Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion

Complexity of AFD (RFC)

I think that our articles for deletion process has suffered greatly from the effects of instruction creep. Following the processes laid out on the WP:AFD page to list an article, there are somewhere around 30 steps (once you count all the substeps) to listing an article for deletion. I'm raising the following points to establish the scope of the problem before I try to go anywhere with any proposals. Triona (talk) 19:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

1) The articles for deletion process requires specialized knowledge to follow correctly

In the processes for listing and closing AFD discussion are very detailed steps above and beyond the actual standards for which articles may be deleted. These steps require specialized knowledge because they require exact use of templates (at least 5 in total) and edit summaries to correctly follow the process, and a very specific set of steps. Triona (talk) 19:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

2) The articles for deletion process is so complex that even experienced editors usually employ additional tools just to navigate the process

There exist automated tools to open and close AFDs because most experienced editors find the Articles for Deletion process cumbersome and unwieldy. These tools may not be readily available to less experienced contributors because they simply do not know they are there. Triona (talk) 19:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

3) Just because there is a tool to simplify a process does not mean the underlying process is not complex

The existence of tools like twinkle should not be a defense of a processes complexity. "Oh just use Twinkle" shouldn't be the end of this discussion because Twinkle only masks the underlying complexity and in any case, isn't present in the default interface. Triona (talk) 19:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

• support 1, 2, and 3. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 19:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support all three... but so what? What point are you trying to make? I routinely see people who ignore the parts of the instructions they don't like, I routinely see people making arguments that aren't supported by policy, and I routinely see terrible administrator closes... yet we still somehow continue to muddle along. Given that there's complexity, what's the proposal to "fix it" and what's the desired outcome? Jclemens (talk) 21:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

  I honestly don't know what the answers are, but from similar discussions, once you start offering solutions people start saying there's not a problem. So the first step is to establish that there is a problem and what the extent of it is - once that's settled, then you can start talking about what options exist to fix it, and whether or not those "solutions" just add to the problem. Triona (talk) 21:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) I am with Jclemens, too. What end results are expected from this RfC? That the developers create a more automated, intuitive interface? that we scrap some of the "instructions"? that a cadre of people are assigned as "afdgnomes" to tidy up every incomplete/malfomated submission? Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 21:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

As I see it, this discussion is about good housekeeping. One shouldn't let a process grow forever. At some point it becomes necessary to evaluate which parts, if any, can be streamlined or even removed. Hans Adler 11:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• support 1, 2, and 3. , I agree but I've raised this discussion before and its not led to anything. I've also participated in much of these discussions again but it still doesn't lead nowhere. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 21:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Although I agree with the statement of facts. Support all three. I see other editors fixing malformed AfDs, and creating AfDs as proxy for others that can't or don't know how. I even fixed one recently. Although it's not intentional, one benefit is that newbies usually don't take articles to AfD. It takes a while to understand the process, and more importantly, the reasons behind the process. So while I agree it's complex, I see no real reason to change the process yet. If it becomes so easy that anyone can simply push a single button, we will, I'm afraid, wind up with a slew of articles that get sent to AfD because they are the subject of a content disagreement, for example. — Becksguy (talk) 22:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the complexity of the process ensures it's detailed and thorough? -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me

That kinda what I was implying, but didn't express as well as you did. — Becksguy (talk) 01:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose: I don't think there are 30 stages as mentioned above. Three stages to complete a nomination plus notifying the creator and major contributors. The process needs to be more rigorous than CSD or PROD. The main problems that I see are inadequate arguments as mentioned by Jclemens, and faulty closures by admins who don't assess the discussion properly. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Counting preliminary steps and substeps, there are somewhere around 30 steps. 12 preliminary steps that we ask people to do, and anywhere from 5 to 10 substeps for each of the actual 3 major steps. Triona (talk) 05:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with the statements of facts, but what is the solution? For me, twinkle is the answer to the complexity of AfD (also note that AfD, MfD, CfD, DRV, are all different and require different processes). Protonk (talk) 07:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
• I recall Uncle G saying that AFD was made deliberately non-trivial so that the process would not be engaged too lightly. Scripting tools like Twinkle have tended to subvert this but I'm not sure if the volume or quality of nominations has been affected. Are there any statistics? Colonel Warden (talk) 08:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• Not sure if it is deliberate or not but IMHO this is one area where instruction creep is a good thing. Here's what I said when this was brought up at WT:DELPRO last year. IMHO getting an article deleted should be "hard". We are here to create articles, not make them go away. However, sometimes an article has to be deleted and we have policies and guidelines that state when we must do that. Having to learn those policies, guidelines, and what hoops to jump through to propose an article for deletion keeps the load on AFD manageable. If we had a convenient "button" for proposing an article for deletion that any passerby can push if they think an article "sucks", we'd likely have a thousand or more AFDs a day. In short, if you want to make articles go away, then do your homework. However, I can also see the other side of this too. Every evening when I do my relist run on the closable AFD log I am fixing at least one malformed AFD close, some of them from otherwise experienced admins. Therefore, I am not opposed to some automation. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, we are not here to "create articles". We are here to create an encyclopedia. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 19:45, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose all three. I don't use tools to nominate articles for AfD, and have never done so (not even on renominations and mass nominations). WP:AFD is a handy guide to help you through the process, which uses three templates (not five). Other things aren't necessary (notifying the creator or anyone else is considered to be good, but I usually don't do this with AfD's, and the edit summaries don't need to be followed either, just use good, descriptive ones: I go with 'nominated for deletion', 'first deletion reason', and finally the name of the article at the daily log). The steps to take before nominating for deletion are just good advice: people should be aware that they shouldn't list an article because e.g. they believe the subject to be offensive, or because it is only of interest to Asians, or whatever misguided reason they may have. People should also be aware that there are other deletion processes, like speedy. Basically, only the three templated steps need to be done carefully: everything else, like WP:BEFORE and so on, just need to be treated with some common sense and personal preference. The only thing I see that could be a useful simplification is that anytime an AfD page is created, it is somehow automatically added to the daily log. Fram (talk) 10:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose It should be a multiple step process to AfD an article. If an editor (especially a newbie) has strong feelings that an article deserves AfD, she/he is more likely to go through the process. Making it too easy would enable people to just nominate AfD willy-nilly.

