Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion

Consolidation

Why not rename this to "Articles for Discussion", and then fold Wikipedia:Requested moves, all of the {{Merge}} stuff, {{Prod}}, and possibly some of Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion into one process? I'm sure that there are one or two other process that could easily fit under an "articles for discussion" umbrella, as well. De-emphasizing deletion as the primary mechanism, even if it is only a "psychological" de-emphasis, certainly couldn't hurt anything though. Most importantly however, simplifying and centralizing 4-6 different processes into a single discussion forum could only help all of us as editors, I would think.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 04:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• ahem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Fred_episodes
  — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 22:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments

Prod and speedy don't involve discussions. We have those mechanisms to avoid discussing some deletions when it is not necessary to do so. We could have a better way of summarising and publicising what articles are candidates for deletion, but that doesn't require that we only use a single process. Fences&Windows 17:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

That said, I think we do need to reform our merge processes. Unless I'm missing it, there's no centralised equivalent to AfD or RM for discussing merges, other than Category:Articles to be merged, which is unmanageable and has a huge backlog. Fences&Windows 17:51, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying necessarily that we don't need a better merge process, but you are missing Wikipedia:Proposed mergers:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I knew I was missing something. It's still a poor process as there's no deadline to the discussion and far too little participation - I think my forgetting about that page is typical of most editors... Fences&Windows 22:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

There was also the failed WP:Mergers for discussion. Flatscan (talk) 03:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

And there is Wikipedia:Proposed mergers and its spawn Wikipedia:Proposed mergers/Log. @harej 02:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

For reasons I've stated further down this page, I believe that deletion and merging discussions should be merged together into Articles for Discussion. I have no strong opinion either way regarding whether requested moves should be folded in or not, but PROD should remain separate. A listing at AfD typically results in lots of eyes seeing the article and often improving it. The same cannot be said of the merge and move procedures that are vastly under participated in. Thryduulf (talk) 12:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Follow up statement

OK, the main objection to renaming AFD to use "discussion" instead of "Deletion" in past proposals is that the current intent of AFD is directed towards deletion. That merge, move, transwiki, or other actions are occasionally the result is purely coincidental to the fact that AFD causes discussion to occur, and the result is not actually limited to deletion by any practical reason. If the process were expanded to specifically include mergers and moves then that objection is moot.

There has also been some consensus to use "discussion" in place of "deletion" for other XfD areas, so a change would hardly be unprecedented. I recall one of the XfD areas recently was ready to make exactly that change, but ran into some technical issue or other. I'm not really sure what ever happened with that, but the point is that the position that "there's consensus to not do this" isn't as clear cut as the link to the old discussion above appears to make it seem.

As for PROD, and possibly parts of CSD, one thing that I've been slightly unclear about for a long time now is the reason for desiring to reduce discussion when it comes to deletion. I've seen proposals to consider AFD's that generate little or no discussion as PROD's, and thinking about it that sort of thing makes sense to me. I understand that one reason for the creation of PROD was as an attempt to reduce the workload at AFD. I don't have any statistics to back this point up, but it doesn't seem that PROD has been effective in reducing the workload at AFD. I have a sneaking suspicion that some advocates desire to keep PROD simply so that they can delete things without garnering as much notice. I've seen convincing refutations of that, but the perception of impropriety is still there, and it's very easy to assume bad faith about a function as destructive as deletion.

Anyway, the main problem that I see with the current situation is that it's simply inefficient. There's CSD, PROD, AFD, RM, PM, the other XfD's, and probably more that I'm forgetting about. We're scattering editors all over the place, and that strikes me as an inefficient and overly complicated means to handle things.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 09:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with folding in the merge process to AfD. If it were Articles for Discussion then editors could nominate articles for merges or redirects using the exact same process as articles for deletion. Requested Moves is about the article title, so I'm not sure that fits. Prod is good as it is both simple to nominate and simple to contest, it still needs an admin, and it can be contested after deletion. You can try to reduce the scope of CSD, there are some areas where it is used overzealously to delete salvageable articles, but we're always going to have a CSD process. Fences&Windows 00:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Well yea, I'm realistic about things. We're never actually going to get rid of CSD, and we're not likely to deprecate PROD. I don't think that PROD is in nearly as strong of a position as CSD is, though. I think that most view PROD as a sort of "AFD Light" already (which I'm fairly certain is the intent anyway), so it's not as though we'd really be getting rid of a whole process by consolidating it back with AFD. Aside from all of that, I'm not sure why people would complain. The only real difference with AFD from PROD is that the nominator has to start a page, and may have to actually discuss the article.

Requested Moves is a much lighter process, but it does have a generally similar structure as AFD. The largest difference between RM and AFD right now is that the discussion for RM's take place on the article's talk page. The other issue here is that both moves, mergers, and deletions all overlap somewhat already. A discussion about one already leads to performing one of the other procedures occasionally, so it's not as though we would be combining oil and water.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 03:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Here's a follow up to the issue of whether or not consolidating requested moves into this would be appropriate. Keep in mind that I'm taking no position in the legitamacy or usefulness of teh !vote in the linked to discussion, but this !vote should make it clear that I'm not off base in asserting that there is a similarity between all of these processes.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 10:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Previous discussion

• WT:Articles for deletion/Archive 53#Renaming this process Articles for Discussion (April 2009) rejected the rename. Flatscan (talk) 03:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

  I encourage interested editors to review previous discussions (older ones were themselves referenced at the archive link I gave). The rename was the primary topic of the most recent discussion, but other issues have been raised. Two that I remember are increased numbers of nominations that further strain AfD and a lack of transparency from rename/expanded scope (imagine explaining to a new editor that his article is in danger of deletion at Articles for discussion). I agree that considering content on a continuum (full article – partial article – no article) makes sense, but there are non-trivial issues to consider. Flatscan (talk) 05:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

  Hi Flatscan. Since this was the second reply in a row which discussed previous discussions along similar lines, I thought perhaps pulling them out and starting a sub-discussion about that might be appropriate. One thing that I wanted to ask about is the motivation behind these two replies. The first was understandable, but the tone of the second seems slightly... annoyed, I guess, if you read it the "correct" way. For the record, I was aware of the above linked discussion, and at least one other which occurred prior to that, before posting this. I do tend to agree that renaming would be somewhat pointless without a larger change in purpose or structure, which is really what the heart of this proposal addresses. If we do decide to consolidate mergers, moves, and possibly other procedures into the current AFD procedure are you stating that you would oppose changing the name to "Articles for Discussion"?
  — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 10:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

  My second reply pointed out the existence of even older discussions (there were a few closely-spaced ones in January 2009) and provided a rationale for why a reader should consult them. I think that consolidation is a superficially attractive idea with downsides that must be considered. Flatscan (talk) 05:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

  Well, OK... let's see. There is a consistent concern in these discussions regarding the "strain on AfD". Aside from the fact that consolidation should actually help that issue, due to the fact that it will focus more community members into a single area, I just don't see the "strain" issue as anything more then white noise. That there is a significant amount of work at AfD is taken, somewhat correctly in my estimation, as a given; however, that there is some sort of epic struggle to keep up with it doesn't seem to be born out by the facts. To point out a simple barometer which addresses this: there's no backlog at AfD. As for the transparency argument, I don't really know how to address that. It seems so self evident to me that the process page itself, and the participants in the discussions, would satisfy this concern that simply asking the question tends to create a "bad faith" impression in my mind. People aren't stupid, after all, and it seems fairly safe to assume that Wikipedia editors can read.
  — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 05:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Do you mean a closing backlog? Evaluating a discussion and closing it generally takes much less time than the discussion itself. Some users point to the number of relists as an indicator of stress, but I think that AfDs in unpopular topics will be neglected even if considerably fewer AfDs were filed.
  • "Transparency" was not a precisely correct word choice. The combined possible outcomes and additional degrees of freedom may be confusing to some editors – of course, some have difficulty with the current process. I think that we have differing expectations of editor competence.
  • A new question: in the new process, how easy will it be to jump from a merger discussion to a deletion discussion?
    Flatscan (talk) 05:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

← Well, I don't envision the AFD process itself as being significantly different then it is now. Maybe some people would want to take the opportunity to change other things, I don't know, but that's a bit beyond the scope of this... I just don't think that it would be any more confusing then it is now, and with the name change it could even be clearer.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 08:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Move a disputed merge to AfD, retitled Articles for Discussion

I very strongly support the proposal that anyone could optionally move a disputed merge to AfD, retitled Articles for Discussion. I base this upon these reasons

1. It will bring disputed matters out to where people in general can see them
2. it will provide a simple solution to the current complicated multi-place discussions about the extent to which merges etc. are enforceable at AfD, deletion review, etc.
3. It will prevent evading the intention of AfD closes--in any direction.--I've seen all sorts of them.
4. It will end the meta discussions at individual AfDs about what the true intent is, and whether AfD has jurisdiction over the proposal--as when a person nominates an AfD and says "delete, or at least merge" and is challenged for taking it to AfD.
5. It will simplify the repeated and sometimes circular movements of disputes over multiple stages and places. As is, we end up discussing the same thing repeatedly because nobody quite knows where to handle it.
6. It will greatly discourage edit warring over merges & redirects, by providing a place to reach an open decision.
7. Particularly important, from other XfDs, I have learned the advisability of keeping all options open at a discussion. It really helps get the best solution, often one not thought of at first. Many such discussions end up with everyone agreeing on a somewhat different proposal.
8. Most important, it encourages compromise, which makes consensus much easier to obtain. It's highly desirable that we do reach consensus on things--consensus being defined as something everyone can at least accept. It might even remove a good deal of the incentive for multiple AfDs or re-creations. It will encourage working together, rather than trying to oppose each other.

I know that a step like this will cause everyone to wonder: what will happen to my favorite type of article, or my least favorite? Will it help me, or my regular opponents? I have not analyzed it this way myself as applies to what I personally like or dislike, for i really do not think that anywhere near as important as a major simplification of process. (I think it might, for example, keep fewer individual articles on aspects of fiction than I would really like. But it would be worth it, in order not to have to continue fighting each one.) I'd rather get a reasonable chance at a simple compromise than get my way if it takes continual arguing and party-formation. I do have some experience disputing at AfDs under the current system, and it is possible I will need to develop new skills--all the better , is what I say. It's time the wiki-debater specialists like me (& my habitual opponents) went on to other things. I'd really like the chance to consider a group of related questions together, with the question not delete/keep, but what can we do best with this set of articles. I recognize this may in one sense bring more matters to AfD--but this will be balanced by not having them elsewhere. And, I'd hope, by disposing of things more rapidly and easily. DGG ( talk ) 06:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC) A focus on individual article decisions

