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 DGG (talk | contribs) at 21:04, 14 February 2010 (→‎Use of symbols: ty). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Coinflipper

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

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

Felecia Lindsey-Howse

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

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

XFD noticeboard?

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

I would have thought it would be better to direct them to the talk page of the XfD they want to create and use the {{editsemiprotected}} template, in this case. Hut 8.5 21:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, clearly that's what's being done here, but how is that better then using a centralized, purpose tasked page? There are at least 13 sections of comments directly above this one which are asking for help with AFD's, which really has little to do with discussion about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion itself. What's more, considering the fact that you have to seek out and find this talk page to post those requests/questions, I'd be willing to bet that there is a 10:1 ratio of people who would make requests vs. people who actually do.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 00:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if my comment wasn't clear. I meant that if you want to nominate Example for deletion you make an edit request at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Example. I believe unregistered users can create talk pages. Hut 8.5 10:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So who sees that talk page? --NickPenguin(contribs) 15:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it's templated, whoever looks at the template transclusions. Otherwise, no one, most likely. I also note that WP:AFD currently suggests that IPs use the article's talk page, not the AfD's talk page. Cheers. lifebaka++ 18:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The template places the talk page into CAT:PER, which is reviewed by people with the necessary access to make the edit. Hut 8.5 18:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

{{editsemiprotected}}

Complete article for deletion

Would a registered user please complete the AfD nomination for Anthony Chidiac?118.209.219.96 (talk) 09:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Cheers. lifebaka++ 18:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pernicious argument: deleted articles can be returned in "only a few seconds"

Several times on WP I have seen admins in deletion discussions mention the fact that deleted articles can be restored in "only a few seconds" as a way of supporting the blind application of WP rules, as if deleting an article is no big deal. After all, an article can be un-deleted later and its original text restored. I find this argument a little offensive: once an article has been deleted, a non-admin user such as myself has no easy way to recover the article text, or even to discover if the article in question ever actually existed. My only attempt at requesting the text from an article I had created, which was later deleted, was met with silence. Not all users on WP are admins, so I'd appreciate it if some effort could be made to emphasize to admins how difficult article deletion is for an ordinary user. cojoco (talk) 00:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you contact WP:REFUND? Part of its job is to help users like you get access to deleted articles in a timely and efficient manner. Jclemens (talk) 00:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for that link. although I'm not looking to undelete an article: all I wanted was a copy of the text in my sandbox for future reference (Is there any way to do that?) However, I think my complaint still stands: for a non-admin user, especially a new user, article deletion is a big deal, and I don't think that the fact that an admin can recover an article in a few seconds has any bearing on deletion discussions. For people who put a lot of work into an article, the deletion of that article makes their work quite difficult to recover, especially if they are not experienced. For example, one suggestion: If mechanisms exist to recover article text, then it might be nice to place a template on the talk page of contributors to an article telling them that the article has been deleted, and advising them how to recover their work. Unless the article was offensive or libelous, is there any harm with there being some automated way to recover its text? cojoco (talk)
(e/c} I think you misunderstood the point the user was making (or I have). I think they were saying they found seeing the argument deletion wasn't a big deal since the article could be undeleted as wearisome. To the, uhm, lowly peons, all that can be learnt from a deleted article is the summary left ("A7 you say? Well, I didn't know that about that historic figure" ;), with no way to tell if there was anything informative & encyclopedic worth making an undeletion request for so it can be looked at, let alone any way to look at the article or restore it there and then. Although their comment included a note on their own experience regarding an article they created, I read it as more general for the most part. Still a useful link to give them for the specific bit though. :) –Whitehorse1 00:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Letting non-administrators view deleted content has been discussed multiple times. I don't particularly have a problem with it (especially if we went ahead and oversighted inappropriate material more freely), but do what I can within the status quo to make the undeletion process as painless as possible for eligible articles. Jclemens (talk) 00:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm, that's not quite what I meant. I'm not saying non-admins should be able to view deleted content. I thought the user—if indeed their assertion individual admins are saying that in discussions is accurate—made a valid point that being blasé about deleting something because it can be undeleted at the click of a mouse (at least, by them) is undesirable. –Whitehorse1 00:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to dob in specific admins, but it has happened several times, and once only a few days ago. However, I think my complaint has two parts: firstly, some admins are very blasé about deletion, despite the fact that it is makes it very difficult for non-admin editors to recover their work, but secondly, and perhaps more importantly, it is currently nigh impossible for new editors to recover their hard work lost after it is deleted: WP:REFUND looks great, but, as with many WP things, it's only useful if you know about it. cojoco (talk) 02:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BEFORE #7

