Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:42, 19 August 2008

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Articles for deletion page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 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, 78Auto-archiving period: 25 days

This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Article Rescue Squadron This page is within the scope of the Article Rescue Squadron WikiProject, a collaborative effort to rescue items from deletion when they can be improved through regular editing. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can help improve Misplaced Pages articles considered by others to be based upon notable topics.Article Rescue SquadronWikipedia:Article Rescue SquadronTemplate:WikiProject Article Rescue SquadronArticle Rescue Squadron Deletion (defunct) This page is within the scope of WikiProject Deletion, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.DeletionWikipedia:WikiProject DeletionTemplate:WikiProject DeletionDeletion HIDDEN ERROR: Usage of "class" is not recognizedHIDDEN ERROR: Usage of "importance" is not recognizedHIDDEN ERROR: Usage of "nested" is not recognized

• WT:AFD

Archives

For discussions that have not been well-archived (before 2004), the page history of the Articles for deletion page has to be used as a contingency archive. One can look in the Deletion log to obtain date and time of a deletion, then look in the page history of VfD near that time to see which edit regards the unlisting of the page, then view the previous version. Misplaced Pages utilities/Page titles to be deleted – edit history before 13:45, 19 May 2002 (UTC) – also see its talk page), histories go back to November 2001 Votes for Deletion – edit history (22:22, 15 May 2002 (UTC) to 06:24, 28 May 2004 (UTC)) Votes for Deletion – edit history (04:53, 28 May 2004 (UTC) to 22:58, 20 September 2004 UTC)) Votes/Articles for Deletion – edit history (00:03, 21 September 2004 (UTC) to Current) Old VfD archive index (now AfD archives 1–31) 1, 2, 3, 4, 4a, 5 Z1, Z2, Z3, Z4, Z5, Z6 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 Renamed Articles for deletion about this time. 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44

This page has archives. Sections older than 25 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Various suggestions

There are serious flaws in AfD and so I propose the following:

• 1. Greater emphasis needs to be on AfD being a discussion and not a vote. A list of keeps and deletes looks like a vote just like the supports and opposes in an RfA. We might say it's a discussion, but a discussion means actual interaction among participants. Few AfDs actually look like a discussion. In fact, some editors are even offended when someone responds to their "vote" in an AfD. Moreover, many just post a quick "per nom" or something and then move on never to return to the AfD to see if the nominator was later refuted or if the article was improved during the course of the so-called discussion. We need to therefore either outright say on the top of each AfD that it is a discussion and not a list of votes and that editors are encouraged to actually interact with each other or just do away with the bold keeps and deletes currently practiced. A discussion would be a threaded list of replies that reaches some sort of conclusion, not a list of deletes per x with some keeps worked in.
• 2. The five day thing is a bit odd on something that does not have a deadline. In obvious cases of libel, copyvios, and hoaxes, okay, but we need to remember that the internet is not the only means of finding reliable sources. Not all published books appear in their entirety on Google books, just as not all magazines and journals have online archives or for that matters archives found on Google searches. As a graduate student, we have access to password protected archives that included scholarly references others would not find by doing a simple Google search. I have participated in a number of AfDs in which the nominator asserts no sources to be found and is followed by a handful of "per noms" and yet I check published sources or password protective archives that allow for the articles in question to be saved. Given enough time I think most of the articles I have ever argued to be kept could indeed be eventually properly sourced, but again, given time. In other words, it sometimes takes a bit more than five days to actually exhaust all likely sources and volunteers need not be arbitrarily rushed on something without a deadline so long as some evidence of potential has been established. Another problem with the five day thing is that sometimes articles are nominated mere minutes after being created. Check out this unsourced article when it was created versus now. Imagine if someone nominated it for deletion saying, "Hey, the creator should have added the sources before creating the article." It takes time to develop even some of the most notable articles. And the fact is the longer potentially valid articles hang aroun, the greater likelihood they'll eventually be in fact improved.
• 3. In addition to deletion review, we need an Articles for restoration to counterbalance AfD and deal with scenarios in which the closure may have been in order, but new sources or whatever have turned up and instead of having to start all over, those who found the sources can request the article be restored and then revised accordingly. Some who have no problems renominating articles multiple times for deletion come up with a "DRV is not AfD 2" non-argument when AfDs are challenged there, so we need an Articles for restoration as well. Also, an Articles for restoration sounds less challenging to admins who closed the AfDs then Deletion review.
• 4. Nominators and those arguing to delete must make a serious effort to see if sources can be found and if the article can likely be improved before nominating or just "voting" to delete an article that is of a nature they simply do not like. We could maybe even have a category of editors who take note of accounts that just go down the list of AfDs making rapid "per noms" or other "votes" rather than arguments (I have seen some with say ten or more AfDs in ten or less minutes; I can speed read and type over a hundred words a minute, but still!) and who then note that within the relevant AfDs so the closing admin realizes that it is unlikely these accounts could have actually read the article, read all the comments above them, and then checked for his or herself whether or not sources exist. It is not assuming bad faith if the nominator and others assert sources don't exist, but to see for yourself if that claim is true, because again, I have been in enough AfDs for which sources allegedly cannot be found only to find them and have the AfD close as a resounding keep.
• 5. In order to evaluate true consensus, the closing admin should take into account how many editors have also been working on the article in question, but who may have missed the five day AfD for whatever reason, i.e. if say only a half dozen or less people say delete in an AfD, but scores of good faith editors having been working to improve the article under question, then perhaps the AfD does not reflect the actual community's consensus on the value of the article to our project. Moreover, if even a couple good faith or established editors argue to keep the article, then serious consideration should be made for a no consensus closure as it is important that we do not insult our contributors, readers, and donors by deleting articles that out of thousands of editors, readers, and donors, only a handful happen to want to delete in an AfD that lasts but a few days.
• 6. The admin closer should take note of not just the discussion in its entirety, but what direction it was headed in. If say the last post from someone is a question, then instead of closing because five days are up, keep it open to say how others respond to that question. If say the first half or even two-thirds of the AfD is overwhelmingly to delete, but in the last couple of arguments editors have indeed improved the article under consideration and now maybe even those who argued to delete are starting to switch to keep, it should not be closed as delete.
• 7. Admins should also be aware of accounts that are unwilling to ever argue to keep. People seem to consider me a strong inclusionist, but if you look at User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Deletion discussions, you'll see that I have argued to and even nominated to delete over two dozens articles. I have by contrast encountered some accounts who NEVER have argued to keep or who have even outright said they would never argue to do so. While I am not calling for any kind of quotas here, such bias and closed-mindedness should be indicated to closing admins so they know if those accounts' "arguments" should be discounted as "well, this account only argues to delete, so...".
• 8. Any AfD nominated by an account determined to be a sock of a banned user cannot result in deletion unless it is an obvious hoax, copy vio, or libel and if such an AfD was deleted, it must be overturned with no prejudice against a non-sock account creating a new AfD. The bottom line is articles of even questionable inclusion value nominated in bad faith by sock accounts cannot be allowed to stand, because if they do, then we are in effect allowing the banned editor to "win."
• 9. AfDs cannot end on questions, i.e. if the final comment in an AfD is a question from one of the participants, especially if it's the nominator, instead of closing the AfD, the discussion should continue to see if others degree and if perhaps the discussion might go in a different direction. Sometimes someone might have a brilliant last minute idea that completely changes the whole discussion. Therefore, even if there's ten or so preceding comments one way, in order to reach a real and legitimate consensus, we need to take into account additional ideas. Per Ignore All Rules anyway, we should not stop a discussion just because five days are up when it might shift directions one way or another.
• 10. In the case of renominations of articles, ALL editors who participated in the previous discussion(s) must be notified of the new AfD in order to again more correctly determine if in fact consensus has or has not changed. If those who argued one way previously now argue differently, then we can see a factually verifiable change in direction, but if no one from the previous AfD(s) comments in the new one and the new AfD only has a handful of participants it can logically be assumed that it some reflects a major shift in consensus that justifies deleting untold hours of work, especially if those who did argue one way or another in the previous AfD find the new one closed just as they're about to comment.
• 11. If a valid redirect location exists and the article in question is not a hoax, libel, or copy vio, then the article must be redirected and cannot be deleted.
• 12. Subjective terms "cruft", "unencyclopedic," "non-notable," and "indiscriminate" shall be forbidden from use in AfDs, along with "per nom". Imagine having a discussion in real life and someone saying "per nom"! I have been to enough college meetings to know that scholars do not use nonsense terms like "cruft." The other three terms are just too subjective to have merit.
• 13. Every editor who worked on an article nominated for deletion must be notified on thier talk pages of the AfD in progress in order to reach a legitimate consensus.
• 14. "Notability is not inherited" can no longer be used in AfDs.
• 15. Lists, including "in popular culture" and video games weapons, are perfectly acceptable as almanacic and encyclopedic content as determined by the broader community, i.e. the thousands of editors who create and work on them in good faith and the millions of readers who come here for these articles. A half dozen or so of usually the same editors in an five day AfD CANNOT be allowed to trump that reality just because a minority of our community does not like these things.
• 16. Too much focus seems to be on what Misplaced Pages is not, rather than what Misplaced Pages is. This time and energy needs to be on building articles rather than destroying them.
• 17. Any article that is backed up by reliable sources is notable enough for inclusion, including family members of famous people.
• 18. Any aspect of a video game (weapon or character) that appears in other media or even as toys or replicas is sufficiently notable for inclusion.