• linked from Template:Cent (diff), WT:Requested moves (diff), WP:Village pump (proposals) (diff) Flatscan (talk) 06:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
• Strong support for this. All DGG's reasons are good; I can see no downside. JohnCD (talk) 10:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support As in previous discussions, I support the idea of bring these processes together. Having a central avenue will bring more focus to areas needing improvement, and it will better interlink the areas in which different editors work. I think it is an inevidible thing, especially since it has been proposed numerous times with increasing frequency. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 19:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
• Strongly support considering my past contributions to this idea. There's so many benefits of considering merges and other options in the same venue as deletions (even if the resolve does not require admin actions) that it seems silly to keep them separated. --MASEM (t) 20:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• What benefits? You don't list any nor provide any evidence of them. We have clear evidence that merges are not satisfactory outcomes at AFD (see below) and encouraging more of the same seems likely to cause the entire process to collapse. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:52, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Next step would be to write out what is being proposed nice and clearly, open an RfC and advertise it at Cent etc. Fences&Windows 00:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support though I fear this will require substantial other changes as well in procedures. Collect (talk) 01:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
• Strong support per DGG, "It will prevent evading the intention of AfD closes--in any direction.--I've seen all sorts of them." How many times has a article been put up for deletion, closed "keep" or "no consensus", only to go through a prolonged bitter fight over merging? Hopefully this proposal will address this problem also. Ikip 01:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Neither keep nor no consensus dictate that the article must be a separate page – a subsequent merge discussion is often a normal step in refining content organization. I have seen a few cases where an article was quickly redirected following an AfD supportive of or ambivalent (arguments for each side) towards separate articles; I prefer that WP:Be bold be avoided after relevant discussion. Flatscan (talk) 04:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
    • I understand the policy history. Maybe I am not understanding the proposal fully, I have had a nagging feeling that I don't this entire time...but if an AFDiscussion specifically offers the choice of merge and redirect, and editors decide to keep instead, wouldn't this possibly avoid the merge and redirect arguments? If there was no consensus, then the editors could simply renominate the article later, as a merge, avoiding the bitter fighting. That said though, ...if no one argues about a BOLD merge/redirect, despite the AFD, then their is really no issue anyway. What I envision this doing is allowing the community as a whole decide these nasty arguments, instead of two polar opposite parties. Ikip 15:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
      • If keep separate is codified as a separate outcome, such a closure would explicitly preclude merging or redirecting. Current AfD closures are not final decisions and may be appealed outside of formal process with a discussion on the article's Talk page (WP:Non-deleting deletion discussions describes common practice). Flatscan (talk) 06:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support - could some kind soul notify me if I seem to have missed it when this is announced as a centralized discussion? - 2/0 (cont.) 04:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose made explicit Flatscan (talk) 07:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC) Write a proposal as suggested by Fences and windows, preferably as a separate WP page that can be readily edited. I see good reasons and support here, but very little addressing of previous objections. Flatscan (talk) 04:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I see the benefits, but I think they're overstated, especially relative to the costs. I'll continue to participate at any specific proposals. Flatscan (talk) 07:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support - and here's my proposal: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Proposal 1 — Sebastian 04:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Sorry to go against the apparently unanimous flow, but while I agree that finding a way to bring these articles to a place where they will be discussed is a good thing, it is already a lot of work to keep on top of the articles that are proposed (one way or another) for deletion every day. With increased numbers of articles at a less-specific forum, this is going to be even harder, and with so many editors apparently with the opinion that virtually everything should be deleted, a lot of these merge discussions could turn into deletion discussions. I think a more effective, and separate way of discussing (possibly) controversial mergers would be preferable. Deletion shouldn't be taken lightly, and I would prefer AFD to become more specifically about deleting articles because the subjects of those articles don't belong in an encyclopedia, which is sometimes not the case already.--Michig (talk) 08:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

  You're making a number of interesting points; let me reply to them individually: (1) Re the number of nominations: the overall number will not change (at least not directly). You can see with one glance if a nomination proposes a merge or a deletion; this seems like a small price to pay for those who only want to look at deletion proposals. (2) I think it's rather unlikely that a change of venue would change "a lot" of decisions towards deletion; I think by and large people here care more about the merits of the article than about the venue where they are discussed. (3) You may have a point when you say "more effective", though. The current procedure has at least the benefit that it has been around, and for that reason may have an edge over any changed system. (4) see #2. (5) "Articles that belong in an encyclopedia": That sounds like a good criterion, but it's unfortunately not so clear cut. In reality, much of AfD deals with articles that neither fully belong nor fully don't belong: redirects, transwiki, rename, and such. That's the whole point of this proposal. If it were always such a clear-cut distinction, then I would wholeheartedly agree with you. — Sebastian 09:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

  Michig: the overall no. will be cut down if everything is discussed in one place, not two or three. As for balance, would I be proposing something that I was certain would change it to many more deletes? The truth is that I haven't the least idea, but rational procedure will find out better what the community wants. What I hope we will find it wants is more good merges. "articles that belong in an encyclopedia" = notability minus NOT. Of course it's a matter for judgement. That's why we have discussions. If it were an actual mathematical equation we wouldn't need AfD at all. DGG ( talk ) 00:34, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support The more attention it gets, the better. Otherwise you have just a small number of people, rampaging about, avoiding AFD entirely by placing redirects everywhere, and claiming the information was "merged" when almost never is anything actually merged. Dream Focus 20:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support, reflects what we do already. AfDs often close with a "merge" recommendation, so having all these discussions in a single place will save effort. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:57, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
• An excellent idea that I most definitely support. However, I am unsure of whether or not Articles for Deletion ought to be renamed; there are quite a large number of scripts that rely on the current page title. Obviously they could all be changed, but I wonder if it is really worth it to do that. In addition, you would then have the problem of either moving all old AfDs to the new pagename or breaking an easy way of finding old discussions. NW (Talk) 03:07, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
  • There are over 200,000 AfD subpages as of 2 January 2010. Flatscan (talk) 07:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Right now the only way to get a merge or redirect done in a potentially contentious subject area (WP:FICT) is to be both very BOLD and not attract any opposition whatsoever. Nifboy (talk) 03:55, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support - but and agreement for merger does not mean it will be done. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 04:44, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

  See #How effective is the merge decision? below. — Sebastian 05:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

• Qualified support – DGG's reasons laid out above are very compelling. I'm not going to comment on the proposal for rename, which is largely a technical rather than policy argument. Instead, I'd like to raise a few cavils about the proposal of combining the merger and rename discussions with the AfD process.
  1. Turning first to requested moves, the closing instructions state highlight a couple of differences between the two processes. Moving pages doesn't require the admin bit (unless you are moving over a redirect), and most page moves are non-controversial. These two factors combine to make the sort of participation and consensus that one finds at WP:RM different than what occurs at AfD; for this reason I am opposed to merging those two processes. (Also, the fact that a move leaves behind a redirect means that it is impossible to edit-war over a move, so the visibility of conflicts is minimized.)
  2. Proposed merges is a different animal. First of all, we have a backlog of more than two years of requested mergers. If anything, I'd like to see the proposed merger process used less often – a cursory cruise through the backlog shows that many, many of the pages are there because someone threw a template on the articles and then left, often without even opening a corresponding talk page thread. We should encourage a WP:SOFIXIT mentality in this area because merges often are time-consuming.

     The level of research/subject area knowledge one needs to do when discussing mergers is qualitatively quite different than that needed for deletion. In the latter event, one considers notability guidelines, and most questions can be settled by googling: the relevant question is the relation of one concept to the external world. For merging, though, one must consider the mutual relation of two ideas – which requires more specialized knowledge. And merging can be a dialectal process – gradually moving paragraphs from one article to another, seeing what fits, getting feedback, and eventually reducing one ofthe articles to a redirect. Perhaps I am overreacting, but DGG's hope that discussing mergers at AfD will lead to "disposing of things more rapidly and easily," lead me to fear that merge discussions will degenerate into drive-by !voting with no follow-through by participants.

     Finally, I am worried that by combining the discussion of mergers with that of deletions, mergers will seem like a tempting "third way." If some editors say "delete" and some say "keep," I do not want some well-intentioned compromise-minded soul to come by and say "merge, and you can both be happy." This will just create a mountain of tedium for the WikiGnomes who actually carry out these requests, who (as has been insightfully observed upthread), are rarely the !voters.

I do recognize that it can be useful to have a binding decision on a merger, if it is contested or edit-warred over. So I propose that we leave the proposed merger process mostly as-is. (I would like to see a WikiProject Merge Sorting, akin to the Deletion Sorting one, to publicize better the merge discussions. But that is a separate proposal). However, if a merge is heavily contested, either in the discussion on the talk page or in the form of an edit war over a redirect vs. full article, any editor can take it to a "Court of Appeals" where a binding consensus can be reached. This "court" would be structured like the current AfD process (list for 7 days, close by (usually) an admin at the end, etc.); I'm ambivalent as to whether this should be mixed in with AfD or have a new area created for it (I can see advantages to both). This two-level system would be analogous to the PROD/AfD distinction we have for deletion. Requested moves could be done through this system as well – though I've indicated ways in which the move process is different, it would still be a good idea to get more input in controversial cases.

Thoughts? — æk^Talk 08:35, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD is sometimes used (mainly in topics related to WP:FICT) to clear disputed mergers/redirects, very similar to your proposal. These often have preceding discussion per WP:BEFORE and are phrased to avoid WP:Speedy keep. Flatscan (talk) 06:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments:
While i'm appealed by DGG proposal, i think few points need to be clarified

• This proposal should have no retroactive power to avoid people appealing for the unmerge of currently merged articles on the pretext that a new recourse appeared.
• Have the usual restriction of Article for Discussion. No i will sent it to AfD until it's merged and the like.
• Sanction editors who abuse the process using it as a delaying & filibuster action. It's for "Disputed Merge" not for every single merge.

--KrebMarkt 10:39, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose The quality of discussion at AFD is currently poor and numerous discussions have to be carried forward for lack of any significant participation. For example, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dust suppression. This is a highly notable topic and of great significance for human safety. This was nominated for deletion on the absurd grounds that the topic was not notable (there are hundreds of books about it) and we then have a poorly attended debate in which the few participants appear to know next to nothing about the topic. Observing this travesty, I expanded the article to get it back on track only to be informed by an admin that there was now a supposed consensus for merger. This outcome clearly damaged the encyclopedia in that my well-sourced and informative addition was reverted and further work upon this notable topic has been suppressed. So, by expanding the scope of discussion, this existing poor process will be both overloaded and further degraded due to confusion over the proper object of the discussion. The purpose of AFD is to direct an admin to use his deletion button and that's all. This process should be reserved for hopeless cases per WP:BEFORE and then the process is clear and easy to administer. If you expand the scope to include cases where the material has merit but the question is how best to present it, then we might easily have thousands of articles to consider every day. Such discussions are best held upon the talk pages for the articles in question per the current WP:MERGE procedure. This process is scalable and will attract the correct audience - editors with an interest in the topic who we may hope actually know something about it. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:04, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
  • First, I will point out that we need to distinguish problems with interpretations of notability and "encyclopedic quality" with the process of AFD itself. The example above is not a problem with the AFD process, and actually shows a case where it seems to make sense to use AFD for merge considerations. But to the main point - yes, mergers and redirects should be discussed first on the talk page of affected articles, just as issues with articles with notability should be brought forward first there. But, there will always be people that disagree with the results - whether its the one person that doesn't want the merge and editwars to fight it, or the one that wants the merge but is met with several editors that are OWNing articles. AFDiscussion would be a natural extension of what the dispute resolution process is, as it is supposed to be handled. --MASEM (t) 15:37, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

• We already have dispute resolution procedures such as RFC. This proposal seems to add nothing but confusion to what should be a clean and simple debate about deletion. Please see below where it is clear that merge results arising from AFD are already being neglected. This seems good evidence that the proposal is both redundant and unworkable - we already have merges being suggested at AFD but then they are not acted upon. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:46, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

• I didn't realize there was a deadline on AfD related merges. I thought there was no deadline at all. I am not compelled by your argument they are being neglected, there are many cleanup categories that are backlogged for well over a year, and that in an of itself is not a sufficient reason. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 19:00, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

• The nice thing about deletion is that you get a fairly clear binary decision - either the article is deleted or it isn't - and so you get reasonably swift closure. Once you start talking about mergers which might take a year to complete, if they are ever completed, then you have a fuzzy, open-ended outcome in which it may not be clear whether the matter has been resolved and completed or not. Articles often form part of a interlinked set and the rest of Wikipedia cannot be expected to stand still while such indeterminate decisions are left hanging. Editors who may have played no part in the discussion cannot be expected to know of it or abide by it and so will create facts on the ground which will make a supposed consensus obsolete if it is not acted on quickly. Fresh discussions will then take place and these will tend to become running battles because there will be no closure. To avoid this, the editors taking the decisions should be the editors who will do the work; who will take responsibility for seeing that the decisions are acted upon. These are best found at the article's talk page. Once you move matters to a separate central forum, then you get armchair editors who are quite ready to pontificate and vote but less willing to do the resulting work. Power without responsibility does not make for a good governance. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• • In my mind, all mergers (discussed in and out of AfD) have common issues that must be addressed separately. Rolling mergers into AfD will help some problems, but it is not a magical fix-all. Flatscan (talk) 06:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