"If there is no [talk page] discussion then start one, outlining your concerns. Then watch for responses from interested editors" was added to WP:BEFORE #7 on July 9th. I was wondering what the rationale for that was (it seems excessive to me, as talk page discussions on rarely-viewed articles are unlikely to attract any interested editors), so I had a look at this talk page around July and I can't find any discussion for it - was there one (maybe somewhere else)? Cassandra 73 (talk) 17:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I think such may be a good idea in some cases, I share your concerns. Certainly, such conversation-initiation is overkill for PRODs or CSD's. Jclemens (talk) 18:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the article being edited fairly frequently this could well be a good idea. However the vast majority of AfDed articles are obscure and probably unwatched and this would be a waste of time. Hut 8.5 18:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia has over 3 million articles but only one AFD process. This AFD process is already overloaded - there is little participation and so numerous discussions are carried forward for lack of contributions. Discussion should always be tried first at the article because this is a scalable process which will not overload so easily. If it seems that the article is neglected then start a discussion page by adding a project template. This should attract attention from one of numerous projects who have an interest in the topic. If they like the look of the topic then they can pick it up and work on it. If they don't like the look of it then they can nominate it for deletion. There's no rush to get it to AFD right away because Wikipedia does not have a deadline. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can’t say I’m having much joy with my attempts to initiate talk page discussions – Talk:Evolution of schizophrenia, Talk:Fastest recorded tennis serves (not that I’m planning on nominating these for deletion, this is just what I’m basing my observations on), and they’ve got project templates for active Wikiprojects. Surely an article which attracts little comment at AFD is even less likely to attract comment on it's talk page.
What do you base the suggestions that AFD is overloaded and has little participation on? Flicking through yesterday’s noms there are only about 5 that haven’t attracted any comments yet. Cassandra 73 (talk) 20:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Cassandra 73. This shouldn't be part of WP:BEFORE. Whilst nominating an article isn't supposed to be 'easy', neither should it be like a load of hoops to jump through. Quantpole (talk) 23:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed this part of #7 again, and toned down #3,as both were things to consider, but not things you are obliged to do before an AfD. Fram (talk) 14:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • AFD is overloaded because many or most of the discussions get negligible attention unless they are a hot-button issue. See WP:Articles for deletion/Limbo (Brathwaite poem), for example - a bundle of 14 articles up for deletion. This has been relisted twice and still isn't getting much attention. The poems in question are set-pieces being studied by millions of children in school and so you would think that there's obvious educational merit to these topics but so it goes. Editors only come in significant numbers to political footballs like WP:Articles for deletion/Sexuality of Robert Baden-Powell (4th nomination). It's sad. What we need is more local discussion and less drive-bys. If it takes time for discussion and consensus to accumulate at an article, that's fine because Wikipedia does not have a deadline. The 7 days of AFD clearly isn't enough for most topics and relisting isn't working. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We need to avoid being over-prescriptive. We shouldn't have what look like 'rules' that could be used to block clearly appropriate AfDs. Sure, the poems are not a problem, but there are times when there is clearly no reason to wait for more or perhaps any discussion on the talk page. And it isn't quite true that there are no deadlines on Wikipedia, it's one of those cliches that sound nice and are indeed correct at times, but sometimes are simply wrong. I've reverted you. Dougweller (talk) 07:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agree with your revert, Fram's initial wording of a suggestion was definitely more appropriate. –SpacemanSpiff 08:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Colonel on this one, if editors would simply talk over their concerns first, a lot of contention would be avoided. It was added here I would think talking through issues with an article first would be a no-brainer and not controversial at all. Ikip 17:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which is fine on articles where you know there is going to be discussion. Projects vary from moribund to over-stretched, that's no way to get dicussion. It's a good thing to do where appropriate, but it isn't always appropriate and shouldn't be made mandatory. In fact, going to AfD can be a way of getting discussion, particularly since we now have the Article Rescue Squadron. This looks as though it was meant to be something that could be used to veto an AfD - have I misunderstood that? Dougweller (talk) 18:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Rescue Squadron takes the time to click the Google news search at the top of the AFD, and often finds there are plenty of valid newspaper references and books mentioning something to meet the suggested notability guidelines. AFD is not a vote. Things are less likely to be deleted when you have more people noticing and participating though. Dream Focus 19:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discussion on the article talk page is a good idea however it will only be noticed by those watching the article. An AfD brings a wider audience. AfDs should not be vetoed on a technicality; let's have the discussion with as many participants as possible.   pablohablo. 18:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well put Pablo. I've put things on a talk page, asking about making a change to something in an article and had it go for months without response, while the article continues to be actively edited. This will most likely just delay the AfD process, nothing more. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no limit to how many AFD someone can make each day, every single day of their life. Even if the nominator has previously had hundreds of their nominations end in Keep, they can still keep going. It's shameful. We need people to discuss things on the talk page, and get some input, before rampaging about wasting everyone's time with pointless AFD that could've easily been avoided, sometimes by just spending a few seconds with Google news search. Dream Focus 19:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is similarly no limit to how many times people can shamelessly !vote 'Keep' per any number of bogus rationales such as "I reject the idea of notability', 'no reason to redlink in the paperless encyclopedia', or 'gets lots of Google hits'.
We already have discussions on talk pages. We also have discussions at AfD. What's your point?   pablohablo. 19:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I nominated a musician. He was covered, once, in the NY Times in an article about how he hasn't gotten a hit or "made it" in any way. That was it. The sole coverage of this guy. Basically an article telling us why he isn't notable. But a band of editors fought it based on GNG and it was kept. I'm not ashamed of that nomination and I still think that GNG was being misused. So one writer decided he was interested in the guy....it is WP:ILIKEIT one step removed. Why would that "count against me"? The whole purpose of the discussion is to decide if the nom is right or not.Niteshift36 (talk) 20:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was thinking of those who nominated hundreds of articles a month, and have a considerable percentage end in keep. These should be looked into by someone, to see if maybe they are wasting our time, and need to be limited to how much they can do. Dream Focus 20:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How many editors are you talking about here, and what are the percentages?   pablohablo. 20:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
