Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Londonfella (talk | contribs) at 18:04, 12 January 2009 (Possible deletion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut


Possible deletion

Hello all, I noticed this page Global linker and was wondering as it seems to be just advertising if it should have a place in the encyclopedia. I am new to this area so I wasn't too sure. Your advice would be welcome. Thankyou.18:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)Londonfella (talk)

Suggestion to redirect most deleted pages to a userspace

Everyday large amounts of well referenced material gets deleted with WP:Articles for deletion. I propose that all articles which do not have copyright violations, biography violations, etc. be moved to the creator's user space with a link in the AfD closing edit summary.

So for example:

The benefits of moving deleted material to user space are numerous:

  1. Future authors would not have to create content which was deleted before.
  2. Deleted articles could be improved upon and eventually be resubmitted for recreation
  3. AfD's would not be as hostile, since the contributors to the article would know the article could still be improved upon and submitted for recreation later.
  4. Users' activity on the wikipedia is falling. New editors, who naturally do not know wikipolicy, often create new articles that do not satisfy wikipedia's stringent Kafkaesque bureaucracy, and those articles are swifty deleted. These deletions deter new editors from contributing to Wikipedia. [1]

Caveat: In my experience, policy pages are frequented by veteran editors who fervently believe and enforce that policy page, and are resistant to change. So when deciding the merits of this suggestion, please keep in mind that these negative responses are not necessarily reflective of all wikipedians, but more reflective of supporters of the stats quo on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks. Inclusionist (talk) 18:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anent this see [2], the talk page on userfication appears to be exactly what you wish to discuss. Collect (talk) 20:13, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
thank you so much collect. You deserve the barnstar I gave you. Thanks again. Inclusionist (travb) (talk) 20:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Counter-proposal: Notify authors pages can be userfied, but don't USERFY automatically.
Have the closing admin notify the principal authors that the page was deleted through AFD and that it is eligible for temporarily userfication upon request from any administrator. The message should include instructions for contacting administrators, a link to WP:Userfication, and a statement that says such articles should not be kept in user space indefinately, they should either be improved to the point they could survive AFD, or if that is not possible, deleted.
Many AFDs are due to notability issues, and unless something happens to change the subject's notability, there will never be an article that could withstand AFD. In these cases, the only reason to USERFY is so the editor can copy the content to another location. For this reason, anyone getting USERFIED deleted content should also be told they must copy the edit log for GFDL purposes should they republish the content elsewhere, and they cannot republish it elsewhere except in compliance with the all of the terms of the GFDL.
In some cases, the subject is not notable now but will likely become notable later if certain things happen. In these cases, the editor may want to preserve the article and its history on his local drive, update the local copy as the person's notability rises, and when it gets high enough to survive AFD, upload the new article. In this case, he'll have a choice: Either request a 2nd un-deletion, as his userfied version will be long-re-deleted, and upadate it, or update his version as a new article and put the previously-copied history in the talk page of the new article. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I like that 99% of your suggestion a hell of a lot. I would give you a barnstar too, but that would cheapen collect's barnstar I gave him today, so I will wait until your next wonderful idea. :)
Mind if yourself or I move this suggestion to Wikipedia_talk:Userfication? I could create a link to it there. Either way--whatever you perfer.
There is a very interesting conversation going on their about how long userfied content should exist. It is very similar to your suggestion. Inclusionist(travb) (talk) 05:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would think that as long that it is clear that userification of an article bound for deletion is certainly possible, and that users have to be aware that a CSD is recreation of a deleted article without significant change, there really doesn't need to be any significant change to the process. If there is requested userification, then yes, a link in the admin closing to the user page would be good to have. --MASEM 05:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree Masem, I was thinking the same thing. Which leads me to the next question (next section) how can we let users know about the userfication option? travb (talk) 14:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Inclusionist: No, I don't mind. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any deletion tags mention that users can request userfication of deleted content