• I support this idea. We need to do something about the shitty articles with usable content, and allowing merges in the AFD process will help. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:21, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support per the reasons given by DGG. Merge discussions quite frequently overlap with deletion discussions, so I agree that it would be beneficial to rename the process and implement a revised system. JamieS93 18:36, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support - This sounds like a great idea. Merges are quite frequently the result of AFDs, why not give them a permanent place to be discussed? The rename also shows a better understanding of what the process really is. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 22:05, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support of course.
  — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 02:07, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
• Fantastic proposal. ÷seresin 06:30, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
• Strong support. I was thinking of proposing this myself just a few weeks back. Currently there are many borderline keep or no consensus results where a clear merge or semi-merge would have been the better outcome. Since AfD currently only deals with deletion, these peripheral results are not considered by the closing admin and in my experience, none of the editors actually goes back to do said merge or the necessary editing once AfD closes. In addition to keep, no consensus and delete, Articles for Discussion should also have closing options such as merge, semi-merge, redirect (without merge), move/rename/change of scope (for articles and lists whose title results in the topic being covered in a problematic or skewed way, where deletion can be avoided). Zunaid 06:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support I rarely propose merges/redirects on talk pages because I know that no one will respond or consensus will not be gained. I nominate articles for deletion (which would have the same outcome) and then I'm yelled at because AFD is for deletion discussions, not merge. Reywas92^Talk 21:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support - This will be a sweeping change to procedures, but it from my experiences it will be worth it, as well as help AfD reflect reality more. It is very frequent for AfDs to end as merge and/or re-direct, and many editors, sometimes openly, prefer to nominate an article to AfD to get a merge as they know it will happen faster via AfD than by the offical talk page method. Schools are a perfect example of this. Camaron · Christopher · talk 22:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Support, I agree with the benefits listed by the proposer and other commenters. Additionally I just personally feel that anything to encourage more discussion is welcome. Redirects for discussion, rather than deletion, is a great benefit, so I feel that this change here would help with the merge processes and such other things. --Taelus (talk) 01:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support Articles for Discussion is the more appropriate name. And merge discussions tend to get neglected, apart from the page watchers who tend by their nature to want to keep the status quo. This is a win win proposal. 81.185.116.128 (talk) 17:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Tired of this "well, it's between a keep and merge, so let's just decide it on the talk page, but it never gets resolved" business. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose – but I don't understand why a blessing from an admin is necessary on anything except a deletion or non-deletion as far as AFDs are concerned. Also, perhaps I'm against this notion of keeping discussions on major editorial actions (such as merging) local and strictly amongst those users who are actively collaborating on an article as opposed to having "community exposure" on each and every single major editorial action made on every article on Wikipedia. Article talk pages, not a centralized community venue, are the places to discuss such editorial changes. I think we've gotten so lock-step into just typing in simple !votes for literally everything (like what we're all doing here now) instead of actually having a discussion, which has been at least what I have experienced in the last few merge proposals I have brought up (even though it's been a while, now). I also have to echo some of the concerns that Colonel Warden brought up such as overloading the already-overloaded (IMO) AFD queue. –MuZemike 02:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

  Flatscan and I briefly discussed AFD being "overloaded", above. I would be interested in hearing the reasons that you believe that AFD is currently overloaded.
  — V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 02:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

  Convenience link: #Previous discussion. Flatscan (talk) 07:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

  An admin closure is sometimes necessary to halt tendentious opposition. I added a suggestion along these lines to Help:Merging#Closing/archive a proposed merger. Flatscan (talk) 07:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• Strong oppose This proposal would encourage forum shopping. The talk page and the chain of dispute resolution mechanisms should be the primary way to settle content disputes, including splits and merges. Yes, it can be trying to form consensus. But the question of whether a given blob of content should be in one article to two is rarely that consequential. AfD should an exception mechanism for determining whether material belongs on Wikipedia at all and there is plenty of unfinished business on that front. I can understand that editors on AfD, having spent time on a nominated article, wish to opine on how material that passes deletion review should be organized, but that temptation should be resisted. The consensus process requires a single place for content discussions. One question for supporters: if I want to split an article and others oppose that move, should I be heard on Articles for Discussion? If mergers are fair game, why not? --agr (talk) 12:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

  In answer to the question about splits, personally I don't see why you wouldn't be heard at AFD. If you're trying to highlight a perceived weakness with that question, then it need further explaination, because it seems that this proposal is exactly what you want.
  — V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 20:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

  There is already some asymmetry between mergers and splits. Combining mergers and splits has been suggested at WT:Proposed mergers#Proposed mergers *and splits*?, but not heavily discussed. Flatscan (talk) 07:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Support. This will be a good thing. One concern I have is what happens when a newbie creates an article, and it soon gets slapped with an "Article for Deletion" tag. That must be downheartening for a lot of new editors who it happens to. We surely lose some of them by this process. Whereas, articles for discussion gives a better chance of alternative outcomes other than deletion, such as userfication, or incubation - see WP:BITE and WP:PRESERVE. Mjroots (talk) 17:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
  • The newbie must be made aware of the possibility of outright deletion – "deletion" or a scary template are equally bitey. Flatscan (talk) 07:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Agree with MuZemike (talk · contribs) and Michig (talk · contribs) that the most appropriate place for these sorts of discussions is the talk page, whereas Articles for deletion should be about whether or not to delete. Also, agree with ArnoldReinhold (talk · contribs) that this would encourage disruptive forum shopping. Cirt (talk) 21:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose I concede that a number of DGG's reasons are compelling. That said, I really don't think expanding the function of AfD is a good idea. The daily AfD logs are already massive, typically containing at least 100 discussions each. Reading through the above debate, I notice some have asserted that mixing in proposed mergers and requested moves won't result in an unhelpfully large AfD workload. I don't buy into that argument at all. Furthermore, I agree with MuZemike, Michig, and Cirt in that I feel article talk pages are the proper province of merger discussions. I don't believe that bringing those discussions to a bloated, rebranded AfD will be helpful at all in decreasing the proposed merger backlog. And finally, I don't think the current name of this forum discourages outcomes like "userfy," "incubate," etc. They still occur – and how can that increase if closing admins notice the rename? Not too much, I'm willing to bet. So I object to the proposal. The status quo is better. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support. This would stop closings with consensus is to keep, take merge discussion to talk page please that end up never getting resolved. Bsimmons666 (talk) 15:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge-specific results will probably be better, but may be inconclusive or require relists. AfDs reaching consensus are already closed as merge. Flatscan (talk) 07:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Not always, I thought. Bsimmons666 (talk) 04:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
      • That's not a consensus to merge. Even if that were an AfDiscussion, that's a pretty SNOWy keep, in line with most AfDs on recent major news events (I think there's an essay, but I can't find it). Flatscan (talk) 05:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Aside from the practical benefits, technically, the question of whether or not a separate article should exist on a subject is essentially a deletion discussion: We're asking "should this article exist or not?" The fact that a redirect gets created and the content moved doesn't negate the fact that we're discussing the fundamental merits of the article's existence, which in some merge cases (presumably the disputed ones) can hinge on notability -- a question that it's traditionally been agreed merits centralized discussion at AfD. Equazcion ^(talk) 22:51, 29 Dec 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree that the stand-alone article metric makes sense, and AfD is pretty good at evaluating that. In my limited experience, AfD is pretty bad at discussing merge specifics. Flatscan (talk) 07:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Specifics don't need to be discussed at AfD; Only the binary question of whether or not a merge is warranted. That's basically the same as a deletion discussion. Once that's determined, specifics are discussed on the talk page. Equazcion ^(talk) 15:23, 30 Dec 2009 (UTC)
      • I think we are actually mostly in agreement. Finalizing specifics at the Talk page happens in the current AfDeletion. There are issues with it (#How effective is the merge decision?, below), and I don't understand how this proposal can fix them if it does the same thing. Flatscan (talk) 07:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose The main purpose of the articles for deletion debate is to find a consensus on an action - deletion - that specifically requires administrator intervention. Page moves can be done by any editor and there is no reason to obscure the purpose of the deletion process. The fact is that Wikipedia does need a clear and unambiguous deletion process, and clogging it with other debates will only slow the process down and mislead people as to the purpose of the discussion. Many of the problems raised in the proposal could be addressed by more modest policy changes. It could simply be made clear that a consensus reached in an AFD as to an article change necessary to avoid deletion is actually binding. Locke9k (talk) 20:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support I think this is a particularly good idea in that it will help streamline the number of processes required in a situation where an article should be either deleted, merged or moved, but where it is initially unclear which is the best option. One forum for all of these is better than having to make three different proposals in such situations. Brilliantine (talk) 01:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Maybe I'm missing the big change, but as far as I can see, all this proposal would change is a question. As things are, AfD is a process where someone selects and article and asks the community "Should we delete this article?". That's a binary question, and often discussions reveal the solution is more than black and white; sometimes the article is not appropriate, but the content is acceptable somewhere else. So we get rid of the article, and save the content; make the article a redirect and the content gets merged. Regardless of what you want call it, AfD is always going to be a place that deals with both article and content issues. Given this is what actually happens in reality at AfD, I think the question nominators really need to be asking the community is "What should we do with this article and this content?" Renaming AfD to Articles for Discussion would reflect this question. And when we start asking that question, the inclusionist/deletionist divide vanishes. It becomes insignificant. And while a new name may not have some of the... shal we say 'focus' of Articles for Deletion, it would be a healthy change that would reflect what actually goes on in practice. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 04:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
  • One big change is all the pages that must be moved. I agree with the idea of "what should we do with this content", but I disagree that 1) AfD's name/scope should be changed and 2) that the inclusion divide will magically vanish. There are contentious merger discussions that originate from the articles and rapidly escalate to AfD – the heat is not all attributable to AfD's structure. Flatscan (talk) 07:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Well, I'm a bit of an idealist, but even still, I think this would be a major factor in the healing process. Aside from that tho, why would we need to move all those old pages? Why not just leave them where they are, and change the newly created ones? Certainly something like this wouldn't go into effect overnight, a future date could be set when scripts and such would need to be updated. Then on midnight on such-and-such a day all new AfDs will be located at Articles for Discussion/blablabla. And the universe continues as normal. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 03:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
      • There are templates that may include nominations before and after the rename, such as {{oldafdmulti}}. This issue should be a consideration, but it seems that NuclearWarfare has been the only participant to mention it. Flatscan (talk) 07:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose I see no benefit from the change. I rarely see benefit from change. Edison (talk) 05:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Why? The Junk Police (reports|works) 14:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

