76.102.12.35 (talk) |
76.102.12.35 (talk) |
||
Line 609: | Line 609: | ||
== [[Secret Weapon (Working Title)]] == |
== [[Secret Weapon (Working Title)]] == |
||
Needs step |
Needs step 2 completed. [[Special:Contributions/76.102.12.35|76.102.12.35]] ([[User talk:76.102.12.35|talk]]) 21:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC) |
||
:Ditto for [[Blocks to Robots]]. [[Special:Contributions/76.102.12.35|76.102.12.35]] ([[User talk:76.102.12.35|talk]]) 04:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 04:03, 7 February 2010
This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||
|
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 25 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Index
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 25 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Consolidation
Discussion to rename Articles for Deletion to Articles for Discussion and to include disputed merges had very strong support. Discussion on implementing the change is taking place at: Wikipedia:Articles for discussion/Proposal 1
|
---|
Why not rename this to "Articles for Discussion", and then fold Wikipedia:Requested moves, all of the {{Merge}} stuff, {{Prod}}, and possibly some of Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion into one process? I'm sure that there are one or two other process that could easily fit under an "articles for discussion" umbrella, as well. De-emphasizing deletion as the primary mechanism, even if it is only a "psychological" de-emphasis, certainly couldn't hurt anything though. Most importantly however, simplifying and centralizing 4-6 different processes into a single discussion forum could only help all of us as editors, I would think.
Comments
For reasons I've stated further down this page, I believe that deletion and merging discussions should be merged together into Articles for Discussion. I have no strong opinion either way regarding whether requested moves should be folded in or not, but PROD should remain separate. A listing at AfD typically results in lots of eyes seeing the article and often improving it. The same cannot be said of the merge and move procedures that are vastly under participated in. Thryduulf (talk) 12:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC) Follow up statement
Previous discussion
Move a disputed merge to AfD, retitled Articles for DiscussionI very strongly support the proposal that anyone could optionally move a disputed merge to AfD, retitled Articles for Discussion. I base this upon these reasons
I know that a step like this will cause everyone to wonder: what will happen to my favorite type of article, or my least favorite? Will it help me, or my regular opponents? I have not analyzed it this way myself as applies to what I personally like or dislike, for i really do not think that anywhere near as important as a major simplification of process. (I think it might, for example, keep fewer individual articles on aspects of fiction than I would really like. But it would be worth it, in order not to have to continue fighting each one.) I'd rather get a reasonable chance at a simple compromise than get my way if it takes continual arguing and party-formation. I do have some experience disputing at AfDs under the current system, and it is possible I will need to develop new skills--all the better , is what I say. It's time the wiki-debater specialists like me (& my habitual opponents) went on to other things. I'd really like the chance to consider a group of related questions together, with the question not delete/keep, but what can we do best with this set of articles. I recognize this may in one sense bring more matters to AfD--but this will be balanced by not having them elsewhere. And, I'd hope, by disposing of things more rapidly and easily. DGG ( talk ) 06:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC) A focus on individual article decisions
Comments:
--KrebMarkt 10:39, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Closing proposalDoes anyone object to this being closed in a week's time? –Juliancolton | Talk 22:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Merge discussion location criticismI see one discreet criticism above, which seems to be repeated among at least a couple "opposers", is that merger discussions are best discussed on the article talk page. Since this seems to be a common complaint I wanted to pull it out in hope of having a more detailed discussion about it (if there are other similar issues, it would probably be helpful to start a section about them as well). One point that I wanted to make on this issue is fairly simple: The stance is that merge discussions should occur on the talk page, but my question is often which one? I've actually personally run into the problem of needing to choose an appropriate venue for a merger discussion in the past, and I've talked to others who have run into similar issues. Additionally, there are many pages where the number of watchers is either minuscule, or most of those who are watching the page are inactive. We all know that listing an article on AFD increases viewership of the pages being listed, so utilizing a central discussion area logically would seem to help. So, between the "meta" nature of merge discussions themselves (or split discussions, for that matter), and increased attention which would be given to those pages if the AFD system is used, I'm not clear as to what the downside would be.
Implementation discussionOK, most of the discussion seems to have died down. My take on this is that there's general support to move forward, with some caveats about implementation. With that in mind I wanted to start a discussion about possible implementation details, here.
|
Early closures
I was just skimming over some of the current logs, and one thing that I'm noticing is that there are an awful lot of early closures of discussions being made. I don't really want to be critical of this practice, so much as I'm simply curious about the rational for it. Has there been general agreement that this is a widely acceptable practice? The good news is that, based on my cursory view of what's going on, there doesn't seem to be any bias to the early closures. Although... I'm almost tempted to say that they seem too random, which has been a deletion criticism in general for quite a long time now.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 17:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- I haven't followed the latest discussions on this, but IIRC early closures have been frowned upon a bit. If anything, the trend seems to be towards longer discussion with the move from 5 to 7 days for AfD and PROD.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- What do you mean by "early"? SNOW closes, when there's truly no chance of a reversal in the outcome, are generally good, in that they free up people's time and attention for other things. Jclemens (talk) 18:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- well... looking back, I am noticing now that several of them were relisted discussions. Some are "withdrawn" results, as well. There are still a few ostensibly "SNOW" type closures, although what I'm noticing is that the admin(s) who are doing it aren't using that as a justification. I'm not sure that I could argue that the closes are actually wrong in any way either, which is a large part of the reason that I don't want to be critical here. It's just... I don't see what the big hurry is. There's just an uncomfortable sense of hastiness about that I guess I don't understand.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 18:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)- I don't believe that it is possible to close a relisted discussion early. It's had it's seven days, and while a relisting is not sudden-death overtime, any admin can and should go through at any time where a consensus has been reached, or it's clear that no consensus is forming, and close such discussions appropriately. Jclemens (talk) 20:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- Well yea, right, that's why I made a point to mention that I noticed that a good portion of them are relisted. Still, that's not all of them... And, from just glancing at the replies below, thre still seems to be something worth having a conversation about.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 22:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)- There was a discussion last month WT:Deletion process#Made change to relist policy: stay open for 7 days, but it looks like the proposed change was reverted. Some closers may be patrolling Category:Relisted AfD debates. Flatscan (talk) 05:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- Well yea, right, that's why I made a point to mention that I noticed that a good portion of them are relisted. Still, that's not all of them... And, from just glancing at the replies below, thre still seems to be something worth having a conversation about.