On a side note, navigating through the AfD space (everything, not just the instructions) is a bit of a nightmare. I saw an article that was AfD'd but there was no link provided to the discussion page, so I just went to WP:AfD figuring I could easily find it listed since I knew the date it was nominated. I finally found it, but only after wading through a mess of instruction manuals and categories. But that's is probably a discussion for another day :) The Eskimo (talk) 19:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Clarification I'm trying to approach this in stages to keep a rational and productive discussion. Fact finding on the current state of things is where this is at right now. The reasoning behind doing fact-finding first is that we shouldn't be looking for solutions before understanding problems. Certainly, some of the complexity in AFD is necessary, and that should also be examined. I foresee this conversation going through many rounds of discussion before we even look at solutions. I've also avoided using the phrase "too complex" in this round of fact finding because, quite frankly, the complexity may be entirely necessary and desirable. The questions right now are essentially to establish the level of complexity and confusion. Any solutions right now would be solutions in search of a problem. The next stage of this discussion, if it gets that far, will probably consist of examining what makes AFD so complex and what procedural considerations exist to make each step we currently have a requirement. Triona (talk) 22:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support all three but fail to see that it constitutes a problem. The complexity in this process is warranted by the potential severity of its result, and that somewhat inexperienced users might shy away from submitting at AfD might actually be a feature rather than a bug. --Pgallert (talk) 09:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support all three. At a time when I was already a very experienced editor, I tried to do the process manually, but failed miserably. As a result, whenever I want to send something to AfD nowadays, I have to install Twinkle temporarily and uninstall it later. (Two important reasons not to use Twinkle: Reducing interface clutter when having to cope with a tiny netbook screen. Hardware or wetware problems that cause random mouseclicks, which are much more serious issue with Twinkle.) Hans Adler 12:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
• Yes! The process is too complicated for ordinary casual users. I sometimes come across articles that I think shouldn't exist, then I look at the instructions and lose the will to live. Suggestion: There should be a prominent link to leave a request for an admin or experienced user to complete the process. The ordinary user should have to provide just two pieces of information: (i) the name of the artcle; (ii) the reason why he or she thinks it should be deleted, which can be in ordinary English, with no need to use arcane Wikipedia terminology or cite Wikipedia legislation. 86.186.37.71 (talk) 21:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC).
• comment i am seeing "the process should be hard and complex to keep articles from being deleted" - what should keep articles from being deleted should not be the process, but the encyclopedic content of the articles. The process should allow articles of encyclopedic content to be easily kept. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 18:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I do not think this should be the case. Arguably the original intent was to have the process serve as a hindrance for editors who wished to delete an article--if you wanted to delete some page you needed to exert some threshold level of effort. But unsurprisingly this resulted in technical workarounds. Editors who spent a great deal of time nominating articles used semi-automated tools and pre made templates to avoid the tedious portions of the process and any process base barricades to nomination were obviated. What we were left with was a more complicated process without the threshold effort. Ideally the process should be content agnostic. We should not be relying on the technical difficulty posed by filling out an AfD to protect marginal articles, because those technically difficulties will just be surmounted through automation. Preferably, you should be able to nominate an article with one template and one edit and a bot should edit the log and build the deletion discussion page. But barring that the current system isn't too onerous, Protonk (talk) 18:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
• Comment – From my experience if there is a problem it is that the admins don't follow the guidelines. There is a disconnect between what guidelines say and what admins do in closing AfDs. Guidelines say AfDs are not a vote. Balderdash. AfDs in practice are a vote. AfD admins seem largely oblivious to some of the ways AfDs are gamed. I don't see how any of the three points you raise address that. Lambanog (talk) 16:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
• I'd rather discuss possible innovations that keep the same functionality of the process but make it easier to complete. Regardless of whether there's a problem, efficiency is never a bad thing. (Well, there's a view expressed above that the inefficiency of the process builds character and discipline, but I think that's pretty cruel.) --Bsherr (talk) 08:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Another step 2 request

