Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion

Slightly odd question

Let's say I were to nominate an article for deletion, on the grounds that it does not meet the established notability guideline for people in his field, but then argued to keep on the grounds that in my opinion he passes the GNG. For sure, it would be an odd thing to do, but in people's opinions would it be considered disruptive? --WFC-- 21:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

That would constitute a withdrawal of the nomination in my opinion. If others had already argued each way however, I would view it as changing one's mind. Is this purely hypothetical? Jujutacular ^talk 21:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

No. I have a serious, policy-based reason for considering this course of action. I would be immediately arguing keep, rather than changing my mind. But I know that a significant number of people swear by a guideline that I consider to be in contravention of the GNG. Whenever the matter is discussed, it's always dismissed as a hypothetical, so I want to put it into practise. --WFC-- 21:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Additional criteria says "A person who fails to meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability". Why would you nominate for deletion if you believe the person meets guidelines? Jujutacular ^talk 21:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• • • • GNG is well confusing! Or at least the way it's applied is confusing. On many topics meeting GNG is not enough while on others meeting GNG is enough to keep. Check out areas like WP:NSONG where GNGmust be meet in additional to other criteria. I'm not sure highlighting a case in AFD by nominating and then arguing against it help clarify anything as there are already cases, and what do you get from one AFD? Just a few people realising the contradiction. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 10:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Because in this field the guideline being there generally isn't enough.

I don't pretend that this is particularly well disguised. But you've got to understand that I'm wary of going into specifics for fear of unwittingly canvassing. There is a commonly held belief at a project I occasionally visit that a guideline specific to that field determines notability, rather than complementing or supplimenting the GNG. I remarked in a recent high-profile (and unrelated) AfD that the GNG is often considered a de facto policy. By contrast, in this field people that meet the other guideline tend to get kept at AfD even with virtually no qualitative indication of significance in the sources. On the other hand, people that do not meet the requirement tend to get deleted, even where there are far stronger claims to notability than articles kept in the previous scenario.

My reason for wanting to nominate is that my entry into these sorts of AfDs normally ensures that the GNG is given the respect it deserves. Admittedly a lot of the time the GNG and the other guideline go hand in hand, so for convenience I want to make a nomination where this isn't the case ASAP. If I nominated a relevant article for deletion stating that I think the article passes the GNG but fails the other guideline, I believe the closing admin would ignore me, which is my intention. --WFC-- 01:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure I could do some investigation to figure out exactly what you're talking about, but in the interest of staying neutral I won't. Personally, I don't see how the GNG can be ignored. As long as GNG is met and the article does not fail WP:NOT, it can be kept IMO. Others feel free to chime in if you disagree :) Jujutacular ^talk 02:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I have two recommendations. The first is basic, and people who have failed to follow it have historically ended in trouble: Don't nominate anything at AFD if an administrator hitting the delete button is not what you actually want. So do not nominate for deletion an article that you don't want to be deleted. Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. If you think that there are subjects that do not warrant articles, or redirects to articles on wider, enclosing, subjects, because there simply isn't the reliably and independently published knowledge on them to be had, but that exist because of a poor blanket rule, then those articles should be your focus. This leads to my second recommendation, which is also fairly fundamental and universal: Do your research beforehand. Follow User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage#What to do. It's not enough to opine at AFD based upon the article at hand alone, or just personal beliefs. Work from the position of always approaching each article with "How can I improve this article?" as the question. If you discover, from doing the research, that you cannot find any source material, then that is a reason, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy, for deletion, and you place the poor blanket rule in opposition to the deletion policy that no sources means no article. But always put deletion policy into action properly. Uncle G (talk) 16:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. The first part I'm acutely aware of; I readily admit that I am trying to demonstate a point. But that in itself can be a very positive thing, provided it is not disruptive. Hence my initial question per this bit.

Don't nominate anything at AFD if an administrator hitting the delete button is not what you actually want. I completely agree. However, I can think of one exception. Certain BLPs where notability is marginal, an example would be minor reality show contestants. I can see using AFD to try to get such an article redirected. (and that's usually the result of such AFDs). --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

In response to your second part, I want to do this because all too often people use this "poor blanket rule" rather than research. The issue isn't unsourced articles being kept (at least, I've never seen that happen for people, dead or alive). The issue is that the poor blanket rule is invariably proven by a statistical website, with these statistics being the only indication of notability. Conversely (albeit more rarely), these websites can often prove that an individual fails the blanket rule, despite sources in the article suggesting possible or definite notability for other reasons. --WFC-- 22:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Another for step 2

Te Daré Lo Mejor - As usual, the deletion rationale can be seen on the article's talk page. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 00:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done by User:TrackerTV. Jujutacular ^talk 03:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

And another

Feltre School 69.181.249.92 (talk) 19:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done Jezhotwells (talk) 21:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Afd Problems: Contacting contributors on errors and the evolution of the article during afd

I contributed to a recent Afd and there seemed to be to me some possible errors in the proposal and some of the supports for deletion. And some of the supports for deletion might have been based on the original possible errors. I tried improving the article (to make notability more evident) and raised the possiblity of errors on the Afd page. I then notfied (politely I think) some of the "deleters" on their talk pages about these possible errors and the additions and asked them to "have another look" and see if the "new" evidence is enough to allow you to help change your mind and avoid the deletion. This led to my being accused of "badgering" and "inappropriate" behaviour. I have two questions. First if my writing to those "voting" is inappropriate, which I accept it might be, perhaps this could be mentioned in guidelines for contributing to Afds. (Wikipedia:Canvassing and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Notifying_interested_people don't explicitly seem to be deal with this) And secondly if there are errors or substantial changes in the article during the period of the Afd how is one to know if the votes and arguments are based on the possible errors or the arguments that these are errors is just being rejected? I think these questions are valid independently of the particular case and would like some views on the general case. (the case invovled was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tia Keyes (2nd nomination)). I hope it is ok to raise this here.(Msrasnw (talk) 11:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC))