Anyway, just some ideas (I probably have a lot more, but the above are some key concerns). Regards, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 23:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

On #2, I've already opened a suggestion of postponing deletion if there is valid concern that the editors have not given notice that the article needs to be improved to meet WP standards, giving them four weeks to correct the issue. Mind you, if there's been a notability tag on an article for several months and the article is brought to AFD, it's a little late to be asking for more time to fix it.

On #3, we have that in the sense that any editor can ask for an admin to restore it to userspace without having to go through much rigmarole. Once the article has been shown to have sources through userspace, then a DRV can be reopened, or a similar admin request to bring the article back (of course, if we are redirecting, this is all moot, more on that in a bit).

On #4, it is up to those wanting to keep the article to provide sources if notability is questioned. That is not to say that a fair practice is to have those wanting to delete to try to search for sources, however, we cannot force this. That is to say a !vote of "Delete: I've tried looking for sources but found none" is a much better !vote of "Delete: not notable per nom"

#5 sorta lines up with #2, though I think it is common that if just prior or during the AFD there are appropriate improvements to satisfy the reason for deletion, keep, no consensus or the proposed "postponed" would all be appropriate.

#6 probably points to the fact that we should have at minimum 5 days for discussion, at most 24 hours from any significant issue raised if the discussion hasn't closed yet, at the closing admin disscretion (if the issue raised is significant enough).

I would strongly suggest avoiding #7, as you are now bringing in the editor's background into the picture. Yes, there are people that only !vote delete, but if they are only !voting delete "per nom" or other reason, that's not a strong argument. If they constant !vote delete but always bring appropriate arguments to the table, there is no reason to question their background.

I will say a lot of this, I think, can be mitigated by trying to make sure that AFDs that are intended to result in redirects and merges (as tends to be the case for many topics that lack notability), we should be speedily closing and requesting a more formal merge process, as there is no need to waste the time over deletion. AFDs should only be used to delete (as in , remove the article and edit history) articles that cannot be covered elsewhere either due to other policies/guidelines, or the like. Mind you, there are cases where I am sure the AFD nom feels deletion is right, but the end result may be a merge that the nominator wasn't aware of, so that's still valid. But, really, the imparative word of this process is "deletion", and thus we should not be clogging it with how to deal with certain content that should be covered, but only leave it for content who's appropriateness for coverage in WP is in question. (I'm almost thinking we need a more former AFMerge process for these situations). --MASEM 00:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem with using merge, and editing to redirect, is that they do not get general attention like AfD does. It is therefore very much easier for people with an agenda or POV to either prevent desirable changes, or to force them, depending on the relative strengths of the forces at hand. The recent and continuing arb coms show this--some one can carry out dozens of redirects that take us months to deal with properly and much drama. No one can push that unfairly without discussion at Afd. How often do people actually may attention to WP:RM? and to WP:PM? I look once in a while, but I'm not sure why, for I think very few of the actual moves and merges get listed here. we need some centralized way or reviewing this, and AfD is all we really have to prevent extravagant views in one direction or another to be seen and judged by the community. sure we could organize things better, but until we do, AfD is what we have. It's the only effective policy page in all of WP. DGG (talk) 03:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

That's why I think if we made it a more formal process, handled in the same fashion for AFD, there would be a better likelihood of getting more eyes on it. Right now, if you want to suggest a merge, it does not appear in any global list as AFDs do. I'm not saying this is the solution, but it is a possible one to consider to defuse the number of AFDs that are initiated that really should be merge requests. --MASEM 04:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me if I'm being far too simplistic, but can we add a "contested=yes" parameter to {{merge}}, etc., which automatically adds the page to a "contested merges" category? That would at least facilitate wider participation in contested cases, which is a start. Thoughts? Jakew (talk) 16:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

8, recently added, is probably a bad idea. Even if a banned user nominates an AfD in violation of his/her ban, someone else may have brought up a valid reason to delete and the consensus might go that way regardless. Perhaps for such noms the nom him/herself can be ignored and all "per nom" !votes as well, but this shouldn't mean that the AfD overall doesn't count.

9 and 10, also recently added, aren't bad ideas per se, but it's probably not a good idea to require it. A suggestion somewhere in WP:AFD should do. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 03:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that in many instances the AfDs nominated by banned users are pointed nominations and so need to be discounted or overturned. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 16:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, they shouldn't be automatically overturned simply because of this. Perhaps automatically reviewed, to check if consensus is the same, but overturning could fly in the face of the consensus of the AfD even after these comments are ignored. And it also leaves out the instances where banned users and socks actually bring up good points. And it leaves out instances where users are banned later for completely unrelated events. And probably a few others. #8 is not a good idea. Perhaps a more moderate version, automatically sending them to DRV to check for new consensus or something similar could work, but not auto-overturning. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 22:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

11, "must" is too strong a word because there are times that , while content is merged, the article name is not a reasonable search term (this is the exception, not the norm); for example, if "List of sub-category of category of A" is merged to "List of category of A", then the article name is not appropriate, and a history merge should be done if needed. But in all other cases, even with a reasonable chance of being a search term, redirects should be used.