- I don't believe that it is possible to close a relisted discussion early. It's had it's seven days, and while a relisting is not sudden-death overtime, any admin can and should go through at any time where a consensus has been reached, or it's clear that no consensus is forming, and close such discussions appropriately. Jclemens (talk) 20:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- well... looking back, I am noticing now that several of them were relisted discussions. Some are "withdrawn" results, as well. There are still a few ostensibly "SNOW" type closures, although what I'm noticing is that the admin(s) who are doing it aren't using that as a justification. I'm not sure that I could argue that the closes are actually wrong in any way either, which is a large part of the reason that I don't want to be critical here. It's just... I don't see what the big hurry is. There's just an uncomfortable sense of hastiness about that I guess I don't understand.
- Worse are the early non-admin closures. They should be banned outright. Abductive (reasoning) 18:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- meh... different subject really, but I personally don't see what the problem is with NAC's, early or otherwise. There's really no good reason that admins should be the only people allowed to close. Wikipedia has eschewed that sort of elitism for a long time, now.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 18:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC) - And if a non-admin closes early because it's become moot (such as the article has been speedily deleted), I can't see any problem there. In fact, I'm not sure that a NAC is problematic per se. If the close would have been proper if an admin did it, it's still a proper close. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- meh... different subject really, but I personally don't see what the problem is with NAC's, early or otherwise. There's really no good reason that admins should be the only people allowed to close. Wikipedia has eschewed that sort of elitism for a long time, now.
- Like Ron Ritzman (talk · contribs), I normally go through the 7-day-old log at 'round 0:00 UTC and relist everything that doesn't have enough participation, and if I see a debate that's a straightforward close, I just close it since I'm already there anyway. Tim Song (talk) 19:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- If every single person says keep, and the nominator withdraws their nomination, admitting they made a mistake, then it should be snow keep. Otherwise, there is no possible excuse for closing it early. Even if the first few people to show up and comment said delete, that doesn't mean other won't find sources and make an article which is kept. I've seen some cases where hordes of people just say delete, without taking the time to click the Google news search at the top, and find plenty of news coverage of the person, thing, or event. Dream Focus 21:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- Nomination withdrawn is technically WP:Speedy keep, criterion 1. Flatscan (talk) 05:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- ... and we've all seen cases where hordes of people say "keep" because they don't take the time to actually read and evaluate their Google searches. But early closes - either way - are no bad thing. Some nominations are clearly speedy deletion candidates, others are clearly mistaken or misinformed nominations. No opinion on non-admin closure, as I know little about it. pablohablo. 22:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- When one I had closed was taken to DRV recently, one of the objections raised was that it had not been allowed its full 7 days; I was relieved to be able to quote the times to show that it had actually had seven days plus a few hours. I think the full time should be allowed, except in SNOW cases, to avoid possible complaints later. JohnCD (talk) 22:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- That's actually a subtly wrong and harmful reason. Once the outcome is clear, process has served its purpose. Wikipedia is neither a bureaucracy nor a court of law. Slavish adherence to process just because someone might object to a process deviation rather than the outcome gives too much power to the complainers. Jclemens (talk) 07:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- This is an interesting reply, I think. I assume that you're stating that the DRV was "subtly wrong and harmful". I understand what you're point is, and I'll even agree to it, but at the same time I can disagree with it as well. I don't think that SNOW itself should be deprecated or anything, but it should be relatively rare. I don't know that using it simply because there have been half a dozen votes which agree with each other is a good thing.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 08:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)- I wouldn't point the finger at the DRV process, just those who start a DRV based on process, rather than outcome. If the !votes are running 20 to 4 with good policy supporting the 20, closing a discussion a day early isn't going to hurt anything, because one more day isn't going to legitimately (i.e. absent canvassing) change anything. Contra Abductive's reasoning below, it's not necessary for every editor to comment, only for enough editors to comment to demonstrate consensus. Jclemens (talk) 17:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- Yea, don't get me wrong here, I think that we generally agree... I just think that even SNOW style closures should be relatively rare is all, even if it's obvious to everyone that doing so would be appropriate. If it's that obvious then leaving it open until day (5, or 7, or whatever) shouldn't really affect anything. One case where I could see a relatively quick SNOW closure being appropriate is for the current event type of articles; generally, articles which are high profile. Perversely though, my sense is that there is an inverse relationship between the profile of an article and the willingness of editors/admins to show initiative and close a discussion (which is probably generally true overall, not only in the case of SNOW type closures). The discussions where there is little if any urgency tend to be closed instead, which is probably where most of my discomfort is coming from, rather then the number of occurrences.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 17:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)- Orly Taitz is a shining example of why Wikipedia sucks at this. One user dragged an AfD discussion out for weeks arguing about process, when the outcome was crystal clear. It's not just "high profile" articles, really, but political articles that seem to garner the most discussions, as if the AfD banner seems to be the desired outcome, warning readers off. That sort of nonsense, gaming the system in violation of WP:BATTLEGROUND, should be ended. But as you rightly point out, admins who do the right thing in such cases are guaranteed a trip to DRV, if not ANI. Jclemens (talk) 20:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- Yea, I see what you're getting at. This is the sort of area where getting into specifics can kind of lead us to trouble, though. The relatively current (if not outright current) articles, especially those with political content, will naturally struggle some with attached emotional issues. Editors are obviously human beings, and aside from the fact that it's really impossible to separate the emotional aspects of topics for people I don't think that editors trying to emulate Spock would be helpful to the project. The thing is, the state of an article right now, or even a month from now, isn't really that important in the scheme of things. That shouldn't be an excuse to do nothing of course, but we should also try to maintain our reactions at a manageable level. That includes preventing crafting policy/procedure that seeks to "fix" or "prevent" the worst case scenarios. As with most things there's a middle ground here somewhere, and that's normally the spot to seek out and inhabit. There's going to be battlegrounding occasionally... it's just going to happen. As long as it's somewhat rare though, as it currently seems to be, then I don't think that it's worth being too concerned about.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 21:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- Yea, I see what you're getting at. This is the sort of area where getting into specifics can kind of lead us to trouble, though. The relatively current (if not outright current) articles, especially those with political content, will naturally struggle some with attached emotional issues. Editors are obviously human beings, and aside from the fact that it's really impossible to separate the emotional aspects of topics for people I don't think that editors trying to emulate Spock would be helpful to the project. The thing is, the state of an article right now, or even a month from now, isn't really that important in the scheme of things. That shouldn't be an excuse to do nothing of course, but we should also try to maintain our reactions at a manageable level. That includes preventing crafting policy/procedure that seeks to "fix" or "prevent" the worst case scenarios. As with most things there's a middle ground here somewhere, and that's normally the spot to seek out and inhabit. There's going to be battlegrounding occasionally... it's just going to happen. As long as it's somewhat rare though, as it currently seems to be, then I don't think that it's worth being too concerned about.
