Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion

Sandra Fluke: Should it be nominated?

After reviewing the page for Sandra Fluke, I have come to believe that it firmly meets the criteria for at the very least an AFD discussion. However, the article was re-created in June 2012; (there was a subsequent deletion review, but it should be disregarded as the article was nominated by an editor wishing to maintain it, and as such the result was speedy procedural keep.)

I discussed proposing the nomination on the talk page, but was told that it was too soon, and that I would be berated for nominating the article. As a relatively new registered editor (but long-time ip editor), I'm a little unsure as to how to proceed. I think I have a very strong argument in favor of deletion, and if no one here comments otherwise I'm going to go ahead and nominate it pretty soon. However, I'm still pretty unsure how to proceed. Your thoughts and advice would be extremely appreciated! Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 17:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• If you want to discuss that article, then the talk page for that article is the best place, as there you will find editors specifically interested in that topic. The talk page here is more about AFD as a whole (the main page, procedures, etc.), rather than individual articles. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I think a nomination is reasonable. The second AfD was dismissed on purely procedural grounds, so it doesn't "count", so to speak, and the deletion review only permitted re-creation and did not require it. In my view, this is a classic case of a person known for only one event, and a living person at that. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dancing Beijing

I'm assuming the correct lising procedure wasn't followed for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dancing Beijing. Could someone who knows how please fix the nomination? Thanks - Basement12 (T.C) 11:50, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done - I assume the 7-day discussion period starts right now. Ego White Tray (talk) 19:06, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Seems sensible. Thanks - Basement12 (T.C) 02:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Why IPs are banned for starting AFD?

They're even permitted to close AFDs (See WP:NAC).Ibicdlcod (talk) 14:15, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

They're not banned from starting them, they're unable to create pages in the Wikipedia namespace, however any IP can request an editor create a nomination page for them, I've done it myself for IP's on more than one occasion--Jac16888 ^Talk 15:06, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Right, its a technical limitation, technically we could change all AfD pages to be talk pages and it would remove the issue, but seems like alot of work for the occasional IP nom. Monty₈₄₅ 16:18, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The abuse potential is nonzero, either. Right now, an IP editor must convince at least one editor in good standing to enact the proposed AfD, which is not too high a bar, in my opinion. Jclemens (talk) 20:47, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

• Ibicdlcod, see discussion pages created on behalf of IPs here, here and here as examples. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Because IP editors are scum and must be treated as such. Lugnuts (talk) 08:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

First time doing an AfD, just checking

I found this article after hitting the random article button. THe article hasn't been edited since Febuary 2011 and has an Orphan tag, a BLP tag, and a notability tag, all from the same time period. I searched the name in google and didn't find anything in English except a LinkedIn link. Would doing a AfD tag be inappropriate? B-I-G and S-M-R-T!!1! (talk) 21:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I have flagged it on the Serbian Wikipedians' notice board. pablo 09:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

What an arse!

Is there any merit for this article? sweere-arse is two-and-a-haf lines based on "according to John Jamieson" (who/ what was he? - ok, he was a lexicogtapher and a linguist, but it does not say so). Perhaps it has a place in the Wikitionary, but here? Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 10:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe ARS could shed some light? pablo 10:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Pablo, quoting from ARS, "f an article about an encyclopedic topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject ...". It is not the case here. Saying that this is a 'game' is like saying that because kids might amuse themselves by seeing who can spit/ pee the farthest that these can be called games. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 12:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

A fundamental misunderstanding. I wasn't suggesting it is a viable article, or seriously suggesting to call in the ARS - I was using them as the butt of a joke. pablo 14:05, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, Pablo - you got me! I realised it now as I clicked on "fundamental", with "bottom" as one od its meanings! Touché! Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 18:54, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Mwhahahaha etc. Seriously though, no - I don't think it is a viable article on its own; maybe as a redirect to childhood games or Scots slang from the 1800s. Or something. pablo 21:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

What is with AfD rudeness - a shortening of fuck you and the horse you rode in on?