Do any current deletion tags mention: Wikipedia:Userfication#Userfication_of_deleted_content? Most wikipedians don't know this option is available to them. travb (talk) 05:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heck -- I didn't know about it until I found it pretty much by accident. Well -- not really accident, I had run into the term on AfD and MfD before, and figured the article had to exist somewhere. As for likelihood of current tags mentioning it? Nil. Collect (talk) 14:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm a big fan of userfication of deleted articles. Why? See the West Essay. Had 62 articles bombarded with AFD'd in a short period of time. So far, 30+% have been restored through additional research, editing, and even merging to existing articles of the same subject but slightly different titles. More than one admin actually refused to "userfy" because they said that the articles were hopeless.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And to be fair, more than one admin offered to userfy them for you if they were deleted.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody Else's problem

Some shameless promotion...nah, not really. But I noticed a problem at AFD today that I saw often before, so I wrote a short essay at Wikipedia:Somebody Else's Problem. I think it might echo the concerns of some people here, so I am kindly asking for input. Feel free to update, change and add to it as much as you like, it's a wiki after all. Regards SoWhy 16:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It actually goes further, and the cases where only sources are missing are the easy ones. It has recently happened to me more than once, that "articles" without any useful content that I had submitted to afd were kept on the basis that "theoretically, a useful article about this topic could be written". Of course, none of those who voted such stepped forward to actually do so, and if I had had the resources to do it myself, I wouldn't have started an afd in the first place. The result: Users looking for information on those topics will find a page on Wikipeida, but no information, which leaves them with a much lousier impression than if they hadn't found anything at all. It surprises me again and again that what would be mercilessly eradicated on dewiki as "article requests" and to make room for something better is preserved on enwiki as purportedly valuable. --Latebird (talk) 01:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I take a somewhat different view. The responsibility for fixing an article should remain with the nominator. That is, if you think an article sucks enough to nominate it for deletion, you should "own" the cleanup if you're wrong. Kind of like "loser pays" litigation. Frankly, the issue I have with deletionists is that they seem much more eager to nominate something for deletion than they do to actually improve it, even if it's been demonstrated worthy of inclusion. This would solve that, but I doubt such an expectation would ever be ratified. Jclemens (talk) 02:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So if I don't have the resources or the time to create something better, I should just leave the existing crap alone? Reality is, that very often it is not shown that the actually existing article is "worthy of inclusion". It is only shown that the topic might in theory allow a decent article. In fact, many keep votes completely ignore the actual article, and simply say "this is an interesting and noteworthy topic". Shouldn't those folks own up to their convictions according to WP:BURDEN? Note that when I see the possibility to rescue an article nominated by someone else with material available to me, I will immediately do so, usually while the afd is still running. I have also happily withdrawn many of my own afds when someone else managed to do that. Reducing this to a war between "deletionists" and "inclusionists", just so that you can point a finger at someone, is really not very helpful. Asking that a nominator should be forced into some kind of "ownership" also seems rather strange. --Latebird (talk) 02:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the article is encyclopedic in topic and the current content isn't worthwhile, then the responsible thing to do is remove as much of the content as needed to render it appropriate--stubs are perfectly fine to have. If someone says "this entire article is crap" and nominates it for deletion, they're really declaring that the article should be nuked because they can't be bothered to clean it up. I, for one, think that the proper response to such an irresponsible nomination--that is, when a nominator has nominated an encyclopedic topic for deletion because the current article stinks--would be an obligation for the nominator to go fix the article in question. That is, it takes a nominator who can't be bothered to delete the bad parts of an article to create such a "somebody else's problem" in the first place, so the best response is to explicitly make it their responsibility. Problem solved! Jclemens (talk) 03:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it unlikely that any blanket "rule" can be created to be fair to all editors and to the encyclopedia itself. I think most responsible and thoughtful people will agree with Jclemens that there exists a problem with editors being more willing to tag and run than to put in the work. (For myself, I am actually concerned about this happening with cleanup and other tags more than AfD, because at least AfD has a process in place to make sure something happens. Cleanup tags routinely sit for over two years before they are dealt with.) But anyway, while I share Jclemens antipathy for tag-and-running, I cannot endorse the notion that a tagging editor automatically should have responsibility. I may recognize, for example, that an article on some obscure physics topic is shit, but I may lack the knowledge to make it an acceptable article. In one such case I went to the relevant Wikiproject and found an editor who was willing to fix things up, and that was gratifying. But that isn't always possible.