- Orly Taitz is a shining example of why Wikipedia sucks at this. One user dragged an AfD discussion out for weeks arguing about process, when the outcome was crystal clear. It's not just "high profile" articles, really, but political articles that seem to garner the most discussions, as if the AfD banner seems to be the desired outcome, warning readers off. That sort of nonsense, gaming the system in violation of WP:BATTLEGROUND, should be ended. But as you rightly point out, admins who do the right thing in such cases are guaranteed a trip to DRV, if not ANI. Jclemens (talk) 20:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- Yea, don't get me wrong here, I think that we generally agree... I just think that even SNOW style closures should be relatively rare is all, even if it's obvious to everyone that doing so would be appropriate. If it's that obvious then leaving it open until day (5, or 7, or whatever) shouldn't really affect anything. One case where I could see a relatively quick SNOW closure being appropriate is for the current event type of articles; generally, articles which are high profile. Perversely though, my sense is that there is an inverse relationship between the profile of an article and the willingness of editors/admins to show initiative and close a discussion (which is probably generally true overall, not only in the case of SNOW type closures). The discussions where there is little if any urgency tend to be closed instead, which is probably where most of my discomfort is coming from, rather then the number of occurrences.
- I wouldn't point the finger at the DRV process, just those who start a DRV based on process, rather than outcome. If the !votes are running 20 to 4 with good policy supporting the 20, closing a discussion a day early isn't going to hurt anything, because one more day isn't going to legitimately (i.e. absent canvassing) change anything. Contra Abductive's reasoning below, it's not necessary for every editor to comment, only for enough editors to comment to demonstrate consensus. Jclemens (talk) 17:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- This is an interesting reply, I think. I assume that you're stating that the DRV was "subtly wrong and harmful". I understand what you're point is, and I'll even agree to it, but at the same time I can disagree with it as well. I don't think that SNOW itself should be deprecated or anything, but it should be relatively rare. I don't know that using it simply because there have been half a dozen votes which agree with each other is a good thing.
- That's actually a subtly wrong and harmful reason. Once the outcome is clear, process has served its purpose. Wikipedia is neither a bureaucracy nor a court of law. Slavish adherence to process just because someone might object to a process deviation rather than the outcome gives too much power to the complainers. Jclemens (talk) 07:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- Any AfD that is remotely controversial should be allowed 7 days, or more. I want to see it appear on the list of open discussions in the Old Discussions section. If it is closed early, especially by a non-admin, it means that I may not have a chance to comment. I am a member of the Wikipedia community, and if I am not given a chance to comment on controversial nominations, it means that community input is not respected. Abductive (reasoning) 07:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- Abductive's point is a good one. Here is another: For the sake of the argument suppose there are exactly two kinds of admins, those who follow the rules precisely and those who don't care about rules and always do what they want. Then almost all AfDs will be closed by admins of the second kind. I find the thought very worrying.
- I wonder if there is a technical solution. Could we have a template for AfDs that displays "This discussion will be open for another x days and yy:zz hours. Under normal circumstances it should not be closed earlier." And once the time is over it says: "This discussion can be closed by an admin." Hans Adler 19:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- This would require the AFD template to become a dated template, like Dated Prod, and have a subst'd wrapper template around it, like Prod. But it could be done, yes. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- This sounds like something that would be worth exploring, to me.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 20:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC) - As {{afd2}} is already subst:'d, this wouldn't be technically difficult. However, I think it might lend too much to the argument that an AfD should last at least 604800 seconds, and we'd like to avoid being too wonky here if possible. Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- This sounds like something that would be worth exploring, to me.
- Disagree with this. Too much process wonkery. PROD uses uncontested time, XfD lasts until a clear consensus is achieved. Apples and oranges, folks. Jclemens (talk) 20:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- Last time we discussed this there were a lot of admins active closing AfDs with no clear consensus half a day before they were due. I considered that a problem. If that no longer happens it's fine. I have no idea because I rarely follow AfD. Hans Adler 21:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- I don't really understand this criticism. I don't see how having something on a timer of some sort equates to "process wonkery". ...accepting the "XfD lasts until a clear consensus is achieved" statement at face value, we could remove all references to time from the process, literally continuing the discussion until someone closes it. That may be worth at least thinking about as well (although, I think that having a deadline of some sort actually helps the process, overall).