• I used to oppose this (April 2009 proposal). I will tend to support, per nom. If I wish, create new naming convections for XfD, renaming all for deletion(s) to to discussion. The Junk Police (reports|works) 14:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support as long as this doesn't become overly bureaucratic, in particular per issues 3 and 6. Often merge discussions don't have enough participants and tags linger for years. Redirects due to WP:N failure get edit warred over or wikilawyered at AfD: "you want to redirect, not delete". Sometimes a WikiProject discussion is pretty much this, i.e. "articles for discussion" (e.g. 1, 2, 3) but this works only if the article is part of a sufficiently active WikiProject. Pcap ping 07:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support as long overdue. Following the good example of CfD and TfD, this change will shift the tone of AfD from a full-stakes war over deletion to a discussion of what is best for the article and for the encyclopaedia. Move discussions already get mixed into AfD; streamlining the process to reflect this reality is apposite.  Skomorokh  12:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support. This will be a great way to bring light to important, yet oft-ignored, merge proposals. youngamerican (wtf?) 00:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support At AfD this will cut bureaucracy by allowing proposed merges to get the attention they need. Currently, if a nominator makes the mistake of suggesting a merge he is shot down with cries of "afd is not for merge proposals" with little attention payed to the actual quality of the article under discussion. I also support the added focus on community discussion that this would bring to merge discussions, as our current system for advertising merge discussions is severely broken. ThemFromSpace 00:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Agreeing with DGG. Give merges their needed attention.  Dspradau → talk  19:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support I support the inclusion of merge discussions at AFD, I oppose a change to the name. It's unnecessary and will cause too much extra work. Jujutacular ^T · C 21:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
• Approve - This is a wise proposal that has been too long in coming. — James Kalmar 22:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Merge discussions already happen there from time to time, and some people even already nominate merges. Not saying we should adopt this change because of that directly, but it's proven itself useful already. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 01:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support for the multitude of reasons above. A wise change that's taken way too long. —what a crazy random happenstance 07:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Always a fan of making things simpler, making one place for the same discussion is a good thing for efficiency. Shadowjams (talk) 07:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support This will give merges much-needed attention. The Thing _{Editor Review} 03:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support this works well at WP:CFD, providing a centralized place for discussion, and can hopefully get broader consensus on proposed merges. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 06:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
• Please move this comment if it's in the wrong place. I've plonked it here at the end because I'm only passing through. It struck me that "articles for discussion" is not a great name. It seems too wide in scope, and sounds as if it deals with any point of debate, which is really what the articles' talk pages are for, n'est-ce-pas? 86.150.102.84 (talk) 02:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC).
• Oppose per everything that MuZemike (talk · contribs) said, particularly his first sentence. ╟─TreasuryTag►assemblyman─╢ 08:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
• I support letting AfD handle disputed merge proposals, but I don't like the name Articles for Discussion. It doesn't mean anything for people who don't already know what it is. Articles for Discussion? A place to discuss articles? Isn't that what talk pages are for? I would rather we keep the name Articles for Deletion which at least means something, if slightly inaccurate. --Apoc2400 (talk) 10:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support - merging can be used in place of deletion to avoid the centralized AfD discussions. DGG's proposal closes that loophole, and I'm definitely for this. The Transhumanist    22:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Do you mean that mergers should be handled exclusively at AfDiscussion, with the existing merge process completely deprecated? Flatscan (talk) 04:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose The proposal solves some problems and creates others, on balance I think the negatives suprass the positives. Sole Soul (talk) 01:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. know that articles taken to AfD often end in merge or smerge recommendations, but that does not mean it is the most efficient to make this obligatory passage for every article. The AfD process is clogged up enough as it is without all other discussions on articles needed here. What's more, this would be instruction creep–page moves, mergers and redirects often get performed in localised talk sections or per WP:BOLD, and I see no good reason why these should not stay that way, except possibly when it is likely to be HIGHLY contentious. However, that is often difficult to define, and is likely to be the thin end of the wedge to further bureaucratising the process. In addition, an AfD should not confer any more or less legitimacy that an RfC conducted over a page merge or move–it is the consensus itself which is of prime importance. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

  One question, and one observation: In your view, how is AFD "clogged up enough as it is"? Flatscan and I briefly touched on that above, I think, but I don't think that the question has really been addressed, and I'd like to understand it. Are there AFD's being missed, or something like that? The observation that I'd like to make is that nobody is suggesting that merge, move, or other discussions would be required to occur here. That would be certainly be creepy, but this criticism seems to be misplaced. There is some more discussion about that, below.
  — V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 22:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

  Some comments – most recently The Transhumanist's, to which I responded – mention mergers and redirects as ways to bypass the deletion process. Closing this "loophole" requires that all merging and redirecting be handled within AfDiscussion. Flatscan (talk) 04:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

  OK, that's understandable, but I don't see general support for that position (requiring the use of AFD), that position seems to go beyond the scope of the actual proposal, and I personally certainly don't support such a requirement. I suspect, based on on what I believe to be strong anecdotal evidence (namely, most of the replies here) that AFD itself will largely appear exactly as it does now after this proposed change, both in terms of "workload" and participants actions and behavior. I see this proposed change as more a reflection of the realities "on the ground" then a substantial change (An exampleof a more substantial change would be the issue re: SNOW, below). Anywawy, I'd still be interested in hearing from Ohconfucius regarding his perceptions about AFD being "clogged up", by the way.
  — V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 07:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support - I've always thought that the current way of doing merges is messy, non-formalized, and just doesn't work as cleanly as it could. This proposal looks like it will provide a solution for the problem. (X! · talk)  · @122  ·  01:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Closing proposal

Does anyone object to this being closed in a week's time? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I would prefer if this proposal were left open for a minimum of 30 days, the default RfC duration. The proposed rename has substantial effects, this specific proposal was started near the holiday season for many editors, and many commenters from the April 2009 discussion have not participated. If this poll is primarily to gauge interest – i.e., a proposal draft will be brought back for confirmation – I am fine with closing soon. Flatscan (talk) 05:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I've been waiting to see what others say about it, but I tend to agree with Flatscan. This discussion having taken place over the holidays is the main concern, I think. That being said, the main issue appears to be in regards to implementation details, not with doing it at all (although my view is decidedly biased, so feel free to correct me here). Rather then "closing" this, we should probably move to more of an implementation phase, which seems to be where we're headed in the section below anyway.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 12:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Would prefer to keep this open the standard 30-day-period for RfCs. Cirt (talk) 19:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• This proposal was shot down when raised previously less than a year ago. Raising it again so soon is not conducive to genuine consensus and an early close of discussion would exacerbate ths by generating a sense of WP:STEAM. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
  • The prior proposal was, I believe, simply a rename proposal. Besides, to oppose on the grounds that a proposal was opposed before is ignoring the fact that consensus can change. Please oppose for a good reason, not inertia or process wonkery. Fences&Windows 19:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Juliancolton's motion is a procedural one and so is properly considered on procedural grounds. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
      • Juliancolton was simply asking about the timeframe for this to run. Are you indicating that you're going to oppose any changes here, regardless of what appears to be support (with some caveats)?
        — V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 23:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
        • I make my points regarding the main proposal in the main section above. All we should be discussing here is the proposal to close early and there does not seem to be consensus for this. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
• Let it run the full time. The rename would be messy. Timotheus Canens (talk) 19:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
• Isn't this what WP:PM is for? Stifle (talk) 09:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Merge discussion location criticism

I see one discreet criticism above, which seems to be repeated among at least a couple "opposers", is that merger discussions are best discussed on the article talk page. Since this seems to be a common complaint I wanted to pull it out in hope of having a more detailed discussion about it (if there are other similar issues, it would probably be helpful to start a section about them as well).

One point that I wanted to make on this issue is fairly simple: The stance is that merge discussions should occur on the talk page, but my question is often which one? I've actually personally run into the problem of needing to choose an appropriate venue for a merger discussion in the past, and I've talked to others who have run into similar issues.

Additionally, there are many pages where the number of watchers is either minuscule, or most of those who are watching the page are inactive. We all know that listing an article on AFD increases viewership of the pages being listed, so utilizing a central discussion area logically would seem to help.

So, between the "meta" nature of merge discussions themselves (or split discussions, for that matter), and increased attention which would be given to those pages if the AFD system is used, I'm not clear as to what the downside would be.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 07:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Merge discussions aren't inherently "meta." Holding them in a centralized venue as a matter of course will tend to make them so, of course.

If I may toot my own horn a bit, I think that my proposal (elevating merge discussions to a central venue only when consensus is stalled) addresses the main thrust of the original proposal while also addressing to some degree the objection you've identified. Currently, we treat merges as content issues, meaning that the dispute resolution pathway for them runs something like:

talk page --> third opinion --> subject-specific noticeboards (if there is a compatible Wikiproject) --> RfC --> (rarely) mediation committee.

Merge disputes seem to be common, contentious, and sui generis enough that it would be justified to create a processual exception for them by running them through AfD. The advantages are (potentially) increased participation and speedier resolution (7-14 days vs. 30 for a RfC); the disadvantages are overburdening AfD further and risking sacrificing consensus to a "take a vote" attitude. The degree to which the community thinks that merge decisions deserve special consideration will dictate the degree to which they need to be excepted from the regular content-building and DR processes; but it doesn't have to be an all-or-nothing proposition. — æk^Talk 09:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I'm fairly certain that we could argue about "meta"-ness until the end of time. — Ohms law — continues after insertion below

That's a good idea - could someone start an essay at "WP:METANESS", please? — Sebastian 21:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree that using a centralized discussion area would be most appropriate as a psdeu-dispute resolution step (or even formally as a dispute resolution step). I'd think that would be the way it would most often be used, regardless. I'm not sure how useful it would be to create any sort of a rule about that, however.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 18:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

having seen some of these merge discussions first hand, I agree with ohms. Many merges can be done without a !vote, with little controversy, the problem is there are some merge discussions which are incredibly nasty, not completly solved by RFC (in that editors go away from the discussion really angry), were the most well connected group of veteran editors usually win. A larger community discussion at afd would help. Ikip 20:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

From the merger discussions that I've observed, "the most well connected group of veteran editors" that "win"s is backed by a WikiProject. Containing members interested and knowledgeable in the topic area, WikiProjects are given wide latitude, unless they're horribly out of sync with the community or creating WP:Walled gardens. Flatscan (talk) 07:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Even though I love DGG's proposal, I have to say that unfortunately this argument about centralizing merge discussions sounds good in theory, but doesn't actually hold water in reality. See #How effective is the merge decision? below. — Sebastian 21:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Also consider the low traffic of WP:Proposed mergers and the failure of WP:Mergers for discussion. Flatscan (talk) 07:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't characterize proposed mergers/Mergers for discussion as "low traffic". At this point they seem to be a fairly clear failures. That's actually one piece of what is prompting this proposal.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 07:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

My opinion is that the backlog is associated with mergers in general, not any specific merger-related process. Flatscan (talk) 07:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

This proposal doesn't stop editors from having low-key discussions about merges on talk pages, or even stop bold merges with no discussion. It simply allows editors to nominate articles for merging using the AfD process. If an editor made such a nomination in the middle of a local merge discussion, that'd be disruptive and probably subject to a speedy close. If discussion is absent, deadlocked or stalled, being able to reinvigorate it centrally is very useful. If we make it a rule that nominations done in the middle of active merge discussions are considered disruptive and forum shopping and that nominators must link to prior merge debate on the talk page(s) in question, would that allay some fears over this process? Fences&Windows 03:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Editors – as long as they provide a deletion rationale and avoid WP:Speedy keep – already use AfD this way. This proposal is different things to different people, which is why I'm most interested in an actual proposal draft. Flatscan (talk) 07:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Right... which is another good reason to go ahead with this. Doing so follows the same principle as adding a common practice to a policy/guideline page, even if there are some who don't like said practice. As for the draft proposal... there is one started, but it's sort of tough to take that forward without support, or even knowing what will be actively opposed. Hence, this (and hopefully other) discussion(s).
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 07:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Using myself as an example, I'm a strong oppose to the rename, but a support to continuing to allow merge-ish discussions at AfD. Flatscan (talk) 07:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Right, which I don't quite understand. What is it with the rename that is so objectionable? Since we all know that it's pretty much occurring anyway, what's wrong with formalizing that (with the added benefit of getting rid of the "this is AFD, Merge doesn't belong!!!1!1" process wonkery at the same time)
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 07:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The existing pages that must be moved. As far as I can tell, the process wonkery is legit (speedy keep, which often indicates an inexperienced nominator who missed the correct merger process entirely) or ignored in the closure. Flatscan (talk) 07:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, there are two distinct issues here. First, I don't see any reason that the existing pages would need to be moved. As a matter of fact, trying to do that would seem kind of silly to me. All that would need to be changed would be the main page and the various templates, and then from that point forward everything would be changed. It may create a small amount of difficulty for the first 7 days or so, but I don't see any obvious show stoppers. Besides... if there really are show stoppers to something like this occurring, shouldn't we identify and eliminate them? I'd think that we should avoid becoming inelastic simply on general principles.