Maddie Fitzpatrick - deletion rationale can be found on the article's talk page. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 09:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

and another

Sidhu pura - deletion rationale can be found on the article's talk page. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 22:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done Both have been nominated. Jujutacular ^talk 19:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

and another

Flustrated - need I say where the Deletion rationale can be found?

 Done

Also, would somebody look at/correct this malformed attempt? 69.181.249.92 (talk) 05:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done

and another

"The Mulholland" 69.181.249.92 (talk) 20:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)  Done Hut 8.5 20:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

and another

Project Blue Beam (NASA) 69.181.249.92 (talk) 10:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done ~~ GB fan ~~ 11:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

and another

1stChoice FTPPro 69.181.249.92 (talk) 18:19, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done Hut 8.5 18:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

and another

The Ann Arbor Masonic News - 69.181.249.92 (talk) 22:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

and another

Malaria Control Project - 69.181.249.92 (talk) 09:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done already by someone else, but I've added the proper template. Hut 8.5 09:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

and another

Lights Go Out (Zine) - 69.181.249.92 (talk) 12:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done Jujutacular ^talk 13:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

and another

Troll 4 - 69.181.249.92 (talk) 13:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done Jujutacular ^talk 13:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

how to make an undeletion request / appeal for a mistakenly / inappropriately deleted article?

this deletion request: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2004_United_States_presidential_election_controversy_and_irregularities failed miserably, 2-1 against, with 75% of the against being "strong". yet it was classified as successful. it is my understanding that deletion requires consensus. 2-1 against can hardly be considered "consensus". the action taken by the administrator in this case was obviously inappropriate. what can be done to correct this? Kevin Baas^talk 16:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

If you want to contest the closing administrator's reading of consensus at the debate you can take it up with them or go to Wikipedia:Deletion review. Hut 8.5 16:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Given the egregiousness of the violation, I doubt the administrator would be very receptive. I shall take it up on deletion review. Kevin Baas^talk 16:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Is an article at AFD removed from normal processes

I've seen a few people advance the idea (most recently at my talkpage) that an article at AFD is somehow in a special category that modifies the normal rules of editing. As far as I am aware, an article at AFD can have content removed in the normal way if it is unsourced and there is no special 'protection' for such content. Is my view on this incorrect in some way?

Tied to this, I've been removing unsourced material from an article at AFD and have been told that this isn't a good thing as I have a COI as I voted 'delete' - again, as far as I am aware, we don't consider editors !votes at AFD to prohibit their editing of articles in any way. Do we consider it a COI?

Thoughts? --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

If an article is currently under AFD, and someone requests that you not remove a considerable amount of the article's content so that it can be better evaluated at AFD, you should not edit war and insist that the content be removed. What are you accomplishing by doing that? Andrevan@ 20:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Except in case of BLPs, I tend to recommend editors stick to 1) arguing to delete the article, or 2) editing the article to improve it. If you're editing and arguing for deletion, the clear question is whether or not you're editing the article to improve the chances for deletion. Really, if you are investing effort in the article, you are de facto arguing that it merits such work, which would tend to invalidate a delete !vote (but not, say, a merge opinion). Jclemens (talk) 20:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Editing should be done in order to improve the article. Substantial deletions on whatever grounds when one has !voted "delete" may be presumed to be conflicted at best. Examples include, in some cases, deletions of more than 2/3 of an entire article by some editors. Collect (talk) 00:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I can't agree. Are you going to argue that editors who want to keep the article who add loads of unsourced material, or badly sourced material, are improving it? Substantial deletions may improve it. After all, people are still reading the article during teh AfD process. This seems like a pretty radical restriction on the freedom of editors to edit. I'll raise this at COI as well, pointing the discussion here. Dougweller (talk) 05:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm all about people improving articles facing deletion. I just don't see improving articles as compatible with a delete !vote, which says "this article is so worthless, we don't want it merged anywhere, or even redirected anywhere". A delete !vote is an explicit assertion that the article cannot and should not be improved by editing, per WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD. I struggle to understand how improving an article can be compatible with a delete !vote. Jclemens (talk) 05:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree and, indeed, have been recently involved in something like this at List of notable plot twists. I originally nominated the article and felt strongly (as I still do) that it should be deleted. However, I began to see the direction the discussion was going and predicted (rightly as it turned out) that it might end up being kept. Once you've taken an interest in an article, even if it's just to say you want it deleted, it's hard to then just ignore it, so my feeling was essentially 'if it's going to be kept, it might as well be as good as it can be' so I tried to do my best to improve it. I don't think that was a COI, and nor did it ever change my delete vote. --Korruski (talk) 08:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