12, strong disagree. Each of those words has a meaning specific to Misplaced Pages in the context of article deletion debates, and while inclusionists may see them as bad, they serve the same purpose as citing exists essays, guidelines, and policy via their shortcut, to avoid reiterating arguments over and over. "Per noms" are useful if the nominator's reasoning is fully spelled out and you can't improve on that; however, if the nominator's reasoning is not strong, and among a bunch of "per noms" !votes there's a handful of contrary positions, the closing admin should take that in mind and likely favor the contrary view. Same with reusing the words above: if all those that want to delete an article simply say "cruft" without addition context, while a few keepers explain out in detail, those "cruft" !votes should carry less weight than the keep votes. --MASEM 17:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem with "per noms" are that a lot of times, accounts that I have correctly identified as socks when taken to checkuser or taken to arbcom just go down the list of AfDs with "Delete per noms" sometimes in multiple AfDs in under a minute. I have even encountered some accounts who outright stated they would "never argue to keep". You all know that I am an inclusionist, but I have even nominated several articles for deletion and have argued to delete over two dozen articles. And while also working on welcoming new users, improving random articles, rescuing articles, uploading images, etc. If we have single-purpose deletion accounts that ONLY focus on AfDs, then they odds seem stacked in the favor of biased deletion and so someone should notice if a per nom is from an account that say just made a slew of per noms in multiple AfDs. "Cruft" is just an insulting word. Someone can say, "I do not believe the article you created meets our inclusion criteria and therefore believe it should be deleted," without saying "Dude, you created cruft, it has to go! Lol!" Okay, well, my example has alliteration, so maybe it is a little more poetic than when it is usually used, but my point is that it's just needlessly harsh. "Cruft" even looks close to "crap," and so again is unnecessarily hostile. But getting back to the per noms; if the nomination rationale is so compellingly worded then it really does not need a per nom or to. If AfD is a discussion and the nomination is followed by a "Keep", then instead of tossing a "Delete per nom" after the keep, why not respond to the keep and engage that editor to allow for an actual discussion or dialogue? Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 18:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, if there are SPA or socks that only "per nom" every AFD, that's a behavior problem to bring up, and we have mechanisms to deal with that that are outside AFD; if you take such abuse out of the picture, AFD works as it is expect to. Thus, there's no need to chance the process since we have processes in place to deal with abuse in general. --MASEM 18:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

But unfortunately AfD fails rather frequently (consider all the Deletion reviews and renominations) and so an article can be deleted or kept one week because a certain group of editors participated in that discussion, but have a completely different result even days later when different editors discuss it. Thus, this five day thing in which usually (obviously something like the Encyclopedia Dramatica AfD is an exception) an incredibly small number of editors comment and especially when some of those accounts only comment in AfDs and usually only to delete articles, just cannot seriously be taken as a true reflection of actual community consensus. Even suspected hoaxes in AfD started out as a likely snowball delete, but wound up being kept when all of a sudden someone turned up with sources to show that it wasn't a hoax. Take Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/F.C. Prabis, even I thought it was one to delete after my search for sources didn't turn up much, but what if it had been speedy deleted as a hoax? Notice as well, that I at least was willing to change my stance based on the subsequent discussion. How many AfDs in which sources are found those who slapped a per nom early on never return to acknowledge the new sources or comments? For a project in which we have no deadline and which AfDs are unquestionably gamed by sock accounts or flooded by single-purpose deletion only accounts, the process is just too flawed. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 18:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The socks/SPA thing is something to be dealt with at WP:AN. As for the five day thing, again, I point out the suggestion of postponing the AFD process when editors request it to get over that 5 day issue, extending it to 4 weeks to improve an article. There is no deadline, but we also want editors to be bold, and we need to have processes in place to balance these two extremes. --MASEM 19:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, most DRVs are about speedies and often from new users in my experience. There are few DRVs where people disagree with a closure, and even then they are often opened for bunk reasons (to put it bluntly). And also quite a few happen because the deleting admin was not contacted and asked about the deletion. Most deletions are endorsed in my experience, so I doubt that the number of DRVs shows a problem with the AfD, PROD, or speedy processes. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 22:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

While I agree with much of #12, Grand Roi, you'll get a strong disagreement from me on "not-notable". You and I have butted heads on this concept in the past, but I think you'll agree that your view that notability isn't needed to have an article on wikipedia is a minority one.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that the majority of Misplaced Pages are those who write and work on these articles who therefore believe them notable enough for inclusion. If an article had hundreds of edits made in good faith, but a handful of editors in one randomly made five day AfD suddenly claim "non-notable", then we do not necessarily have an actual reflection of consensus, especially when I have encountered a number of accounts, a good deal of which are now ideffed as socks, who do nothing more than "vote" to delete articles, so we also have a large number of AfDs flooded by such accounts which also have an inaccurate reflection of consensus. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 18:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

But forbidding the use of "non-notable" also excludes its use from pages of the type "This band is 4 friends who will release a demo as soon as we learn how to play an instrument", or the author who has self-published two books of bad poetry and decided to write his/her own wikipedia article. If you ban the word, you also preclude discussion of the concept. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe an alternative would be to better educate editors on the meaning and use of the word? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 18:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd gladly join you in that uphill battle. :)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

These are all great suggestions. I have often wondered myself why AFD is beginning to look just like a majority vote, contrary to what policy states. AFD has some major problems which need to be dealt with. Thanks, Le Grand Roi. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 23:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC).

we won't get rid of "non-notable" till we get rid of "notable" -- but I have some thoughts in that direction -- we need a real set of criteria of what should & should not be in the encyclopedia instead of the contradictions between N and NOT and V and RS. True, it will make obsolete whatever skill I have in using whatever argument gets a reasonable result, & it will probably end in a compromise that I don't really like in all respects--but then nobody can expect to have things always their way, though a lot of people keep trying. The main improvement AfD needs is to have fewer of them, not to fight each one through on first principles. DGG (talk) 03:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! Happy to help! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 20:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• The big joke about AFD is that articles are not, in fact, deleted; they are just flagged so that only privileged editors can see them. This introduces an element of natural bias since the closing admin will feel no sense of loss, since he will still be able to access the article. The D in AFD really stands for Deprecation or Depreciation which more accurately describes the process. If this were better known, I fancy that there would be less thrill of the chase, which seems to drive much of the activity. Perhaps we should move this page to Articles for Deprecation to make this more clear? Colonel Warden (talk) 05:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