The place to rebut or refute what you consider invalid arguments is on the relevant AfD page. Splitting off discussion elsewhere is rarely helpful. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, it is the closing administrator's obligation to view the changes in the article during the AfD process, and disregard those !votes that do not reflect objective reality--e.g., a "no sources" argument, made prior to the insertion of appropriate sources, should not be counted in establishing a rough consensus. Many closing adminsitrators don't do that, but they should. Jclemens (talk) 21:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

New proposal

I basically propose that

If a discussion has been listed for three weeks and has had no comments, the automatic result is a delete, as opposed to a no-consensus

My rationale is that, after three weeks, if nobody has even bothered to vote or comment, the article is evidently non-notable. The reason why there are no delete votes is due to the general lack of participation and lack of interest in researching clearly non-notable topics (and maybe even lazy people not bothering to type delete). This will remove the non-notable topics that are staying through due to lack of people caring. Of course, articles going through without comment can be renominated immediately so this proposal may not be needed. However, this doesn't happen that often and the original nominator has often himself stopped caring. Basically my proposal will save everybody's time. Christopher Connor (talk) 04:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with this if an article so-nominated was eligible for PROD. If not, then I favor retaining the no consensus close. Jclemens (talk) 04:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

A previous similar proposal, at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 53#Proposal, treat AFDs with little or no discussion as "uncontested prods", did not have much support. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I am the one who originally proposed this but I would have to object to the "automatic" part. Closing this way should only be one option available to an administrator if the deletion rationale is sound, otherwise someone could nominate an article with "this article sucks" and it would get deleted if nobody participates. Also, articles deleted this way should be refundable. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why such articles should have to stick around for three weeks. How is an AFD where nobody defends the article different from a prod that nobody removes? And, like prods, the closing admin should be free to "save" the article himself if he wants to. Propaniac (talk) 15:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Although the tail end of the previous linked discussion points out that similar ends to this proposal could be achieved by prodding the article after the AFD closes, except that according to WP:PROD you can't prod an article that was nominated at AFD. (Although what it actually says is you can't prod an article that was discussed at AFD, which I would like to think means that you can prod it if it were nominated at AFD but there was no discussion, but I doubt there would be universal agreement on that. Maybe I should go ask at the prod Talk page.) Propaniac (talk) 15:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I would agree with the listed for 3 weeks = delete idea. And I will explain why - the concept is that if a PROD is contested it should be sent to AFD. But I have done PROD's on articles that have been tagged for clean up/notablity issues for months/years were an editor has removed the PROD saying something like "most certainly notable". So rather than send to AFD I sit and wait, so to speak. I have re-looked at article a month, in some cases a year, later and there has been nothing done on it, or only clean up/bot work done on them. In these cases should one re-prod or should one send to AFD where it may not gather any sort of response? I look at it as if an editor takes the time to remove a PROD the same editor should take the time to clean up/fix whatever issues there are. This could be applied to AFD's as well - I have seen more than one case where something is sent to AFD and it is bombarded with "Keep" arguments but little or no work is done after the AFD. I believe somewhere in the middle is a happy medium but I do think that if an AFD sits with no response it should most likely go. (And more so if the history shows it was de-proded at some point but no work done on it) Soundvisions1 (talk) 23:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

One discussion placed in two logs

Today, when I was relisting AfD discussions, I came upon stuff like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sterling Helicopter or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mahdyar Aghajani. Before I relisted them, Sterling Helicopter was in both August 4 and August 5, while Mahdyar Aghajani was in both August 5 and August 6. Is there a systematic explanation for why this is happening? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• Sterling Helicopter. For some reason, User:Crazy-dancing relisted this after one day. The nominator reverted the relist but didn't remove it from the log for the 5th.

• Mahdyar Aghajani. Added to the log for the 5th by dumbbot and to the log for the 6th by the nominator. He probably realized that he forgot to transclude but didn't know that dumbbot did it for him.

--Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Marty Beckerman

 Done ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 08:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Please continue the process for Marty Beckerman to be deleted. As noted on the talk page, the article is not NPOV and the subject of the article is not notable unless notable has been drastically redefined. 98.110.112.197 (talk) 04:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

What if you wish to nominate a whole collection of similar pages?

The question is arising from this debate at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (record charts)#Top 10 singles. Is there a central place where all chart lists could be collectively nominated for deletion i.e. a discussion about the deletion of all such pages under the premise that such pages are a WP:copyvio as they provide no explanation, development or synthesis and essentially recreate information available at various chart providers. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 23:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

AFD pageview stats

Have we collated pageviews stats on pages at AFD or the AFD pages? One article at AFD presently has 85,000+ visits in its humble four days of existence, and the AFD has 2,500+. Can anyone remember cases with higher stats? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Accidental relisting of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vinay Deolalikar

Somebody who is more up on the details of the AfD index mechanism than I am should take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vinay Deolalikar. The debate ran for a week, gathered a massive amount of input, then was erroneously relisted for further debate. That was backed out, but not cleanly, so now the debate is listed in the August 17th index. I'm not sure how to properly get it re-listed under August 9th (where it belongs), so it can get closed. Thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I've put it back in the August 9th log. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and there were six others to fix, now done. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marketing decision support systems

This doesn't seem to have been nominated correctly, can anyone fix it? Thanks, TheGrappler (talk) 23:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Mmmm, it was nominated on August 5, should it be put in that day's log? Or todays? Jezhotwells (talk) 23:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The article itself doesn't seem to have a deletion notice on it! I suspect it should be treated as a fresh nomination since it seems to have lingered forgotten for a while. I only came across it because I browse by category not by daily log - seems that I was the first person to come across it since the nominator put it up. TheGrappler (talk) 23:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I have relisted it. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks. TheGrappler (talk) 00:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

AfDs with little or no discussion

After complaints by others at User talk:King of Hearts#AfD closure disputed, I think it is appropriate to seek clarification on this issue. I know we've been over this several times, but let's be more specific this time with four possible situations:

1. An AfD is relisted twice, with no !votes other than the nominator. Should it be (a) closed as delete or (b) closed as no consensus WP:NPASR?
2. An AfD is relisted once, with no !votes other than the nominator. Should it be (a) relisted a second time (b) closed as delete or (c) closed as no consensus WP:NPASR?
3. An AfD is relisted once, with one "delete" !vote other than the nominator. Should it be (a) relisted a second time (b) closed as delete or (c) closed as no consensus WP:NPASR?
4. An AfD without any relists receives two "delete" !votes. Should it be (a) relisted or (b) closed as delete?