On the other hand, sometimes the answer may be just what Jclemens said: Hack away until you have a stub that is clean and accurate. I totally endorse the notion that there is nothing inherently wrong with stubs. And again, while I have not done this to save an article at AfD, I have gone to clean up an article and found that only a stub was needed and/or was possible (by me). And that quality stub looks better for us than the heaps of dung that occasionally show up as articles. Unschool 04:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So I should first blank an "article" (= "delete the bad parts") that only contains trivialities before submitting it to AFD? The idea of placing the blame on the person who noticed the problem really runs counter to the whole volunteering idea of Wikipedia. In a way, that's also a symptom of the "someone else's problem" attitude, only that you have an easy scapegoat to pont at. Throughout history, it has often been considered the easiest "solution" (and always a fallacy) to shoot the messenger. Assuming that AFDs are submitted because people "can't be bothered" to do real work also runs directly counter to WP:AGF, and offends me personally.
Wikipedia is long past the point where the number of articles should be of any concern. We should direct our focus primarily on quality now. If you have a quick way to fix the problem, by all means do that (as do I). But an AFD must be valid (and have a chance of succeeding) if for whatever reason that doesn't happen. A non-article should not be kept just because someone claimed it could be fixed in the debate. If by the end of the AFD the problem isn't actually fixed in the article, then it should be deleted. That would eliminate the absurd "this topic could be a nice article" keep votes. AFD debates must be about the text that actually exists at the time of debate, and not about something that only exists in someone's imagination. Before submitting an AFD I always put myself in the shoes of an unsuspecting reader and ask: "If I was interested in the topic, would this page help me?" If the answer is no, then it is harmful to the Encyclopedia and should not be left there in that form. --Latebird (talk) 14:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Latebird, my endorsement of taking a machete to an article (I don't like calling it "blanking", and that's not what anyone has suggested, as far as I've noticed) does not equate to endorsing Jclemens's position on mandating that the tagger must fix the problem. I'm simply noting that some people appear to live just to tag articles, and it would be nice if they could also do some of the work some of the time. I would not mandate it, I would just encourage it. Unschool 01:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Blanking an article would also be a demonstration of laziness. If it's really meritless and shouldn't be in Wikipedia in the first place, the nominator has nothing to fear by just nominating it outright. If the article has some content worth keeping and some not, for about any value of "some", it's a simple matter of reading and editing to excise the not-worthwhile content. Without the automated AfD tools, it should take about the same amount of time to WP:BOLDly remove the fluff, cruft, or whatnot as it would to nominate the article by hand, and that is the basis by which I call the failure to do so laziness. It is, in fact, WP:AGFing, in that it doesn't attribute malice to such an action. I'd be surprised if any participant in this discussion hasn't run across someone who engages in deletion nominations that, if uncritically accepted, would have the net effect of POV pushing. Requiring articles to be fixed at any point (aside from promotions like GA/FA, and legal issues) violates WP:TIND. Making it the nomintor's obligation to fix a nominated article places the obligation in line with GA/FA work: you make the nomination, you inherit the work. Jclemens (talk) 19:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Submitting an AFD is among other things both an admission of defeat and a call for help. If then some other editors jump in and tell me "hey, I think that would be an interesting topic, now you have to write an actual article about it whether you like to or not", then that only adds insult to injury. You keep turning WP:BURDEN on it's head, without a good reason to do so. This line of thought renders the AFD process ineffective, because it will prevent valid and necessary nominations, hurting the quality of Wikipedia overall. On the other hand, "if you want it kept, make it worth keeping" is proven to work very well. --Latebird (talk) 23:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I've never seen an AfD nomination that was an admission of defeat or a call for help. WP:BURDEN applies to specific clauses in an article, WP:BEFORE applies to the articles existence, or lack thereof. Jclemens (talk) 23:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So what is it then if someone says "sorry guys, I can't see anything useful in this"? Maybe you expect that declaration of defeat spelled out a little too literally... WP:BURDEN applies to everything in an article, and WP:BEFORE (a ser of procedural recommendations) does not replace it. Of course we should keep articles that are likely to be improved. What we seem to do instead, is to keep articles where improvement is only theoretically possible, no matter how ununlikely. --Latebird (talk) 08:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kosher tax

