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 63.104.174.146 (talk) at 21:50, 6 April 2011 (→‎Request to complete nom of Rhinoceros dolphin: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

how many?

Hi! I need a quick stat for a presentation. Roughly how many articles get deleted per day (counting speedy & AfD)? I know I've seen a number somewhere but can't find it. Approximations are fine. Thanks! -- phoebe / (talk to me) 22:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Try this. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 22:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
duh, of course. Thanks! -- phoebe / (talk to me) 23:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday?

Why was the "deletion today" template changed so that the articles link is now for yesterday rather than today? Thanks!--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks fine to me. Perhaps it was just a caching issue. Did you try purging? Cheers. lifebaka++ 02:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The question must refer to this edit by Colonel Warden to Template:Deletion debates. I don't know the reason. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that's what I was referring to, sorry for being unclear.--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've returned it to today, but have no issue with it being changed back if there's an actual good reason.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should these be deleted?

Hi,

Not sure if someone might want to delete these two:

Talk:Fuckyoushima
Talk:Fuckushima

They seem to be childish jokes rather than genuinely needed redirects.

86.181.204.166 (talk) 12:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted. Jujutacular talk 13:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AONN Records

A couple days ago after I stumbled across AONN Records from another page. It seemed pretty funky; no real sources, lots of remarkable claims, etc. Googling didn't turn up any information in reliable sources to confirm its notability or to verify the information contained in the article. So, I set up an AfD for it and also deleted unsourced discussion of AONN in the article on private military companies.

The original author of the article has since started posting on the AfD page and I'm not sure how to productively reply to him. The AfD has so far gone uncommented on by anyone besides the two of us; I'd appreciate a more experienced editor joining the conversation to hopefully move it forward in a productive way.

Some related discussion is also found on the talk page for AONN since the guy didn't initially realize he had to be posting on the AfD page instead.

Thanks, Kgorman-ucb (talk) 22:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mass deletion of electronic components

There are a large number of prods and AfDs of numbered electronic components currently going through with scattered discussions all over the wiki. I propose that this discussion is centralised in a single AfD (or elsewhere) so that consistent, rational, decisions can be made, and that all the individual deletion debates are immediately closed or redirected. Besides anything else, it may be possible to come up with a sensible merging plan if the whole picture is looked at. At the moment, most of us involved are finding it a nightmare to follow what is going on. This is being tracked at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Electronics#a large number of electronics articles prodded for deletion and nominated for deletion and there is a list of articles posted there, but I would not like to guarantee that they have found them all. SpinningSpark 10:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the discussion should be centralised. Ideally there should be a moratorium on the prods and AfDs, with an understanding that the information is reorganised from the current bottom-up approach to a top-down approach that discusses specific component types in the context of more general articles on groups of such components. That should prevent this kind of situation in the future and will make the articles more useful for all readers. I note that electronics is far from the only area that suffers from a lazy bottom-up approach, but that's no reason not to fix it. Hans Adler 11:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of the AfDs, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2N3055 seems to have the most active discussion. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
True, but I don't think that is an ideal place for a central discussion. I am in favour of asking an uninvolved admin to close all the current AfDs and prods and then either open an overarching AfD to discuss them all at once, or else move the debate to the Wikiproject to discuss structuring/merging of the more pathetic articles. Possibly excepting some of the more advanced debates like 2N3055 which seem to be coming to a conclusion. SpinningSpark 13:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about the venue either, but it's clear to me 20 different AfDs and prods are not the right place for any sort of action, for three main reasons: 1) it risks creating a fiat accompli by volume. 2) it risks inconsistent application of the rules and wildly inconsistent results that will turn any future action into a war of competing precedents. 3) it scatters the involvement of interested parties widely. We need a place to come together and hash this issue out, preferably without the 7-day time limit. HominidMachinae (talk) 18:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It was improper to list them separately for deletion. How do we get an admin to fix? Incident report? Dicklyon (talk) 17:29, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, although admins already patrolling AfD should be able to do it. I guess they would be looking for some kind of consensus to emerge first. SpinningSpark 18:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't give two hoots about the validity of the articles (I haven't looked at them in any depth and don't plan on doing). However, as a procedural point, the AFDs should be kept separate. There are too many to list together, and that would more than likely result in a swift closure of the discussion with a suggestion to relist separately. If there's a long list of articles in one AFD it's difficult to assess each one (as they obviously all have different merits). Best to leave it as it is. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 17:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I care about the validity of the articles, and would keep them all, but I also know from sad experience with Roman Catholic Churches in Connecticut and New York City, that a single mass deletion can create a bigger mess. If those pressing for deletion will let the currently tagged for rescue articles progress to conclusions without adding additional AfDs, then we might all know more about whether, on the merits and by consensus, some or all of the current nominations should be kept, or merged, or deleted. --DThomsen8 (talk) 17:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think SpinningSpark is right and discussion should be centralized as these different discussions don't likely really each have their own merits (I haven't looked at every single one though). AfD also isn't really the way to handle the situation. It would have been better for the proposer to just boldly merge articles that s/he felt needed merging. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 19:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability and stuff