Pretty much the only situation that has been discussed extensively so far is #1, where consensus supports (b). The current conflict is over #3. I followed WP:RELIST quite literally and therefore chose (c), but they believe it should be (a) or (b). I agree with them in theory, but I need to seek the community's opinion as it has rejected a proposal to treat uncommented AfDs as expired PRODs before. (Please also comment on #2 and #4.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

In cases 1, 2 and 3 I'd just try to !vote myself. And then another admin can confidently close it (AfD is our least backlogged area. The only problem is that in some fields it's hard because you need a bit of knowledge of the area to even !vote. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, I was just about to say that too. I was also going to make the point that the strength of the rationales provided might have some bearing on the decisions to close or not. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I am one of the people who has been protesting the decision to close as "no consensus" several articles in category 3. A "no consensus" close, of course, results in a default "keep" even though no-one was arguing for keep. And yet there really was no controversy - that is, no one was arguing that the article should be kept. The only problem with the discussion was that it wasn't very broad, with only one person commenting other than the nominator. I would like to see such articles either relisted a second time, or else closed as "delete". In effect it is just as if the nominator prodded the article and no-one objected; after seven days it would be deleted. In fact the same logic could be applied to all four of the above cases - treat them as uncontested prods. If they've been at AfD for two weeks, they've gotten MORE scrutiny than the average prod. --MelanieN (talk) 04:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

King of Hearts is correct, though, that the community has repeatedly rejected proposals (such as Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 53#Proposal, treat AFDs with little or no discussion as "uncontested prods") to treat these as uncontested prods. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the link. Most of the opposition seems to stem from the idea that if an editor sends an article to AfD it must not have been suitable for prod; that the two are "different animals" as one person said. That assumes way, way too much knowledge and discretion on the part of the person making the nomination. I personally took a long time to catch on that prod existed, and I often see articles at AfD that in my opinion could have been prodded. Surely we can rely on the commenters, and the closing administrator, to tell the difference between an article that needs expert evaluation vs. one that simply didn't attract enough interest to run up a string of "deletes". --MelanieN (talk) 12:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

What happened to the idea that if the reasoning was sound, the closing admin could make the decision? Consensus doesn't require a quorum. See WP:SILENCE. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. If you've got one delete, no one arguing even in comments for a keep, and a 3rd editor comes along and looks at the nom and the delete rationales and agrees with them, I see no problem with closing them as delete. Dougweller (talk) 08:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Yep. This comes under the We're admins, not robots concept. A delete nomination and a delete support puts this into the realm of good-faith discretion. If the arguments are strong, a deletion is appropriate. If the arguments are weak, a "no consensus" is appropriate.—Kww(talk) 15:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I have thought about doing that, but wouldn't that violate COI and be considered a "closing vote"? Personally (without regard to WP:RELIST), I feel there shouldn't be a limit on the number of relists allowed. What harm would repeated relists do to the project? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

A few admins such as Cirt do that but He'll usually restore and relist them on request. (which is kind of like my "uncontested prod" idea). I stopped relisting AFDs with one delete !vote (if both the nom and the !vote are sound) so that an admin can make such a call if he wishes. Usually these are closed "delete" by Cirt or relisted by someone else. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The best admin closes often act as "closing votes", especially where analysis of the two sides points are needed in a contentious AfD. Remember, consensus is not a vote, and in fact, we're not supposed to be voting anyway. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I haven't yet seen anyone oppose the "uncontested prod" idea, earlier proposed by Ron Ritzman and urged by several commenters here, on its merits. So far the only argument against it seems to be "well, the earlier consensus was...", and even some who are putting forward that argument seem to disagree with the consensus policy they are quoting. This discussion is still young, but if the discussion continues as it is going, might it lead to a change in the consensus policy? How does that happen, and who decides? --MelanieN (talk) 15:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Consensus happens through valid arguments. I agree tho, I don't think there has been any real argument against treating AfDs with no discussion as an uncontested prod. When an AfD has no keep votes, then no one is arguing to keep it, therefore there is no contest against the delete vote. If no one votes to keep the article then it should be deleted, just like with Prods, where if no one says otherwise, it gets deleted. That said, if there is no discussion, then there shouldn't be anything preventing a user from recreating the article, even an identical one. When there is no discussion and the article is recreated, it shouldn't qualify for a speedy deletion under the recreation clause, there must be an additional argument. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 16:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

We are talking about two different scenarios here: #1 and 2 as listed above by King of Hearts (where there is a delete nomination but no discussion at all), and his #3 and #4 where there are one or two "delete" comments with valid argument and no "keep" arguments, in which case (according to his understanding of the current rules) the article is supposed to be considered "no consensus". Do your comments apply to both scenarios? --MelanieN (talk) 17:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• I feel relisting should always be an option until a decent consensus (or clear evidence of lack of) arises. Closing them as uncontested PRODs is a big no-no: different processes, different thresholds, different outcome therefore. --Cyclopia^talk 16:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