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 21:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)- PROD is entirely based on three things: 1) nominator nominates, 2) no one else contests for one week, and 3) closing admin's judgment and eligibility verification.
- XfD is based on 1) Nomination rationale, 2) 0..N additional !votes supplied by other editors, and 3) an admin's interpretation of the rough consensus, which is generally judged at about 7 days, but may happen sooner or later.
- You see how the time element is vastly different in importance between the two? Jclemens (talk) 21:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- Honestly? Not really, no. I mean, I understand what you're saying, and... well, that view may be an ideal, but my impression is that is not the manner which most people view XfD (I will admit to some bias here however, since I don't share the view that the above is ideal). Abductive certainly doesn't seem to share the view that the time element is so soft. I could overlook it if that view seemed to be rare, but I think that convincingly framing it as a fringe view would be challenging. More importantly though, the instructions on the front of this page are not nearly as soft regarding the time element as you seem to be making is out to be.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 09:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- Honestly? Not really, no. I mean, I understand what you're saying, and... well, that view may be an ideal, but my impression is that is not the manner which most people view XfD (I will admit to some bias here however, since I don't share the view that the above is ideal). Abductive certainly doesn't seem to share the view that the time element is so soft. I could overlook it if that view seemed to be rare, but I think that convincingly framing it as a fringe view would be challenging. More importantly though, the instructions on the front of this page are not nearly as soft regarding the time element as you seem to be making is out to be.
- This would require the AFD template to become a dated template, like Dated Prod, and have a subst'd wrapper template around it, like Prod. But it could be done, yes. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
- I totally agree, and posted below to say exactly the same thing! AfDs are being closed a day early for no apparent reason other than impatience. I've already asked one admin to reopen one they closed over a day early, and I will start administering trouts soon. Fences&Windows 02:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- I've only closed those of December 6 (on the 13th (UTC)), not those of December 7 (and those of the 5th on the 12th) and I close only those of which they are a clear consensus which has no chance of switch directions - otherwise I keep them open or I relist them (if there isn't enough discussion). Closing clear consensus discussions basically at the start of Day 7 (00:00 UTC) like some other admins shouldn't be much of an issue. It's very doubtful that a 5-0 or 10-0 deletion vote would reverse in just a matter of a couple of hours. --JForget 15:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- I think that you've inadvertently highlighted the problem that we're attempting to point out here. It should only take one well thought out !vote, one way or another, to decide things. This idea that "well, it was 10-0 so obviously this can be closed" is just... bad. I mean, 99.9% of the time you're not really doing anything that will make a difference, but there's also (normally) 0 cost to leaving things until the normal discussion period has ended (some obvious exceptions should of course be made, for essentially speedy closures). Not treating AFD as a vote is important because it keeps editors from becoming super-emotional about things more so then treating every discussion on the merits of the arguments. When you create a voting situation that leads to panicked editors, which leads to competativeness and canvassing, and really just bad blood all around. Leaving AFD's open won't solve those problems, but it will certainly prevent that sort of a problem.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 21:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- I think that you've inadvertently highlighted the problem that we're attempting to point out here. It should only take one well thought out !vote, one way or another, to decide things. This idea that "well, it was 10-0 so obviously this can be closed" is just... bad. I mean, 99.9% of the time you're not really doing anything that will make a difference, but there's also (normally) 0 cost to leaving things until the normal discussion period has ended (some obvious exceptions should of course be made, for essentially speedy closures). Not treating AFD as a vote is important because it keeps editors from becoming super-emotional about things more so then treating every discussion on the merits of the arguments. When you create a voting situation that leads to panicked editors, which leads to competativeness and canvassing, and really just bad blood all around. Leaving AFD's open won't solve those problems, but it will certainly prevent that sort of a problem.
- I've only closed those of December 6 (on the 13th (UTC)), not those of December 7 (and those of the 5th on the 12th) and I close only those of which they are a clear consensus which has no chance of switch directions - otherwise I keep them open or I relist them (if there isn't enough discussion). Closing clear consensus discussions basically at the start of Day 7 (00:00 UTC) like some other admins shouldn't be much of an issue. It's very doubtful that a 5-0 or 10-0 deletion vote would reverse in just a matter of a couple of hours. --JForget 15:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- There is no way to tell when a good argument one way or other will come, and change the issue. Unless this is really definitive, the closing admin should probably do better to relist and let it be fully discussed--what appears to solve the problem one way or the other may after all be wrong, Perhaps the best tule for SNOW is the rule for IAR, that nobody could reasonably object. A objection from a WPedian acting in good faith to a snow is sufficient cause to re-open, and perhaps that should be explicit in the policy. DGG ( talk ) 03:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
WP:SNOW is no longer a satisfactory reason to close an AfD early. The criteria for early closure are given in WP:Speedy delete and WP:Speedy keep as per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_an_AfD_discussion_is_closed. If the early close criteria are not met, then the case stays open for the full seven days. There's never any harm done in letting an AfD run for the full seven days, but problems can occur when discussions are closed too soon. If someone is seen closing too early, then a gentle tap on the shoulder to indicate WP:NotEarly might be helpful. SilkTork *YES! 00:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- SNOW is not not-applicable. SNOW is an IAR implementation, and as such it never needs local endorsement to be applicable, nor can it be made non-applicable without de-policy-ifying IAR. Jclemens (talk) 00:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- There may be sensible reasons to close an AfD early which are not given in WP:NotEarly, in which case IAR would apply. But SNOW is not one of those reasons. IAR does not apply if the activity is detrimental to the project. Closing an AfD early under SNOW is detrimental to the project. And bear in mind that an aspect of SNOW that people forget is: "when in doubt allow discussions to take