The article on Kosher tax is a canard in itself. This article makes a political statement and is therefore, not an encyclopedic entry, and should be deleted.--68.220.226.199 (talk) 18:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds more like an editing issue than a deletion issue.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just took a look. It's a well cited article, and the one major claim that was in no way supported was easily removed. I see nothing wrong with an incerdibly thoroughly cited article which completely and handily dismantles a lie. ThuranX (talk) 04:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I checked into it as well, and agree, there's nothing majorly wrong with the article. This post looks like an anon editor with some POV issues of his own. Unschool 04:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most likely someone who feels that any writing about the lie is propagating the lie. I've seen the mentality before. ThuranX (talk) 07:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All articles here should be so well cited.--RandomHumanoid(⇒) 21:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do I do an umbrella nomination

What do I do and what do I do with the templates to nominate several articles in one entry?--Ipatrol (talk) 16:23, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go through the process on the first article. Edit the AFD, and then add a list of
*'''{{la|article name}}'''

to it. Then, go to each additional article, add the AFD notice. Place a redirect in each subsequent AFD to the main AFD.—Kww(talk) 16:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Using templates to vote

I think it is time for us to relook into template voting.

I know this has been rejected before but there are advantages in making people vote using templates rather than current text base votes. However a critical part of the rationale was forgotten in the past discussions.

Current method of voting is not machine readable. This makes it difficult to detect foul play. It is highly inefficient to parse the pages as is. Mind that this is less about vote counting consensus and more about identifying sockpuppets, meatpuppets and other kinds of foul play we do not want in AFD.

I am trying to develop a tool that parses afds to detect meat/sock puppetry.

-- Cat chi? 12:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Last I checked, no machine can examine the reasons behind each comment, as this is not, strictly speaking, a "vote" at all. And since sockpuppets can not actually provide stronger reasons than already presented, their presence should be ignorable. What is more to the point, moreover, is that a person closing a discussion should note the strength of reasons considered instead of just stating "consensus says" something. Collect (talk) 13:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Templates, no templates... sock puppets and meat puppets can use or not use templates like any other wikipedian, so the permittance or disallowance of usage of templates doesn't change anything. – sgeureka t•c 13:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To expand a bit on the previous two comments, using templates will make it harder to detect sock/meat puppetry at AfD, not easier. And why should AfD be machine readable when admins are supposed to be reading all of the discussion and weighing strength of arguments and how they match policy in determining consensus? This would move us further from that, not closer.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's incumbent upon the administrators to ignore spurious reasons. Not to mention the participants at AFD. If someone says something patently false, refute it. Randomran (talk) 17:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the naked eye a {{Oppose}} would look no different than Oppose. For a machine it is hard to tell if the word "oppose" was used as a comment or as a vote. In addition it is very hard to tell who casted the vote or comment as there are too many flavors of casting your vote. The template would leave an invisible and machine readable signature. I am not talking about vote counting mechanics to determine the outcome of one AFD but scanning all afds for foul play. There is a difference.
Aside from a template there also is numberlist option with one section for support votes, another for oppose votes and another for discussions and etc.
-- Cat chi? 22:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Why do you still want to have machine-readable vote templates in discussions that aren't votes? And what has this got to do with abusive sockpuppets? This looks like a solution looking for a problem. – sgeureka t•c 10:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Long AfDs?

Out of curiosity, is anybody keeping track of the "longest AfDs"? —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 10:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Wikietiquette section

I think it might be worth changing the "AfD Wikietiquette" section about nominating multiple articles for deletion. In all the time I've been involved in AfDs, it's been a very very frequent occurrence that big group nominations get speedy-closed for one reason or another, and almost always with the suggestion that the nominator re-nominate each article separately. While I'm not sure what the wording should be changed to, I feel the current wording may be misleading to someone unfamiliar with the process. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 14:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quick suggestion: replace "a large number" with simply "a number", plus a hint to carefully evaluate homogeneity. Flatscan (talk) 04:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Probably good. "A few" or "several" might also be good, but I'm sure there are cases where mass-noms of 10 or more articles would be appropriate. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 09:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I made a change in line with my suggestion – feel free to polish as necessary. Flatscan (talk) 05:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What am I doing wrong?