So you oppose closing a nomination as "delete" without some kind of quorum of delete arguments to establish consensus; how many do you think there should be - is one enough, or two, or are more required? That's basically the question raised by King of Hearts' hypothetical scenarios above. Also, it sounds to me like you would support King of Hearts' idea that the nomination can be relisted multiple times, is that correct? --MelanieN (talk) 17:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Ideally, I would like to see at least 2 other editors agree with the nom for any kind of "hard" delete close. (ie CSD G4 would apply) 3 or more would be preferable. Obviously there would be exceptions but generally, an AFD with anything less then 2 delete !votes should either be relisted, closed "NC", or if deleted the article should be refundable and recreatable, just as with prods. Yes this proposal has been rejected twice but if some admins are currently punching "delete" on AFDs with one (or even zero) delete !votes, it should be very easy to undo these deletions. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 17:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the problem is that there are too many options and suboptions. If you take any two people here, you'll find that they will agree on at least one point and disagree on at least one point. This is what prevents consensus from forming. Any suggestions on how we may resolve this problem? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

But hundreds of editors have looked at the AFD, and not one has come forward with a "keep" argument. Why is that not sufficient consensus to delete if the delete arguments are good? Why should people be expected to say "Yep, it needs to be deleted" when we discourage WP:PERNOM? No objections to a valid deletion argument indicates consent to that deletion argument, doesn't it?—Kww(talk) 18:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

We can't read the minds of those hundreds of editors, no one has agreed with the nominator either. However, you're right, if a deletion rationale is sound then an admin should be able to punch "delete". However, without a "consensus" for the deletion, I don't think it would be right to tell a future editor that he can't recreate the article because User:Foo says it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 18:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

There's an irony here: the more thorough and convincing the argument from the initial nominator, the less likely it is that anyone will comment! That's because most of us think "Delete per nominator" comments are frowned on. So if the nominator said it all, someone who reads the nomination and agrees with it will not generally say anything, because they have nothing to add. In truth, the guideline at WP:PERNOM specifically allows "Delete per nom" comments: "If the rationale provided in the nomination includes a comprehensive argument, specific policy references and/or a compelling presentation of evidence in favour of deletion, a simple endorsement of the nominator's argument may be sufficient, typically indicated by "per nom"." But since "Delete per nom" is listed under arguments to avoid, I don't think most of us realize that it can be acceptable. --MelanieN (talk) 02:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I propose:

(1) If an AfD with poor participation is closed as "delete", with no reference to any "consensus to delete", whether deriving from the AfD debates, other debates, or other project forums, it can be considered a "weak" or "default" delete, and may be relisted for further debate by any editor who gives a compelling new argument, or rebuttal of the original nomination.

(2) Alternatively, as per the current practice, a compelling new argument or rebuttal of the original nomination means that the editor should approach the closing admin, or (if that fails) file at WP:DRV. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

A slightly different take:

AfDs with fewer than three participants should be relisted once. Closing admins should not presume that any given argument is "weak" or "strong" with so few participants. While AfDs are not votes, that is unreasoned !votes for keeping or deleting an article are not countable, unless evidence of canvassing exists, the presumption is that a plurality in favor of keeping an article by itself makes the finding of "delete by consensus" improper. Deletion decisions based on requirements of WP BLP policies or similar policies, do not require a "consensus." If an error is to be made, however, the default of "keep" must be respected.

Collect (talk) 22:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Only problem with that is that sometimes you see an AFD with 2 or even 1 "keep" !vote that completely impeaches the nomination. In those cases the closer should be able to close "keep". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

It also presumes that an admin is incapable of distinguishing weak delete arguments from strong delete arguments. A well argued delete, with no opposition, is a consensus to delete. WP:SILENCE applies in AFDs just as much as it does anywhere else.—Kww(talk) 22:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I fear you both missed the point - that the AfD should be relisted once. Silence for one week may simply mean it is Labor Day in the US, etc. The aim is to reach a rational position which is fair and does not fall into the "deadline" trap. I would trust the second week will have a salubrious effect on average for such AfDs. Collect (talk) 23:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

So what happens when the relist gets little or no input, which is where this whole thread started?—Kww(talk) 23:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

That's the question all right. Options seem to be 1) close as "no consensus", which some people think the rules require, and others object to since nobody argued to keep, 2) relist a second or even third time, which may be against the current rules, but some people would like to see the relisting limit relaxed, or 3) close as "delete" with the option of recreating (in other words, treat as an uncontested prod). --MelanieN (talk) 15:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

With so few people here, I don't think a consensus is likely to form. How do you guys feel about opening up a straw poll and listing it on WP:CENT to see what the others think? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

" the community's opinion as it has rejected a proposal to treat uncommented AfDs as expired PRODs before" How long ago was this - it is time to revisit? Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 23:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Over a year ago. I'm thinking it's time too. I'll go ahead and start the poll to gauge the general feeling about this. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, here: Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Relisting straw poll. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

List of fictional x

I opened a AfD for List of fictional currencies but there appears to be a lot of List of fictional x] which appears WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I'd appreciate a other set of eyes or two Gnevin (talk) 10:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest seeing how the List of fictional currencies AFD goes before nominating any others. However, 1000 Quatloos says that it's not going to get deleted. (sorry, I just had to :) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

You may want to take a look at Previous AFD results of "list of fictional". To me, it seems like the general trend is that if, for list of fictional X, if X is a broad, general term (currency, shapeships, cats, etc.) and the list is set up that each entry is at least defined to one or more RS to assort the element fits that category, each element have some bluelink-article connction (the work of fiction itself or the element itself, in some cases) , they are kept. Indiscriminate lists are quite possible too (I don't think we have List of Fictional People) so that's another elements. But that's just a spot check. Clearly though, "List of fictional X" are not immediately deleted but there needs to be a good rational to keep them from being indiscrminate. --MASEM (t) 13:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't items on lists have a relevance to each other such as List of GAA clubs or List of currencies, List of sports. Fictional universe have no relevance to one and other. Gnevin (talk) 14:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• Most such articles have been kept.Articles of this sort are appropriate encyclopedic content, if the items in it are significant figures in notable works, If its so limited , it is not indiscriminate, but as discriminating as any WP article. The sources are normally in the articles from which it is derived. They can be copied over, but that's usually a trivial exercise, not worth doing unless some particular item is challenged. We don't have List of fictional People because the feeling is the list would be unworkably large.. Personally, I think we should figure out how to handle it--even very large lists can be dealt with by various techniques, such as alphabetical subdivision. DGG ( talk ) 19:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