Scores of articles are deleted every day. This is not a proposal for mass deletion, but instead a cleanup of a few ill-conceived parts list entries.

Parts list entries suggested for deletion
AfD for part number Comment
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2N2907 A transistor
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1N400X A set of diodes
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TIP31 A transistor
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2N7000 A transistor
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1N4148 A diode
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1N540X A set of diodes
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1N5401 One of the above set of diodes
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BC548 A transistor
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2N3906 A transistor
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2N2222 A transistor
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2N3904 A transistor
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1381 voltage trigger An integrated circuit
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2N3055 A transistor

The Wikipedia:Notability guideline requires multiple independent sources with significant coverage of the topic. Sources should be secondary and independent, that is, not publicity by the manufacturers of the parts concerned. Sources should be significant, that is, not just a mention in passing or one-line statement, but some volume of discussion on the part.

Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not says that Wikipedia is not a general collection of all the world's information, but is an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia is a reference work containing a summary of knowledge in one or several fields - it is an overview, not an exhaustive listing of every possible fact.

An article about a semiconductor device must contain more than a recitation of the specifications from an unreferenced data sheet. Otherwise, it's not an article but an entry on a parts catalog. Ideally an article would contain "who, what, when, where, why, how" information. Which company invented or developed the device, when it was invented or registered with JEDEC or other authority, was it always a JEDEC part number or did it have a proprietary ancestor, why was it considered necessary to develop the part, what technology does the part use, how does it compare to similar devices available at the time. To assess significance, how many companies make the part, how many parts are or were sold in a typical year, is the part still currently available? What products made significant use of the part? What was made possible when this part was released, that couldn't be done as well or at all before it was released?

Is the part significant in some way? Is it the first/the last/the biggest/the smallest/ the most powerful/ the fastest/the quietest device of its kind? Does the part have some relevance outside the narrow world of (hobby) electronics? Why was this part popular, and just how popular was it?

The problem with the above sort of information and writing an actual article about a semiconductor, instead of a parts list entry, is that sources are not available to hobbyist editors on-line and for no cost. Even if someone who edits here was working for Fairchild or General Electric or Motorola or RCA or Westinghouse at the time, their private experiences count as "original research" or primary sources at best, and lack independence. The marketing decisions that lead to the manufacture of many of these devices are locked in the 40- and 50-year old files of various companies many of whom are defunct or merged. There seems to be a few overview books of the history of the semiconductor business that show up on Google Books, but they rarely spend much space on individual devices.