http://toolserver.org/~sql/afd.php hasn't worked in some time now, the author taking it down with a message at http://toolserver.org/~sql/ about some of his tools being abused somehow. How about we say, if 40% of your AFD nominations end in Keep, or at least 70% end in Keep or No consensus, you are restricted from nominating things for awhile. The exact numbers don't matter. We need to find a working tool, which shows how many AFD someone has started, and the results of them. Dream Focus 20:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would be completely unwieldy and unworkable. Should we also then ban anyone from commenting in an AfD if the result runs contrary to their !vote in 40% of cases? That would be just as ridiculous.   pablohablo. 20:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If one of the cries I hear so often is "we're not wasting paper" is ok, then how are we "wasting time"? To be perfectly blunt, it looks to me like AfD nominations end up in more crappy articles being improved than good ones being deleted. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed... and as you know, I am quite guilty myself of improving crappy articles that were sent to AFD that then were "kept". But a point to be considered is that AFD is not intended to be used as a tool to force cleanup, nor should it be used as a bludgeon to make the improving an article to be someone else's problem. Improving articles and thus the project is (supposedly) for ALL of us. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Likewise, despite my "deletionist" tendencies, once in a while I take it upon myself to rescue an article too. (And I have the first little egg awarded from the incubator). But I improved them because I wanted to, not because I was forced to. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Everyone, please add examples of AFD which ended in Keep, after someone took the time to use Google news search. I'll get it started. [1] [2] [3] [4] I have honestly had days where every single AFD I went to, could've ended quickly just by someone bothering to do a quick Google news search. Some of these have drive-by deletionists appearing to say "delete", without bothering to search for information to determine if the article is notable or not. Only if someone notices who is willing to actually take a few moments of their time to look into something, will the article be saved. That is why we need a rule that before someone nominate something, they should be required to take some time to look for sources themselves. Remember, there are hundreds of thousands of articles without any sources in them, most made before that guideline came into existence. Dream Focus 20:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, what relevance does this have to the discussion? I see no reason why the fact that some AfD nominations are shot down in flames means people should ask on the talk page before nominating articles for deletion. Hut 8.5 20:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nor I.   pablohablo. 20:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It concerns BEFORE. If people bothered to discuss things on the talk page, this wouldn't happen. Also we need to add something to BEFORE to specifically require people to check Google news archives, before nominating something. Save us all some time. Dream Focus 20:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This thread isn't about BEFORE in general, I suggest you start another one if you want to discuss that.
I really don't think posting on the talk page would have made any difference in the AfDs you linked to earlier. Only one of the articles even had a talk page with anything other than bot notices on it at the time of nomination. The vast, vast majority of AfDed articles are obscure and are unlikely to have anyone watching them. And even if this wasn't the case, does it really make any difference if somebody links to a load of sourced on an AfD instead of on a talk page? Hut 8.5 20:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the article meets the standards, it will be kept regardless of any talk page discussion. If it doesn't, it will be deleted, regardless of any talk page discussion. What is the big demand for delaying it waiting for a discussion that will a) never take place or b) be rehashed anyway if it does go to AfD. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • But we're talking about articles that an editor might think does not (at the time) meet standards, but who themselves do not take the time to look toward its WP:POTENTIAL for improvement. I don't see a reasonable expectation that someone to be diligent as a demand to delay anything... only a common sense expectation that editors accept that improving problematic articles by expansion and sourcing improves the project as a whole. Discussions on a talk page could lead to resolution of concerns and improvement of an article without unnecessarily over-burdening the AFD process... and that an article might then go to AFD only if not resolved. And I speak here as someone who has learned well that proper before might have prevented some of these 205 articles and many many others I never saw from having ever been brought to AFD in the first place. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I clicked some random examples on that list, and it looks like they were rescued mainly because sources were found. I completely agree with WP:BEFORE #9 (making a good-faith attempt to find sources), but it only needs one person to do this so that doesn’t require a talk page discussion. Cassandra 73 (talk) 00:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And so then which "one person" would that be??? I have found that those that prejudge a topic as non notable are quite rarely, if ever, the ones who end up finding sources or improving an article they have already presumed as unsalvageable. At the very very minimum and at the very very least, to list their concerns on the article's talk page and to then ensure others are aware of their concerns by tagging the article for such (if not already tagged), shows courtesy toward the rest of Wikipedia and most specially toward those others who might be able to improve an article. Isn't community input what we're all here for? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, when an article has been taged for no references (or notability) for a year (or more), plenty of people have had plenty of time to fix that issue. It has sat there a year, not meeting that criteria but we want to extend that another week or so and place the onus of doing what the authoring editor should have done now on the person who finally is taking some kind of initiative. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Old tags are a problem, yes... and you made some great suggestions for it over at the Ikip page. But with respects, I am more concerned herein with THIS edit... one that could encourage editors to hide problems of which they are aware, thus preventing any others whom the tag might otherwise alert from even knowing of the issue. And yes, there are tags that have been long ignored... but there have been more that resulted in improvements. I am neutral about any requirements to create a discussion where one may not exist. Oh, I do believe it is an admirable courtesy, but if no one wants to discuss, no one will discuss. HOWEVER, I am not neutral about encouraging recognized and taggable problems to remain untagged and hidden. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In looking at Fram's edit of January 29, I can see that as well-meaning as it might have been, his change introduces contradiction. In a paragraph that concludes "... this ensures readers are aware of the problem and may act to remedy it", it is reasonable and prudent to retain the "tag it if not already tagged" caveat. Fram's wish to allow an editor to "consider" allowing an untagged problem to remain hidden does not improve the project nor alert others to concerns. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A sample talk page dialogue then (I have seen some similar to this, but paraphrase)