In fact we have Lists of people, which is one of the examples on how to deal with large list scopes at WP:SALAT. --Cyclopia^talk 21:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

While I'm still not sure what the value is of knowing X book has a king called Y is to A book having a king called B. I most certainly agree it should be a significant part of the work but how apart from WP:OR do we decide this? Gnevin (talk) 09:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Interesting outcome here . Article closed as no con but moved to Fictional currency and is a lot better now Gnevin (talk) 07:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

rogue administrators, endless beurocracies and the rest of the wiki user base

Hi. It seems as though some administrators have more than 50 percent of their edit history in the information-destruction side of the wikipedia project. some erase articles BEFORE they give notice, some do it without any regard to a positive vote to keep the article and yet others erase whole articles for dubious reasons such as "I have already deleted this article in the past".

Many of them seem to be using the beurocratic process to further a personal or political agenda (sometimes this might be nothing more than to make deletion threasts).

Is there an easy way to use the system to denounce such abusers of the good-will of other contributers and editors? Is there a vote to become an admin or to lose such rights?

for a recent example see Philip Schneider.

I have tried to find the "right" place for this comment, but found nothing but endless and many duplicate beaurocracies. please help to naviagate this question, if you can not answer it. Using the talk page of an article is not an option after it has been unilaterally deleted.--Namaste@^? 12:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

If you feel an admin is misusing their rights, and it's not a Wikiquette problem , the first place is Dispute resolution, meaning that you should first talk with the admin in question, and if that doesn't resolve the issue, seek input from outlets described on that page. --MASEM (t) 12:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• You might best influence such behaviour by following and participating in WP:RFA and WP:DRV. You won't make a big difference as the project is so large but every little helps. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
• Out-of-process deletions are best discussed at WP:DRV. Automatic, unilateral deletions citing WP:CSD#G4 are best raised at WP:DRV. But do try asking the deleting admin for an explanation first. Consider asking for WP:Userfication second. Many admins come across as curt, but are actually trying to do what they are supposed to do, are volunteers, and can actually turn out to be quite amicable if you are nice and assume good faith. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 15:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

FYI:Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Philip Schneider.—Kww(talk) 16:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The Senior Rock: The Untold Story

Another article for step 2 completion. The deletion rationale can be found on the article's talk page. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 21:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Weighting votes: let the moderates predominate?

There seem to be a number of camps in AfD discussions. Grossly oversimplifying, they are:

• Those who always opine keep on anything,
• Those who always opine delete on anything, and
• Those who vary their opinion from discussion to discussion.

Given that we have a large number of bot operators and statisticians, would it be worthwhile and useful to write a bot that keeps track of people's cumulative !votes, and at some arbitrary threshold (I'm thinking 90-95%) tag new !votes made by one-trick voters along the lines of {{spa}}, something to the effect of "In 95% or more of past AfD discussions, this editor has suggested that the article in question be [kept|deleted]".

Ideally, this would formalize what many closing administrators probably already do: ignore those who only ever say the same thing, radical inclusionists or deletionists, and give appropriately more weight to the middle ground.

Thoughts? Jclemens (talk) 15:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Is there a simple way to determine how a person normally !votes at AFD? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Simple would be a matter of opinion, but it's not unreasonably hard to write a program to parse past AfDs, extract !votes, and tally them by editor. It wouldn't be as simple as AfD stats, but should be workable. Jclemens (talk) 16:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