Some would argue "Give it time, there is no deadline". Many of these items have existed for years with no improvements, owing to the factors described above. These factors are not going to get better with time. Even though Wikipedia data storage space is indefinite and large, the amount of human effort required to maintain articles and to read them must be considered. We' re wasting the readers' time with recitation of specifications that can be more reliably gotten from manufacturer's catalogs. It's not the mission of an encyclopedia to catalog every minute technological artifact. An encylopedia is not a parts substitution manual. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the subject articles have gotten more human attention this weekend than they've had in years...but it's still not enough, for the reasons described above. For example, we've been told the breakdown voltage and current rating of a diode...but still not much more, other than "Here's a list of books that mention this number in passing". It's not pressing a point, WP:POINT is not allowed, it's routine deletion of things that look like articles but aren't. --Wtshymanski (talk) 03:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that deleting the 1N5401 and 1N540X articles would be reasonable cleanup; the others have enough about them in reliable sources to support articles (nothing like the rock band issues you talk about, which would be a good place for some cleanup work if that's what you're into). Dicklyon (talk) 14:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The sources I added this weekend don't just mention the parts "in passing"; they either recommend the parts, or state that they are popular or important parts or series. That's probably enough, or a good start. Dicklyon (talk) 15:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on the cleanup needed for 1N5401 and 1N540X, and !voted for Snow Delete on both. The 2N3055 is a notable device, as Dicklyon (and several others, including myself) notes. There is a big difference and we should not be lumping all such devices into one pigeon hole. To throw out the baby with the bathwater comes to mind. — Becksguy (talk) 15:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think deletion requests (one or many) are the best way to proceed here. Worst case is that each AfD proceeds separately, some are likely closed by different deletionist/inclusionist admins, and we then end up with inconsistent results.
I would suggest instead that we first try to establish some obejctive (i.e. not tied to named parts) criteria for notability, then when they are agreed, apply those to the individual articles. As a starting point I would suggest that notability can be achieved if any of the following conditions are met:
  • The part is especially widespread in use, by simple force of numbers, either now or in the past.
  • The part was especially common in some specific field of design
Some of the favoured audio pairs, or whatever that dual gate FET we all used for radio front ends in the '70s was
  • The part illustrates some new or significant technique in design or manufacturing.
The 2N3819 is a poor performance JFET by today's standards, but it's the one and only FET in common use for years. Likewise the OC71 and the OCP71 connection. Also the 2N2926 and its use of colour-coding by inspection post-manufacture to identify gain grades, owing to manufacturing limitations of the period. Maybe the ZTX327 (first cheap RF transistor that could permit the affordable development of mobile radio in the '60s)
  • The part has some significant use today, and is widespread amongst education.
Some of these devices are the standard "toolbox" devices for the Arduino / Dorkbot / Hackspace / schoolkid generation. We should offer content for these, just because there is a demand for it and it's an audience that likely has less access to the standard databooks than others (This is after all our one and only purpose in building an encyclopedia).
  • The part has some outstanding performance aspect that distinguishes it from other parts
Obviously none of this changes our geenral requirement for sourcing, but they do distinguish the significant devices from the mere "parts list"
Families of devices like the 1N400X would use redirects from 1N4001 ... 1N4007. Similar the TIP2955 (and the obvious others) would redirect to 2N3055.

Andy Dingley (talk) 16:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rescued, now go back to sleep

OK, now that you've rescued these articles from deletion, you can carry on ignoring them. Don't add any of the zillion citations you found during the Article Improvement Drive AfD discussion. Don't for heaven's sake tell the reader anything about why this part is notable. Don't tell how many were made, who first invented it, what sorts of products it was used in. Just keep this knowledge secret so you can trot out allegations and intimations the next time these parts list entries get nominated for AfD. And always remember the sixth pillar of Wikipedia: If you can't defend the article, attack the nominator. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:13, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to assume good faith of other editors and act with civility in discussions. Your comment above is phrased in such a way that its civility and assumption of good faith are unclear at best and absent at worst. Thryduulf (talk) 03:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My comments are based on the edit history of the articles. I'm treating my anonymous correspondents with more good faith than I was treated with during these discussions. I propose a trial: By April 1, 2012, (a) none of these articles will have been nominated for GA (safe bet, almost no Wikipedia articles make it to GA), and (b) the rescued set will not have references added to answer my questions about who invented the part, when it was invented, why it was considered an important part, how many were sold per year, who makes or made it, and why the part was considered better than similar contemporary parts. The sources are buried in 40 and 50-year old files of defunct semiconductor companies (remember when Westinghouse made stuff instead of licensing its logo?) and are unavailable to hobbyist Wikipedia researchers. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing a better idea for mass deletions

Given several recent problems with mass deletions (this one above about electronic components, the recent House episode one), I'd like to propose a restriction on when they can be used.