place"! SilkTork *YES! 00:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- "This page is not a policy or guideline itself; it is intended as a guide to a specific application of Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and Ignore All Rules." That's the first text on WP:SNOW. Closing AfD's once consensus has been thoroughly established is beneficial to the project; calling it detrimental is nonsensical. Anyone asserting that a SNOW closure is improper must assert in good faith and with a straight face that the consensus hadn't been thoroughly established. Assertions that simply "not following process" harm the project fly in the face of WP:BURO. Jclemens (talk) 01:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- There may be sensible reasons to close an AfD early which are not given in WP:NotEarly, in which case IAR would apply. But SNOW is not one of those reasons. IAR does not apply if the activity is detrimental to the project. Closing an AfD early under SNOW is detrimental to the project. And bear in mind that an aspect of SNOW that people forget is: "when in doubt allow discussions to take place"! SilkTork *YES! 00:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
SNOW closures are bad if it is not the case that all interested parties have had a chance to participate. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- A chance to participate? To the extent that a SNOW close denies someone a chance to influence consensus, I agree, but the point of discussions is consensus-achievement. If consensus has clearly been achieved, then there is no further benefit to discussion; if consensus has not been achieved, then discussion should continue until it has been achieved. We don't set arbitrary minimum time frames in defiance of IAR, we do what's right for the encyclopedia. Jclemens (talk) 06:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- I just wanted to say that I completely support SilkTork here. There seems to be plenty of commentary above to support such a change (although admittedly half of it is my own, so I'm hardly "uninvolved"). I particularly do not find the "SNOW is an IAR implementation" to be convincing. That may be, and indeed is true, but it doesn't really address the various arguments here.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 03:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)- SilkTork's not wrong in his general thoughts; the only error is trying to legislate not IAR'ing. SNOW is a license to do the right thing, just like IAR is. If people are misusing it and winding up doing the wrong thing, then the problem is with that admin's conduct, not SNOW. Jclemens (talk) 06:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- We could decide to adjust the wording, then. Any suggestions?
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 16:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- We could decide to adjust the wording, then. Any suggestions?
- SilkTork's not wrong in his general thoughts; the only error is trying to legislate not IAR'ing. SNOW is a license to do the right thing, just like IAR is. If people are misusing it and winding up doing the wrong thing, then the problem is with that admin's conduct, not SNOW. Jclemens (talk) 06:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I realize I'm coming in a little late to this discussion but figured I might throw in my own few cents. One thing to keep in mind is that Wikipedia is essentially a volunteer-run project; if someone is volunteering their time in the form of closing a few AfD discussions, it is unreasonable to expect them to be fastidious about checking timestamps to make sure exactly 7 days have passed. If we are talking about an early closure on the magnitude of a few hours, it's really no big deal and anyone who is willing to contest a closure on those grounds alone needs to have their head checked. It is a different story if we are speaking of closures more than, say, one day early. These cases would require some kind of special rationale for the early closure, as I don't buy the argument that someone was just surfing around AfD logs a day early and decided to close a few obvious cases. Discussions whose outcome is so painfully obvious that continued discussion would be a waste of time might reasonably be closed early, but I suspect this would happen within the first several hours of the discussion; I can't think of any good reason people should be closing things a day or two early. Shereth 15:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- I agree that the closure of discussions a few hours early is hardly a problem. What I myself had noticed, and I think a few others noticed, is that there were some closures which were occurring days in advance (The 3-4 day mark seems to gather a lot of early closes, for whatever reason). I personally don't have an issue with most early closures where the nominator wishes to withdraw, which is something that I think we probably ought to be more sensitive towards (with the obvious caveat that nom withdrawal shouldn't affect a widespread discussion). What bugs me is the "there are X votes, all to [keep/delete]. SNOW closed as [keep/delete]." That doesn't happen too often, but I don't think it's helpful when it does happen. I guess that I just don't see any discussion here as being a "waste of time".
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 16:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)- Out of curiosity, why don't you think it's helpful? I've pointed out above how some editors have used AfD tags as political weapons against articles they don't like, vehemently insisting on "no early closure!" in the face of overwhelming demonstration of notability. That's certainly at least one downside to the "no SNOWing closes early!" viewpoint. I favor a full and thorough discussion until consensus has clearly been achieved--which doesn't just mean someone pulls ahead, but that the vast majority of editors making policy-based arguments have agreed to something--but after that point, what is the real benefit to encyclopedia-building? At best, there's a second order effect of some folks arguing against consensus feeling better about getting their say. Jclemens (talk) 22:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
- There's a difference between that and SNOW closing discussions after two or three days. That's with SNOW closing frowned upon in general. Some of these are people who have been admins for years, and they need others to remind them not to do that? Yes, supporting the snowball clause may end unnecessarily long discussions, but it would likely result in discussions being closed after a couple of days just because, for instance the first five out of six people to comment on the discussion happen to say delete. SwarmTalk 06:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- Out of curiosity, why don't you think it's helpful? I've pointed out above how some editors have used AfD tags as political weapons against articles they don't like, vehemently insisting on "no early closure!" in the face of overwhelming demonstration of notability. That's certainly at least one downside to the "no SNOWing closes early!" viewpoint. I favor a full and thorough discussion until consensus has clearly been achieved--which doesn't just mean someone pulls ahead, but that the vast majority of editors making policy-based arguments have agreed to something--but after that point, what is the real benefit to encyclopedia-building? At best, there's a second order effect of some folks arguing against consensus feeling better about getting their say. Jclemens (talk) 22:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
How effective is the merge decision?