It might be interesting to have the tool (and I wonder where I'd fall), but overall I don't think I'd want it to be mentioned in most AFDs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• Before work is done to design and create bots, it would be sensible to have some worked examples. User:Jclemens is an administrator who closes AFDs. I am an example of an editor who commonly summarises my findings at AFD with a Keep !vote. Please could Jclemens tell us whether he discounts or would discount my contributions on such statistical grounds. For the most recent example of such a contribution, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Handy Light. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Sure, Colonel. Assuming you participated in an AfD which I was closing (and thus was not a party to the discussion), and your participation was tagged listing you as someone who almost always !votes to keep things, my reaction would be affected in the following ways:
    1. If you were a minority speaking out against deletion, and those opining for deletion were not tagged as editors who almost always !vote to delete, it would weigh against a "no consensus" close, and towards a "delete" outcome.
    2. If you were part of a slim majority arguing that an article should be kept, and those opining for deletion were not tagged as editors who almost always !vote to delete, it would weigh against a keep close, and towards a "no consensus" outcome.
    3. If your participation were balanced by an editor who himself was tagged as almost always !voting to delete, there would be no net change.
  • Thus, the primary effect would be to blunt the effect of inclusionists or deletionists when only one side shows up to a particular debate, and give stronger voice to those who appear to participate widely and vary their opinions. Jclemens (talk) 17:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• My understanding was that Afds were not supposed to be a vote and that closing administrators were supposed to weigh up arguments being advanced. I have tended to only contribute to Afd where I think a notable article that is useful to our encyclopedia is possibly going to be deleted and have often tried improving the article during the process. I do not consider myself a radical inclusionist and would be worried that I am being labeled as such by this process. Of course I could just go and vote delete at all the obvious deletes to get a balanced score but it is not clear how that would help. Shouldn't editors be judged according to the quality of the arguments that they advance and infomration they gather and add rather than the way they vote? (Msrasnw (talk) 17:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC))
  • I would prefer that, actually, but there are a large number of administrators who only count noses and interpret a plurality as a consensus. This proposal presumes that we can't actually compel administrators do their job right, unfortunately. Jclemens (talk) 17:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• (reply to User:Msrasnw) Indeed. My own habits are similar and, in reviewing a day's AFDs, I usually choose to focus upon the one or two cases which seem to have merit. Commenting in detail on all the dross seems too laborious and we should not encourage editors to find methods of making indiscriminate, automated edits of the per nom type. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• No. Protonk (talk) 17:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
• It would be interesting to see stats comparing editors' keep/delete opinions correlated with the eventual outcomes of those discussions. I probably express a keep opinion more often than delete since if I see an AFD correctly heading for a delete with sufficient input already I would be inclined to skip over it and move on to other discussions. I suspect other editors may show a similar pattern, but it would be interesting to see, for example, if an editor had a large proportion of delete !votes in discussions that ended 'Keep', and vice versa. I think this would be a more useful indicator than simply counting !votes either way. --Michig (talk) 18:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree that this would be more useful, but I worry that it would incentivize users to pad their numbers – piling onto obvious SNOWs and aggressively defending disputed ones. Also, what is a "correct" recommendation ↔ outcome correspondence? For example, there was a lot of argument over whether merge and redirect outcomes should be counted toward or against AfD nominations at this RfAr regarding this graph, File:TTN AfD results September through December 2008.JPG. Flatscan (talk) 04:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Users could also manipulate their success rate by avoiding AfDs where the outcomes are unclear. Flatscan (talk) 04:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
• I'd find these stats interesting, were they to be produced, but I don't think it should go as far as to start tagging people. ~ mazca ^talk 18:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
• The stats might be interesting but I wouldn't give any !vote less weight solely based on it. That being said, as an AFD closer I find !votes opposite the !voter's normal views very helpful. In most AFDs with any significant participation, the "inclusionists" will usually say "keep" and the "deletionists" will usually say "delete". However, if "Joe Chill" or "Stifle" says "keep", the AFD is most likely a "keep". If "DreamGuy" says "keep", you might as well snow close it on the spot. If "Colonel Warden" or "DreamFocus" says "delete", then there is a very good chance the article doesn't belong on wikipedia. All !votes should be judged on their merits however. If a "radical inclusionist" makes a sound argument for keeping an article, his !vote shouldn't be given less weight because he "!votes to keep everything". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
  • That's a pretty compelling approach, too: pay more attention to the people !voting out of character. Of course, it takes a while to know the players and their habits, so the advantage of a tool to catalog voting histories would be to allow newer administrators to come up to speed faster. Jclemens (talk) 02:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
• I can think of a few users who usually vote one way with poor justification. The poor justification is a reason to discount these recommendations, not the users or their AfD histories. I'm pretty sure that I could find a few who usually advocate one side with good arguments. A closer should be able to recognize an argument's shortcomings from the AfD alone, and someone who cannot – for any reason, including inexperience – should not be closing AfDs. There are arguments that look sound, like referencing a WP page, overstating its contents or omitting its disputed state, but other participants usually call these bluffs. Tracking the numbers may encourage users to obfuscate their habits by jumping sides to pile on obvious SNOWs. Flatscan (talk) 04:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
• Absolutely not. Complicated solution to a non-existent problem. Closing admins are supposed to parse voting reasons. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
  • And absolutely never consider the reputation of the editor making the suggestion?
    Just today, I was looking at an article at AFD and leaning slightly towards a delete !vote (before doing any direct research), when I realized that the lone respondent so far was a highly experienced editor whose judgment I trust, and he'd come to the opposite conclusion. Would you have preferred that I ignored this, and gone to my favorite web search engine with a delete-biased mind? And if it's good for me to pay attention to this, then why is it bad for an admin to do the same? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I think a user's reputation/history may be considered, but with minimal weight. "I didn't find any acceptable sources" may carry more weight when written by a user known for extensive searches and an accommodating stance on sourcing (the reversal mentioned by Ron Ritzman). A random source submitted by a user known for presenting substandard sources is of little value, but an actual reliable source may be a trump, regardless of who finds it. Flatscan (talk) 04:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
      • I dunno about the "minimal weight": I'd give significant weight to what someone like User:DGG says. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
        • DGG does usually present well-reasoned recommendations, but I wouldn't add weight to a weaker argument based on his reputation. Flatscan (talk) 04:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• One factor this suggestion ignores is the nature of the AfDs on which different editors may comment. Some editors may only vote on recently created vanity articles, where there would be a high deletion rate. Others may comment on controversial articles, which are often nominated for deletion based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and would have a lower deletion rate. TFD (talk) 07:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
• I don't think voting records are of much use when people can freely choose which debates they want to vote in. If someone is becoming "too inclusionist" or "too deletionist", they can just fling on a few delete/keep votes in non-contentious cases so as to even the record. People who are excessively in the deletionist or inclusionist camps often betray their position with ridiculous rationales anyway. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
• I tend to add to discussions where I think there is reasonable likelihood that otherwise the wrong decision might be made - rarely will you see me agreeing for the mere sake of piling on, and often my vote if it is later in the discussion will be contrary to what "everyone else" has said. On XfDs, this means that if I am one of the first three !votes, my record is very high for "keep" (about 90% maybe if you include "userfy") but if the discussion has been long with lots of "keep !votes" my record is higher for "delete." (about 70%) How the heck can you weigh that with numbers? Collect (talk) 10:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is one of the worst ideas I've ever seen. People often argue for keep or delete (I'm a keeper, usually, with occasional exceptions). So what? AfD should assess consensus, and the balance between (broadly speaking) inclusionism and deletionism is part of this consensus. Also, it assumes that 50% k/d would be the expected outcome for an "unbiased" editor, which is a very strong assumption. Third, it doesn't keep in mind at all the type of article one has !voted on. Fourth, it is prone to be gamed easily: if you are a guy who wants to be counted for deleting lists, for example, just "keep" every snowball keep you see, and then come back to your targets. I really don't even understand what problem this proposal would be the solution of -I only see a can of Dune worms with a big can opener. --Cyclopia^talk 13:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose, reasoned argument not votes are what should count in AfDs if the guidelines are follwoed. I can't see this helping admins who don't actually follow those guidelines as they won't follow a new guidleine either. So a pointless proposition based on flawed reasoning and likely a flawed analysis of people's voting habits. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
• No need for votes this was an idea, not a proposal, and sufficient holes have already been shot in it that it's clear that it's not going to progress to a proposal. I appreciate the thoughts others have shared--I appreciate the thoughtful discussion. Jclemens (talk) 17:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Strong support and I would personally advocate for this kind of change. As a user of over 18 months and a frequent nominator for AfD when articles (particularly music ones) do not meet notability guidelines, I frequently find that community consensus goes against Notability guidelines and those voting often make very little contribution to the article or have a very limited experience with guidelines and policies. Equally i echo comments by Jezhotwells about reasoned opinions also needing to be considered. Sometimes the fresh logic of uninvolved or new editors trumps 'so-called' experience. Perhaps a mixing of Jclemens and Jezhotwells idea would serve perfectly. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 18:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