::wild optimism. unfortunately. A considerable number of admins will delete on their only single handed say so without waiting for previous tagging. A somewhat smaller number give the impression they delete anything that's tagged. Right, its not the majority of the deletions, but 10% of so of 1000 articles a day, with half of the authors never contributing again, is about 300 or 400 new people a week lost to wikipediaDGG (talk) 03:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, currently there is no way to eliminate or reduce the number of frivolous Afd nominations taking place more and more. Let’s look at the facts: Any editor, at any time for any reason can nominate a piece for the Afd process. It makes no difference if that editor has 1 hour – 1 day – or 1 year at Misplaced Pages. Likewise, as we have all seen, it does not even require the nominating editor to do a minimal search to qualify their contentions of why they are nominating the article for deletion. The only way we could even start to rid ourselves of some of these types of proposals is to begin to institute metrics into the process as recommended by DGG above. However, once we start definitively defining what one has to do before nominating – what that nominating editor must include in his/her write-up/reason of why they nominated and finally what is the penalty/consequences of misrepresenting the nominations, we are stuck with the current product, Afd, as it now stands. Sorry ShoesssS 18:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem I have with your suggestions is that it makes it more trouble than it's worth to get rid of articles that should be deleted. For example, say we have a politician with a near fanatical group of supporters who believe conventional new outlets are conspiring against them and that Misplaced Pages should be their tool to show the world The Truth about their leader. As such, they begin making article after article about the politician, on every aspect of his career, family, activities, and even supporters. While the politician himself is notable, many of these extra articles are crufty and suffer from recentism. When nomed for deletion, his supporters happily cite dozens of reliable blog entries and tangentially related articles from local newspapers to prove notability and bloat the article up to prove "improvement" and save the article. As it stands, the only way these beasts of articles can be deleted is by editors shouting Non-Notable, Cruft and other epithets until the AFD closes. Under your system, should we suffer this subversion of the encyclopedia or do you have a way to deal with this? Burzmali (talk) 12:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Under our current system – the explanation you just provided – is the actuality of today’s process for Afd. In our current situation, consensus is the driving factor, without regards to notability – variability – credibility or independent sources, but rather who makes the better argument and/or is more persistent in pushing their viewpoint and able to drown out any opposition. On the other hand, I see articles, which I personally believe deserve a place here at Misplaced Pages deleted because of the cry of a number of editors “That does not meet my Notability standards” or “That article was not mentioned in the New York Times” or my favorite “That publication is not creditable in my eyes”. My suggestion was that we start putting minimum standards on what defines Notability. Say three, or we could make it any number, but make it a definitive number, cites from reputable sources. Thus making for Notability. Likewise, let’s set specific minimum standards on what is a trustworthy source. A good start would be what news outlets that are currently included in Google News and Google Scholar are considered dependable without question. Again, without specific metrics, we will never improve the Afd process. In that the process depends on individual interpretation of vague policy and guidelines, and let’s not forget IAR, rather than explicit rules and minimum requirements. Regarding how to enforce these standards is a different question. A clearing house for all Afd nominations? A punitive measure against an editor that nominates 3 articles for Afd without checking for the minimum standards first? Say a 24 hour block? Definitely more work could be involved. However, is it really more work if we are saving time and sanity by restructuring the current system and improving the product in the long-run? Thanks for listening. ShoesssS 13:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Presence in an reliable sources isn't usually the problem. Typically, the worst battles are fought over whether or not the coverage is "significant". Burzmali (talk) 14:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you – you took my 1,000 word essay and boiled it down to 10 words! That’s why I’m not a writer :-). You hit the nail right on the head. What is significant for me may not meet your standards. In others a (*&$ contest! ShoesssS 14:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that usually the argument is significance if notability is brought up in question, but we should consider two cases here. The first case is if the article is brought to AFD for notability issues but no attempt to work with the authors of the page has been made before the AFD. Here, now you're forcing people to show notability within 5 days; in such a case, I would not be worried as much in significance in that there are reliable sources for notability as to then allow the editors more time to work on adding more. (This sorta falls with my postponed AFD suggestion). I know there are editors that say that if you can't find truly significant sourcing in 5 days you're likely not going to find any, but I think we need to give the benefit of the doubt here. On the other hand, if the article has been tagged for notability issues for some time, or this is a repeat visit to AFD for the same, then I would expect that the significance to be the issue: are there enough sources, are they reliable, are they really talking about the work in question? So it's not always clear-cut that significance should be shown, and that's why I feel we need a way to allow "first time offenders" extra time to improve instead of the 5 days given. --MASEM 15:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Tags that have been present for a Long term are not necessarily taken very seriously, & the Afd can in practice come as a surprise. I think being an editor with an apparent good faith effort to improve and some reasonable possibility that the article might be improvable is sufficient to extend the time. Previous suggestions, going back years, for extending the basic 5 days have been made, and the reasonable objection has always been that most of the articles at AfD dont need any more than that. If we can find away of extending it flexibly, that's an ideal way of dealing with this. DGG (talk) 16:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

If tags have been present for a long time, and at the same time there hasn't be a lot of edits to the article from that point, it is a surprise, and again, the benefit of the doubt should be given that 5 days may not be enough time to get notability up to spec. On the other hand, if the article has been tagged lacking notability for a year, and there's been numerous edits since that point including up to the point of AFD, and none addressing the notability issue, then I'm less inclined to give them more time to show it. And not trying to pimp this, but I think the postponed AFD idea I've got should get over many of the issues from past suggestions. --MASEM 17:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe it is about more time. Rather the point, I keep banging like a drum, is the argument, which is most heard, “…What constitutes Notability ? And what constitutes Significance. Those areas need to be resolved or qualified before any progress can be made. ShoesssS 17:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, from WP:N: "Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive." Granted that's still a bit vague, but I've mostly seen it used to get rid of obviously trivial coverage rather than anything else. One-line and single mentions aren't good enough, but a paragraph might be (depending on where, how long, and how detailed). Whole articles and other works (as long as they're reliable, of course) should pretty well establish notability. I think mostly it's the idea that multiple are needed that's the problem, so that some editors want two articles written about a subject for it to be notable. But I could be completely off. Anyway, cheers! --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 03:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but as vague as it is, my bigger complaint is that some editors will use dozens of exclusive but trivial (i.e. one line blog entries from reliable sources) to massively inflate an article. If you threaten the article, they just inflate it with statements like "John Smith from the New York Times has commented that his mustache is the greatest in three counties" to prove the notability of a politician's mustache and claim improvement. This creates a significant bias towards recent events, take a look at the articles for the elections in 1980 vs. 2008. Burzmali (talk) 11:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

that's a separate problem. We could and should get equally full coverage from the print sources once people do the work to find them--or once they become accessible online., whichever is the more likely. DGG (talk) 02:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

←Problem is that there are no print equivalents. Thirty years ago newsprint was expensive, so newspapers were forced to think before printing something. Today, any brain fart the newspaper has is just shoved on their "official" blog. Burzmali (talk) 02:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