Editor 1 I don't think this article meets the guidelines because (reason a, reason b)
Editor 2 I disagree; (reason x, reason y)

<Editors 1 and 2 may go back and forth for a while, nobody else comments, tumbleweed blows around, nothing else happens for a while. Editor 1 then proposes deletion of article, proper discussion ensues, article is improved/kept/merged/deleted, encyclopaedia benefits.>

On largely unwatched articles a talkpage discussion will attract minimal comment.

I don't think that it is feasible to require talk page discussion before a deletion discussion. I don't think that it's possible to make wp:before mandatory either, not in a volunteer project like this.   pablohablo. 01:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it sounds like a quote from almost any AFD discussion as well. We've all (or most) been there. And it sad when any discussion devolves into an "it is, it isn't, it is, it isn't, it isn't" debate. While I can agree that it is impossible to validate that anyone might have performed diligent BEFORE... that is no reason to make it easier to ignore. If an article has surmountable issues, and an editor skimming by nominates it for deletion without even determining if the issues are surmountable, it wastes everyone's time. If an editor does not even the most cursory search that might have revealed an article's potential, should I be grateful that they were too lazy?
It might have been tagged so that others might have attended to it and so prevented an AFD. Should we now condone or encourage editors being able to hide problems of which they are aware? "Consider tagging"? Heck, if an editor is aware of a problem it would seem his community duty to tag it for attention... to ENSURE readers are aware of the problem so that others may act to remedy it, even when the tagger himself will not.
Sadly, there is no onus attached to continued ignoring of WP:IMPROVE and WP:ATD... and no onus attached to making more work for others through a personal laziness. Just as are IMPROVE and ATD, BEFORE is already a far too often ignored guideline. But please, its being ignored is no reason to now dilute its wise instruction or to relegate it to essay or historical. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I was suggesting when I started this thread, I was questioning one particular addition made six months ago with apparently no discussion on this talk page beforehand. WP:BEFORE is a good guideline but there's been a bit of instruction creep. It's more likely to be followed if it is kept to realistic measures that have consensus. Cassandra 73 (talk) 08:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed.
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 15:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, don't let this die just because a couple of reverts happened, folks. It should be possible to appease everyone's concerns as long as we're all able to communicate clear reasons for changes.
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 15:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Complete article for deletion

Would a registered user please complete the AfD nomination for Sang Kyu Moon if they so see fit. Statement on the talk page. thanks, 66.57.4.150 (talk) 06:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 13:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks GB, 66.57.4.150 (talk) 17:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Magno

The above AfD came up with a merge and redirect conclusion, but it never happened. I believe the history has to be kept in this situation, so could a friendly admin do the necessary please? (I'm happy to sort it out once merged). Quantpole (talk) 23:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Help request

Need help in adding nomination.

I put the AfD template on Princess Kaguya (cruise ship).

When I try to add a discussion the former nomination appears-- this article has been nominated and deleted twice before, both in 2008, and the second deletion was under the same name. (The first was under a different article name, Princess Kaguya (ship)). See second AfD discussion. My attempts to create an entry now simply results in the 2008 discussion reappearing, and that is the dicussion which links from the AfD notice on the article. I have removed that notice pending figuring out how to nominate a formerly-deleted article which has been recreated under the same name.

Any guidance will be appreciated. Kablammo (talk) 19:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob Sproull

Could someone please look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob Sproull and close it, if appropriate? I am a participant in the discussion, so I shouldn't. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Avoid AFD

Seems to be a growing number of editors avoid AFD, the article is just replaced with a redirect to some other relevant article. Is there any guidance on such a practice? SunCreator (talk) 14:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

yes, on this very page (not the talk): WP:BEFORE #4: "Consider turning the page into a useful redirect or proposing it be merged. Neither of these actions requires an AfD." Fram (talk) 14:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It can be a sneaky way to get rid of an article, but it is also sometimes fine to do. If you disagree with the article becoming a redirect, talk with the editor or just boldly revert. Fences&Windows 00:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This will be partially solved by putting merge into afd, as was proposed on the talk AFD talk page. Editors are still encouraged to boldly revert and merge, but the discussion, if there is argument, will be in a centralized place. Ikip 15:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should I nominate this

I came across this Iron Maiden (blues rock band) a band that operated for about a 6 years (under differnet names) and did not release an album untill 30 years after they folded (thier debute album?) but did realse one single. It appears to be unsourced (there is a list of referances, but these are not linked to the text).Slatersteven (talk) 18:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you don't, I will. Thousands of people/groups have released a single. Doesn't make them notable. Two other editors discussed the complete lack of notability on the talk page. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Their only notability seems to come from sometimes being confused with Iron Maiden (ps I released two singles back in the day, to no discernible effect)   pablohablo. 18:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed it, but others might like to check it as I have never done it before and am bound to have SNAFU'd somewhere. Your twice as notable as they are then.Slatersteven (talk) 19:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You did it right. Just a suggestion: In the future, you might want to expand on your reasoning a little more, such as citing why they don't meet the notability threshold (such as failing WP:MUSICBIO. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers I'll see to that.Slatersteven (talk) 19:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

misleading information

The section which currently reads

It also links to the lists of current debates, and two faster alternatives to AfD: the simpler companion processes, Wikipedia:Speedy deletions and Wikipedia:Proposed deletion, exist for uncontroversial deletions, such as vandalism and patent nonsense.

is a tad misleading, it implies that proposed deletion and speedy deletion are equivalent. The two examples mentioned fall into speedy categories, and prod is not a 'faster alternative' to AfD.