What would have happened had you simply not edited it until the AfD had completed? I'm guessing that the improvement would have gone un-made, but also there would have been no possible accusation of bias or inappropriateness in the improvement. What would have happened had you simply struck your delete !vote when you started editing the article? Seems unlikely that it would have affected the AfD outcome, by your description. Either action would have precluded any possible accusation of bias or bad faith editing. Jclemens (talk) 18:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I could, of course, have held off on editing it until after the process was over, but the article was in terrible shape, even by the usual standards of an AfD, and I didn't want to wait a week (or more, as I wrongly assumed that the AfD would be relisted if no consensus emerged after a week) to deal with some of the most egregious problems. I couldn't technically have struck my delete !vote as I nominated the article, but I agree that as a normal !voter that might have been possible. I don't think one should have to though. I would prefer to make the edits, and let them speak for themselves. If anyone seriously thought they were an attempt to make the article worse not better then I could deal with that when it arose, as I would in the normal course of things if it were not under AfD. That seems preferable to assuming that anyone who has !voted delete on an article is too biased to then edit it. That sounds close to assuming bad faith, surely? --Korruski (talk) 08:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

A nominator, can, in fact, change their !vote. I've nominated an article and argued that it be kept, to force a discussion on a redirect that I believed merited its own article (The Avengers film project, if you're curious). But you've given me an idea, which I will elaborate on below... Jclemens (talk) 15:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think such a blanket policy would be appropriate here. When under AfD, an article is still subject to all the requirements that an article must have, and it should therefore be subject to the same protections. For example, if someone removed a swath of validly sourced content in order to further their Delete !vote, then that should be reverted the same way any unexplained removal of validly sourced content would be from any other article. Content added during the AfD that is not appropriate, should be removed as inappropriate the same as it would be for any article. In the case where removal of content improves the article to the point where the article goes from Delete to Keep, well then that would fall under "AfD is not cleanup", and the article probably should never have been nominated in the first place. Arakunem^Talk 16:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

considering that I have seen many people !voting keep - it has sources without actually looking at the "sources" to see that they are blog posts or "sources" that dont actually verify any of the claims in the article - it is clearly within the scope of improving the encycloepdia and improving the AfD discussion to remove non-appropriate content from the article under discussion. Putting artificial restrictions on an article under AfD is inappropriate.Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 17:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Let's say that an article is taken to AfD because it is mostly an advertisement. You then have some people arguing to keep the article because it has potential for expansion although notability is questionable. I don't see a problem if a person who argues for deletion then removes the promotional text and leaves a short, sourced, sub-stub. That would effectively show how little of the article has any substance, and of course removing promotional material is usually seen as a form of improvement anyway. Now, if an editor arguing for deletion is butchering an article intentionally to influence other people into thinking that the article is horrible (including a removal of sources that would otherwise establish notability) then yes that's a big problem, but really that's nothing more than vandalism and isn't allowed under any circumstances, whether or not the article is the subject of an AfD discussion. Honestly, at AfD the discussion should focus around whether or not the subject merits inclusion, not about how great or crappy the article is. Even butchering the article shouldn't be that big of a deal if you can prove that the subject itself is notable and doesn't violate anything at WP:NOT. I don't see that we should restrict editing the article during an AfD discussion to anyone, whatever their opinion about deleting the article. -- Atama頭 17:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I find the idea that removing material from an article is somehow automatically deleterious to the article and cannot be considered to be improving it ludicrous. There are frequently articles at AFD that have a viable kernel for a real article surrounded by dross. Removing that dross so the viable kernel can be recognized and improved is improving the article.—Kww(talk) 17:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree: removal can be an improvement. But how does stubbifying and arguing for deletion help an article? Stubbification is a vote of confidence in the article--it says, in essence, "this article sucks, but the topic is worthwhile" and is incompatible with arguing that the article can be deleted. I can't speak for anyone else, but I have never said that editors dissatisfied with the current form of an article are prohibited from editing it. What I have seen in a few cases is editors who say "this topic should be deleted!" and then slap a ton of tags on it, revert good faith additions, remove as much material that isn't directly cited to a footnote as possible--using the editing process as a weapon to make an article appear as unfavorable as possible for the clear purpose of advancing the deletion they support. That is what I view as egregious and unhelpful conduct. If I was presented with such a situation in the future, I would point out the inappropriateness of the BATTLEFIELD approach to deletion to the closing admin: improving an article undermines the assertion that it should be deleted. Jclemens (talk) 17:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