(indent reset) I think that requires a more nuanced understanding. Dozens of trivial mentions or name drops do not add up to one substantial one, just as fifty lug nuts do not add up to a whole wheel. A substantial piece is of one piece, and while it is not necessary that it focus exclusively on the subject, the subject must be a main focus, not mentioned simply in passing or to provide context for the real subject. Further, notability requires that this source either be exceptionally comprehensive and respected, or, preferably, that there be multiple such sources from which an article may be written. There are other requirements as well, such as that the source must be independent of the subject and must be reliable. This here is why I'm against our latest "villagebot", that promises us millions instead of thousands of garbage, unimprovable stubs this time. Seraphimblade 17:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Le Grand Roi, as maybe I've said before in a less-clear fashion: The problems you perceive in the AfD process could be solved by having AfDs administered by more competent admins. Wherever you've pointed out a problem, it's been apparent to me that the closing admin was lazy and didn't pay attention to the value of the various arguments put forth. Also, the problems you perceive could be ameliorated to some extent by lazy voters adding sources and footnotes to the articles they're advocating, instead of just posting links to the AfD. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 16:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Interestingly there is a clear bias at RFA against deletionist candidates whereas you actually need to be rabidly inclusionist to the point of losing sight of what the guidelines and policy say before a similar level of opposition crops up on the other side. The real issue is that we don't have a good idea of what should or shouldn't be included and our guidelines and policies contradict themselves in so many ways that for an admin to judge consensus against policy they are effectively required to use their own interpretation of policy to close the debate. Because we have so many different admins closing debates we end up with the result being a lottery rather then a straightforward assessment of the discussion. All the process wonkery and fixing of AFD in the world isn't going to solve that that problem because the problem is bias intrduced by factors external to the AFD process. Unfortuately there is not likely to be any compromise that can be agreeed over our existing unsatisfactory set up. I'd be very interested in any proposals that DGG has to address this. Spartaz 13:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I have encountered a number of deletionist admins (those who are in fact listed in the deletionist category) who do seem to close AfDs in part because of bias against the article, i.e. in cases where the discussions were leaning toward keep or no consensus. My biggest concern with AfDs comes from my job as educator and historian and it is that a lot of what I see is in effect the electronic equivalent of book burning. To suggest that some knowledge is somehow not important is just unacademic and unencyclopedic. I am of course not talking about hoaxes, how tos, libel, copy vios, essays, etc., all of which I think we can agree should be deleted, but I see articles that do have reliable sources deleted under this bizarre idea that only things that pass a handful of editors' ideas of what's notable per an encyclopedic. Now those wanting to delete "in popular culture" articles, fictional characters, video game weapons, television episodes, family members of celebrities and politicians, etc. may think they are doing a good thing and have honest intentions, but the fact is that it is saying some knowledge is unimportant, which goes against everything any scholar and any encyclopedist should stand for. We discriminate against nonsense and lies, but there is no really good, logical, or valid reason why we cannot or should not cover some of these other items that a half dozen odd of the same editors in AfDs want deleted when others in the same AfDs argue to keep, plus maybe hundreds who created and worked on the article, and thousands who come here looking for the article. Some seem to think that Misplaced Pages will be better maintainable, but so then some just self-appoint themselves as the determiners of what knowledge is worthwhile, which is itself suspect. Some seem to think that if they delete articles that they don't like, then the editors will instead work on articles that the noms and per noms do like, which is naive and wrong. Article creators and contributors whose articles keep getting deleted will just leave the project. If we humor them, maybe they will branch off onto other "more important" articles, but if we keep insulting them authoritatively and paternalistically, they won't. As far as comedians or blogsters whose job is to be sarcastic and critical, who cares what they say about our inclusion of certain topics; after all, some of the sites I can't link to here actually mock us for deletionism. It baffles me as to why anyone would rather devote his or her energy to deleting articles that are not hoaxes, libel, essays, how tos, or copy vios, rather than trying to build up those articles he or she does believe are worthwhile. Imagine how much time spent on AfDs that end in no consensus or keep could have been spent cleaning up an article to bring it to good or featured status or protecting articles from vandalism! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 16:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you really get the point I'm making. The problem is that the system encourages personal bias in closing AFDs because there is no objective systemic basis on which to judge our inclusion criteria. The problem will only be resolved if we can come up with a clearer more consistent set of criteria against which content can be judged. This is external to the AFD process and no amount of tinkering is going to change that. The problem is not AFD and admins, it is the inclusion criteria. You appear to want to change the inclusion criteria by tinkering with AFD but that isn'y going to achieve that objective. You would be better off trying to get consensus on a clearer less subjective inclusion criteria if you want to get rid of 'bias' in deletion discussions. Spartaz 17:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I would like to change some of these policies and guidelines, but the problem is that a vocal minority shouts down any who disagree with them and claim that they represent consensus and typically turn the discussions into ad hominen attacks against those who challenge the notability guidelines. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 17:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Reply to # 14. ("Notability is not inherited" can no longer be used in AfDs.) -- Oh, please. If this were to be implemented, then every person on the planet will instantly be notable. One of my ancestors was the Queen of France and England, so I could claim to be notable, too. And I assure you that I'm not. :) --Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that it is used for say the spouse of an award winning music artist who directly mention said spouse in notable songs and for whom reliable sources exist and which gets thousands of hits. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 17:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but if reliable sources exist, that shows notability independent of the famous spouse. "Notability is not inherited" wouldn't be a valid AfD argument in that case, so there's no need to ban it. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

In a recent discussion, when reliable sources showing notability of the spouse came up, people in the AfD still chanted "notability is not inherited" anyway. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 19:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

People use invalid arguments in AfDs all the time. It's an issue to take up with individual editors instead of messing up the AfD process. And if the closing admin gives too much weight to invalid arguments, you are certainly free to question them as well.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I have found that if you confront editors in AfDs, even civily, they still get defensive and accuse those challenging them of harassment or other such nonsense. I think we some how need to make it clear on the top of every AfD that it is a discussion in which editors will reply to each other and not just a vote list of keeps and deletes. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 21:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Numbers 17 and 18 appear to be beyond what this discussion will be capable of doing. You ought to try somewhere else for them. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 04:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Per User talk:A Man In Black#Historical note, should we add a header on all AfDs that say something like, "Please remember that AfD is a discussion and not a vote. You should discuss with each other the article's value to Misplaced Pages and not just make a list of 'deletes' and 'keeps' with one or two word 'rationales'." followed by a link to the Arguments to Avoid Essay? If we did something like that, then it would look all the worse for anyone who posted there that didn't supply an actual reason and that goes for a "keep per nom" as well. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 19:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not. We can't be in the business of discouraging editors from participating. Everyone is entitled to their option and can state it how they want. Its simply down to the closing admin to weigh up the arguments against policy and judge the consensus. We already discussed that the problem - such a sit is - is the unclear inclusion criteria and you would be better off trying to fix that before we start tinkering with the AFD process. Spartaz 20:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Why not better educate participants as to what are and are not good versus weak arguments? If it's a discussion, then we should not have a bunch of non-discussion advancing "per nom" or one word "nnotable" non-rationales. Also, I actually want MORE people to participate in AfDs. Too many articles for which hundreds of editors have contributed wind up deleted because a half dozen or so in a five day AfD said to do so. I don't see how that can possibly reflect the actual opinion of the community. We need more participation and I think we should require notification of as many editors who worked on article under discussion as possible. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 21:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