This happened today - and I noticed a similar thing happening yesterday. The number and name of the case appears outside the box after I close the case. My process is to add {{Closing}}, then remove {{Closing}} and {{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD}}, and paste in {{subst:at}} '''RESULT'''. ~~~~ at the top with my comments inside '''RESULT''', and paste {{subst:ab}} at the bottom and save. Is there something in that process that is incorrect? SilkTork *YES! 01:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just place the {{subst:at}} '''RESULT'''. ~~~~ above the section header and you're fine. --Amalthea 01:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. SilkTork *YES! 08:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closure by non-Admin involved-party editor: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eugene Sings!

Is this closure by American Eagle legitimate? Can an involved party simply pre-empt an AfD by redirecting the articles under discussion? This would not appear to be legitimate (such consensus as there was was for deletion, not mere merge & redirect). Is it something that needs to be taken to WP:DRV to be corrected? HrafnTalkStalk 09:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirecting/merging during an AfD is acceptable though rarely done (As it tends to prempt discussion). Any administrator can revert the closure and he probably should not have closed that debate (though I have made that same exact move many times before I realized it was frowned upon). As for the outcome, ask yourself if deletion is really necessary. Will redirection/merger improve the encyclopedia? Is there some portion of the page history that needs to be removed? Protonk (talk) 09:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this was just a one-off, I'd probably let it slide. But it is part of a pattern of copying material under AfD to new articles & unilaterally denominating articles nominated by myself on a related AfD. American Eagle has turned these AfDs into a farce. HrafnTalkStalk 09:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are a number of issues with this. Wikipedia:Non-admin closure indicates that American Eagle's actions were wrong both in that the user was involved, and in that the decision wasn't clear. Even if American Eagle were an admin the closure was inappropriate because of the user's involvement, and because it is not clear that the decision is to merge. Added to which the closure was too soon. I'm not one for wikilawering over points of procedure, and if the end result was what everyone wanted, then there wouldn't be an issue - but in this case we have the nominator objecting. I don't think this is a case for DRV, but there are sufficient concerns for the closure to be overturned and the AfD allowed to run its course. SilkTork *YES! 10:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sorry I should have mentioned that here. I did inform those concerned: [3] and [4]. SilkTork *YES! 17:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I apologize for creating this mess. The reason I did so was, it appeared that merge/redirect was the consensus, so I did that. The nominator himself didn't oppose to my doing it. Then, all pages were redirecting and there was no reason to continue the discussion. However, if more users would like to comment, that is fine. Sorry. TheAE talk/sign 18:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
American Eagle: how can you possibly interpret "I see no need for them to continue as redirects" as that I "didn't oppose" your proposal for redirects? What possible good faith reason can you have for making this gross misrepresentation of my comment? HrafnTalkStalk 03:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Assume good faith. Also remember that if a title is a common or probable search term a redirect is preferable to deletion. Protonk (talk) 03:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(i)The assumption of good faith is an erodable quantity, and a barrage of claims and actions in questionable faith cannot help but reduce it. (ii) As I said in my !"didn't oppose": "I see no need for them to continue as redirects -- as I see little probability that anybody would look for them independently of the main topic of Adventures in Odyssey." HrafnTalkStalk 04:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hrafn, I honestly didn't think you were opposed to it. I saw your message as, "I don't see the point of redirecting them, but go ahead." It was my mistake, but it wasn't bad faith. It's over now, let's move on. Okay? TheAE talk/sign 04:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
American Eagle: reading a subtext into a statement that is directly contradictory to the statement's explicit text is problematic and would generally be considered tendentious. I would suggest that you strenuously avoid doing so in future, particularly in AfDs (where the convention is for participants to bold their !vote opinions to make their positions clear) and particularly when you are contemplating a non-administrative closure on the basis of this interpretation. Doing so has a tendency to stretch WP:AGF well past breaking point. HrafnTalkStalk 04:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How many times does he need to say it was a mistake? The close was reverted. Life goes on. Protonk (talk) 04:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If an AFD appears to be heading to redirect after a few days, I think it's acceptable for the nominator to redirect wait a day or so to see if anyone undoes the redirect then withdraw if it's unopposed. I also think it's okay for any other editor to boldly redirect and wait for someone to revert or for the nominator to withdraw after a day or so. However this should be done loudly, with a bold note at the top of the AFD indicating the time of the redirect and the time of any revert, if any. The redirecting editor should post a comment saying what he did, why he did it, and remind everyone that they can revert it. The nominator should follow up with a comment saying he will withdraw at insert time here, typically at least a day after the redirect was made. If the AFD is about over, the nominator should ask that it be closed with a result of "redirect" but not withdraw it. Of course, since this isn't documented in any process, nobody but me will follow it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cricdb