"I think this article should be deleted, but if you must keep something, this is the only bit that stands a chance of being salvagable" is a rational and non-destructive POV as well.—Kww(talk) 22:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Jclemens, what if an editor did all of that when there was no AfD ongoing? (Overused tags, reverted good faith edits, removed material excessively.) Would you treat that any better? I'd think that would be disruptive regardless. What I don't approve of is the suggestion that !voting delete in an AfD should prevent an editor from being able to trim down an article. For that matter, even the editor who nominated it for deletion should feel free to edit the article constructively, whether they add or remove material. Recently I nominated an article for deletion and at the same time cleaned it up (fixed wikilinks, corrected misspellings, fixed the link to the main article image). My incentive for doing so was to allow an unbiased discussion, even though I argued for the deletion of the article I didn't want people to be influenced by the poor quality of the article. I believe that if I needed to remove a ton of promotional language or speculation or hoax info or the like to do that I should be allowed to as well. -- Atama頭 22:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Kww, I think it bifurcates the AfD: if there is a keep/not keep discussion ongoing over the article in its current form, changing that form substantially can be detrimental to achieving a consensus. If the first few !voters include some "Cruft, nuke it!" and then someone else comes along and trims the cruft, what happens? Are those !votes invalidated? No, they are presumed to apply to the version of the article at the end of the discussion. If the AfD is closed as delete, then there are a couple of options to move forward:

1) If the article was in an improvable state at the time it was deleted, anyone who thinks it's inclusion worthy can get it userified, clean it up so that it's substantially different and no longer meets the AfD closer's rationale, (e.g., trim cruft, source stuff) and moves it back without DRV.

2) If the article was in an improved state, such that e.g., the cruft had been trimmed and everything that could be sourced had been sourced, but the initial, no-longer-accurate ITSCRUFT votes were still counted, there is much less room to do so. If no one calls WP:HEY, then the state of the article at the time of AfD close becomes the state from which "substantially similar" is measured for CSD G4.

BEANS be damned, it's possible to increase the chance that an article is "permanently" deleted by improving it during the deletion process, because consensus heretofore has been that early !votes that don't reflect the final state of the article cannot be simply discarded, even though they apply to a version of the article that perhaps all sides have moved beyond. Jclemens (talk) 01:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

People adding sourced content during the process bifurcates the discussion as well. If the closing admin isnt going to check whether the "consensus" on the talk page actually reflects the content of the article, s/he shouldn't be closing the AfD. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 01:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, yeah, but in the case that someone actually wants the article kept, they try to raise the visibility of their changes, so the instance of such being innocently overlooked by a closing admin is going to be a good deal lower. Jclemens (talk) 04:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

2 examples - a BLP violation with a number of BLP issues, stubifying may be the best thing. Second example (and I've seen both) an article created to publicise an event taking place in 7 days time. Hm, just thought of a 3rd one, where I nominated something for AfD and even the creator agreed that some stuff should be removed (we both agreed the whole thrust of the article was wrong). And a question - are we planning to block editors, discount their !votes, or what if we call deletion by those who !vote delete or nominate for deletion and then remove stuff from the articleDougweller (talk) 09:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

BLP is BLP is BLP; AfD changes nothing about it. If those discussing possible deletion are having a reasonable, intelligent dialogue in which they agree that some parts of the article need to go... super! No issue. As far as consequences, I was thinking of an established principle that if the closing admin sees one or more people !voting delete but making substantial changes to the article (either sabotage or cleanup), then s/he would discount or "weigh less" the delete !vote (but not any other vote, including a merge or redirect). I have absolutely no interest in making up new rules to block people, but I have seen people engage in egregious article editing, clearly designed to make the article look bad (tags everywhere on a stub?) or keep it looking bad for the sole purpose of discouraging the keeping of such an article. THAT sort of gamesmanship should not be rewarded, IMHO. Jclemens (talk) 14:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I modestly believe an article at AfD should have a special status and should not be allowed to be touched by anyone with the exception of adding sources to help establish notability. The motivation of any other edits at that point in article life is really questionable. Why did you wait until the AfD to edit? Any edits at that time would be solely to impose your point of view and to attempt to influence others to see it as you do. Thanks.Turqoise127 19:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Why didnt I edit it before? Cause there are over 3 million articles and I had no freeking idea that this inappropriate and bloatfilled "article" existed out there until I ran across it at AfD. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 19:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh. Sorry, I guess that was a silly comment on my part. Unless the "article" had numerous tags placed on it (and they usually do prior to AfD) which puts it in numerous ques to be addressed, so interested editors can contribute? I see your point with 3 million articles, sure, but I remain at my opinion. Thanks. Turqoise127 21:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• This general topic should be covered by WP:Guide to deletion#You may edit the article during the discussion. WT:Guide to deletion#Editing during .7B.7Bafd.7D.7D (August 2007) echoes some of the concerns here. I don't agree with the edit-warring in this specific case. Flatscan (talk) 04:27, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Idea: Provide diffs and explanation