I nominated something that I failed to find sources for. An established used ended his comment with "I think the phrase I'm thinking off ends with "and the horse you rode in on." Next." And he wasn't even warned or anything? SL93 (talk) 00:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Well at least he didn't say "fuck". But you did. Oops so did I.
Really though, it's incivil, and there aren't different rules for AfD so if it upsets you, there's WP:WQA as a second resort. The first would be to talk directly to the user concerned. pablo 00:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I was rude back, but I reverted myself. I decided to come back to Wikipedia and this is one of the first things that happens. SL93 (talk) 00:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yeah, I've had difficulty recently also with admins keeping their white gloves pristine.  For example, ANI told me it was my job to engage possible sockpuppets on their talk page.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I made a great comment back to him. Admins might deal with me, but Wikipedia isn't happy happy joy joy. SL93 (talk) 00:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

There are a number of reasons for the rudeness at AfD. The first I would say is BATTLEGROUND tactics, stoked often by a shifting number of sockpuppets who like to get the good-faith wikipedians who differ philosophically on inclusionism vs. deletionism into shouting matches with each other. If you get bitten on a bit as a nominator, I'd encourage you to look at the deficiencies in your nomination: while rudeness is inexcusable, it may well be prompted by frustration with an error that you've made that the respondent has seen many times from other nominators. If there's no rush to AfD something, I would be happy to help work with anyone who wants to formulate a deletion rationale which focuses on the real issues and help folks deal with the common inclusionist objections to deletion rationales. Jclemens (talk) 05:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll rephrase your above comment: "If you get slapped around by your husband, I'd encourage you to look at the deficiencies in how you did the dishes." Blaming the victim and defending the perpetrator is not the proper response to incivility. Ego White Tray (talk) 12:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you understand the difference between "understandable" and "excusable"? Something need not be the latter to be the former. Jclemens (talk) 14:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

What was deficient about SL93's nomination? Nobody Ent 15:08, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, take a look at this. So "found no coverage" was either inaccurate, or the search was deficient. That's a straight-up Google News archive search, and I just added the country--try it without, you'll get about 18 GNews hits. One search, well architected, should have turned up coverage, but did not. AGF says SL93 didn't do it right, ABF (which I'm including since we're talking about an abusive response) says he lied about searching, and either way might have prompted an understandably negative reaction from an insufficiently polite wikipedian--again, not excusable for the verbal abuse. Jclemens (talk) 19:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't use that exact search term so I did nothing wrong. SL93 (talk) 19:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

You failed to find coverage when you said you searched for it. To be blunt, you should have found something, and whatever search you did that turned up *no* coverage was insufficient with actually stating that you "found no coverage". Do you understand why that might be perceived as a fault? Jclemens (talk) 19:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I meant that I found no significant coverage. I still have doubts about the so called significant coverage that has been found. SL93 (talk) 19:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Time out. You just said you found no significant coverage. In the nomination you said you "found no coverage". Not "no significant coverage", not "no coverage sufficient to meet N", or even "no coverage which meets WP:RS". You said "no coverage". If you're now saying that you found some coverage, but that you deemed it insignificant, you're admitting that you wrote a nomination statement that was materially false. While that doesn't justify the rudeness you were subjected to, it might well constitute disruptive editing, as the collegial editing process relies in part on every editor telling the truth at all times. So... did you find "no coverage" or "no significant coverage"? Jclemens (talk) 03:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the wonderful world of Wikipedia. Despite burden claiming the editor who inserts material into an article is responsible for citing it, as you can see it's better just ignore the unsourced crap articles unless you want to deal with the blowback, as you've discovered. Alternatively, you could stick a {{unsourced}} tag at top; this will transform the crap article into a crap article with an ugly tag at top, (like the other 249,068). Nobody Ent 20:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I've taken this to Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance#Rudeness in an articles for deletion discussion. Thank you, Ego White Tray (talk) 12:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Update everyone: I had to shoot my horse. Damn. Lugnuts (talk) 13:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I followed WP:BEFORE so I thought I was good. SL93 (talk) 19:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