I suggest

It also links to the lists of current debates, and two companion processes to AfD: Wikipedia:Speedy deletion has a clearly-defined set of criteria such as such as vandalism and patent nonsense. whereas Wikipedia:Proposed deletion is used to suggest deletions that no editor would contest.

  pablohablo. 02:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absent any objection (or support!) I have made this change.   pablohablo. 17:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Complete nomination - Turn It Up! (Music TV)

Would a registered user please complete the nomination process for Turn It Up! (Music TV)? 118.209.200.81 (talk) 06:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Cheers. lifebaka++ 06:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closed discussions should note reviews

When a discussion has been closed and someone requests a deletion review I think the AfD page should be amended with a link to the review, __meco (talk) 13:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a bad idea, as long as it isn't mandatory. "You should" instead of "you must".
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 14:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant template is {{Delrevafd}}. Flatscan (talk) 04:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Meco. No need for "should".
When a discussion has been closed and someone requests a deletion review, please amended the AfD page with a link to the review.
--SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree, the problem is that many DRVs are initiated by newbies that aren't yet savvy enough to know to add it. I try to make a point of making sure that all new reviews are tagged but I'm sure I miss some. J04n(talk page) 02:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When participating at DRV, the first thing I do is open the XfD. I suppose it would be very easy for me to add the template. No need at all to harass the newbie. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Since comparatively few people will initiate DRVs than XfDs, and since the former will involve an admin more or less from the get-go, it would be easy to add the requested routine to the chores of the admin in charge of the DRV. I'm not quite sure how the process goes, but would this be in line with how things work? __meco (talk) 09:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cunard is slowly working their way through the old DRV logs and adding the links. Its all under control - even if it does mean that long dead discussions keep appearing on my watchlist... Spartaz Humbug! 10:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Listing previous AFDs in new Debate

I notice that there are frequently new Debates that are obviously not the first nomination, either because the article has history at another title, or because the afd template didn't insert a list of previous AFDs, or what have you. Since it seemed simple enough, I put together a new template to insert that list - {{oldafdlist}}. FYI, UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 21:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A move

Please see WT:Deletion today. Simply south (talk) 14:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: when !voting merge, add a notice at the proposed target

I was reading the discussion above called #How effective is the merge decision?, and figured that I could make myself useful by merging Comparison of Australian and Canadian governments to Australia-Canada relations, which had been pointed out as a merge decision that had been sitting around unperformed. But the merge is going to be tough. As I've said at Talk:Australia-Canada relations, a comparison between the countries "has pretty much no bearing whatsoever on Australia-Canada relations. You could write 'Comparison of Glenfarclas and Megan Fox,' but sadly it would have very little to do with 'Glenfarclas–Megan Fox relations'; the same fundamental problem applies here." I'm sure a ton of the material will wind up getting chopped.

But it got me to thinking about a broader point. If I were a regular editor of Australia-Canada relations, I wouldn't want to see a bunch of unrelated material shoehorned into it, and if I complained that it wasn't on topic, I wouldn't want to be told, "Well, the consensus was to merge them. Sorry you didn't hear." If I have Australia-Canada relations on my watchlist but don't religiously follow AfDs, the first I'd learn about the issue at all would be when the merge was carried out. That doesn't seem right. Under the ordinary merge process, editors of the proposed target are notified that a merge has been suggested, and if they think the material doesn't belong they have a chance to speak up and say so.

So I'm floating this tentative proposal for comment. When Foo is at AfD and an editor suggests merging it to Bar, he should, under ordinary circumstances, at the same time place a notice on Bar about it. This would probably require a new template, which would read something like:

  The article Foo has been nominated for deletion, but another editor has suggested that it be merged into this page or section instead. (Discuss)

A direction to use this template when suggesting a merge would be added as appropriate, probably at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to discuss an AfD and/or wherever others think would be wise.

This proposal seems to me to have the benefits of (1) alerting editors of a page that may be significantly altered as the result of a proposal, (2) not altering or delaying the AfD process in any significant way, (3) potentially drawing editors to the AfD who have a particular expertise or involvement in the subject matter of the article that's up for deletion, and (4) potentially getting editors involved (and invested) at an earlier stage who may later be willing to carry out the merge if that's the final decision.

The only drawback I can think of at first blush it that it might result in an AfD discussion getting too far off topic if a lot of the comments are about what/whether/how to merge, rather than the fundamental issue of whether Foo should be deleted. If this issue seems like a problem, we might instead want to direct that comments concerning the suggested merge rather than the suggested deletion be left on the talk page of the AfD (which is almost never used for anything).

Thoughts or comments? This isn't a formal proposal. All the best—  Glenfarclas  (talk) 07:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a good idea, it will add a bit of chaos to the AfD but I think that is offset by the advantage of bringing in editors that are more expert in the subject. I recently performed one of these merges just to have it reverted a few hours later. J04n(talk page) 10:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this is a good idea as well. People shouldn't be bashing others over the head for not doing it or anything, but some additional notifications to related articles would certainly be helpful.
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 15:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I support this. It has been suggested in previous discussions, but only in passing, and without attracting significant comment. {{Mergefrom}} will work by specifying its discuss parameter, but a more urgent message to solicit comments within the limited AfD period is desirable. Flatscan (talk) 04:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I thought it would be better to use a template that didn't default to linking the target page's talk, and that indicated that the underlying issue is deletion. Your point about the limited time period is well taken too.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 04:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Harpreet Singh Giani

I'm wondering whether to nominate this article under AfD or CSD A7, not sure whether or not it fails notability guidelines. -ZhongHan (Email) 14:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A7 I think - I don't believe that "former intern of the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court" is a sufficient claim of notability.   pablohablo. 15:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you're saying "I'm not sure", and Pablo above qualifies with "I think"... then list it on AFD. CSD is supposed to be for things that you know should be deleted, which this may be, but...
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 15:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good advice. Having waited a while to see if the creator added anything, and searched for some information myself, I now know that it's an A7.   pablohablo. 16:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Secret Weapon (Working Title)