A header on every AfD would just get ignored. The editors you're complaining about have already failed to read the instructions, guidelines and policy pages posted all over the place reminding our participants that these are discussions, not votes.
Education of our editors is important but I can't help thinking that a big part of the problem in this case is the structure of the discussion. The tradition of the bolded "keep" or "delete" at the front of the comment gives the appearance of voting even when that is not the intent. (It also has the unfortunate tendency to encourage our editors to decide the outcome first, then write their rationalization. I would rather they document their evidence and reasoning and lead up to the conclusion. That's how we used to structure the discussion comments. The current format was adopted during a period when the backlog of unclosed discussions was exceptionally long and we were looking for ways to make the closers' job easier. We accomplished the goal but to the detriment of the discussions in my opinion.)
Several alternative layouts for the discussions have been proposed. One of my favorites was the Deletion requests format. (Note: This proposal was made before we were in the habit of independent sub-pages for each discussion. Some of the formatting comments are now obsolete.) Rossami (talk) 22:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the next step is to reopen Misplaced Pages:Deletion reform and/or Misplaced Pages:Pure wiki deletion system. Another idea is to allow not only admins, but established editors in good standing to also be able to see deleted articles for the purposes of deletion reviews and RfAs (I'm sure someone can dream up a way that would allow that without also having to include the ability to delete or restore articles). There's this, but it doesn't go back far enough. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 22:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose All There are 18 suggestions here, some of them are related to each other (enough to discuss as a group), some of them are distinct enough that discussing them as a whole would be unsuitable. In the future, I think it would be easier for us to reach consesnsus on issues like this if they were proposed in smaller chunks. Even though there are 18 distinct suggestions I am going to treat them similarly for the purposes of my response because they serve to fundamentally shift the balance between the ability to delete and the ability to retain articles. If adopted these solutions would broaden notability guidelines, eliminate the limit on debate for AfD, and rewrite WP:CONSENSUS for the purposes of deletion discussion. A few points on why, precisely, I oppose these changes:

• Substantial process controls already exist. The AfD system provides the benefit of the doubt to the article in non-policy matters: 5 days of discussion, no prejudice toward recreation (for articles that don't meet guidelines) and Deletion review for discussions where process has broken down. Take together, these controls make it very difficult to delete an article that meets WP:NOT/V/NPOV/N. We cannot examine certain parts of the AfD process without examining the whole. Deletion of an article is a semi-permanent outcome and the process respects that by providing checks on deletion. Even if an article survives deletion it may still be userified and brought to standards outside of the mainspace. Furthermore, the imposition of infinite debate and bizzare counting rules will increase the backlog in AfD, which is considerable already. There are hundreds of articles that move through deletion each week. Each deserves a good look but none deserve to jam up the debate.
• A rewrite of WP:CONSENSUS is unacceptable. Specifically proposals 4,5,6,7,9. We cannot just decide that consensus in deletion requires tooling around in that particular article. Consensus in a debate is driven from discussion. We don't expect that those who comment on WT:N modify the WP:N page before their comments are heard. Furthermore this excludes editors from the discussion that don't give a rip about certain articles. I'm not going to contribute significantly to every article that comes up on AfD because most of them are outside my interests and my expertise. I don't expect to be punished because I have a different set of interests than other editors. Proposal 7 is totally unacceptable. We assume good faith, period. No admin or editor has more than an anecdotal understanding of who voted where or when and why. Nor can we demand (nor enforce) an expectation that editors perform some level of search for sources. There is no method to enforce this and it is wholly superfluous. Presume for a minute that I vote "ZOMG Delete" on an article and later some intrepid editor produces sources that allow the article to meet the guidelines. Do we need to "void" my !vote in order to keep the article? No. If the sources produced bring the article into guidelines then the lack of consensus to delete provides enough protection. Let me REPEAT that. If the sources provided bring the article up to standards, the article will be kept in the current system. Sometimes editors say they brought the article up to standards when they actually did not or when the sources or merits of the article are still in question. In this case, are we to repeal the positions of editors provided in good faith just because another editor produced evidence that she had rummaged around for sources?
• These changes shift focus toward inclusion. This may not be controversial, but it should be said. The changes above about consensus shift focus in the debate toward editors who vote keep. In a deletion debate, the nominator usually (with rare exception) provides a rationale for deletion and produces evidence to support that rationale. It then becomes the burden of editors who would like to keep the article to mount an affirmative defense. As I look at an article in AfD I may produce a list of possible sources or I may just cite a policy while arguing for deletion. However, if I am to argue to retain the article, I have to respond to the nomination (because presumably it provides the best argument for deletion). If we assume that that burden of response represents some deeper commitment to the debate then we introduce a structural bias toward keep votes. I'll refrain from discussing 14-16 in this section, keeping to the shift toward inclusion in debate. Proposals 10 and 13 provide an unnecessary and undue burden on editors nominating an article for deletion. If an editor is interested in the future and disposition of an article she may watchlist it. the deletion procedure already suggests notifying the principal creators and editors of an article. The expectation that we notify everyone who has dotted an i or crossed a t represents little more than a burden on the nominating editor. If I had to notify a half dozen users before nominating an article I would be dissuaded from doing so in all but the most extreme cases. Proposal 10 is flat out unnecessary. A renomination is not an "appeal" to the previous nomination. It is a call for consensus on an article independent of the previous calls. Like 13, interested editors will have the article watchlisted or will cruise AfD.
• Stop trying to control the debate. 12,14-16 are all totally unacceptable. LeGrand, I understand that you don't like these arguments but that is no reason for some blanket ban on their use. The community has already weighed in on the Cruft debate. The other restrictions are either handled in the deletion guide (and guide for admins) or represent undue restriction on speech you don't like. "Notability is not inherited" is even part of WP:FICT and WP:TOYS. Seriously. Also, there is focus on what wikipedia is not because that is a bedrock policy. WP:NOT provides good limits on content that allow us to expand the encyclopedia to anything not covered under there. IF you have a problem with that, this is not the proper venue.
• Blanket demands for notability 17 and 18 are not in the correct venue. Discussions about those guidelines can occur on those pages.

I'd prefer that responses come below this string of text rather than interstitially, but if other editors feel that they want to respond individually, go right ahead. :) Also, since watching this will watch AfD in general, I'm not likely to keep this page watched, so it may be some time before I get back to a comment. Basic takeaway: AfD is fine. It is an imperfect solution to a problem, but it does ok. And LeGrand, you are going to be unhappy with the AfD system so long as you expect it to result in solutions to your liking. I don't expect AfD to come out how I would like every time, that would drive me nuts. Just look at AfD from the standpoint of how it comports with current policies and guidelines. If there are problems still, then we can settle them in the appropriate place. Protonk (talk) 15:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• Responses:
• 1) The reason some editors may seem "offended" is that there are some AFD participants who feel the need to respond to every single comment that every other editor makes, often with repetitive comments. Not mentioning any names because I've been that involved in some contentious AFDs as well, but the constant responses in a less-contentious AFD can have the effect of making the AFD turn contentious.
• 2) Discussions cannot go on forever. Any cut-off point for discussion is by definition arbitrary but at some point a decision needs to be made. There is nothing preventing you from accessing those password-protected sources and writing articles in userspace and any admin will as a matter of course userfy articles upon your request.
• 3) "Articles for Restoration" is a terrible idea. If the problems with a deleted article are resolved, DRV can be used to undelete it or it may be userfied or re-written from scratch.