The above discussion was intiated about a week ago but procedure was not followed. I fixed the formatting of the discussion page but upon checking saw it had never been transcluded to the actual AfD list. Given that in the normal couse of events it would be due for a close, what would be the best course of action here? The options I see are: Close per normal; relist and include existing comments; start a new discussion. Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk 04:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done -- Mattinbgn\talk 04:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries :-) -- Mattinbgn\talk 06:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NAC

If a non-admin thinks a AFD should be speedy kept and does a non-admin closure, can another editor re-open if they they think there isn't a consensus? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of anime series by episode count was closed after only 1 day by a non-admin. 8-1 in a 21 hour period is not enough to be speedy kept IMO. Since it did not go the full 5 days (or even 1) and was not closed by an admin, I don't think a second nomination is needed. TJ Spyke 03:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD does not meet the recommended WP:SNOW criteria at WP:Non-admin closure#Appropriate closures, but it is pretty close. I prefer when the recommended criteria is exceeded, but I've seen a few similar NACs that were not challenged or reopened. If you have a more detailed rationale that you were prevented from presenting, I suggest that you attempt discussion with the closer. Flatscan (talk) 05:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify my stance, I see this close as somewhat inappropriate, but not enough to reopen. Flatscan (talk) 21:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It can be reopened, but doing so would be WP:POINTy and pointless, make the person re-opening it look bad, and probably result in a blizzard. Unless there was good reason to think there would be a different outcome, I wouldn't try it. Would you be happier if an admin endorsed the early closure? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article should be deleted, but if an admin endorses the closure I would feel better (I may work on a second nomination to present in a few weeks, I know its too soon to do right now). TJ Spyke 18:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted? Huh? The result was speedy keep by a !vote of 8-2 including the nominator. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was open less than a day and was not closed by an admin. IMO it was pre-maturely closed. TJ Spyke 00:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So you are saying you think the listing should be re-opened for further discussion and that you would probably say delete? That's understandable. For a moment I thought you were saying the the article should be deleted without further discussion, which didn't seem logical. Sorry about the confusion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the confusion. Yes, I would prefer the discussion be re-opened. TJ Spyke 02:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you could boldly re-open it, or, if you wanted an admin stamp on it, go to ANI and ask that it be re-opened on procedural grounds. The preferred first step is to ask the person who closed it to undo his own edit on the grounds that WP:SPEEDY and WP:SNOW arguably haven't been met. He may stick by his decision, in which case ANI is the way to go. Think though before you do this. As the odds of a different outcome are slim, it would make you look awfully POINTy. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems like a reasonable SNOW close. A good check is that most of us here think the odds of a different outcome (were the close reversed) are, well, slimmer than a snowball's chance in hell. Protonk (talk) 04:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The nomination in question would most likely have been closed "keep" if allowed to run the full five days so reopening it would be pointless but it should not have been closed early. This is just my opinion but (assuming a good faith nomination and good faith !votes) if the nominator or someone else arguing "delete" is actively participating in the discussion beyond their nomination statement/!vote then the nomination should be allowed to run for at least 96 hours. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And I just realized that I recently violated my own rule. I feel like a hypocrite :( --Ron Ritzman (talk) 05:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Over 24 hours between last comment and closing – it looks fine to me. I would have suggested waiting if the nominator had been actively presenting arguments. Flatscan (talk) 21:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to discourage early "delete" closes

This is something I have been thinking about for a while but after reading a user talk page discussion about AFDs being closed as "delete" in 1-2 days, I decided to go ahead and propose it.

