 05:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)