See also: de:Aerodrome

 pablo 20:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I've seen this a lot over the past couple years: If you nominate an article and miss sources that others turn up, you can expect to be flamed. To a certain extent, that's a risk you take when nominating articles for deletion. Although I'd prefer to do without it, there's not a whole lot that can be done to stop people on the internet from being rude. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

It's pretty easy to mitigate, actually: just do a decent job checking for sources, per the minimal expectations outlined at WP:BEFORE, and accurately characterize what you find. We've now established in this thread that SL93 did not accomplish that minimum level of searching, even though he asserted that he had. It's really not that high a bar to get over, and I'll be happy to help anyone who wants to learn how to craft the single appropriate Google News search that is all BEFORE expects. Jclemens (talk) 03:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

We're not talking the internet, we're talking Wikipedia. What possible motivation would have a sane individual have to subject themselves to "fuck you and the horse you rode in on" for failure to properly dot all the t's necessary to (possibly) get all the fluff off of WP? Nobody Ent 03:19, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I'd much rather be told to "go fuck myself" (or similar) by someone who was frustrated that I'd made a poor AfD nom, than have someone snidely imply that I'm insane. YMMV. Jenks24 (talk) 03:31, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Wasn't really thinking about it as an either - or question. Would a possible option be someone telling you "you made a poor Afd nom" instead of the "go f-" or "you're insane" choices? Nobody Ent 03:39, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I strive to make any constructive criticism I give to other editors as positive and outcome focused (we all want to have the best encyclopedia possible, right?) as possible. Since none of us have the power to change others, all we can do is appeal to their better nature. I see and comment on sub-optimal AfD noms every single day I'm on Wikipedia, and never feel the need to resort to profanity, but I can understand how someone might get frustrated enough to do so--again, understanding is not excusing. And, underneath that unnecessary profanity, there may be a legitimate frustration finding inadequate and impolite expression, hence my focusing on that, because when it comes to reading other users' minds, I got nothin'. Jclemens (talk) 03:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Of course we can influence others (see Civil resistance) and I'm optimistic the WQA is/will achieve a positive result. Nobody Ent 11:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, obviously. What I was more trying to say is that I can understand why someone who saw a AfD that said "couldn't find sources", then proceeded to click the "news" link and found a bunch of sources could become frustrated and say something regrettable. What I don't understand is why anyone would then question that person's sanity. Jenks24 (talk) 03:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Not that person. What I'm getting at is, given the reception SL93 has received, what possible motivation would they have for ever bothering to nominate another article for deletion. Nobody Ent 15:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

And what about the situation where you didn't make a poor AfD nomination, but someone tells you to "go fuck yourself". How would you feel then? IRWolfie- (talk) 15:31, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

No one actually said that though. Lugnuts (talk) 18:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

So now I'm being called a liar. The debate is not even leading towards a keep anyway. SL93 (talk) 14:45, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I accidentally left out the word significant and then went to bed. Why can't everyone stop acting so superior? SL93 (talk) 14:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

No one's calling you a liar. Nobody Ent 15:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. All that's been shown is that your nomination contained a material falsehood--it made exactly one statement, and that statement was completely incorrect based on the omission of the word "significant". That doesn't excuse any rudeness at all, but it does demonstrate how you aren't faultless in this matter. Lugnuts should have been polite, but you should have taken the time to make one good Google News query and post the results accurately and verbosely. Even if you'd said "no significant coverage", you still would have helped everyone out if you had taken another sentence to describe what you did find, since "significant" can be a subjective matter. Furthermore, there was no compelling reason for you to make that nomination on any particular day if you were too tired to do it right. I always encourage editors to edit when they're at their *best*, not when they're e.g. too tired. That was a rather rude way for you to be exposed to the pitfalls of editing while tired, of course, which is why I made my offer to help proactively teach infrequent or new AfD nominators how to make the best possible nominations. Jclemens (talk) 00:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Editing errors are common and should be accepted. To describe one as a material falsehood, while technically true, isn't particularly helpful. What's been shown is we often suck at maintaining our civility ideal. In such an environment, there's no compelling reason for any editor to make a nomination ever Nobody Ent 11:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I think characterizing it in such a manner is the best way to AGF while not ignoring the fact that such errors have a quite negative and frustrating effect on those needing to respond to them. At any rate, I think we've probably learned all the lessons we can from this unfortunate exchange, and I want to thank SL93 for asking for input when he was confronted by such a rude response. Jclemens (talk) 15:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