If community consensus goes frequently against notability guidelines, then it's the guidelines that need to be changed to reflect such consensus. --Cyclopia^talk 12:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I didnt explain that properly. What I meant is that sometimes people oppose deletion because they are a fan of a particular artist but when it comes to the guideline and applying to other artists they support the deletion. We have notability guidelines which the community accepts are correct (its been discussed several times) but then when it comes individual examples sometimes opinion about a particular song leans to a consensus that breaks the guideline but because it is a local consensus it is given precedence. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 12:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. If an article is incorrectly kept due to a flood of inclusionists, it can always be renominated under the premise that the provided sources do not actually constitute significant independent coverage. If an article is incorrectly deleted due to a flood of deletionists, it can always be recreated by providing proper sources. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
• comment i think it would be very hard to create any kind of "objective" flagging that would give any useful information that wouldnt be subject to manipulation. The whole process then becomes less transparent. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 12:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
• Comment to "Keepers" I notice a number of editors are "keepers". I hope when they approach AfDs that they examine the sources rather than vote to keep on principle. There are many BLPs where almost no sources exist to build an article and many other articles based on the fact that it is possible to string together an adjective and a noun. TFD (talk) 04:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, but which sources? The ones that they believe in good faith to exist somewhere, the ones they can see exist based on some simple searching, or the ones currently in the article? Many vote to keep or delete an article based on its current state alone, without looking at its potential for improvement, which is another part of the deletion debate problem. Jclemens (talk) 05:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
• Alternative proposal - Any deletion discussion that has heavy participation should be refactored appropriately by someone not involved in the discussion. This refactoring can be done to lend clarity to the questions of fact raised in the nomination for the benefit of those involved, or to make consensus clearer by summarizing the arguments shortly before closure, such that the actual closure can rest on the arguments and their relative strengths. The editor refactoring should never be the closing administrator or otherwise a participant in the discussion - the point is to make sure that valid arguments are not "lost in the screaming" Triona (talk) 18:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Do you mean refactoring or merely summarizing? Reordering or directly editing other users' comments is discouraged by WP:Articles for deletion#AfD Wikietiquette and WP:Guide to deletion#Discussion. Flatscan (talk) 03:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Frankly any admin closing a complicated discussion without reading the thread very carefully isn't closing the article properly and they don't need someone to tell them what other people have said. Where it does happen it is hardly surprising that the subsequent "summary" strongly reflects the prejudices of the summariser and the efforts I have seen are often little more then vote counts lacking the nuances of the original comments. Additionally, as a regular AFD closer I like to follow the ebb and flow of a discussion as people respond to the various comments and by breaking the chronological order of a thread I fear we will end up with closes that fall more towards simple nose counts then presently. I'm really curious what problem this is supposed to solve by the way. Can anyone give me a specific example where this would help us? Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Article title: Pure blood theory in Korea should be remove due to nonfactual information

This article was created for purpose of spreading wrong information, the major error is there is no such thing is called sunhyeoljuui (순혈주의/純血主義) from Korea and yet the author created article based on wrong information. There is no reference for 순혈주의 from reference section too. And most of content is came from Korean nationalism. Article link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_blood_theory_in_Korea And most of analysis is written in very biased POV and without factual information. I suggest to remove this article and move the remaining content back to Korean nationalism.--KSentry(talk) 06:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I suggest anyone who wishes to be involved have a good read at Talk:Pure blood theory in Korea and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pure blood theory in Korea first. This user is clearly pushing an agenda, by completely ignoring peer-reviewed scientific journals and recently-published references, ignores the suggestions of others and neglects WP:CONSENSUS, whilst accusing users that oppose him as being "Chinese/Japanese trolls", despite this. Base on all the POV-warring going on, I personally call bad-faith on the part of User:KoreanSentry, although it is up to the community to decide on that. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

@User:KoreanSentry: I don't understand your request. No single user has the authority to overturn community WP:CONSENSUS based on a closed AfD. What do you seek from coming here? You're in the wrong place, I believe. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

If you want to nominate an article for deletion, follow the instructions here, rather than posting on this page. This page is for discussions concerning the AfD process itself, not for discussions about whether individual articles should be deleted. Hut 8.5 09:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Help to correct nomination issues

I think I messed something up in the process of creating Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of assets owned by McDonald's. Can someone review and see if listed appropriately and let me know what I might need to do to correct it. Thanks! Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 16:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• You forgot to add it to today's log. I fixed that. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Belinda (Rice novel)

Step 2 please, with the deletion rationale on the article's talk page. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 08:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done Hut 8.5 09:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Where do I find old discussions?

Can anyone please tell me where I can find the record of old discussions (n my case for an article which has now been deleted)?