As for the process wonkery issue, the main issue with it is that there is some amount of "wonkery" occurring, in both directions, simply because we're in a sort of half way state here right now. I've seen plenty of people argue for mergers where everyone essentially reached consensus that such arguments were legit. On the other hand, I've seen many discussions where someone tried to start a merger discussion, and then the whole AFD devolves into a discussion about that "being allowed". It just seems to me that it would be much more efficient if we explicitly allowed any argument to stand on it's merits, rather then sometimes allowing the merits of the arguments themselves to be debated. It seems that most of the people closing AFD discussions tend to accept any reasonable argument that offers a solution regardless, so maybe making it clear that arguing over the relevance of specific solutions might make things slightly more approachable here and we could end up with better arguments being offered.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 02:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Whether to move the subpages should be a point of discussion – I haven't started a subsection since it may look like puffing up my objection. Templates like {{oldafdmulti}} would need to be modified more carefully if there is a naming changeover.

As I wrote above, the merger AfDs with process disputes that I remember often fall into two groups: actual merger nominations that are SK'd and relatively minor comments that have no effect on the outcome. I have seen derailed AfDs, but I think that obstructive process wonkery here is strongly associated with contentious topic areas and individual editors. Flatscan (talk) 07:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Did you see my post right after your post of 07:22, 29 December 2009? There is a proposal. — Sebastian 07:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have it watched. In my opinion, it misses a lot of necessary details. I will participate there soon, but it's not my top priority. Flatscan (talk) 07:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm looking forward to several of us coming together there to flesh out the actual policy/instructions related to all of this. We just need to hash some of the criticism out first is all, so we know exactly where to go with the documentation.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 07:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Help:Merging#Proposing a merger should be clear: the discussion should usually occur on the destination Talk page. If the merger is implemented, the discussion will be more easily found in the future, as the merged page becomes a redirect. Editors of the destination page may have a better sense of how to integrate the merged content. Watchers of either article should see the merge tags being placed. Flatscan (talk) 07:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with what Fences said above, that "This proposal doesn't stop editors from having low-key discussions about merges on talk pages, or even stop bold merges with no discussion. It simply allows editors to nominate articles for merging using the AfD process." This was exactly my intent. We already have preliminary discussions of whether an article is sufficiently notable on article talk pages--and in fact at all sort of other places--where there is agreement, there is no need for formal process in these cases. As for BOLD, I do quite a few merges boldly as is, generally of articles I see at PROD, and I would expect to continue--obviously, if anyone objected, then discussion would be necessary, and usually AfD would be the place. DGG ( talk ) 04:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Implementation discussion

OK, most of the discussion seems to have died down. My take on this is that there's general support to move forward, with some caveats about implementation. With that in mind I wanted to start a discussion about possible implementation details, here.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 13:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

My vision of how we move forward is fairly simple. I don't think that we really need new policy statements or anything, since we're essentially just actualizing a change which has already occurred. With that in mind, the front page simply need to me moved and then copy edited slightly to reflect the change.

First however, we'll need to edit the {{afd1}}, {{afd2}}, and {{afd3}} templates to reflect the change. Flatscan pointed out that we'll also need to edit the {{oldafdmulti}} template, which would probably be easiest to accomplish by simply creating a new one (creating {{oldafdmulti2}} seems like an obvious choice, here). There are likely a few other templates at Category:Articles for deletion templates which should or would need to be changed as well.

Also, we'll need to notify WP:BAG so that all affected bots can adjust their scripts to a potential change. It should be fairly straightforward for most operators to make such a change (and if it's not, for whatever reason, then the operator probably shouldn't be running the bot anyway), given enough notice to do so. A good 30 day warning would seem appropriate, here.

One last issue would be archives. Personally, I don't see any compelling reason to move the thousands of old pages. Doing so would be time consuming, confusing, and would at least temporarily break thousands of links. I never envisioned moving them, but this seems to be an important sticking point to many so I figure that it's good to explicitly state that they won't move.

Is there anything else that will need to be changed or adjusted?
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 13:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

These are what I thought of:

• User scripts for both nomination and closing must be modified. There are at least a few in use, I know of User:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD.
• The most common templates are linked from Template:Afd see also documentation.
• {{oldafdfull}} (compare to {{Oldvfdfull}}) and {{oldafd}} need forking to keep old uses working.
• Simply forking {{oldafdmulti}} won't work, as I tried to explain. The Wikipedia:Articles for deletion prefix is assumed and inserted automatically. Substituting discussion will not work for an article with AfDeletions and AfDiscussions. Adding another parameter should work. {{multidel}} takes formatted wikitext, so it could be used as a replacement.

Flatscan (talk) 04:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Questioning AfD decisions

I've noticed a trend as of late to attack the closing admin when one disagrees with the outcome of an AfD. Looking through a sample of admin talk pages, I see that almost any somewhat-contentious AfD close is contested, usually by one of the participants, and the ensuing debate often degenerates into incivility and dispute. Additionally, people sometimes automatically resort to making assumptions about the closing admin's "hidden motives" or similar. Admins should always be willing to explain the reasoning for their decisions, and discussion and transparency is key on a public wiki, don't get me wrong; but something needs to be done to prevent unnecessary disputes following AfD closures/ I'll be happy to provide examples if requested, but I'd rather avoid singling anyone out. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and all that other stuff apply? Surely the enforcement of these should be sufficient. Crafty (talk) 05:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Julian, I'm not sure sure about where you say "of late". I think it has always been normal for a relatively new user to generate a level of paranoia when a deletion decision goes against their thinking. I think the answer is to encourage the protest to go to the formal forum (WP:DRV), not to the admins personal talk page, where the user is sure that he is right and the admin was wrong. Such thinking is not morally wrong, but a normal feature of growth. At DRV, if the protest (paranoid attack) is essentially baseless, then others can defend the admin. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:34, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

It's just something that in my view has become more problematic in recent weeks. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and especially with our declining active admin core, its something that should be nipped in the bud. Ive also noted a recent trend for closures to treat the AfD as vote instead of a discussion. If we adopt this as standard practice rather than insist admins evaluate consensus, it should take some of the heat out of debates and reduce attacks both on admins and regular editors. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

But treating it as a vote would encourage canvassing, both on- and off- wiki, and turn many debates into a popularity contest, non-notable pop stars would whip up support on their blog and twitter pages, you would need rules for when to discount SPA "votes"... no, that way madness lies. JohnCD (talk) 10:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• Nothing recent about that Julian, its been a feature of afds as long as I have been an admin. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Heartily agree that it should be discouraged, but also agree that it's nothing new. (Heck, I even got raked over the coals by an editor for relisting a debate once. Fortunately, it got laughed out of DRV.) --Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

It would decrease somewhat if admins would always (not just usually) give an explanation of the reasons for their decision with their decision. This will at least sometimes either cause the acceptance of the decision or the realisation that the matter is hopeless, and will in any case focus subsequent discussion--and eliminate at least one of the causes for complaint. DGG ( talk ) 02:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Vision and Mission statements out rank Policy.

As another idea to reduce the time consumed by AfD discussions, we could align ourselves with real world organisations by recognising that Vision and/or Mission statements take precedence over policy. In cases where theres no agreement over the applicability of Policy, !votes that appeal to our very simple and easily understood m:Vision statement could be treated as desicive. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• no. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
• No as well. Many noobs already unknowingly appeal to m:Vision when they say "My garage band / invention / book / business exists and the whole world should know about it!" This argument has been repeatedly rejected by consensus. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
• No. The vision statement of Wikimedia cannot by itself govern the inclusion criteria in Wikipedia. Or what is the point of the other WMF projects? Tim Song (talk) 17:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
• No. In the "real world," specific policies generally take precedence over feel-good nebulous "visions," "mission statements," etc. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
• No. Too many don't understand that the "sum of all knowledge" doesn't include the details about the barbershop choir they found the other week, or the third item on the yesterday's police report in their village newspaper. Hans Adler 19:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
• Only if every policy has a very clear banner at the top saying that WP:VISION supercedes this and all policy except where legal requirements dictate otherwise, since complying with United States law is pretty much a trump card policy-wise. I don't see that happening but if it did that would be fine - we would be demoting what we now call policy and putting in vision statements and the like as a bylaw or constitution. In any case, it should not be m:Vision but rather WP:VISION, whatever that turns out to be. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
• Nope. The Vision Statement is totally unhelpful. If the WMF wants to summarise all human knowledge, they'd better start some projects that can fill up with trivia. Fences&Windows 23:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
• No. Wikipedia is a pool of useful encyclopedic information and (almost) nothing else. Other Wikis cover use[ful/less] information to their heart's content. SMC (talk) 06:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
• No, for reasons articulated here. Arguments appealing to a broad mission statement or our five pillars are welcome, but they don't really take any decisive form because the pillars are speechless with regard to individual decisions. How shall we interpret 5P (or worse, the mission statement) when the first and the third pillars conflict? When the 2nd and the first pillars conflict? At best invocation of the mission statement or the pillars results in a meta-discussion, at worst it marks the beginning of silly gainsaying over which position on a given issue is represented best by which pillar. Protonk (talk) 06:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
• No. That quote was taken from an interview and is basically used as a PR statement. It does not represent the actuality of how we work. Even that page itself says that the vision is unrealistic when compared with reality. ThemFromSpace 07:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
• No - vision and mission statements are of little practical use and in general only benefit the copywriters and spin-doctors who concoct them.   pablo_hablo. 10:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

All sound points, I guess this idea could be archived to. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• No. For the reasons already articulated. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
• Moot We already have a policy which states this — WP:IAR. "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.". This makes it clear that our fundamental mission is supreme and that it trumps any other Wikilawyering which might obstruct it. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Early closures

I was just skimming over some of the current logs, and one thing that I'm noticing is that there are an awful lot of early closures of discussions being made. I don't really want to be critical of this practice, so much as I'm simply curious about the rational for it. Has there been general agreement that this is a widely acceptable practice? The good news is that, based on my cursory view of what's going on, there doesn't seem to be any bias to the early closures. Although... I'm almost tempted to say that they seem too random, which has been a deletion criticism in general for quite a long time now.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 17:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I haven't followed the latest discussions on this, but IIRC early closures have been frowned upon a bit. If anything, the trend seems to be towards longer discussion with the move from 5 to 7 days for AfD and PROD.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by "early"? SNOW closes, when there's truly no chance of a reversal in the outcome, are generally good, in that they free up people's time and attention for other things. Jclemens (talk) 18:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

well... looking back, I am noticing now that several of them were relisted discussions. Some are "withdrawn" results, as well. There are still a few ostensibly "SNOW" type closures, although what I'm noticing is that the admin(s) who are doing it aren't using that as a justification. I'm not sure that I could argue that the closes are actually wrong in any way either, which is a large part of the reason that I don't want to be critical here. It's just... I don't see what the big hurry is. There's just an uncomfortable sense of hastiness about that I guess I don't understand.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 18:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe that it is possible to close a relisted discussion early. It's had it's seven days, and while a relisting is not sudden-death overtime, any admin can and should go through at any time where a consensus has been reached, or it's clear that no consensus is forming, and close such discussions appropriately. Jclemens (talk) 20:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Well yea, right, that's why I made a point to mention that I noticed that a good portion of them are relisted. Still, that's not all of them... And, from just glancing at the replies below, thre still seems to be something worth having a conversation about.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 22:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