Needs step 2 completed. 76.102.12.35 (talk) 21:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto for Blocks to Robots. 76.102.12.35 (talk) 04:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted the removal of these requests, as they are clearly permitted by policy. There is no reason why non-registered users cannot AfD an article, and they followed the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO to the letter. Given that one of the article underwent a substantial change, and the other is currently being CSD'd, I'll wait for confirmation before acting on this request. Tim Song (talk) 09:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done for Blocks to Robots. The other was deleted already. Tim Song (talk) 18:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AFD discussion gone blooey

I'm looking for suggestions on how to reign in this mess? Any aid would be much appreciated. TheJazzDalek (talk) 00:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I suppose you will have to await the time period to expire. The nomination was clearly malicious, but I don't believe that is a reason to close it as many have expressed an opinion in both directions. When closing look for the arguments based on policy. It it ever was notable it is still notable now. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-admin closures

So yesterday I performed a couple of relistings and an uncontroversial no consensus non-admin closure. I'm then told by User:Themfromspace that "there is a pretty strong consensus against non-admins performing administrative actions in AfDs, such as closing noncontentious debates or deciding to relist them."

Not that I did anything I haven't seen other non-admins do, nor did I violate any policy, but when I responded to ask for clarification, I didn't get a reply. So my question is, if such a consensus exists, can someone point me to it? I don't see what the problem with a proper non-admin closure is. Swarm(Talk) 06:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have already seen Wikipedia:Non-admin closure. Closing a debate as "no consensus" is not a normal NAC. I'm also not sure about your relisting. This Afd already had plenty of participation. IfSince you had already taken the time to read the discussion so as to determined that a clear consensus was not apparent, it would be much more helpful for you to !vote your best reading of whatever consensus can be gleaned. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your frequent lack of edit summary is a general problem, and when closing a discussion without reference in the edit summary, it is a real problem. Please do not close discussions with the default edit summary. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure WP:NAC doesn't even mention "no consensus" closures, so I'm not sure what the problem with an uncontroversial one is. Either way, your failure to read what I actually wrote and answer the one question that I had seems to be a problem with you. I didn't ask for an editor review and I sure as hell don't want one from you. Any action I make here is, automatically, open to admin review and, if need be, reversal, and any personal concerns, such as edit summary usage can be brought to my talk page. Do you really think I'm stupid enough to take any action on a deletion discussion before thoroughly reading through it and considering each point? Apparently you do, based on your incredibly helpfulS advice to read the arguments and !vote accordingly. I don't know you, and I don't appreciate my question being completely ignored in favor of lambasting me for my contributions. Swarm(Talk) 08:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Swarm, I think you may have misunderstood SmokeyJoe on one point. I believe the meaning of his comment about the Dustin Berg AfD would be better understood if you replace "If you had already taken the time" with "Since you had already taken the time". I believe his point was that no-consensus discussions with significant participation need not be relisted; so, once you had taken the time to review the discussion and found no consensus, it would have been better to weigh in yourself.
Your reaction is not unnatural in the context of an accusation that you relisted the discussion without reading it, but I don't believe that was SmokeyJoe's suggestion. Instead, I believe this to be a misunderstanding caused by the inability of a conversation via text to properly convey tone and body language. Your actions in working to clear part of the existing backlog certainly suggest good faith on your part, and I don't believe that SmokeyJoe would be cavalier in accusing anyone of closing a discussion without fully reading it (based on my previous interactions with him, mostly at WP:MFD and WP:CFD). –Black Falcon (talk) 09:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NACD states that "close calls and controversial decisions are better left to an administrator", and I believe that no consensus closes fall under that provision. I was not able to find any restrictions regarding non-admin relistings of AfD discussions when they are performed correctly. Per WP:RELIST, "relisting should not be a substitute for a no-consensus closure" when there has been significant participation; debates as long as this one and this one, which had been relisted once before, probably should not have been relisted (that being said, I see no point in reversing the relisting, since a relisted discussion can be closed at any time, without having to wait another full 7 days).
My suggestion would be to avoid closing discussions as "no consensus" and relisting only per WP:RELIST (i.e., if there is insufficient participation in order to determine consensus or new, significant information came to light near the end of the debate and other editors have not had a chance to consider it). The edit summary usage issue raised by SmokeyJoe is valid, albeit tangential; a simple "closed", "closed discussion", or "non-admin close" ought to be more than sufficient. –Black Falcon (talk) 09:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I am not alone in strongly preferring the closing edit summary to indicate how it was closed (eg "Kept/withdrawn"). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, on reflection, I would be surprised if you were (alone in that preference, that is), so the "more than" in my comment is definitely unfounded. I suppose I was projecting my own feelings on the matter. –Black Falcon (talk) 17:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Black Falcon, for your helpful insight and advice. I was under the impression that there would be no problem with what I feel is obviously an uncontroversial no consensus close, but apparently that's what the policy refers to by "close calls". Perhaps the relevant pages should be updated to clarify that. Anyway, I appreciate the advice. Also, you may be right that what I interpreted as disparaging remarks by SmokeyJoe was nothing more than an unintended tone I took from their comments. In any case, I responded uncivilly, and I apologize for that. Swarm(Talk) 20:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, Swarm was doing a great thing here, and it's something that I wish more people would step up and do themselves (once they have a decent feel of the process, anyway). The problem is that there are many admins who see this as their backyard, so they seem to see anyone who comes here without the bit (and even several with it) and makes any sort of descision as people "pissing on their backyard". It's a shame, but that's an attitude which has unfortunately become well ingrained here, and personally I'd rather concentrate on actual content. I'm perfectly willing to give you (and anyone else, for that matter) moral support, though.
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 23:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I regret the unintended offense. It is true that I didn't answer Swarm's question. Whether a non-admin should close an obvious "no consensus" discussion is a difficult question that I chose to ignore. If it is "obvious", then I see little reason to object. Complicating the question is the fact that at DRV we often see widely different opinions among admins on what is a "no consensus" compared to the admin purview of declaring a rough consensus. I went off on the edit summary tangent because in reviewing Swarms Wikipedia-space contributions, I found that lack of edit summaries made reviewing them so much more difficult. That said, I didn't find terrible problems, and commented on the worst thing I found (some arguably over eager relists). As per Ohms Law, I would encourage Swarm to keep on helping out at AfD, and point out that if he gets good at it he'll get a lot respect from the community for doing so. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to both of you. Regarding my edit summary usage, I am simply not in the habit of doing so in the WP namespace, due to the fact that I'm usually just contributing to a discussion and not making an "edit" per se. However, I certainly should get in the habit of doing so when performing actions such as closures, and I will be much more mindful in the future. Swarm(Talk) 04:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No consensus closes are not listed under WP:Non-admin closure#Appropriate closures. There are (or were, I haven't checked recently) a few experienced non-admins patrolling, relisting, and closing AfDs. Not all of their closes have been 100% unambiguous, but those users had developed nuanced judgment of appropriate closes. Flatscan (talk) 05:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I occasionally close as no consensus, but never substantively. Most of time it's when there's insufficient participation after multiple relistings or when some overriding procedural problem separate from the merits made it impossible to determine the consensus safely. I agree that a "typical" no consensus close, where both sides have fairly developed arguments, is inappropriate for NAC, as they are almost by definition not non-controversial. Tim Song (talk) 04:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let me ask you this in reply though: What makes the closure by an administrator necessary for such closures? Do you need to use the tools to close a discussion as "no consensus", for some reason (setting aside the legitimate criticisms of the reason itself for a moment)? It may not be intentional here, but you're implicetly stating that the judgement of an administrator is somehow special. Personally, based on my (thankfully) limited interactions with admins, I not only dispute that but I'd say that the exact opposite is often true...
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 04:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The theory is that tricky closures are the domain of administrators because administrators have been positively assessed on their ability to read consensus, as part of their RFA. In practice, there will be exceptions. Some administrators seem unaware of their own biases. Tim Song, on the other hand, clearly knows what he is doing around AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I understand the theory, but in practice it's a fairly poor standard to go by. The most obvious criticism is that RFA is not actually about deletion, let alone AFD closures. I do agree that Tim happens to generally keep his head screwed on straight here, from what I've seen, but that's not at all universal. If there is consensus that AFD closures should be handled by a privileged class of users then we should actually do that. Personally, I'm somewhat supportive of that sort of idea, and I think that the controlling policy is already pretty much there (which is why this discussion is occurring at all), but copping out by saying that "admins should do this" is not the best way to implement that sort of process. Banging on people who step forward to volunteer their time to this process, simply because they don't meet some arbitrary guideline that doesn't even really have consensus to be meet, is certainly not what we should be doing here, regardless.
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 21:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews

You know, I was just thinking... now, keep in mind that this is just a somewhat random, and completely undeveloped thought that I had, so please do go jumping down my throat about it. I was just thinking, there ought to be a way to sort of "review" all closures here. I'm not talking about DRV, except obviously that if such reviews were decidedly against the decision then obviously DRV would be the way to go, but... I mean, just some mechanism to discuss things, even if just to say "I support this as well" or some such thing like that. I imagine such a system could certainly help with the more innocuous questions ("what do you mean by that exactly?", or perhaps more topical for this discussion, something like "Why didn't you use an edit summary?") without going all the way to DRV. In most things in life, simply being able to ask or answer those little questions tends to go a long way toward building trust among people as well, usually.
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 18:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JWASM still popping up as "open"

Not a big deal of course, but it's been closed since January 24th yet still comes up as being open, and I think that's because the AfD was so ginormous it breaks the page or something (don't ask me what I mean by "break the page"—I have no idea really). I seem to recall that this was the case with some other overlong AfD once and then some smart person came in and fixed it somehow. I am not that smart person, but this is a call for that smart to do whatever it is smart people do when an extremely long, now closed AfD won't take leave of the "old discussions" list as it ought. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:33, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst I am no expert here, I tried a fix where I simply manually removed it from the old log, then ran mathbot again, and it didn't pop back up because mathbot doesn't look that far back into the past. No idea if this will actually stop it happening in the long run, but its vanished for now... I just hope nothing breaks, I am always scared of solutions which seem too easy! --Taelus (talk) 12:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Malicious attack

Should this be nominated?

Light in school buildings appears to me to be a vehicle in an extensive campaign to get the product Daysimeter advertised in Wikipedia. Sections have been added to several articles (and reverted). We have an article Lighting in libraries. This could develop into quite a series: lighting in hospitals, etc., etc.