Since we're already sort of doing this with positive improvements, how about a new AfD expectation, something along these lines:

"When any editor makes a non-trivial change or set of changes to an article currently under discussion, the editor should post chronologically in AfD the diffs of what they have done to the article and a brief explanation"

Thus, if followed this either promotes discussion on the active improvement of the article, or demonstrates how a bad faith editor fails to collegialy engage per expectations. Jclemens (talk) 15:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

This sounds like a good idea, but for an article that attracts a lot of edits or that is popular the AfD page could be swamped with diffs. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 15:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• The existing recommendation "noting in the discussion that you have done so if your edits are significant ones" at the top of WP:Guide to deletion#You may edit the article during the discussion could be expanded, but I think it is sufficient as worded. If an explanation is needed, one can be requested civilly. Flatscan (talk) 04:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

AN discussion notification

I've started a general discussion at WP:AN#AfD's generally closed too soon. You are invited to give your view on this as well. Fram (talk) 11:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I've proposed a change to {{afd2}} template that may address these concerns. Debate is ongoing at WP:AN, per above. As always, input is most welcome. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Should this be an AfD?

This student theatre group does not seem notable and has received no press in reliable sources. See WP:ENT. Can someone nominated it for AfD?: Savoy Opera Society. Please let me know if it goes to AfD. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the fluff and proposed deletion WP:PROD. We will see what happens. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 20:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Would Mihai Pintilii be suitable for AfD? While he might meet notability requirements playing in the top division of Romanian football and reliable sources may be available, at present his page is only a redirect to an incorrect team (very confusing!) and hasn't been edited in 2 years. TomorrowsDream (talk) 19:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

It is not implausible that someone would put in Mihai Pintilii as a search term and so I dont see harm myself in the page remaining as a redirect to an appropriate article (until such time as the person gets enough coverage for a stand alone article.) Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 20:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

If the player is mentioned in a team article, wouldn't his name show up in search results anyway? Without an appropriate article for the player, it's difficult to be sure the redirect is correct. Just seems to mislead rather than add anything to the project TomorrowsDream (talk) 22:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I created a disambiguation page about a year ago (DCTC (disambiguation)) that I now know I should probably never have created in the first place. Since I fixed the page that DCTC redirects to, should it be deleted, or left alone so as not to annoy the people who are probably very busy deleting pages? —Oey192 (talk) 21:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Mass-nomination

Is there an established procedure for mass-nominating articles? I've had a look through our Hercules: The Legendary Journeys episode articles and haven't found a single one which has more than a TV.com reference; the synopses provided in the main list of Hercules: The Legendary Journeys episodes suffices to cover that which is notable about these. Is it just a case of slapping an AfD tag on every one and pointing at one AfD, or is there a better way? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 08:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The better way, if your description is correct, is redirecting them to the episode list. Fram (talk) 08:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer to avoid the drama of being reverted thirty times for unilateral redirection. Furthermore, there's little evidence that these are individually notable at all; they're all practically orphaned, being linked only from the pages of their guest stars and the next/previous infobox links. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 09:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

If you nominate redirectable articles for deletion, you always risk a rebuke and a procedural "keep" outcome, depending on factors that I couldn't yet determine and on the closing admin. It may be better to create an RfC at Talk:Hercules: The Legendary Journeys and leave a pointer to it on the talk page of each individual article. Or maybe start a discussion at a related WikiProject talk page. Hans Adler 09:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Until and unless you redirect at least one or two, and are reverted, there's no justification for seeking deletion. Even if you open an AfD, the most likely outcome is going to be something of an enforced merge or redirect. If you want me to have a talk with whomever you think will (or does) revert you, I'll be happy to clue them in that they don't want to contest a merge and wind up at AfD. Seriously--use me as a resource. Jclemens (talk) 14:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I opened an RFC at Hans's suggested talk page and pinged WT:TV earlier in the afternoon. This is an experiment: I'm really looking for the bare minimum level of drama that can be generated in a mass-deletion. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 21:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, step #1 in avoiding drama is to use the least threatening words possible. If it's a mass redirection, then call it that rather than a mass deletion. With a redirection OR deletion, it's always permissible for someone to re-create an article if the cause for such is elimintated--typically for these sorts of articles, that would mean if someone found substantial third party critical review and used it to write an article without excessive plot summary. The only difference really is that a deletion 1) hides the past contributions, and 2) forces someone who wants to start a proper article to begin again from scratch. Neither one of those directly serve an encyclopedic purpose, since even a redirect will remove substandard material from public view. Jclemens (talk) 21:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Bare minimum drama is NEVER seen when fiction fans are confronted with the necessity of having third paryt sources! But good luck!Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 22:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Can someone fix this accidental double nomination?