There was a discussion last month WT:Deletion process#Made change to relist policy: stay open for 7 days, but it looks like the proposed change was reverted. Some closers may be patrolling Category:Relisted AfD debates. Flatscan (talk) 05:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• Worse are the early non-admin closures. They should be banned outright. Abductive (reasoning) 18:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

  meh... different subject really, but I personally don't see what the problem is with NAC's, early or otherwise. There's really no good reason that admins should be the only people allowed to close. Wikipedia has eschewed that sort of elitism for a long time, now.
  — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 18:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

  And if a non-admin closes early because it's become moot (such as the article has been speedily deleted), I can't see any problem there. In fact, I'm not sure that a NAC is problematic per se. If the close would have been proper if an admin did it, it's still a proper close. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• Like Ron Ritzman (talk · contribs), I normally go through the 7-day-old log at 'round 0:00 UTC and relist everything that doesn't have enough participation, and if I see a debate that's a straightforward close, I just close it since I'm already there anyway. Tim Song (talk) 19:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
• If every single person says keep, and the nominator withdraws their nomination, admitting they made a mistake, then it should be snow keep. Otherwise, there is no possible excuse for closing it early. Even if the first few people to show up and comment said delete, that doesn't mean other won't find sources and make an article which is kept. I've seen some cases where hordes of people just say delete, without taking the time to click the Google news search at the top, and find plenty of news coverage of the person, thing, or event. Dream Focus 21:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Nomination withdrawn is technically WP:Speedy keep, criterion 1. Flatscan (talk) 05:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
• ... and we've all seen cases where hordes of people say "keep" because they don't take the time to actually read and evaluate their Google searches. But early closes - either way - are no bad thing. Some nominations are clearly speedy deletion candidates, others are clearly mistaken or misinformed nominations. No opinion on non-admin closure, as I know little about it.   pablo_hablo. 22:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
• When one I had closed was taken to DRV recently, one of the objections raised was that it had not been allowed its full 7 days; I was relieved to be able to quote the times to show that it had actually had seven days plus a few hours. I think the full time should be allowed, except in SNOW cases, to avoid possible complaints later. JohnCD (talk) 22:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
  • That's actually a subtly wrong and harmful reason. Once the outcome is clear, process has served its purpose. Wikipedia is neither a bureaucracy nor a court of law. Slavish adherence to process just because someone might object to a process deviation rather than the outcome gives too much power to the complainers. Jclemens (talk) 07:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
    • This is an interesting reply, I think. I assume that you're stating that the DRV was "subtly wrong and harmful". I understand what you're point is, and I'll even agree to it, but at the same time I can disagree with it as well. I don't think that SNOW itself should be deprecated or anything, but it should be relatively rare. I don't know that using it simply because there have been half a dozen votes which agree with each other is a good thing.
      — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 08:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
      • I wouldn't point the finger at the DRV process, just those who start a DRV based on process, rather than outcome. If the !votes are running 20 to 4 with good policy supporting the 20, closing a discussion a day early isn't going to hurt anything, because one more day isn't going to legitimately (i.e. absent canvassing) change anything. Contra Abductive's reasoning below, it's not necessary for every editor to comment, only for enough editors to comment to demonstrate consensus. Jclemens (talk) 17:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
        • Yea, don't get me wrong here, I think that we generally agree... I just think that even SNOW style closures should be relatively rare is all, even if it's obvious to everyone that doing so would be appropriate. If it's that obvious then leaving it open until day (5, or 7, or whatever) shouldn't really affect anything. One case where I could see a relatively quick SNOW closure being appropriate is for the current event type of articles; generally, articles which are high profile. Perversely though, my sense is that there is an inverse relationship between the profile of an article and the willingness of editors/admins to show initiative and close a discussion (which is probably generally true overall, not only in the case of SNOW type closures). The discussions where there is little if any urgency tend to be closed instead, which is probably where most of my discomfort is coming from, rather then the number of occurrences.
          — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 17:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
          • Orly Taitz is a shining example of why Wikipedia sucks at this. One user dragged an AfD discussion out for weeks arguing about process, when the outcome was crystal clear. It's not just "high profile" articles, really, but political articles that seem to garner the most discussions, as if the AfD banner seems to be the desired outcome, warning readers off. That sort of nonsense, gaming the system in violation of WP:BATTLEGROUND, should be ended. But as you rightly point out, admins who do the right thing in such cases are guaranteed a trip to DRV, if not ANI. Jclemens (talk) 20:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
            • Yea, I see what you're getting at. This is the sort of area where getting into specifics can kind of lead us to trouble, though. The relatively current (if not outright current) articles, especially those with political content, will naturally struggle some with attached emotional issues. Editors are obviously human beings, and aside from the fact that it's really impossible to separate the emotional aspects of topics for people I don't think that editors trying to emulate Spock would be helpful to the project. The thing is, the state of an article right now, or even a month from now, isn't really that important in the scheme of things. That shouldn't be an excuse to do nothing of course, but we should also try to maintain our reactions at a manageable level. That includes preventing crafting policy/procedure that seeks to "fix" or "prevent" the worst case scenarios. As with most things there's a middle ground here somewhere, and that's normally the spot to seek out and inhabit. There's going to be battlegrounding occasionally... it's just going to happen. As long as it's somewhat rare though, as it currently seems to be, then I don't think that it's worth being too concerned about.
              — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 21:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
• Any AfD that is remotely controversial should be allowed 7 days, or more. I want to see it appear on the list of open discussions in the Old Discussions section. If it is closed early, especially by a non-admin, it means that I may not have a chance to comment. I am a member of the Wikipedia community, and if I am not given a chance to comment on controversial nominations, it means that community input is not respected. Abductive (reasoning) 07:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Abductive's point is a good one. Here is another: For the sake of the argument suppose there are exactly two kinds of admins, those who follow the rules precisely and those who don't care about rules and always do what they want. Then almost all AfDs will be closed by admins of the second kind. I find the thought very worrying.

I wonder if there is a technical solution. Could we have a template for AfDs that displays "This discussion will be open for another x days and yy:zz hours. Under normal circumstances it should not be closed earlier." And once the time is over it says: "This discussion can be closed by an admin." Hans Adler 19:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

This would require the AFD template to become a dated template, like Dated Prod, and have a subst'd wrapper template around it, like Prod. But it could be done, yes. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

This sounds like something that would be worth exploring, to me.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 20:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

As {{afd2}} is already subst:'d, this wouldn't be technically difficult. However, I think it might lend too much to the argument that an AfD should last at least 604800 seconds, and we'd like to avoid being too wonky here if possible. Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Disagree with this. Too much process wonkery. PROD uses uncontested time, XfD lasts until a clear consensus is achieved. Apples and oranges, folks. Jclemens (talk) 20:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Last time we discussed this there were a lot of admins active closing AfDs with no clear consensus half a day before they were due. I considered that a problem. If that no longer happens it's fine. I have no idea because I rarely follow AfD. Hans Adler 21:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't really understand this criticism. I don't see how having something on a timer of some sort equates to "process wonkery". ...accepting the "XfD lasts until a clear consensus is achieved" statement at face value, we could remove all references to time from the process, literally continuing the discussion until someone closes it. That may be worth at least thinking about as well (although, I think that having a deadline of some sort actually helps the process, overall).
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 21:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• PROD is entirely based on three things: 1) nominator nominates, 2) no one else contests for one week, and 3) closing admin's judgment and eligibility verification.
• XfD is based on 1) Nomination rationale, 2) 0..N additional !votes supplied by other editors, and 3) an admin's interpretation of the rough consensus, which is generally judged at about 7 days, but may happen sooner or later.

You see how the time element is vastly different in importance between the two? Jclemens (talk) 21:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Honestly? Not really, no. I mean, I understand what you're saying, and... well, that view may be an ideal, but my impression is that is not the manner which most people view XfD (I will admit to some bias here however, since I don't share the view that the above is ideal). Abductive certainly doesn't seem to share the view that the time element is so soft. I could overlook it if that view seemed to be rare, but I think that convincingly framing it as a fringe view would be challenging. More importantly though, the instructions on the front of this page are not nearly as soft regarding the time element as you seem to be making is out to be.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 09:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• I totally agree, and posted below to say exactly the same thing! AfDs are being closed a day early for no apparent reason other than impatience. I've already asked one admin to reopen one they closed over a day early, and I will start administering trouts soon. Fences&Windows 02:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I've only closed those of December 6 (on the 13th (UTC)), not those of December 7 (and those of the 5th on the 12th) and I close only those of which they are a clear consensus which has no chance of switch directions - otherwise I keep them open or I relist them (if there isn't enough discussion). Closing clear consensus discussions basically at the start of Day 7 (00:00 UTC) like some other admins shouldn't be much of an issue. It's very doubtful that a 5-0 or 10-0 deletion vote would reverse in just a matter of a couple of hours. --JForget 15:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
    • I think that you've inadvertently highlighted the problem that we're attempting to point out here. It should only take one well thought out !vote, one way or another, to decide things. This idea that "well, it was 10-0 so obviously this can be closed" is just... bad. I mean, 99.9% of the time you're not really doing anything that will make a difference, but there's also (normally) 0 cost to leaving things until the normal discussion period has ended (some obvious exceptions should of course be made, for essentially speedy closures). Not treating AFD as a vote is important because it keeps editors from becoming super-emotional about things more so then treating every discussion on the merits of the arguments. When you create a voting situation that leads to panicked editors, which leads to competativeness and canvassing, and really just bad blood all around. Leaving AFD's open won't solve those problems, but it will certainly prevent that sort of a problem.
      — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 21:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no way to tell when a good argument one way or other will come, and change the issue. Unless this is really definitive, the closing admin should probably do better to relist and let it be fully discussed--what appears to solve the problem one way or the other may after all be wrong, Perhaps the best tule for SNOW is the rule for IAR, that nobody could reasonably object. A objection from a WPedian acting in good faith to a snow is sufficient cause to re-open, and perhaps that should be explicit in the policy. DGG ( talk ) 03:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:SNOW is no longer a satisfactory reason to close an AfD early. The criteria for early closure are given in WP:Speedy delete and WP:Speedy keep as per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_an_AfD_discussion_is_closed. If the early close criteria are not met, then the case stays open for the full seven days. There's never any harm done in letting an AfD run for the full seven days, but problems can occur when discussions are closed too soon. If someone is seen closing too early, then a gentle tap on the shoulder to indicate WP:NotEarly might be helpful. SilkTork *^YES! 00:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

SNOW is not not-applicable. SNOW is an IAR implementation, and as such it never needs local endorsement to be applicable, nor can it be made non-applicable without de-policy-ifying IAR. Jclemens (talk) 00:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

There may be sensible reasons to close an AfD early which are not given in WP:NotEarly, in which case IAR would apply. But SNOW is not one of those reasons. IAR does not apply if the activity is detrimental to the project. Closing an AfD early under SNOW is detrimental to the project. And bear in mind that an aspect of SNOW that people forget is: "when in doubt allow discussions to take place"! SilkTork *^YES! 00:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

"This page is not a policy or guideline itself; it is intended as a guide to a specific application of Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and Ignore All Rules." That's the first text on WP:SNOW. Closing AfD's once consensus has been thoroughly established is beneficial to the project; calling it detrimental is nonsensical. Anyone asserting that a SNOW closure is improper must assert in good faith and with a straight face that the consensus hadn't been thoroughly established. Assertions that simply "not following process" harm the project fly in the face of WP:BURO. Jclemens (talk) 01:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

SNOW closures are bad if it is not the case that all interested parties have had a chance to participate. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

A chance to participate? To the extent that a SNOW close denies someone a chance to influence consensus, I agree, but the point of discussions is consensus-achievement. If consensus has clearly been achieved, then there is no further benefit to discussion; if consensus has not been achieved, then discussion should continue until it has been achieved. We don't set arbitrary minimum time frames in defiance of IAR, we do what's right for the encyclopedia. Jclemens (talk) 06:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