I've never been involved in any deletion process. What say you? - Hordaland (talk) 12:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should have replied here, though I'm sure you've noticed since you've edited the article since, that I just cut all the text dealing with Daysimeter. I highly doubt the topic of light in school buildings needs a standalone article, but I'm undecided about whether I myself am going to AfD it.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 20:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. We have several related articles which need to be reworked. Light effects on circadian rhythm largely duplicates Circadian rhythm and Entrainment. I think an article on, perhaps, Lighting in buildings could/should cover both daylight and artificial lighting indoors for all sorts of buildings. Maybe even just Lighting indoors. A project for another day. - Hordaland (talk) 09:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

L.O.V.E (album)

Step 2 needs completion. 76.102.12.35 (talk) 19:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Note to closing administrator"

I do not close these AFDs as often as I used to, but I would like to register my opposition to comments where "Note to closing administrator" appears, along with a argument why the opposing viewpoint is wrong and should be ignored. Such notes have a number of bad things about them:

  • Everything posted on an AFD is a "note to closing administrator". We really do read the comments and arguments presented. There is no need to highlight your note as one exclusively to the closing admin.
  • Such notes are often used in an intimidatory fashion, a way of saying "Your arguments are worthless, and I am going to remind whoever closes this debate to ignore your arguments!" This does not make for a calm, pleasant environment for debate.
  • In many cases the content in the note to the closing admin is incorrect, misrepresenting the opposing viewpoint. Those notes are just annoying, and this closing admin doesn't want to see them.

By all means, point it out if you find an argument flawed, or if you have made improvements to the article, but don't highlight it with the self-important "note to closing admin" header. (Oh, while we're at it, try to formulate the flaws in the opposing argument with your own words instead of making abbreviated references to the WP:ATA page which is an essay, not policy, written to help you make better arguments, not as a means to attack the arguments of everyone else.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree. It effectively is making a comment with an insistence that no one respond to it. There is also a sense of a variation of appeal to authority. Disagree that "Everything posted on an AFD is a "note to closing administrator"". Sometimes participants do talk to, and debate with, each other, and truly engage in a the nebulous consensus building exercise. Not often, but sometimes. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fresh examples of this may be seen at WP:Articles for deletion/List of the occult secret societies. In this case, it seems due to the debate becoming overheated along with edit-warring and contention over the article. The atmosphere in that one seems poisonously uncivil and the level of disruption is such that I have walked away from it for now, as being unproductive. This is not unusual at AFD but the question is what to do about it as exhortations of the usual sort are not taken seriously. Matters might be improved if the closing admin were appointed at the start of the discussion, rather than at the end. The admin could then act as a chairman, keep good order and direct the participants in useful ways regarding findings of fact and lines of argument to follow. It's hard to know which AFDs might require this level of attention though - I was quite surprised that this one blew up in the way that it has. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anyone really bothered could just learn to ignore strings of "_to closing administrator". This can be done by technical means if necessary. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with original poster.
  1. The appeal to authority seems like bad Etiquette. When I was new and first saw this in an AFD I was surprised at such behaviour. It seemed (and still does) so unprofessional.
  2. It is also unprofessional in the sense that the wording directly conflicts with general practice of Non-admin closure.
  3. It does seem to work, so I can understand why some editors use it even if they are aware of the unprofessional issues.
  4. Editors with vested interest and scant regard to policies or guidelines will continue to use things that work.
  5. One could create a policy against it, but policies are ignoresd and with no enforcement it would be meaningless anyhow.

Regards, SunCreator (talk) 14:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anything can be abused. I do make these notes sometimes: usually to point out things like redirects pointing to the article being discussed for deletion, intervening renames that mean an article by a different name than the one being discussed is now the appropriate one to hit the delete button for, or that some process glitch occurred (such as the AFD template having been removed from the target article for a substantial period). If you would like them formatted with a different header, feel free to make suggestions.—Kww(talk) 15:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Notes like that, on technical issues, are OK, and it was not those I meant to target. :-) I think dead redirects are generally cleared by a bot if the deleting administrator forgets to remove them along with the article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Many scripts already handle incoming redirects quite well. Handling pages moved during the discussion, though, is a pain. Agree that those notes on substantive issues are inappropriate. They should be reserved for procedural issues (sock blocks, not listed on log, AfD tag not added, etc.). Tim Song (talk) 04:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editnotice

Hi all, just wanted to let you know I created a group notice for all the subpages of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (Template:Editnotices/Group/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion). I hope this is okay, and feel free to modify it. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 13:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also see the relative discussion at Template talk:Editnotices/Group/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 16:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it's probably necessary, but it's probably the sort of thing we should have discussed beforehand. But I don't have an alternative to propose - as noted, a collapsible box probably wouldn't be read by the very people who need to read it most. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles needing step 2 completion

Prods contested by an editor who is removing prods from articles I've edited.

  1. St. Clair Middle School 76.102.12.35 (talk) 00:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Sucker-trap 76.102.12.35 (talk) 00:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Mister Latin America 76.102.12.35 (talk) 00:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Tim Song (talk) 00:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More... October 26 1993. 76.102.12.35 (talk) 21:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Hut 8.5 21:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another one...

And more...

Articles for Discussion

Ongoing Discussion on implementing the move from Articles for Deletion to Articles for Discussion is occurring. Further input there would be appreciated.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 02:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Use of symbols

An editor is insisting on using the and similar symbols. I seem to remember we had some previous discussions about not doing so. DGG ( talk ) 20:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I recall, consensus is that they're discouraged, not forbidden. If he really, really wants to use them, we can't stop him. Still, we should explain why we don't like editors using them. What's the user's name? lifebaka++ 20:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I remember some discussion about it but I don't know if it was here.   pablohablo. 21:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I found some of the discussion: A group of similar templates were in fact deleted at TfD a year ago, along with links to earlier discussions where the same result was obtained. The consensus there seems to be they should never be used, but it would be impossible to remove all possible check mark images! The user is Ipatrol, and the reason he gave me when asked is " I use these pictures in my votes to make them stand out a bit." -- exactly the reason we should prohibit it entirely. I have notified him of this discussion DGG ( talk ) 21:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion&oldid=344082960"