• Yeah, I didn't mention it specifically, but "AfR" would basically duplicate effort at AfC and represent another list I have to watch. Also, this would mean that only articles strongly supported by someone would be put in AfR (in other words, someone is willing to do the pushing), which is really the last kind of article we want to have prolonged debate about. there doesn't need to be an AfD2. Protonk (talk) 18:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• 4) Agreed that editors should check for possible sources before initiating an AFD but the idea of watchlisting people who !vote a certain way is repulsive.
• 5) WP:EFFORT is not a valid argument. Dozens of editors may work on an unsuitable article; their wasted effort is regrettable but must not be considered as a reason for keeping it. Someone is always going to be upset at the closure of an AFD if it doesn't go their way; "someone might be offended" strikes me as a poor rationale for changing process.
• 6) This proposal makes it far too easy to game the system by simply inserting a question at the end of an AFD that isn't going the way the questioner wants. I trust admins to take note of the entire discussion and if they don't we already have DRV.
• 7) I have expressed my concern elsewhere that you base some of your AFD !votes on your finding the subject to be offensive or "pedophilic," so I don't put much stock into your list of deletions. Editors are entitled to believe that entire classes of articles are unacceptable and !vote accordingly if they so choose and their opinions should not be discounted on that basis.
• 8) Bollocks. A bad article is a bad article regardless of who nominates it and there's already a process in place for dealing with AFDs initiated in bad faith.
• 9) Same response as to number 6 above. Editors should not be allowed to game the system by slipping a question in at the last minute to stop a closure they don't support.
• 10) This is far too burdensome to the process. Interested editors can watchlist articles.
• 11) No.
• 12) notability has a definition on Misplaced Pages. Banning "non-notable" from AFD is unacceptable. Indiscriminate also has a meaning on Misplaced Pages and banning its use is unacceptable.
• 13) No. This is far too burdensome and interested editors can watchlist articles. Notifying everyone who ever fixed a typo of an AFD is ridiculous.
• 14) Your pronouncement is rejected.
• 15) No type of article may be exempt from the policies and guidelines of Misplaced Pages, your pet passion for trivia notwithstanding. Editors need to take responsibility for ensuring that their articles meet those guidelines before splitting them off.
• 16) WP:NOT is bedrock Misplaced Pages policy. Your collected essays on "What Misplaced Pages is" is not policy or guideline. It is opinion which any and all editors are free to disregard.
• 17) Even articles with reliable sources may be otherwise unsuitable under policy and guidelines. No blanket passes for any type of article.
• 18) No. The article about the toy or video game must meet all relevant policies and guidelines, and the notability of the source game or toy does not impart notability to every iteration of it in every medium.
• Additionally, I echo much of what Protonk has said above. Otto4711 (talk) 17:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I do find this interesting. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 18:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

REALLY? what is interesting about it? Are you going to suggest that I'm canvassing perhaps? If you do I suggest you just come out and suggest it. WT:AFD is not exactly a well traveled section of the 'pedia (I only found it from a village pump link) and I'm pretty sure that I didn't want a policy suggestion like this to go through without some comment. So here's my offer, LeGrand. Put up or shut up. Accuse me of canvassing or don't bother. I'm not interested in being the subject of innuendo because I oppose making changes to policy in order to suit the needs of an editor. Furthermore, be prepared to accept the responsibility for such an accusation, because glass houses are terrible places to throw stones from. Protonk (talk) 18:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oh noes, someone who knows I've been involved in AFDs notified me of a discussion involving a proposal for major changes to the AFD process! Seems to me, since you want every person who's ever touched an article to be personally notified of an AFD, it should have been you who notified me of this discussion. Protonk did nothing wrong here and the implication that he did is ridiculous. Otto4711 (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• If that's the case then feel free to notify everyone who has agreed with me in such discussions as well. In any event, AfD needs serious reform if not replacement, because we keep getting what seems to be frivolous AfDs. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 18:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm begging with you. Please stop escalating conflicts. You suggested it was improper that I talked with otto about this proposal. He refuted that implication. You response is to call a nomination he made frivolous? Please, act to deescalate rather than enflame debate. If you have a response to the policy issues we brought up, feel free to bring that up. Please don't suggest that our participation here is in bad faith, however diplomatic your suggestion may be. Protonk (talk) 18:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no desire to escalate anything, but we do need to make serious revisions or something outside of the box to fix the various problems with AfDs as enumerated above. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 18:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Disregarding the notability/whatnot elements of your above manifesto, I take issue with the clauses about consensus: as a closing admin, I don't count votes; unfortunately many are afraid to have a few sound arguments outweigh a massive swell of 'per noms', but that's just up to the admins to deal with. I would say the only issues on that side are people, not policy-based. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 12:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to bring up an old discussion that seems to have ended a week ago.. but in regards to point #7 above, please note that User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Deletion discussions systematically omits discussions in which Le Grand votes keep but the eventual result was delete. Roi's flimsy rationale for this is that he is "still working on his options" (DRV, userfication) for those articles, but that does not ring true since many of the omitted discussions involve articles Roi has not mentioned or touched for months.

Users are obviously allowed to put whatever they want in userspace, but I think it is important to note that this page should not be accepted at face value. --Jaysweet (talk) 22:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for assuming bad faith. We do not have a timeline. I plan to at some point address every article not included there yet, but it will of course take time, maybe months, maybe longer, to get to all of them. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 23:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

We aren't assuming bad faith. You claim publicly that the list of deletion discussion represents evidence that you aren't solely an inclusionist. Jaysweet calls you on EXACTLY THAT CLAIM. You respond by telling him that the list was never meant to be evidence of your overall success rate or wikistance. He calls you on THAT CLAIM. No assumptions exist here. Protonk (talk) 23:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

And the page shows exactly that, i.e. that I don't only argue to keep, but that I do in fact argue and even nominate to delete. It says nothing about hey look at my success rate. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 23:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

After taking a few deep breaths, I believe perhaps Le Grand is not intending to mispresent. I still believe the page leads to the impression that Le Grand !votes "delete" a lot higher percentage of the time than he actually does, but I don't think he is intentionally distorting.