• I just wanted to say that I completely support SilkTork here. There seems to be plenty of commentary above to support such a change (although admittedly half of it is my own, so I'm hardly "uninvolved"). I particularly do not find the "SNOW is an IAR implementation" to be convincing. That may be, and indeed is true, but it doesn't really address the various arguments here.
  — V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 03:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
  • SilkTork's not wrong in his general thoughts; the only error is trying to legislate not IAR'ing. SNOW is a license to do the right thing, just like IAR is. If people are misusing it and winding up doing the wrong thing, then the problem is with that admin's conduct, not SNOW. Jclemens (talk) 06:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
    • We could decide to adjust the wording, then. Any suggestions?
      — V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 16:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I realize I'm coming in a little late to this discussion but figured I might throw in my own few cents. One thing to keep in mind is that Wikipedia is essentially a volunteer-run project; if someone is volunteering their time in the form of closing a few AfD discussions, it is unreasonable to expect them to be fastidious about checking timestamps to make sure exactly 7 days have passed. If we are talking about an early closure on the magnitude of a few hours, it's really no big deal and anyone who is willing to contest a closure on those grounds alone needs to have their head checked. It is a different story if we are speaking of closures more than, say, one day early. These cases would require some kind of special rationale for the early closure, as I don't buy the argument that someone was just surfing around AfD logs a day early and decided to close a few obvious cases. Discussions whose outcome is so painfully obvious that continued discussion would be a waste of time might reasonably be closed early, but I suspect this would happen within the first several hours of the discussion; I can't think of any good reason people should be closing things a day or two early. Shereth 15:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the closure of discussions a few hours early is hardly a problem. What I myself had noticed, and I think a few others noticed, is that there were some closures which were occurring days in advance (The 3-4 day mark seems to gather a lot of early closes, for whatever reason). I personally don't have an issue with most early closures where the nominator wishes to withdraw, which is something that I think we probably ought to be more sensitive towards (with the obvious caveat that nom withdrawal shouldn't affect a widespread discussion). What bugs me is the "there are X votes, all to [keep/delete]. SNOW closed as [keep/delete]." That doesn't happen too often, but I don't think it's helpful when it does happen. I guess that I just don't see any discussion here as being a "waste of time".
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 16:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, why don't you think it's helpful? I've pointed out above how some editors have used AfD tags as political weapons against articles they don't like, vehemently insisting on "no early closure!" in the face of overwhelming demonstration of notability. That's certainly at least one downside to the "no SNOWing closes early!" viewpoint. I favor a full and thorough discussion until consensus has clearly been achieved--which doesn't just mean someone pulls ahead, but that the vast majority of editors making policy-based arguments have agreed to something--but after that point, what is the real benefit to encyclopedia-building? At best, there's a second order effect of some folks arguing against consensus feeling better about getting their say. Jclemens (talk) 22:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

There's a difference between that and SNOW closing discussions after two or three days. That's with SNOW closing frowned upon in general. Some of these are people who have been admins for years, and they need others to remind them not to do that? Yes, supporting the snowball clause may end unnecessarily long discussions, but it would likely result in discussions being closed after a couple of days just because, for instance the first five out of six people to comment on the discussion happen to say delete. Swarm^Talk 06:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

How effective is the merge decision?

We have several hundred articles that got closed as "merge", and are still open. Some of these, such as Paul Blakely (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch, have not been edited for two months, and even have a stub message saying "You can help Wikipedia by expanding it." This seems to me to indicate that the merge decision is often ineffective. I assume that's because it's easy for people to say "merge" in an AfD, but it's harder to actually do the work. Is there a way to encourage people to actually help with the merge when they voted for it? Or do we need to rely on a technical solution, such as a bot that automatically changes such pages into a redirect after, say, a month? — Sebastian 17:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• I concur. A bot must go through and redirect all such articles after a set period of time, perhaps two months. Then anybody who wants to merge will have to look in the article history, but other than that slight inconvenience, no harm will be incurred. Abductive (reasoning) 17:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
• So, fix it! I'm not sure what the problem is. If there's been a decision to merge two (or more) articles, and it bothers you that it hasn't been done, then go ahead and merge them.
  — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 18:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

  The scale of the problem has expanded in recent months. Admins seem to have taken to using the template instead of doing the merge/redirect as was the practice in the past. Abductive (reasoning) 18:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

  I'm pretty sure that the template pair (to/from) has been in common use for at least a year. According to its documentation, User:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD supported them in early versions in September 2008. The templates themselves date back to October 2005. Flatscan (talk) 05:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

  Well, OK, I can understand the point that it may have recently become significantly different. However, there's nothing to say that the admin closing the discussion should be required to take action, especially when it comes to a task that anyone can do without any special privileges. As a matter of fact, in the past I've kicked around an idea of making it policy that the person closing the discussion should not actually performed the consensus decision, as a sort of check to ensure impartiality. The point being, if you're interested in resolving the problem, you don't need any special privilege, and you already have the AFD decision to back up your action, so get to work.
  — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 18:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

  I agree that we should not require anyone to do the merge. This project is based on volunteers; Wikipedia has grown by allowing people to work on topics they're passionate about. But neither should we forbid anyone from doing so. The last thing we need is a policy that forbids people from doing necessary work. The reason I brought this up was not to gain more policies and restrictions, but first of all to find out if we really have a problem; and if we agree that there is one, find an encouraging way to solve it. — Sebastian 19:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

  Note that I never actually proposed the above... The main point is that mergers do not require administrative privilege or sanction, and the AFD discussion(s) should certainly provide a demonstration of consensus towards performing the merger. So, back to the original point, just fix it and we won't have a backlog.
  — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 21:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion: Use a bot to tack the merged article on to the end of the article to which it is being merged, tacking in the edit history as required, IIRC. Then ask an editor to fairly ruthlessly conjoin the two articles, deleting all duplicated material. Tag the new article as being in need of copyediting. This may bve simplistic, but it is the only way to actually force the articles out of perpetual status quo ante positions. Collect (talk) 22:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• Ugh, no. That kind of thing would be worse then doing nothing (And incidentally, that's the sort of "solution" that I think most people fear arising out of these discussions).
  — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 22:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

  I agree with V=IR. This is certainly not "the only way to actually force the articles out of perpetual status quo ante positions". Simply only changing the discussed articles to a redirect does that, too - without leaving anything in a state that has to be cleaned up. As Abductive said above, that also does not preclude the merge. — Sebastian 22:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

  Might you tell me what a redirect actually merges? Collect (talk) 23:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

  It brings two article titles into one article. Even if no text is copied, those looking for the content associated with "title a" are brought to the content at "title b", which should be very closely related to what the reader is looking for.
  — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 00:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• I think what it most demonstrates is that nobody cares for or about these articles. Abductive (reasoning) 23:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

  You might have a point there, but then there's the corollary: if no action is actually taken, then is there any action needed? Why was the article brought to AFD is the nominator doesn't care enough to take care of it him/herself?
  — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 00:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

  The answer to your question is not so hard: It's not unlikely that an editor who doesn't care about an article would nominate it for deletion. And when a result isn't what one wanted, it's natural to just move on and forget about it. It's harder to understand the contrarollary: Why did the !majority !vote "merge" if they don't care enough to merge? — Sebastian 01:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

  If you take either issue to an extreme then that will obviously create larger problems. Draw either point out enough, and it's easy to get to the point where we may as well just shut down AFD completely (which, to be honest, I wouldn't mind too much. I'm simply not dogmatic about it, and I'm realistic enough to know that such a view isn't constructive). It just seem to me that attempting to hold people somewhat accountable for their actions couldn't hurt, here. Start (politely) pinging the people who started the AFD's to clean up after themselves.
  — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 01:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Merge is seen as "Somebody Else's Problem". The admin doesn't care enough; they're just closing it. The nominator wanted it gone, so they don't want to do work to retain the material. The keepers resent the merge decision, so ignore it. I've closed some AfDs as merge, and sometimes I do it myself and other times I poke a WikiProject or !voter to see if they can follow through. Mergers are a very neglected part of the project. Fences&Windows 01:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

That's an interesting connection. So, do you feel that this is generally important to Wikipedia as a group? When you look at a random sample of the hundreds of backed up mergers, what do you see as more important: (1) That we don't have deletable articles sitting around, or (2) that part of the deletable article gets merged into the target? That informs who we might get interested in doing the merge. — Sebastian 02:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the reason that so many articles haven't been merged is because a merge is actually a really, really bad idea for them. The first example I was able to find I potentially would've taken on, if it didn't require me to essentially delete the subject of the AFD discussion anyway - most of it is just unreferenced OR, which is hardly welcome in the main article. Take a look at Comparison of Australian and Canadian governments, which is supposed to be merged into Australia-Canada relations. That may look perfectly acceptable from an AFD point of view, but look at the articles themselves. Australia-Canada relations already lacks references and is too long for its sections (potentially requiring article splits?), while the Comparison article has only a few references and mostly consists of original research. So why on earth would anybody in their right mind want to merge those two articles, as well as their issues, together? The question needs to be posed at the close of an AFD: is merge really the best idea for these articles? SMC (talk) 05:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

You make a number of interesting points, above all "The question needs to be posed at the close of an AFD." Currently, when an AfD gets closed, there's no discussion anymore, it gets archived right away. Are you proposing that an admin who closes with a resolution for which there was no reason given (as was the case with "merge" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of Australian and Canadian governments, where there were only two opinions for it that were not backed up with a reason), then the closing admin should write something like "I propose to do x (e.g. merge) because of y. Are there any reasons against it?" — Sebastian 00:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

That is an example of how AfD sometimes fails to consider all issues properly. A no consensus might have been better. Flatscan (talk) 05:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

If that is so, then there's no harm done. The result is almost the same: The two articles remain independent. The only difference is that the have the merge template. — Sebastian 00:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Depending on who you ask, they may be slightly different: if the merger is disputed, no consensus favors the preexisting separate articles, while merge dictates that the most recent consensus was for a combined article. Flatscan (talk) 05:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• Mergers in general (WP:Proposed mergers) often sit indefinitely. A specific example was raised a few months ago at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive202#AFD results in merger. This is not necessarily an issue because WP:There is no deadline. I sometimes help editors attribute mergers, but I rarely do them myself, as they may be easily reverted. Flatscan (talk) 05:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

  So you would rather say that it's not a problem? Initially I thought it was, but nobody has really made the case for it, so maybe it's a non-issue. — Sebastian 00:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

  The situation is not ideal, but it's not urgent either. I think that the solution is individual editors fixing individual articles, or maybe a task force, but not some sort of process. Flatscan (talk) 05:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• Merging is like exercise. Everyone says its important and they should do more of it, but it seems like such a pain that instead we talk about it more than we do. Then, when someone finally gets around to doing some, its suprising how little effort and time it actually takes, and how satisfying the result is. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 16:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

  :-) Well, maybe you're an athletic type, then. It takes me usually longer than I think. This one e.g. took me 1.5 hours, and this one two. I agree, though, that it provides a nice satisfaction. — Sebastian 00:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

  As a proponent of the deletion of every single sony erricson phone model article (which got changed into merge) once, I can't help but say that the merge decision is one that is very weak. As the one wanting it deleted, I have no interest in combining 50+ articles into a working table. The admin doesn't care, nor does the keep votes. It's the reason why I don't bother attacking CRUFT anymore on wikipedia, because the matter is that unnecessary forks will be kept on wikipedia due to the inherent inconvenience of deleting hundreds of articles. Combining just 2 articles takes a considerable amount of time. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 07:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• O lordy, that's a mess. I've just marked it, and will get down to sorting that in the next couple of days. It's actually not as hard as it looks, because the specified target of List of Sony Ericsson models is incorrect. That target should be redirected to the duplicate List of Sony Ericsson products, which - you will note - already has all the models down for merging listed. Essentially it's a matter of redirecting each article to the appropriate section in that List. Though why somebody would want such a list, when the company themselves provide a highly detailed one - [1]. Hmmm. Is this actually a case for doing another AfD? SilkTork *^YES! 00:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Relisting