We have several hundred articles that got closed as "merge", and are still open. Some of these, such as Paul Blakely (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch, have not been edited for two months, and even have a stub message saying "You can help Wikipedia by expanding it." This seems to me to indicate that the merge decision is often ineffective. I assume that's because it's easy for people to say "merge" in an AfD, but it's harder to actually do the work. Is there a way to encourage people to actually help with the merge when they voted for it? Or do we need to rely on a technical solution, such as a bot that automatically changes such pages into a redirect after, say, a month? — Sebastian 17:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- I concur. A bot must go through and redirect all such articles after a set period of time, perhaps two months. Then anybody who wants to merge will have to look in the article history, but other than that slight inconvenience, no harm will be incurred. Abductive (reasoning) 17:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- So, fix it! I'm not sure what the problem is. If there's been a decision to merge two (or more) articles, and it bothers you that it hasn't been done, then go ahead and merge them.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 18:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)- The scale of the problem has expanded in recent months. Admins seem to have taken to using the template instead of doing the merge/redirect as was the practice in the past. Abductive (reasoning) 18:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure that the template pair (to/from) has been in common use for at least a year. According to its documentation, User:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD supported them in early versions in September 2008. The templates themselves date back to October 2005. Flatscan (talk) 05:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- Well, OK, I can understand the point that it may have recently become significantly different. However, there's nothing to say that the admin closing the discussion should be required to take action, especially when it comes to a task that anyone can do without any special privileges. As a matter of fact, in the past I've kicked around an idea of making it policy that the person closing the discussion should not actually performed the consensus decision, as a sort of check to ensure impartiality. The point being, if you're interested in resolving the problem, you don't need any special privilege, and you already have the AFD decision to back up your action, so get to work.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 18:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)- I agree that we should not require anyone to do the merge. This project is based on volunteers; Wikipedia has grown by allowing people to work on topics they're passionate about. But neither should we forbid anyone from doing so. The last thing we need is a policy that forbids people from doing necessary work. The reason I brought this up was not to gain more policies and restrictions, but first of all to find out if we really have a problem; and if we agree that there is one, find an encouraging way to solve it. — Sebastian 19:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- Note that I never actually proposed the above... The main point is that mergers do not require administrative privilege or sanction, and the AFD discussion(s) should certainly provide a demonstration of consensus towards performing the merger. So, back to the original point, just fix it and we won't have a backlog.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 21:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- Note that I never actually proposed the above... The main point is that mergers do not require administrative privilege or sanction, and the AFD discussion(s) should certainly provide a demonstration of consensus towards performing the merger. So, back to the original point, just fix it and we won't have a backlog.
- I agree that we should not require anyone to do the merge. This project is based on volunteers; Wikipedia has grown by allowing people to work on topics they're passionate about. But neither should we forbid anyone from doing so. The last thing we need is a policy that forbids people from doing necessary work. The reason I brought this up was not to gain more policies and restrictions, but first of all to find out if we really have a problem; and if we agree that there is one, find an encouraging way to solve it. — Sebastian 19:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- The scale of the problem has expanded in recent months. Admins seem to have taken to using the template instead of doing the merge/redirect as was the practice in the past. Abductive (reasoning) 18:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Suggestion: Use a bot to tack the merged article on to the end of the article to which it is being merged, tacking in the edit history as required, IIRC. Then ask an editor to fairly ruthlessly conjoin the two articles, deleting all duplicated material. Tag the new article as being in need of copyediting. This may bve simplistic, but it is the only way to actually force the articles out of perpetual status quo ante positions. Collect (talk) 22:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- Ugh, no. That kind of thing would be worse then doing nothing (And incidentally, that's the sort of "solution" that I think most people fear arising out of these discussions).
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 22:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)- I agree with V=IR. This is certainly not "the only way to actually force the articles out of perpetual status quo ante positions". Simply only changing the discussed articles to a redirect does that, too - without leaving anything in a state that has to be cleaned up. As Abductive said above, that also does not preclude the merge. — Sebastian 22:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- Might you tell me what a redirect actually merges? Collect (talk) 23:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- It brings two article titles into one article. Even if no text is copied, those looking for the content associated with "title a" are brought to the content at "title b", which should be very closely related to what the reader is looking for.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 00:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- It brings two article titles into one article. Even if no text is copied, those looking for the content associated with "title a" are brought to the content at "title b", which should be very closely related to what the reader is looking for.
- Might you tell me what a redirect actually merges? Collect (talk) 23:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with V=IR. This is certainly not "the only way to actually force the articles out of perpetual status quo ante positions". Simply only changing the discussed articles to a redirect does that, too - without leaving anything in a state that has to be cleaned up. As Abductive said above, that also does not preclude the merge. — Sebastian 22:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- I think what it most demonstrates is that nobody cares for or about these articles. Abductive (reasoning) 23:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- You might have a point there, but then there's the corollary: if no action is actually taken, then is there any action needed? Why was the article brought to AFD is the nominator doesn't care enough to take care of it him/herself?
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 00:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)- The answer to your question is not so hard: It's not unlikely that an editor who doesn't care about an article would nominate it for deletion. And when a result isn't what one wanted, it's natural to just move on and forget about it. It's harder to understand the contrarollary: Why did the !majority !vote "merge" if they don't care enough to merge? — Sebastian 01:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- If you take either issue to an extreme then that will obviously create larger problems. Draw either point out enough, and it's easy to get to the point where we may as well just shut down AFD completely (which, to be honest, I wouldn't mind too much. I'm simply not dogmatic about it, and I'm realistic enough to know that such a view isn't constructive). It just seem to me that attempting to hold people somewhat accountable for their actions couldn't hurt, here. Start (politely) pinging the people who started the AFD's to clean up after themselves.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 01:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- If you take either issue to an extreme then that will obviously create larger problems. Draw either point out enough, and it's easy to get to the point where we may as well just shut down AFD completely (which, to be honest, I wouldn't mind too much. I'm simply not dogmatic about it, and I'm realistic enough to know that such a view isn't constructive). It just seem to me that attempting to hold people somewhat accountable for their actions couldn't hurt, here. Start (politely) pinging the people who started the AFD's to clean up after themselves.