AFD Request for Reconstructive observation

Could someone please create an AFD discussion page for this entry- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstructive_observation. I believe the entry should be deleted because it has both been a stub and an an orphan for four years, and as such is clearly unrelated or unimportant to its field. The two main authors that the article mentioned are not notable in the field of the article or elsewhere, and its two citations (one attributed to Geertz and the other to Reik) are poor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.223.133.136 (talk) 21:31, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reconstructive observation. jcgoble3 (talk) 00:12, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposed changes to AfD's in general

I have participated in afd quite a few times in the past but one thing i have noticed that slight problem is the layout.

I suggest changing the template that makes the afd to work something like this

Article to be delete Sources for article

Then add a sentence saying "Please respond below with Support or Oppose or Merge with (insert article name) (signature)"

Then add below that "For discussion please use the section below"

Then make "===Discussion==="

This would make a admin job easier to work out a consensus if any and discussion are kept out of itAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 12:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• Disagree - I don't understand the first part of your proposal, but I strongly disagree with the separate discussion section. AfD is not a vote. Putting discussion in a separate section wouldn't help anyone, since admins have to read it all to close the discussion properly. Also, you shouldn't explicitly suggest a merge in your guidance to editors, since AfDs are not a place to propose mergers, and many such proposed merges are garbage. Ego White Tray (talk) 12:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

the options arent really the issue, it keeping someone discussion someone else vote regardless how you look at it people see it as a vote, there voting with why they think ti should be deleted or kept, afd might not be a vote but that how humans respond to it. the only reason i say that is because a admin trying to close a very heated afd will find it hard to find consensus, as you cant honestly tell me if 50 say keep and 10 say delete a admin will delete ???? because that would fly in the face of consensus--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 12:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

for example you havea afd on joe blog death, ser a says delete with his reasons, then under that you have about 5 users discussing the reason for the user reason for deleteiong, why should that affect consensus?--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 12:37, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Consensus is not only about counting people on each side of the debate. The strength of the arguments put forward by the participants affects the result as well. For instance if someone says that an article should be deleted but doesn't give a reason, or does give a reason which is subsequently shown to be wrong, then that person's opinion will be given little or no weight by whoever closes the discussion. Conversely if someone gives a strong reason for deletion which no-one is able to refute, then that person's opinion will be given greater weight. Now the number of people on each side does have some influence, and if two positions are equally valid but one has ten times as many supporters than the other then the debate will be closed according to the majority opinion. However discussions between participants are integral to determining consensus and shouldn't be marginalised or segregated. Hut 8.5 14:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• Weak oppose: I would actually love to see Discussion section, because AfD is not a vote, and this would help to somehow separate the voting cruft from the actual source of the outcome — discussion of references and application of policies. Still, we currently have a mix of head counting and discussion, and there are various signs in AfD documentation that it is mainly voting-driven, so probably those should be clarified first. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:11, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose: Specifically, the list of sources. There have been numerous deleted articles in the past that had upwards of 10, 20, even 30 cited references. The quality of the references isn't the only reason to delete an article, so while they should be taken into account listing them in the template leads to the possibility of massive clutter. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 17:10, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Wait, I'm confused; do you mean listing all the sources, or is "Sources for article" supposed to be "Find sources"? Regardless, I'm hesitant about the discussion section, but there is a chance I could be persuaded. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 17:13, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Find sources template

I proposed adding DuckDuckGo to the {{find sources}}, used in AfD template. Please comment on this proposal at template's talk page. Please don't comment here to keep discussion in the single location. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:15, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Deleting votes in an AFD discussion - where does it say not to do this?