Thanks :::Aa42john (talk) 18:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

You could click on 'What links here' while at the article in question - if a discussion exists it should appear in the list. Alternatively search for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/article name. If the article was deleted as a result of an AFD discussion the discussion may also be linked in the deletion comments if you open the article for editing.--Michig (talk) 18:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC) e.g. see here in the pink section.--Michig (talk) 18:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Abundant Life Christian School

Should this article be deleted? It doesn't seem like any of the refs are independent, and google doesn't bring up much of interest. If so, would someone please add it to AfD? Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abundant Life Christian School. As is standard for these types of posts, I have indicated in the nom that this was originally your idea. Xenon54 (talk) 14:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Complexity of AFD (RFC)

I think that our articles for deletion process has suffered greatly from the effects of instruction creep. Following the processes laid out on the WP:AFD page to list an article, there are somewhere around 30 steps (once you count all the substeps) to listing an article for deletion. I'm raising the following points to establish the scope of the problem before I try to go anywhere with any proposals. Triona (talk) 19:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

1) The articles for deletion process requires specialized knowledge to follow correctly

In the processes for listing and closing AFD discussion are very detailed steps above and beyond the actual standards for which articles may be deleted. These steps require specialized knowledge because they require exact use of templates (at least 5 in total) and edit summaries to correctly follow the process, and a very specific set of steps. Triona (talk) 19:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

2) The articles for deletion process is so complex that even experienced editors usually employ additional tools just to navigate the process

There exist automated tools to open and close AFDs because most experienced editors find the Articles for Deletion process cumbersome and unwieldy. These tools may not be readily available to less experienced contributors because they simply do not know they are there. Triona (talk) 19:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

3) Just because there is a tool to simplify a process does not mean the underlying process is not complex

The existence of tools like twinkle should not be a defense of a processes complexity. "Oh just use Twinkle" shouldn't be the end of this discussion because Twinkle only masks the underlying complexity and in any case, isn't present in the default interface. Triona (talk) 19:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

• support 1, 2, and 3. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 19:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support all three... but so what? What point are you trying to make? I routinely see people who ignore the parts of the instructions they don't like, I routinely see people making arguments that aren't supported by policy, and I routinely see terrible administrator closes... yet we still somehow continue to muddle along. Given that there's complexity, what's the proposal to "fix it" and what's the desired outcome? Jclemens (talk) 21:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

  I honestly don't know what the answers are, but from similar discussions, once you start offering solutions people start saying there's not a problem. So the first step is to establish that there is a problem and what the extent of it is - once that's settled, then you can start talking about what options exist to fix it, and whether or not those "solutions" just add to the problem. Triona (talk) 21:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) I am with Jclemens, too. What end results are expected from this RfC? That the developers create a more automated, intuitive interface? that we scrap some of the "instructions"? that a cadre of people are assigned as "afdgnomes" to tidy up every incomplete/malfomated submission? Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 21:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• support 1, 2, and 3. , I agree but I've raised this discussion before and its not led to anything. I've also participated in much of these discussions again but it still doesn't lead nowhere. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 21:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Although I agree with the statement of facts. Support all three. I see other editors fixing malformed AfDs, and creating AfDs as proxy for others that can't or don't know how. I even fixed one recently. Although it's not intentional, one benefit is that newbies usually don't take articles to AfD. It takes a while to understand the process, and more importantly, the reasons behind the process. So while I agree it's complex, I see no real reason to change the process yet. If it becomes so easy that anyone can simply push a single button, we will, I'm afraid, wind up with a slew of articles that get sent to AfD because they are the subject of a content disagreement, for example. — Becksguy (talk) 22:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the complexity of the process ensures it's detailed and thorough? -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me

That kinda what I was implying, but didn't express as well as you did. — Becksguy (talk) 01:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose: I don't think there are 30 stages as mentioned above. Three stages to complete a nomination plus notifying the creator and major contributors. The process needs to be more rigorous than CSD or PROD. The main problems that I see are inadequate arguments as mentioned by Jclemens, and faulty closures by admins who don't assess the discussion properly. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Counting preliminary steps and substeps, there are somewhere around 30 steps. 12 preliminary steps that we ask people to do, and anywhere from 5 to 10 substeps for each of the actual 3 major steps. Triona (talk) 05:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with the statements of facts, but what is the solution? For me, twinkle is the answer to the complexity of AfD (also note that AfD, MfD, CfD, DRV, are all different and require different processes). Protonk (talk) 07:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
• I recall Uncle G saying that AFD was made deliberately non-trivial so that the process would not be engaged too lightly. Scripting tools like Twinkle have tended to subvert this but I'm not sure if the volume or quality of nominations has been affected. Are there any statistics? Colonel Warden (talk) 08:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose all three. I don't use tools to nominate articles for AfD, and have never done so (not even on renominations and mass nominations). WP:AFD is a handy guide to help you through the process, which uses three templates (not five). Other things aren't necessary (notifying the creator or anyone else is considered to be good, but I usually don't do this with AfD's, and the edit summaries don't need to be followed either, just use good, descriptive ones: I go with 'nominated for deletion', 'first deletion reason', and finally the name of the article at the daily log). The steps to take before nominating for deletion are just good advice: people should be aware that they shouldn't list an article because e.g. they believe the subject to be offensive, or because it is only of interest to Asians, or whatever misguided reason they may have. People should also be aware that there are other deletion processes, like speedy. Basically, only the three templated steps need to be done carefully: everything else, like WP:BEFORE and so on, just need to be treated with some common sense and personal preference. The only thing I see that could be a useful simplification is that anytime an AfD page is created, it is somehow automatically added to the daily log. Fram (talk) 10:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

TV episode AFDs?

I don't know how to submit an article for deletion.

This page appears to be an non notable episode http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Versus_the_Predator —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.9.66.213 (talk) 10:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

IEEE AlexSB

I want to know why is the article is nominated for deletion ?