- The answer to your question is not so hard: It's not unlikely that an editor who doesn't care about an article would nominate it for deletion. And when a result isn't what one wanted, it's natural to just move on and forget about it. It's harder to understand the contrarollary: Why did the !majority !vote "merge" if they don't care enough to merge? — Sebastian 01:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- You might have a point there, but then there's the corollary: if no action is actually taken, then is there any action needed? Why was the article brought to AFD is the nominator doesn't care enough to take care of it him/herself?
Merge is seen as "Somebody Else's Problem". The admin doesn't care enough; they're just closing it. The nominator wanted it gone, so they don't want to do work to retain the material. The keepers resent the merge decision, so ignore it. I've closed some AfDs as merge, and sometimes I do it myself and other times I poke a WikiProject or !voter to see if they can follow through. Mergers are a very neglected part of the project. Fences&Windows 01:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- That's an interesting connection. So, do you feel that this is generally important to Wikipedia as a group? When you look at a random sample of the hundreds of backed up mergers, what do you see as more important: (1) That we don't have deletable articles sitting around, or (2) that part of the deletable article gets merged into the target? That informs who we might get interested in doing the merge. — Sebastian 02:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps the reason that so many articles haven't been merged is because a merge is actually a really, really bad idea for them. The first example I was able to find I potentially would've taken on, if it didn't require me to essentially delete the subject of the AFD discussion anyway - most of it is just unreferenced OR, which is hardly welcome in the main article. Take a look at Comparison of Australian and Canadian governments, which is supposed to be merged into Australia-Canada relations. That may look perfectly acceptable from an AFD point of view, but look at the articles themselves. Australia-Canada relations already lacks references and is too long for its sections (potentially requiring article splits?), while the Comparison article has only a few references and mostly consists of original research. So why on earth would anybody in their right mind want to merge those two articles, as well as their issues, together? The question needs to be posed at the close of an AFD: is merge really the best idea for these articles? SMC (talk) 05:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- You make a number of interesting points, above all "The question needs to be posed at the close of an AFD." Currently, when an AfD gets closed, there's no discussion anymore, it gets archived right away. Are you proposing that an admin who closes with a resolution for which there was no reason given (as was the case with "merge" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of Australian and Canadian governments, where there were only two opinions for it that were not backed up with a reason), then the closing admin should write something like "I propose to do x (e.g. merge) because of y. Are there any reasons against it?" — Sebastian 00:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- That is an example of how AfD sometimes fails to consider all issues properly. A no consensus might have been better. Flatscan (talk) 05:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- If that is so, then there's no harm done. The result is almost the same: The two articles remain independent. The only difference is that the have the merge template. — Sebastian 00:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- Depending on who you ask, they may be slightly different: if the merger is disputed, no consensus favors the preexisting separate articles, while merge dictates that the most recent consensus was for a combined article. Flatscan (talk) 05:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- If that is so, then there's no harm done. The result is almost the same: The two articles remain independent. The only difference is that the have the merge template. — Sebastian 00:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- Mergers in general (WP:Proposed mergers) often sit indefinitely. A specific example was raised a few months ago at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive202#AFD results in merger. This is not necessarily an issue because WP:There is no deadline. I sometimes help editors attribute mergers, but I rarely do them myself, as they may be easily reverted. Flatscan (talk) 05:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- So you would rather say that it's not a problem? Initially I thought it was, but nobody has really made the case for it, so maybe it's a non-issue. — Sebastian 00:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- The situation is not ideal, but it's not urgent either. I think that the solution is individual editors fixing individual articles, or maybe a task force, but not some sort of process. Flatscan (talk) 05:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- So you would rather say that it's not a problem? Initially I thought it was, but nobody has really made the case for it, so maybe it's a non-issue. — Sebastian 00:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- Merging is like exercise. Everyone says its important and they should do more of it, but it seems like such a pain that instead we talk about it more than we do. Then, when someone finally gets around to doing some, its suprising how little effort and time it actually takes, and how satisfying the result is. --NickPenguin(contribs) 16:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- :-) Well, maybe you're an athletic type, then. It takes me usually longer than I think. This one e.g. took me 1.5 hours, and this one two. I agree, though, that it provides a nice satisfaction. — Sebastian 00:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- As a proponent of the deletion of every single sony erricson phone model article (which got changed into merge) once, I can't help but say that the merge decision is one that is very weak. As the one wanting it deleted, I have no interest in combining 50+ articles into a working table. The admin doesn't care, nor does the keep votes. It's the reason why I don't bother attacking CRUFT anymore on wikipedia, because the matter is that unnecessary forks will be kept on wikipedia due to the inherent inconvenience of deleting hundreds of articles. Combining just 2 articles takes a considerable amount of time. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 07:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- :-) Well, maybe you're an athletic type, then. It takes me usually longer than I think. This one e.g. took me 1.5 hours, and this one two. I agree, though, that it provides a nice satisfaction. — Sebastian 00:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- O lordy, that's a mess. I've just marked it, and will get down to sorting that in the next couple of days. It's actually not as hard as it looks, because the specified target of List of Sony Ericsson models is incorrect. That target should be redirected to the duplicate List of Sony Ericsson products, which - you will note - already has all the models down for merging listed. Essentially it's a matter of redirecting each article to the appropriate section in that List. Though why somebody would want such a list, when the company themselves provide a highly detailed one - [1]. Hmmm. Is this actually a case for doing another AfD? SilkTork *YES! 00:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
AfD nomination of over 100 Alberta place articles
From WP:ANI:
A total of 110 articles on settlements in Alberta, Canada have been nominated for deletion - see Category:AfD_debates_(Places_and_transportation). It is generally held that settlements are sufficiently notable enough to sustain an article. What's the best way to deal with these? Mjroots (talk) 18:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- Say so at AfD and asked that they be speedy closed. If there is a continuing dispute after that, other than DRV, then I guess you may need to come back here. It does seem excessive, but it is best addressed at AfD.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- IMO these should at least have been bundled, but then it would be hard to close them as I know of no script that can close a bundled AfD and do the necessary work on each article. It would have been prudent to nom a couple as test cases before flooding the AfD log like this. Timotheus Canens (talk) 18:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- NAC'd a few as speedy keep where the nom has withdrawn the deletion request. Timotheus Canens (talk) 18:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- The problem is, there's over a hundred of them. This is creating a ton of unnecessary busywork for both editors and administrators who will have to sort through all of them and close them when we could be spending our efforts editing and improving articles. We're all volunteers. Can't speak for all editors, but responding to over a hundred settlement AfDs is not how I want to spend my free time in a week. It all looks like a good-faith case of WP:POINT. --Oakshade (talk) 18:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- Unless there were more severe circumstances, or repetitions, not going to block anyone. Blocking is not punishment, it is preventative. If there have been withdrawals, obviously someone has figured out that he's goofed. If he moves on to Saskatchewan, let us know. I don't condone it, but there's no administrative action that is going to make things better.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think blocking is necessary either. However, I propose that we procedurally close all of the AfDs that only contain the boilerplate nom and two equally boilerplate !votes. The remaining few can serve as the test cases, and after those are closed at the end of the 7-day period the nom can renominate the procedurally closed ones if the consensus is in their favor. Timotheus Canens (talk) 19:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps decide that at WT:AFD or something?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
~ANI discussion ends here~
- Thoughts? Timotheus Canens (talk) 19:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- The nominator has been asked to withdraw all noms bar a couple. Suggest we allow him 24hrs to respond. If the suggestion isn't taken up I suggest all article are closed as procedural/snow/speedy keep (whichever fit the bill best). Mjroots (talk) 19:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- It looks like the nominator has confused incorporation with notability and perhaps is unaware of the many excellent reasons why a municipality in Alberta might choose not to incorporate. I also see some communities in that list that cannot legally be incorporated because they're in Indian reservations and others that were likely incorporated in the past and which have a long and well-documented history. That provincial list is an excellent source with respect to which communities are incorporated in the year of issue, but to think that it can be used as a bright-line notability test ignores the realities of Alberta municipal government, the general notability requirements, and AFD custom. --NellieBly (talk) 22:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Just close them all. The consensus seems to be clear that most if not all of these settlements are eligble for mention in Wikipedia, based on different grounds. Having this many open at the same time only causes disruption and drama. --Reinoutr (talk) 15:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- I closed them all. Places are inherently notable although I personally think its a stupid rule and clutters the pedia up with millions of empty stubs that will never grow, its a long standing consensus and there will be no meaningful discussion following such a mass nomination. Spartaz Humbug! 16:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. --Reinoutr (talk) 20:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Please help me complete AfD
Tag added at Andrew_Lawton. Similar non-notable biography was deleted in 2006. Can a registered editor please complete the process for me? 67.193.129.239 (talk) 05:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- Done Please try to provide your rationale on the discussion itself at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Lawton (2nd nomination) soon or it may be closed as a speedy keep, as I have not provided a rationale myself. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 08:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Clinton Houses
Needs completion of step 2. 98.248.32.44 (talk) 22:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Template add links to notability guidelines based on the subject type
Similar to Template:AfD categories, I suggest a template that add links to notability guidelines in the AFD discussions based on the subject type. Sole Soul (talk) 15:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Needs completion of step 2. AfD rationale can be found on the article talk page. 98.248.32.44 (talk) 23:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Needs to have step 2 completed. 98.248.32.44 (talk) 05:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- Done SMC (talk) 08:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Step 2, please. 98.248.32.44 (talk) 20:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- Done and article creator notified (though he has not edited for three years). JohnCD (talk) 20:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
- 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)- 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)
- So who sees that talk page? --NickPenguin(contribs) 15:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- So who sees that talk page? --NickPenguin(contribs) 15:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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.
Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Recurring characters in the Tomb Raider game series
- Can someone convert Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Recurring characters in the Tomb Raider game series to a regular nomination page? IP editors still can't use AfD properly because of the page creation problem... 70.29.211.138 (talk) 06:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- Done: it is now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Recurring characters in the Tomb Raider game series. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
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)
- Done. Cheers. lifebaka++ 18:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Thank you very much for that link.
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Completely agree with your revert, Fram's initial wording of a suggestion was definitely more appropriate. –SpacemanSpiff 08:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)- 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)
- 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)
- How many editors are you talking about here, and what are the percentages? pablohablo. 20:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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'.
- 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. [2] [3] [4] [5] 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)
- 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)
- Nor I. pablohablo. 20:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Agreed.
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 15:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC) - 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)
- Agreed.
- 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)
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)
Done ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 13:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks GB, 66.57.4.150 (talk) 17:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Cheers I'll see to that.Slatersteven (talk) 19:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
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)
- Absent any objection (or support!) I have made this change. pablohablo. 17:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
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)
- Done. Cheers. lifebaka++ 06:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
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)
- 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)- The relevant template is {{Delrevafd}}. Flatscan (talk) 04:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with Meco. No need for "should".
- The relevant template is {{Delrevafd}}. Flatscan (talk) 04:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- When a discussion has been closed and someone requests a deletion review, please amended the AfD page with a link to the review.
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
A move
Please see WT:Deletion today. Simply south (talk) 14:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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.
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)- 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)
- 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...
Needs step 2 completed. 76.102.12.35 (talk) 21:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- Ditto for Blocks to Robots. 76.102.12.35 (talk) 04:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)