I was nominating some articles using Twinkle but it accidently created

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morningrise (Slowdive song)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morningrise (Slowdive song) (2nd nomination)

when only one was required. Can someone please fix? -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 00:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

It appears it is fixed. The second nomination page does not exist and the template on the article links to the first nomination. TFD (talk) 01:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Help with Steps 2 &3 Deletion Request: Mahsa Saeidi-Azcuy

Not sure why this person has her own page when she is a reality show contestant (on a show that placed last among the major networks in its time period, no less). There is a lack of citations as well as notability. Being an ADA is not notable either, since there are many across the country as well as in the large city of NY. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.146.39.37 (talk) 04:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Help - made a mess

Resolved

Crud. I put up .700 Hubel Express for AFD, but it turns out there was one listed a week ago that somehow wasn't fully setup. So now there are two open AFD's for this article. I'm not sure exactly what the right next step is. Do I blow away the new one and relist the old one? Combine? Close the old one? Thanks. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 17:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

If one of the AFD pages doesnt have any !votes, how about just redirect it with a note in the edit summary. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 17:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I think it's straightened out now. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 17:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Stale AfDs

I've been randomly plowing through active AfD discussions and have found several open discussions that are several weeks old. The commonality among most if not all of these discussions is that they were never listed on the log. I've listed most of the ones I've found on the 20 September log, and noted in the discussion that they are listed on the log for the first time. Some of the discussions I've found, however, have a very clear consensus to delete or keep (possibly because of traffic on the article or on various deletion sorting categories). Is it fair to close these discussions, some of which are over a month old, if they have never been on the log? And is listing them in the log the appropriate way to get admin attention on them? Or is AN a better route? —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Sent by Ravens

Discussion over, kept, now can someone remove the AFD template and add an old-AFD template on the talk page? I don't want to do it because I am not an admin. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Done --Mkativerata (talk) 10:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

OpenIndiana AfD debate

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

AFD has been closed. Jujutacular ^talk 18:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Over the past week there has been an AfD debate on the OpenIndiana article (on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OpenIndiana). The debate period ended yesterday, but for some reason it was not closed by an admin.

The status of the AfD debate at this moment is 12 opinions to keep (one strong), 3 delete (one delete/merge). Also the debate is starting to turn nasty, which leads me to believe there's not going to be anymore useful commentary.

At this point I'd like to request that one of the admins close this debate. It's done, it's gone beyond pointless and I'd like to get the AfD template off the article.

Thanks, -- BenTels (talk) 13:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• Please keep in mind that the AfD process is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Additionally, unregistered or new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith (for example, if they misrepresent their reasons). A lot of off-wiki canvassing has taken place, directing people to participate in this AfD. Cindamuse (talk) 14:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• The debate is over. You've made your point and have been told in several ways why people disagree with you. The arguments are done, to the point that people (including you) are starting to snipe at one another rather than making meaningful contributions. There is no point in continuing and every reason to close the debate (before it totally ceases being a debate anymore). Therefore, again, I am requesting an admin to close the debate since there is no more debating to be done. -- BenTels (talk) 14:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• Ben, honestly, you have been the most egregious with personal attacks in this discussion. I have never been attacked more before, than I have from you in this discussion. Please watch your tone. While others have expressed their opinions disagreeing that the subject lacks notability, their recommendations are not in alignment with Wikipedia policy and guidelines. I have responded accordingly, with respect and providing a link to the corresponding guideline. When an editor poses a question or concern, others have the right to respond until the discussion is closed. If you truly believe that it is pointless to continue the discussion, by all means, stop commenting. Cindamuse (talk) 15:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• There is no point in posting everything to two locations. I've responded to the copy of most of what is above on the other page. In the meantime, I stand by my request for an admin to review the debate and close it, before it decays even further. -- BenTels (talk) 15:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Thanks for closing, Jujutacular! -- BenTels (talk) 19:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

A Little Help from a Kind Editor, Please

Hey Guys, I have nominated the SOCEP Constanţa article for deletion, but the formatting of the AFD Page is all screwy. It does the same thing when I try to list it on the AFD log, so I deleted it until I can get this cleared up. So, basically, I need help correcting the formatting on the article's AFD Page, as well as placing it on top of the current AFD listing

I am not sure why this isn't working...this isn't my first AFD! Thanks! The Eskimo (talk) 15:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I've fixed it, though I'm not sure why it didn't work before. Hut 8.5 16:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Linear amplifier

A deletion debate has been taking place at Talk:Linear amplifier#This article should be deleted since 21 May. Could someone from here please summarise and close the debate? I cannot do it myself as I contributed to the discussion. SpinningSpark 23:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