No AFD discussion should be closed as Delete unless 96 hours have passed except under the following circumstances...

1. The article qualifies for speedy deletion.

2. It quickly becomes apparent during the course of the debate that the subject is completely unverifiable. (WP:HOAX, WP:MADEUP etc.)

I picked "96 hours" as an absolute minimum to keep people from wikilawyering in DRV over a few hours. Discussions should ideally run for 5 days. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 20:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need for such a limit. If the result of a debate is blatantly obvious (cf. WP:SNOW) there is nothing wrong with closing it prematurely. Also, just such debates are closed prematurely. — Aitias // discussion 20:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One minor problem is that different parts of our deletion docs specify different time-lengths...WP:AFD says up to five days but the linked WP:GTD says usually no less than five days. However, I don't think "1 -2 days" can reasonably be considered an "up to five day discussion" unless there really is no possible way an article could be redeemed. AfD is explicitly several days and designed to force fixable articles to be fixed, not just to thumbs-up/down the existing article. I also think a premature-closer has the responsibility to investigate to make sure the AfD has been advertised properly to avoid AfD echo-chamber or merely "early election returns" problems, rather than just saying "we have 48-hr strong consensus, that's good enough for WP:SNOW". Further, if premature-closure (or SNOW) is truly a standard or common part of the AfD-closure arsenal, it needs to be documented in the WP:*D pages. Otherwise, we wind up with exactly this concern (or worse, appearances of non-GF or admin-fiat) again in the future. DMacks (talk) 21:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) "up to 5 days" is good-working common practice, I think. On the other hand "at least 5 days" is not. Most of the debates at a log page are closed before 5 days have expired — a minimum stays for full 5 days (or even longer). And, as explained above, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. If there was significant participation (not only one or two participants) in a debate and there is a clear consensus, there is nothing wrong with closing that debate prematurely. Thus, there is no reason for changing the current situation. — Aitias // discussion 22:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the part where you said "at least 5 days" is not a good working practice. That's why I chose "96 hours" (4 days). It would allow an admin to review the "closable log" (If it's the 6th, the log for the 1st would be the closable log) without worrying about closing a debate "early" ie a debate started on the 1st at 23:59 UT and closed on the 6th at O:00 UT would have ran for 96 hours and 1 minute. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There was a somewhat recent discussion at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive174#AfD closure regarding whether 4+ or 5+ days minimum was intended. Flatscan (talk) 23:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's all very well but there is simply no need for it — it would be more bureaucratic however —as explained— without any good in return. — Aitias // discussion 22:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@DMacks: There is absolutely no offence meant (not at all), but regarding “Further, if premature-closure (or SNOW) is truly a standard or common part of the AfD-closure arsenal” may I respectfully recommend having a look at some old AfD logs? Doing so you'll discover that it is “common part”. :) Best, — Aitias // discussion 22:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No offense taken:) I know it's often used (and I don't think it shouldn't be used)...s/if/given that/ would be better wording on my part. DMacks (talk) 22:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do understand why AFDs (that don't otherwise qualify for speedy something) are closed early. Most AFDs get their !votes quickly (if they get any at all) and then die and it may seem that a consensus forms early. It's tempting to just close them and get it over with. This may be fine for "keeps" (but see my comments in the NAC thread above) but if we are talking about making an article go away, I think it's best to let it run its course even if a "delete" outcome is virtually obvious. A kept article can always be nominated later but there are hoops to jump through to get an article undeleted. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would recommend "consensus formed at least 24 hours prior and is stable" rather than a firm time limit. If 6 deletes and 0 keeps or redirects showed up in the first hour, and 24 hours after that there were still no opposes, then I'd call that an early consensus. But if 2 showed up the first hour, then 4 more a day later with no keep/merge/redirects, you should wait until the 49 hour mark before calling it a stable consensus to delete. The same goes if it's 95-5 to delete after 2 hours vs. after 26 hours. You wait 24 hours after the consensus is clear to make sure it's stable. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion&oldid=263625257"