Basically, mass deletions should really only be used to delete a set of 2 to 5 immediately-connected articles where one or two articles are keystone to the set, often created by the same person(s) in the same time frame. I don't know any immediate examples, but say a non-notable TV show, its list of episodes, and its list of characters are all created by the same person. If the TV show article goes, likely so should the two lists.

This is to distinguish where they may be 2-5 articles that are similar and nominated for the same deletion reason, but each has to be considered on its own by the participants, eg the electronics components or the House episodes. That is, the deletion of one article from the set will have no immediate effect on the other articles in the set, beyond deletion under similar reasoning. When the number of articles grows beyond 5, regardless of which case, that's likely too much work to determine consensus or to allow editors a chance to demonstrate their articles.

Basically, if the mass deletion doesn't fit this "keystone article" approach, the deletion discussion should be done in an RFC, allowing for a longer period for discussion and improvement. I'd have no problem if these RFCs were run similar to AFD, including a "keep"/"delete" !vote section, and listed specifically on the AFD page as "Open mass deletion discussions" or the like. Heck, even to keep the format for AFDs, we can have the standard AFD page for the articles to point to the centralized discussion such that on the deletion sorting pages, these would be listed appropriately. The idea here is that because we're considering a large "class" of articles instead of a specific instance, it should be discuss of what, if possible, can be improved on the articles to make them notable, or deciding case by case if they are. As they would be tracked on the AFD page, admin closure after 30 days is ensured.

Note that normally this would be a step done on a talk page of one of the affected articles or a centralized location, but when I've seen this done where person A, an outside editor of these pages, tries to discuss deletion of these with editors from a larger group B, A is always outweighed vocally by B. The RFC approach here assured better outside involvement without pandering to canvassing, and gives a better format to deal with weakly-connected mass deletions that the normal AFD process is just not suited for. I would give admins the ability to speedily or snow-reject a AFD presented as a mass deletion that would be better done in the RFC format. --MASEM (t) 19:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is the problem you're trying to solve here? There are 80 or 100 deletion nominations every day, how is another layer of bureaucracy and yet another ritual going to help? Another dozen or so dletion nominations for the odd time that a related group of deletions arise, is a drop in the bucket. We can't get editors to pay attention to WP:N, which is the problem in the first place - why would more procedures make things any better? --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because nearly every mass deletion of more than a handful of articles that I've seen or participated in has been a mess to decipher or work through. It is also not appropriate for dealing with a large numbers of articles that these deal with, given that it is meant to be of limited period. Surprisingly, I'm not seeing much advise on WP:AFD to say when mass deletions are best used over single-shot ones, so its a lacking area that can be improved without significant creep. --MASEM (t) 20:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, requirements, especially arbitrary ones, about how many articles one can nominate at once and how exactly to handle larger "nominations" still reeks of instruction creep. A simple note suggesting RFCs instead of a large number (or some such phrase) of separate nominations should suffice. lifebaka++ 22:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the need to avoid creep - that's cool. I would however like to see admins (possibly even non-admins) have the ability to quickly access if a mass nom is seriously biting off more than AFD can chew and send the discussion to a central RFC point, either through personal observation or more than likely after a SNOW'd request to do so. Same would be if someone nominates several similar articles as single AFDs but at the same time (See the Transformations situation below), whereas it would be better to discuss the class of articles. I would still encourage these RFCs from mass noms being listed centrally at AFD and included in deletion sorting just to advertise them better.--MASEM (t) 23:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The big problem with mass nominations is they're almost never all correct. Take the Transformers area, for example. There was initially a lot of stuff that should have been removed entirely, a lot of stuff that should have been merged and trimmed. Whether massive numbers of articles are dealt with serially or in a large group, there's a tendency for internally inconsistent results. What I would like to see is more of a committee-like approach, where editors contribute to an RfC, which hashes out how to handle articles based on precedent, guidelines, etc., resolves sourcing issues, and sets out a roadmap that can be applied to the mass area. Then, individual articles can simply be dealt with per the RFC outcome. Jclemens (talk) 23:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am of a mixed mind on this issue, on one hand consistency is important, especially because keeping some and deleting others and so it's preferable to deal with them at once than in pieces. On the other hand there is a great risk of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Another risk is feeding into the myth of "inherent notability" by allowing (or forcing) people to simply batch argue "all of these fictional characters are notable". — Preceding unsigned comment added by HominidMachinae (talk • contribs) 21:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