AFD request

Battle of Orsha (1943-1944) seems like a candiate for deletion, no sources what so ever and possible hoax?86.4.81.225 (talk) 22:59, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Some discussion here - with citations suggest that it was a real event. See also Vitebsk–Orsha Offensive and [1] Jezhotwells (talk) 23:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The links you have provided refer to Operation Bagration - the 1944 summer offensive, that is not in dispute, the above mentioned article has no sources and google searching appears to find nothing in support of a winter battle hence the concern it is a possible hoax. Regards86.4.81.225 (talk) 01:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore the Russian presentation/interactive map on the eastern front, along with the map on the Bagration article would seem to also support the need for concern; please see [2] and [3]. The later clearly shows that Orsha is behind the German frontline at the start of the offensive and the interactive map shows no offensive launched in that area until summer 1944 and Bagration. Regards86.4.81.225 (talk) 01:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you wish someone to nominate for AfD, please provide a clear, concise rationale on the talk page and I will nominate on your behalf. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I have posted on the article's talkpage, hopefully the write up meets your request. Regards86.4.81.225 (talk) 01:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done Jujutacular ^talk 04:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Just checking on 'withdrawal' of an AfD

Hi there. An editor recently opened an AfD on Danny Nalliah. The AfD discussion is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danny Nalliah. After a few comments from other editors (including myself) i think the original nominator figured s/he probably shouldn't have nominated it in the first place and decided to 'withdraw' the nom and archive the discussion. However, it had only been open for a day. My question is: once an article has been nominated at AfD, must it not be closed by an uninvolved editor? If so, could an experienced operator at AfD perhaps let LibStar know the procedure, take a look at it, and perhaps both over-ride and then re-do / somehow endorse Libstar's action, or leave it open (if that is thought preferable). Thanks. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Generally yes, an AFD must be closed by an uninvolved party. However, if the nominator withdraws and there are no outstanding delete !votes then anybody, involved or not, can close it including the nominator or one of the !voters. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin

All, I've been looking at Arthur Rubin's page and I just don't see the notability and have requested it to be deleted. There is a reason this keeps coming up over and over, the math award, the patent and running for assembly that doesn't cut it. Yes he is smart but what has he achieved with his brain, the last item is from 1980..... B-Objective (talk) 10:26, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Fell free to nominate for AfD, but I expect the result will be similar to last time. Looks like he passes WP:ACADEMIC. He is still publishing, try Google Scholar]] or a university citation index. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Step 2 requests

2010 McKinley Tiger football - as usual, the deletion rationale is on the article's talk page. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 16:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done ~~ GB fan ~~ 16:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

and another

Karsin(novel) - 69.181.249.92 (talk) 01:41, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

and another

Labby, Camilla & Stav - 69.181.249.92 (talk) 13:41, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done ~~ GB fan ~~ 13:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. You're so good at taking care of these :) 69.181.249.92 (talk) 14:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

and more

• Kung Fu Live - 69.181.249.92 (talk) 14:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
• Chase Whiteside - 69.181.249.92 (talk) 14:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Administrators out of control

I improved the Deva Victrix page by adding a separate section for the Elliptical Building, as this is perhaps the most interesting building on the site. I also added a new section for the Market Hall inscription.

And then along comes the mighty Dougweller and deletes the whole lot, because he took exception to a reference to an author called Ellis, although the vast majority of data was from Chester Archaeology (because I live there). Had Dougweller even heard of the Deva fortress before now? No, I thought not. So Wiki readers are denied any knowledge of the Market Hall inscription and Elliptical Building, and because of what? Because Dougweller has decided he knows everything?

He then proceeds to follow me around Wiki deleting everything, without thinking. Had he even heard of the Elagabal of Elagabalus before today? Yes, that got deleted too. Did he know of the similarities between Britannia and Athena? No, but that went too (even though the page already mentions a link between Britannia and Minerva, who is Athena anyway !!) Frankly, Dougweller is a site vandal, not an administrator.

If administrators want to edit, I suppose that is their prerogative, but wholesale deletion without any consideration is reducing the font of knowledge, not increating it.

This goes entirely against the spirit of Wiki.

Narwhal2 (talk) 20:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Content addition/removal has nothing to do with the articles for deletion process. Please find somewhere else to discuss...not here, on page that states "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Articles for deletion page." at the top. See WP:DR for some ideas. DMacks (talk) 20:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Narwhal2, you need to quit attacking Doug, and you need to not forum shop. Rather than calmly reinserting the non-Ellis elements, or asking that the non-Ellis elements be reinserted, you unnecessarily took offense, failing to assume good faith (by the way, WP:AGF is a cornerstone of this website). Also, that you cited Ellis shows a failure to understand our reliable sourcing guidelines. Something the wise and mature consider is that they are at fault when there is trouble, especially if they are the only person on their side. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)