Can relisting an AfD debate on the log other than the standard "no consensus" relisting be construed as canvassing? I specifically saw this at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EAbsinthe.com, but am AGFing in this instance due to the nominator's likely unintentional omission of the article heading on the 19 December log, which made it appear to blend in with the AfD discussion above it. KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes relisting can be done procedurally due to a significant flaw in the original listing that significantly impacted the outcome. I recently closed and procedurally re-opened an AFD, but a procedural re-listing can sometimes be just as good. I say can be because sometimes a complete do-over/fresh start is necessary to get a fair outcome. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

To add on to what David wrote, I think the relisting in the case you were referring to is fair because there was a major flaw in the way it was listed the first time around. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

You can relist for any sensible reason - malformed listing, insufficient participation, material change of circumstances, even when both sides are offering weak arguments. Tim Song (talk) 20:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Relisting is bad. I often see articles get relisted 2 or 3 times. If no consenus/input has been given after 7 days, it should default to keep, without exception. Relisting just seems to try too hard to come up with deletion arguements. Lugnuts (talk) 10:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

User sandboxes

Say I have a sandbox page (or user subpage) I would like to delete. Would I submit that to AfD, speedy deletion, or anything else? MaJic Talk 2 Me. I'll Listen. 18:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

It's your sandbox page/subpage, right? Just add {{db-userreq}} to it. tedder (talk) 18:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

If it's someone else's userpage or user subpage, you would submit it at Miscellany for Deletion. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. MaJic Talk 2 Me. I'll Listen. 09:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Slicing and dicing AFDs

So the delsorting is helpful for sorting AFDs by their topic, and User:DumbBOT does a decent job of date-sorting. Are there any listings for "AFDs that are overdue to be closed", "AFDs with no comments in N days", "longest open discussions" or anything like that? I've been coding up a bot to produce these listings, wondering if there is interest outside of myself. tedder (talk) 21:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The log of "Old discussions" lists discussions that remain open beyond the discussion period, if there are any (there usually isn't, at least not for more then a few hours). I've never seen anything about "AFDs with no comments in N days"... I'm not sure how useful that would be, but if it could help in getting attention to under served AFD's then it seems that could be helpful.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 21:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Ohms. I don't think the AFD Old Discussions handles relists at all. tedder (talk) 07:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Well... no it wouldn't, since the discussion is moved. Tracking the number of relistings might be worth doing, just for statistical purposes (if nothing else).
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 07:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I think these statistics would be useful, e.g. seeing which debates have the fewest contributions per day they've been open could direct people towards debates needing contributions. Fences&Windows 22:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It sounds to me like this would be similar to some of what usr:Dragons flight did a few years ago - [[2]]. Thryduulf (talk) 16:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Halt (Ranger's Apprentice)

Would somebody finish up the AFD on this? Rationale can be found on the article's talk page. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 18:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

AFDs without nominations

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sister Vincenza

Is an AFD valid without a nomination? In the specific case, I believe the article's author started an AFD without a actual nomination but what might be in a hypothetical nomination. Thereafter, the author added a Keep vote. I have added this here to discuss the process not the AFD itself. patsw (talk) 01:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• • Standard procedure would be to speedy keep those. Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe that the AFD is invalid. There is a expectation that the AFD is being made in good faith, namely the nominator desires the article to be deleted and states so in the nomination. In this case, this is not so. The nominator seeks to have the article marked as having passed an AFD and to be immunized from a second AFD. It appears to me a clear case of WP:POINT and WP:GAME. patsw (talk) 17:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Could be. Although one occasionally does see someone complete an incomplete nomination by another editor, with the editor completing the AfD arguing for keep, which I think would be a different case. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 18:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I've closed it, there was no nomination for deletion, and the only deletion argument was based on WP:IAR. Fences&Windows 23:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the article has been renamed and is now up for a properly-created AFD, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sister Vincenza Taffarel (2nd nomination). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Gargoyle - Open The Gate Single page

Why is this article being considered for deletion? The single is a legitimate, non-bootleg release in the band's discography. It was distributed by the band, but all of their substantial releases have been released by labels, so I do not think the problem is based on the band's overall notability (which I am working on adding sources to verify). AQWIKI (talk) 20:55, 2 January 2010 (GMT)

The discussion for the AFD is happening at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Open_The_Gate RP459 (talk) 22:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

How do you bundle AfDs that have been opened, but have had little or no discussion?

I know one would substitute the name of one article in the others, but what does one do with the other AfD pages that had been created? Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 03:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I would untransclude and G6 them, though it's probably more prudent to wait a bit on the second step to see if the bundling sticks. Inappropriately bundled nominations are often procedurally closed without any result, and saving the separate pages for a couple of days can save some extra effort if that happened. Timotheus Canens (talk) 04:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. In this case I had in mind just four AfDs all on He-Man cartoon action figure toy vehicles (Battle Ram is one), which follow on the heels of an AfD on a list of He-Man toy vehicles closed as delete in which it had already been suggested by at least a couple editors that they be bundled. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 04:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you are not the nom and there are other comments in the afds already, I'd say just leave them as they are. It's four AfDs, not fourteen or fourty. Obtaining the agreement of everyone involved is probably not worth the effort. Timotheus Canens (talk) 05:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Wind Raider, Talon Fighter, Attak Trak are the others. All four have one comment by an additional editor (why bundling is good); one has a second. A shame it wasn't done to begin with, but OK I won't bother. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 05:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Please help me complete the AfD process for Barry Weeks article

I tagged the article Barry Weeks for deletion, but could use some help completing the AfD process.

Can someone kindly step in to help? Thank you!

paul klenk ^talk 18:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of over 100 Alberta place articles

From WP:ANI:

A total of 110 articles on settlements in Alberta, Canada have been nominated for deletion - see Category:AfD_debates_(Places_and_transportation). It is generally held that settlements are sufficiently notable enough to sustain an article. What's the best way to deal with these? Mjroots (talk) 18:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Say so at AfD and asked that they be speedy closed. If there is a continuing dispute after that, other than DRV, then I guess you may need to come back here. It does seem excessive, but it is best addressed at AfD.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

IMO these should at least have been bundled, but then it would be hard to close them as I know of no script that can close a bundled AfD and do the necessary work on each article. It would have been prudent to nom a couple as test cases before flooding the AfD log like this. Timotheus Canens (talk) 18:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

NAC'd a few as speedy keep where the nom has withdrawn the deletion request. Timotheus Canens (talk) 18:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem is, there's over a hundred of them. This is creating a ton of unnecessary busywork for both editors and administrators who will have to sort through all of them and close them when we could be spending our efforts editing and improving articles. We're all volunteers. Can't speak for all editors, but responding to over a hundred settlement AfDs is not how I want to spend my free time in a week. It all looks like a good-faith case of WP:POINT. --Oakshade (talk) 18:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Unless there were more severe circumstances, or repetitions, not going to block anyone. Blocking is not punishment, it is preventative. If there have been withdrawals, obviously someone has figured out that he's goofed. If he moves on to Saskatchewan, let us know. I don't condone it, but there's no administrative action that is going to make things better.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think blocking is necessary either. However, I propose that we procedurally close all of the AfDs that only contain the boilerplate nom and two equally boilerplate !votes. The remaining few can serve as the test cases, and after those are closed at the end of the 7-day period the nom can renominate the procedurally closed ones if the consensus is in their favor. Timotheus Canens (talk) 19:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps decide that at WT:AFD or something?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

~ANI discussion ends here~

Thoughts? Timotheus Canens (talk) 19:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The nominator has been asked to withdraw all noms bar a couple. Suggest we allow him 24hrs to respond. If the suggestion isn't taken up I suggest all article are closed as procedural/snow/speedy keep (whichever fit the bill best). Mjroots (talk) 19:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

It looks like the nominator has confused incorporation with notability and perhaps is unaware of the many excellent reasons why a municipality in Alberta might choose not to incorporate. I also see some communities in that list that cannot legally be incorporated because they're in Indian reservations and others that were likely incorporated in the past and which have a long and well-documented history. That provincial list is an excellent source with respect to which communities are incorporated in the year of issue, but to think that it can be used as a bright-line notability test ignores the realities of Alberta municipal government, the general notability requirements, and AFD custom. --NellieBly (talk) 22:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Just close them all. The consensus seems to be clear that most if not all of these settlements are eligble for mention in Wikipedia, based on different grounds. Having this many open at the same time only causes disruption and drama. --Reinoutr (talk) 15:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• I closed them all. Places are inherently notable although I personally think its a stupid rule and clutters the pedia up with millions of empty stubs that will never grow, its a long standing consensus and there will be no meaningful discussion following such a mass nomination. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks. --Reinoutr (talk) 20:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD appropiate?

Hi, I wonder if AfD is appropiate for Year 2070 problem. Hejdå. --Gerrit ^CUTEDH 19:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello, you would be better off raising concerns about the article at its own talk page, or at a relevant WikiProject. If you feel it is appropriate to list it at AfD, please feel free to be bold and do so. Hope this helps, --Taelus (talk) 22:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Casino Job

Just discovered that one of my AfD nominations appears to have gotten lost in the post (Twinkle screwed up rather badly when I first nominated it) and never arrived in the list of discussions that day. Therefore, nobody closed it. Personally, I'm not sure if the sources found by the one voting keep are reliable, but regardless, I need an admin to close the discussion for me. Thank you. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 21:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe it is required to be listed for 7 days as per procedure, and there is usually a bot which picks up lost AfDs after a few days. I will list it today, so please de-list/revert my change if this is closed after all. Hope this helps, --Taelus (talk) 22:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

It got some comments because it was part of a flood of connected AfDs which had links to each other, so I thought that might have counted as the seven days. Obviously not. Thanks. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 22:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Your welcome, no harm in letting it go for a bit more discussion as those who watch the listings pick it up. --Taelus (talk) 22:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Please help me complete AfD

Tag added at Andrew_Lawton. Similar non-notable biography was deleted in 2006. Can a registered editor please complete the process for me? 67.193.129.239 (talk) 05:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done Please try to provide your rationale on the discussion itself at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Lawton (2nd nomination) soon or it may be closed as a speedy keep, as I have not provided a rationale myself. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 08:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Clinton Houses

Needs completion of step 2. 98.248.32.44 (talk) 22:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Template add links to notability guidelines based on the subject type

Similar to Template:AfD categories, I suggest a template that add links to notability guidelines in the AFD discussions based on the subject type. Sole Soul (talk) 15:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Try To

Needs completion of step 2. AfD rationale can be found on the article talk page. 98.248.32.44 (talk) 23:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done by DitzyNizzy ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 23:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Coinflipper

Needs to have step 2 completed. 98.248.32.44 (talk) 05:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done SMC (talk) 08:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Felecia Lindsey-Howse

Step 2, please. 98.248.32.44 (talk) 20:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done and article creator notified (though he has not edited for three years). JohnCD (talk) 20:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

XFD noticeboard?

The recent requests above being posted here got me thinking. Should someone create an "XFD noticeboard" which we can direct IP users and editors who feel they are having XFD related issues to?
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 21:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I would have thought it would be better to direct them to the talk page of the XfD they want to create and use the {{editsemiprotected}} template, in this case. Hut 8.5 21:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, clearly that's what's being done here, but how is that better then using a centralized, purpose tasked page? There are at least 13 sections of comments directly above this one which are asking for help with AFD's, which really has little to do with discussion about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion itself. What's more, considering the fact that you have to seek out and find this talk page to post those requests/questions, I'd be willing to bet that there is a 10:1 ratio of people who would make requests vs. people who actually do.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 00:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Recurring characters in the Tomb Raider game series

Can someone convert Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Recurring characters in the Tomb Raider game series to a regular nomination page? IP editors still can't use AfD properly because of the page creation problem... 70.29.211.138 (talk) 06:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)