removing AFD tag

A quiet AFD has had its tag removed from the article a few times. I don't want to be WP:POINTY by adding it back; while I've stated my !vote, I am not looking for agreement- just a little help either keeping the tag on the article page and/or some input in on the AFD itself. Here's [the tag removal, here's the AFD. tedder (talk) 20:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is completely inappropriate to remove the tag while the AFD is in progress. I've restored it and will shortly remind the editor to engage in discussing the AFD than removing the tag. --MASEM (t) 20:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and I've warned the editor that. But at this point it's pointy for me to say so, I think. tedder (talk) 20:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's POINTY at all for you to add back the AfD; at the very least, you're just reverting vandalism.--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Removing an AfD tag is more likely to be an error on the part of a new editor who doesn't understand how the system works than it is to be an intentional effort to undermine the workings of the project. Let's save the "vandalism" tag for such intentional efforts, eh? Jclemens (talk) 22:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying the editor should be yelled at and banned, just that Tedder should not feel he or she is doing anything wrong by reverting the removal, no matter how many times it had to be done.--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have a problem with some wording

I was just reading the page and stumbled upon:

"Unregistered or new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith (for example, if they misrepresent their reasons)"

This is basically saying that we can ignore newbies completely just because they are newbies. I am pretty sure that was never the intention and I propose removing the word "especially", which gives:

"Unregistered or new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted if they seem to be made in bad faith (for example, if they misrepresent their reasons)"

Thoughts? Yoenit (talk) 21:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that the original intent of the current wording was related to sock- and meatpuppetry - puppet votes of course being correctly discounted. I do agree with you regarding the implication of the current wording, and support your proposal. Any explicit statement about meatpuppetry would probably be best made either as a separate bullet point or as an adjunct to the exist one about sockpuppetry. We should always be careful though about not labelling new users as puppets just because the deletion discussion is what spurred them to make their first edit. Thryduulf (talk) 22:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think part of the reason that IPs are less tolerated in deletion discussions isn't puppetry, it is because of single-purpose accounts and the reaction by involved parties to go to forums, email groups, facebook, twitter, etc and say "go vote to keep us on wikipedia!". Many non-notable items have an enthusiastic online community. tedder (talk) 22:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The proposed wording still makes it clear that vote-stacked SPA !votes and sock/meat-puppetry aren't welcome, as they clearly are in bad faith. The current wording could imply that valid new-user opinions might be disregarded. I hadn't thought of it that way before, but there's no doubt that somebody could. Good proposal :-) Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 22:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll support the change but I doubt it will have any affect on how we actually treat IP editors acting in good faith in deletion discussions. We routinely treat anyone from a different online community like shit and a few changes to the AFD process page won't change that. However the new wording is completely sensible and I see no reason to oppose it. Protonk (talk) 22:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Ditto that, I'm afraid. Still, it can't hurt. I've gone ahead and made the change since it doesn't seem controversial. Cheers. lifebaka++ 22:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this page a policy, guideline, or just a suggestion?