Sorry about this, but I can't find anywhere that discusses the wikiquette of deleting other people's votes - I have just reverted someone's edit to an AFD where for no apparent reason they deleted another user's "Keep" vote without explanation, and I'm sure this is not allowed, but having trouble finding somewhere on the Wiki sites that says Not To Do This. Can you direct me to the relevant page just in case it occurs again and I need to link to say WP:LEAVEOTHERVOTESALONE or whatever? Thanks. Mabalu (talk) 14:39, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it's probably covered at WP:TPO, even though AfD are not talk pages. (Plus common sense; don't dick about with others' comments!) pablo 14:44, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated! It's not specifically spelled out there either, but it's clear enough from that that it's a bad idea to interfere with others' comments. Mabalu (talk) 14:57, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

"Me too" votes

For the record, I was about to revert Avanu's reinsertion. (SpacemanSpiff beat me to it.)

If someone's opinion already has been expressed in a "reasonable, logical, policy-based" manner (and he/she feels that there's nothing more to add), a simple expression of agreement is entirely appropriate and widely accepted.

What, apart from wasting everyone's time, does restating exactly the same argument (in either the same words or pointedly different ones) accomplish? —David Levy 18:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The new text deprecating "Per Foo" "Keeps" or "Deletes" would only serve as a license to attack other editors or their AFD inputs as "lame" or "lazy" and to demand that the closing admin ignore such input. Certainly I like to see that an editor contributing to AFD has carefully considered the article, the sources, and relevant guidelines and policies, and is not just on a deletionist or inclusionist rampage, but sometimes an editor provides such a good rationale that they have nailed it one way or the other. Repeating an earlier rationale verbatim is not much of an improvement over "Per Foo."Edison (talk) 19:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Per David Levy and Edison. There's no reason to require redundant walls of text when well researched and reasoned arguments are presented earlier. —SpacemanSpiff 04:42, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Conversely, if that kind of tacit agreement is used with a poorly formed argument, it's worth about as much as the original argument. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 05:43, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with all of this. A "per good argument" counts more than a "per bad argument", just like a good argument matters more than a bad argument. (good = articulate, policy-based, and in line with our pillars, of course) Jclemens (talk) 06:46, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree. The most typical cases of "me too" votes are:

• Delete: sources in the article are unreliable, and I can't find sources that would establish subject's notability. Example
• Delete per user:Example. Example2
• Keep: I found 1, 2, 3, and 4 contains links to others. Example3
• Keep per user:Example3. Example4.

Both "me too" !votes above are perfectly valid, as there is no need to write more if one has nothing to add to previous statement. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:31, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Jclemens, people aren't going to state, "I agree with the terrible argument made by User:X". They might agree with User:X, but they are definitely not going to claim it is a terrible argument. I agree with the commenter above who says that restating the same argument over and over is unhelpful. But, consensus debates are not supposed to be the same material over and over. If you have no new angle to present, or nothing to add, the comment doesn't really add much. I will agree that sometimes it helps to show that you support a particular editor's viewpoint, but in the example by Czarkoff above, user:Example4 adds *nothing* to the debate at all. It is interesting because that particular example was exactly why I decided to add the language to the AfD page in the first place, except instead of links, user:Example3 had pointed to three other editors. So user:Example4 was referencing a person who was referencing three other people. I don't really want to get into a complicated policy like "second-level me-too votes should not be allowed" or "me-too votes should directly reference an argument, not another me-too vote". It just seems simpler to have 'allow them' or 'discourage them'. Anyway, that's my 2 cents on this. By the way, I had considered taking this question to Wikipedia talk:Consensus, since ultimately that is what we're talking about. But at the moment, I don't consider this to be an issue of overwhelming importance. -- Avanu (talk) 05:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Of course they're never going to say that. The validity of arguments is a large part of what the closing admin assesses. Jclemens (talk) 05:41, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Avanu, I would note that we have some rules related to number of participating editors (eg. Relisting AfDs). Furthermore, "per user:Example" !votes are critical for discussions with policy-based "keep" and "delete" rationales stated, as in such cases the head count of editors finding "delete" rationale stronger then "keep" rationale is the decisive factor for determining consensus. Eg.:

• Keep: I found 1, 2, 3, and 4 contains links to other sources about web4brainfuck. Example
• Keep per user:Example. Example2.
• Delete: these sources are not independent, as all of them are published in online magazines of brainfuck programming language community interest only; such sources are too narrow in auditory and too closely related to the topic to be found independent. I can't find sources that would establish subject's notability. Example3
• Delete per user:Example3. Example4
• Delete per user:Example3. Example5
• Delete per user:Example3. Example6
• Delete per user:Example3. Example7

This would make a perfectly valid delete outcome, as most editors concur that proposed sources are unacceptable for purpose of establishing notability, and closing admin isn't allowed to base decision on his personal assessment of sources. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

The common slogan "AFD is not a vote" is correct, but not the whole story. Consensus, coupled with policies and guidelines, is what determines the outcome of an AFD debate. The amount of support an argument has is a major indicator of where the consensus is. If we were to forbid people from explicitly supporting another's arguments with "per X", we would merely see people rehashing the same arguments over and over, which is no better. Demanding that new participants present new arguments is even worse, as we would lose sight of whose arguments are supported and whose are not, it would, for example, make a person who comprehensively lays out all the arguments in favor of his/her side look like a lone voice. When I close AFDs, my task is to find the consensus if there is one. I seek guidance for the close in the debate and policies. What arguments were there? Are those arguments consistent with our policies and guidelines? Are there any case-breaking arguments that simply haven't been adequately refuted? (I once closed a unanimous "merge" vote with a "delete" result since the nom's verifiability concern hadn't been addressed at all, but those cases are quite rare.) Have these arguments convinced other members of the community? All this information is useful when making a decision, and I would hate to create rules that took that away from me. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree with User:Sjakkalle. But seriously, "per x" !votes have a purpose as described above: to indicate community acceptance that a particular line of reasoning is broadly accepted. Forcing editors to rephrase a well-stated position simply because there is a rule against voting does not help anyone. VQuakr (talk) 03:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, you've convinced me in an overall sense. I sincerely hope that consensus closers are being diligent on the points you all bring up and not simply doing headcounts. But I fully recant my heresy :) and I think you have all made excellent points. -- Avanu (talk) 04:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Kwasi Danquah III

Can someone restore the redirect to Tinchy Stryder as defined by the outcome of WP:Articles for deletion/Kwasi Danquah III earlier today? The article keeps getting unredirected. -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 08:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

AFD for Political gaffe

Could someone please create an AFD for Political gaffe? This article is in a terrible, extremely unencyclopedic state, and frankly I think that it's going to become a battleground during the upcoming election in the United States. Right now, the article is a subjective list of "gaffes", not all of which even have articles. It's an embarrassment, and just asking for trouble. 128.239.158.164 (talk) 04:36, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

It survived an AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Political gaffes less than three months ago. "It's in a poor state" and "it's going to become a battleground" are not valid reasons for deletion. Articles are only deleted when there is a problem that can't be fixed through normal editing, and if we deleted articles just because editors are arguing over them then we would have to delete all articles about contentious topics. Hut 8.5 10:02, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I understand your concerns, but Hut 8.5 is right that we don't usually list an article just because it isn't very good. That being said, I do agree with your POV concerns, but that hasn't really been an issue with the article yet. I agree that the article is terrible, though, and I'm personally not sure how I feel about keeping it. Nonetheless, I'm also going to have to take a pass on listing this one, sorry. I'll drop by and participate if someone does start a new AFD. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 18:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)