It doesn't have a tag up top saying what it is. I think this should be policy. In an AFD one person stated it wasn't a policy or guideline, just a suggestion which people could ignore. [1] I figure it needs clarifying. A lot of pointless AFDs could be prevented if people followed the instructions on this page. Dream Focus 08:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We already have a policy page about deletion (Wikipedia:Deletion policy), I don't see a reason to make this a second (possible conflicting) policy page on the same topic. If you think wp:BEFORE should be a part of Wikipedia:Deletion policy, please propose that. Yoenit (talk) 08:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This page, meaning its subpages, is a "deletion forum", and is not {{policy}}. If taggery is important, you could make a new template and add it. If the instructions at the top are to be considered mandatorily prescribed, then they should be included at Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Mixing policy requirements with instructions is a bad idea, because it is common practice to ignore instructions as much as possible. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I assume by "this page" DF means WP:BEFORE. A lot of nominators get heat for not following it when in fact they did but were not too impressed with what they found. I think that instead of accusing nominators of not following WP:BEFORE and starting a big dramafest, just simply state what "you" found thereby throwing the ball back into the nominator's court. In other words don't say...

  • Keep. The nominator didn't follow WP:BEFORE or he would have found the zillion google hits that I did. He's wasting the community's time with this pointless AFD.

But instead say...

  • Keep. A google news search shows that there is significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject including [1], [2] and [3].

--Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • What I mean is people that don't even bother with any attempt to find sources at all, and are thus wasting our time. If you disagree with them being notable, that's fine. But at least have the decently to check. Dream Focus 04:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Burden of proof is always on those that want to keep the material. BEFORE is a polite step, but I've seen people who have tried to BEFORE before AFDing an article and still be complained at because it wasn't the right set of search teams, or that one had to go to the nth page of search results, or the like. There is no way we can codify the expected behavior for BEFORE to policy and not expect discussion wars to break out how much effort the AFDer put into it. --MASEM (t) 05:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BURDEN is more about what's "in" the article then whether or not the article should exist. WP:BEFORE is about finding instances of someone "taking note of" the subject whether or not they are actually used to cite information "in" the article. I propose that these be called "supersources" to distinguish them from plain old "sources". Here's a way to explain the difference. An IMDB entry can be a "source" for basic "verifiability", the actor in question does indeed "exist", but it can never be a "supersource", that is it can't be used to demonstrate "notability". This would address the issue of WP:BURDEN vs WP:BEFORE. The former is about "sources", the later is about "supersources". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. While it is extremely difficult to prove a negative ("no sources exist"), what is actually expected is substantially less rigorous ("no sources are evident"), but a bit more than what some would prefer ("enough good sources are not currently in the article"). The goal of Wikipedia is to develop an encyclopedia--any editor who substitutes rules lawyering or their own opinion for solid research into sourcing is doing a disservice to the project. Jclemens (talk) 06:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    But my point still stands - I have see people that have made good-faith BEFORE efforts and nominated an article complained at because of some reason or another, particularly if the sources that may be easily found are of questionable reliability. I realize there are people that don't do any BEFORE work at all and simply go by the state of the article, and we want to discourage these, but any effort to policy-ize BEFORE will be gamed and affected those trying to help. It still comes down to the fact that WP:BURDEN is policy, and such if you're creating an article that you believe is notable but don't include sources to start, you'd better be ready to throw them in should someone claim an article non-notable. --MASEM (t) 12:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    BURDEN applies to specific statements, BEFORE to entire articles. There's a tension there, but not a contradiction. I do gripe at people who haven't apparently followed before, especially on things where Google News Archive is pretty conclusive by itself, and I routinely encourage nominators to explicitly state how they've searched for sources and failed. I've myself seen people game that part of a nomination, by searching Google Books and Scholar, but not News, for a current event. Gaming goes all ways. Jclemens (talk) 17:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is why AFD is still a consensus-driven venue, and complaining about the actions or inactions of specific editors is fruitless. And BURDEN does apply to the the article space in the sense that if you want the article kept, you need to show it meets notability standards. Without evidence (sources), deletion is a completely valid option. --MASEM (t) 18:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Not entirely, BEFORE exists as a safety net. The gamers may not like it, but the system is designed so that it's easy to stubbify an unsourced article, but stubs on notable and appropriate topics cannot, by policy, be deleted. It's not about winning or losing, it's about improving the encyclopedia. Jclemens (talk) 20:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Behavioral Guideline The steps listed are not just about sources but also contain numerous other good points such as checking the talk page for previous nominations or being polite when discussing the matter. If an editor fails to follow these steps then they may be warned or blocked and so it's a behavioral guideline like WP:DISRUPTION. Of course, editors usually have to violate this in an outrageous way for action to be taken but that's the way it usually goes with our behavioral guidelines. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why should nominators follow all these steps when all people wanting to keep an article have to do is, apparently, claim that something is notable without providing any evidence.[2] If you want other people to treat this as a behavioral guideline, at least try to give a good example from the opposite direction. Or perhaps we should change the section title of BEFORE to "Before nominating an article for deletion or commenting in an AfD discussion", so that everyone arguing for "keep" has to provide evidence that they as well have tried to find sources, and can show what their "it's notable!" argument is based on. Fram (talk) 14:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • This guideline contains a lot more than WP:BEFORE, which is just the logical starting point. In particular, there is an equally substantial section on How to discuss an AfD. Do you contend that this is just hot air too? Colonel Warden (talk) 16:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Do you contend that this is just hot air too?" is a nice example of "Do you still beat your wife?". I have not contended that anything is "hot air", I have just pointed out that it is rather hypocritical to want to impose "BEFORE" (which was, according to the people above, the focus of this discussion) when your own AfD edits are not really examples of how we should discuss such things. I don't think that you would have been happy to get your reply in that AfD tagged as "disruption" worthy of a warning or a block, so I don't see why you would ask for that to happen to people who may have not taken all possible precautions to avoid an AfD for soemthing that will eventually be kept, or merged, or redirected. Fram (talk) 19:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I often find and cite sources for articles at AFD. In that case, I added the good source of a textbook. Fram's personal attack is therefore groundless. Fram should please address the main issue here: whether we expect editors to produce evidence to support their arguments. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Let's see, you posted at the AfD on 20:21, 3 April 2011, I gave that post as an example of hypocrisy on 14:07, 4 April 2011, you just happened to add that source on 14:53, 4 April 2011, and then come here to claim that my personal attack is groundless? It looks to me as of your actions show that my remark was a very accurate description of your actions, and that it resulted in you improving your behavior in this case (even though that book is hardly a source indicating notability, but that's a different discussion). Your final remark "Fram should please address the main issue here: whether we expect editors to produce evidence to support their arguments." is quite baffling: I adressed a telling example of someone, i.e. you, who didn't produce any evidence to support his arguments in an AfD discussion, until this was pointed out here explicitly. Taking your position, you should have been warned for this, and if it was repeated blocked. Fram (talk) 08:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • You are mistaken. My action was in response to the posting of the nominator in that discussion which showed up on my watchlist at that time. The exchange between the nominator and User:Becksguy indicated that the primary focus of their attack had shifted to notability rather than the faux-policy that Wikipedia is not a parts catalog. This is part of a bundle of nominations, as we read above at Mass deletion of electronic components. I've been leaving other editors such as User:Dicklyon to make most of the running in these discussions but, in this case, this particular topic seemed to need some assistance and so I obliged. I first got started with this bundle several days ago. Discussion of the bundle has shown that these components are not random parts but are archetypal and popular - exemplars of their type. Sources are thus not difficult to find and so notability is well-established. Your implication that my contribution was an arbitrary drive-by made without detailed knowledge of the topic is false. Mistakes of this kind are the reason that editors should do background research rather than jumping to conclusions. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • I'll let everyone judge for themselves what they think about your explanation (claiming that "The exchange between the nominator and User:Becksguy indicated that the primary focus of their attack had shifted to notability rather than the faux-policy that Wikipedia is not a parts catalog." when the nomination started with "Contested PROD. No assertion of notability for this tiny electronic part." is bizarre, and calling an AfD nomination an "attack" is telling of your mindset) and whether, if "Sources are thus not difficult to find and so notability is well-established", it is logical or user-friendly that you use a minor student handbook as your source instead of some more general, perhaps online accessible or at least in more libraries available source. That is of course assuming that notability is indeed well-established, other people in the AfD seem to disagree. But that's a discussion for over there... Fram (talk) 09:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Is it asking too much that people who want to take the time of other editors accept some responsibilities such as checking for and marking dead links on an article before they bring it to an AfD?  Unscintillating (talk) 00:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • As long as there are no such rules for creating articles, there should be no such rules for disputing articles either. If article creators don't have to produce any evidence that the subject is notable and the article truthful, then it is unreasonable to force other editors to make a lot more effort before they can nominate an article for deletion. Of course it is best, in both cases, if people take the time to check things first, to provide sources, evidence, ..., but it shouldn't be enforced, and a supposed lack of following WP:BEFORE shouldn't be a reason to dismiss an AfD and/or to warn or block an editor. That doesn't mean that AfD's never can be disruptive, and that people can't be blocked for disrupting the process; but not following BEFORE is not sufficient for such a response. Fram (talk) 08:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
it is perfectly reasonable for people to do the work, because otherwise we are deleting merely on the basis ofthe apparent deficiencies of the article, and not on whether the subject is actually notable, etc. A lack of followingthe rudiments of BEFORE makes work for everyone who looks at the AfD and tries to judge it properly. I certainly will not say a keep or delete at an AfD without at least some kind of a search if it is relevant to the decision, unless I know someone has done it previously--if i were to judge on the basis of someone else's opinion not based on evidence, my !vote would be just as useless as their's. IThe fastest and best way to get unsourcable articles deleted is to show they are unsourceable, not just assert it. ` DGG ( talk ) 03:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • For a fresh example of this guideline in action, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Readercon. In this case, the nominator is censured for failure to follow WP:BEFORE and the discussion is speedily closed. There seems to be a sense of a line which has been crossed and exceptional action is taken. I'm not seeing any practical difference between this and other guidelines such as WP:POINT, WP:BITE, WP:COI and WP:SIZE. Compliance with these guidelines is fairly patchy and there are no draconian penalties for this. But there is a general expectation that these represent good practise and so some scolding may be appropriate when they are not followed. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps the part about "do a search for sources before nominating" can be a guideline, but most of the other "considerations" have no such agreement. Whether a person nominating an article for deletion has considered a merge, has considered adding a tag to the article, has checked "what links here", ... can not be checked, can not be enforced, and should never be a reason for scolding. However, they would all be a part of the guideline. Bad idea... Fram (talk) 13:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

errr

this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_James_and_Joe_Show and this linked one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Ashford

are not notable! but i don't know how to list this... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.10.96 (talk) 21:51, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Taken step 1 for Panic Nation

I have taken step 1 from WP:AFDHOWTO towards submitting Panic Nation as an AFD. As I noted at Talk:Panic Nation#Article for deletion, I am resorting to requesting someone to continue the process after realizing that my addition of a {{PROD}} was invalid due to a PROD that occurred three years ago (when the article looked pretty much like it does now). Thank you in advance to anyone who chooses to continue this process. 67.101.7.66 (talk) 06:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request to complete nom of Rhinoceros dolphin

My justification for deletion has been posted at Talk:Rhinoceros dolphin, but I will repeat it here: Why should Wikipedia have an article about an imaginary species whose claims to notability are a self-published Angelfire website and an appearance in a fictional cartoon show? Prod was removed because "theres a source" [sic], presumably referring to the self-published Angelfire website. Thank you for your assistance. 63.104.174.146 (talk) 21:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion&oldid=422762037"