I am willing to remove the accusation from this page if you want, Le Grand. Or, if you would prefer to leave it in place as a record of my "bad faith", I am okay with that too, as I stand by the gist of what I said, if not the vehemence. (FWIW, the reason I was so pissed off is because the first time I saw that page I did in fact assume good faith, i.e. I did not attempt to verify the accuracy of the page myself -- and now I wish I had.) --Jaysweet (talk) 23:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Jaysweet, again, just to clarify, it is not meant to show that I have a higher percentage of delete "votes" than I actually have, only that I do in fact argue to delete after some asserted inaccurately that I "never" do so, which the page shows to be untrue as I have done so at least forty times. The page also accurately shows that I do nevertheless predominantly argue to keep and I would absolutely not dispute that I am a strong inclusionist. I merely want to show that I am not a blind inclusionist unwilling to ever argue to delete. I might revise the lead of the page to further clarify after I type up this reply, but there are AfDs I participated in even a year ago that I have every hope to eventually revisit at some point. Maybe when I finally have a break from my real life responsibilities to actually do some hard work on here. To clarify further, I do not go down the list of AfDs and just comment in all of them. Rather, I look for specific ones that I either strongly believe should be deleted or much more frequently believe should at least be a redirect and I watchlist those pages and continue discussing in them as they discussion progresses and because I believe strongly that these articles can somehow at least exist as a redirect, I do not give up just because an AfD or even a DRV did not go the way I would have liked as after all consensus can and does change. I suppose it is similar to those who will nominate the same article for deletion a third or even more times. It is unfortunate if it was perceived otherwise and I am outright saddened at the way this discussion across multiple pages has gone, although I am encouraged by your post above. I will momentarily revise the lead of the page in question clarify further as I hope that should help. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 23:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I feel like a real ass now since it is abundantly clear to me at this point that Le Grand does not intend to deceive, and if I had approached him in a more mature manner, I think we could have worked out an intro to the page in question that satisfied us both. As it is, I no longer I feel I have the moral high ground to try and exert an influence over the intro.

Le Grand, let me try and explain a little better (and more calmly) why I feel I was deceived by that page even though it was not your intention to deceive. First, I assume we would both agree that the discussions I feel are wrongly omitted would exclusively entail discussions in which you voted "keep", correct? i.e. there are probably not any discussions in which you voted "delete" but the result was "keep" and you are planning on renominating it at a later date, right? ;D

If we accept that premise, and from my cursory examination it looks like the size of the list would increase by like 50-100% or more if those discussions were included, I think we can agree that the percentage of the time you !vote delete appears much lower on that list than in reality. Correct?

When you initially showed me that page, I understand now your intention was to say, "I have !voted 'delete' more than zero times." I accept that as true, however, you have to understand that people are going to take more than that from that page. The first thing I thought to myself was, "Hmmm, not only has he !voted 'delete', but it looks like he does it a non-trivial amount of the time." I believe that was a false impression. The second thing I thought was, "Wow, I know Roi is an inclusionist, but based on the correlation between his !votes and the eventual outcome, it seems like he picks his battles pretty well." I know now that was never your intention, but that's what I got from the page. Sorry to say, but I now believe that impression to be quite far from the truth.

I remain highly concerned about the potential impressions users will get from looking at that page, even with the modified disclaimer (even with your improvement from today, there is a big difference between incomplete and systematically incomplete) -- however, as I mentioned above, I believe I have squandered any moral credibility I might have had with my initial vehemence. So I'll leave it alone for now -- though I do reserve the right to politely point out to other users the net effect of your criteria for inclusion on that list, should it come up in the future. --Jaysweet (talk) 23:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I took the same thing from the list, Jay, so it's not an outrageous leap of logic. Perhaps including the "voted keep but it was deleted" article on their, with a color code that indicates Roi is yet working on them would be the best route to prevent misinterpretation of the data presented. S. Dean Jameson 00:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I think there's one instance in an MfD where I argued to delete, but it closed as keep that is not yet included on that table, although I'm not sure yet if I plan to renominate that one. I believe that every other time I argued to delete save that one has in fact closed as delete. Sure, the percentage I argue to delete is actually much lower, but whereas I do argue to delete at least sometimes I have encountered a few who even outright said they would "never" argue to keep and I don't believe they ever have actually done so. The thing is though there are also a lot of ones in which I argued to keep and the close was indeed something other than delete that I have not yet added as well. There may even be some that I argued to delete and that closed as delete that I have also not yet added. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 00:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Who. Usernames might be helpful. I've never met anyone who has voted (assuming they are 'real' accounts and not socks or throwaways) only "keep" or "delete" on every subject. Protonk (talk) 00:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

See for example and or . --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 00:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Lol. So I dug through all of Dr. Fluffy's contributions to the wikipedia namespace. No keep or neutral votes. Good. We've got one step down. We've shown that there is one editor in wikipedia who has yet to vote keep (and based on talk page responses, probably never will). Of course now step two: convincing the community why the voice of an editor like him should be ignored (Also, to be clear, he just doesn't vote keep, not that he votes delete on every article, presumably he just doesn't comment on article which ought to be kept in his eyes). So why should Dr. Fluffy's vote never matter? Protonk (talk) 03:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC) Oh, as an addendum, I'm not laughing at you. I'm laughing at the fact that he has literally 1500+ afd contributions and not one is keep.  :) He's focused. Protonk (talk) 03:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe the other account linked above has ever argued to keep either, i.e. the one that calls other editors "acne-ridden mongoloid fanboys" (I don't think a single-purpose alternate account based on incivility is legitimate). In any event, if it's a discussion and not a vote, then the participants need to be open-minded to changing their stances should the article improve or new sources be found as I did at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/F.C. Prabis. It's frustrating in discussions when sources are found and they are outright ignored, because the account is not interested in arguing to keep the article in question under any circumstances. Intsead, I get comments like this (look at my initial post in the discussion well above that post in which I had indeed posted the same links I posted again...). --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 03:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mention the other account because a SPA for deletion discussions is obviously not going to vote keep. and it's insulting to call Dr. Fluffy's comments a distraction. he is a member of the community and insofar as he can make a policy based argument for deletion it should count just as much as yours or mine. If all he did was write "crap, delete", we could ignore it for completely other reasons. And We don't need to judge people based on their willingness to vote keep for some article that doesn't meet guidelines.

As for the comment, I can't make everyone read everything you write. In that case perhaps a better "first" (in that exchange) comment would be to say, "hey, I have sources above". Further, you keep mentioning the specter of editors and admins ignoring good sources and deleting articles anyways. I don't see it. I see some articles which don't get improved at all from nomination to deletion. I see some articles that get improved and kept (those are the most fun). I also see some articles (this is most common in the COI/FRINGE debates) where source after source gets presented and they are all crap. total crap. Nothing to do with the subject or otherwise unacceptable. But I've never seen an AfD go down where legit evidence of notability was presented and ignored (the closest I can think of would be The murder of Joseph Didler. That, to me is about as close as you can come to arguing that a sourced and notable article got through the entire process. It was basically deleted under WP:NOT and not WP:N, FWIW). Like AMiB told you on your talk page the single best method of arguing in an AfD is "Here are my sources that show notability, suck on it.". Do that and no deletionist can touch you. Do that and we don't need all these arcane rules about who can participate in AfD and how many people we have to nominate. That's all it takes. Talking about how other editors don't look for sources doesn't do a thing. We all know that "other people" don't do shit. Hell, I don't do shit, I know it. There is no method to make other editors go look for sources. But if you get them (or anyone), we can't delete it. Even if I'm an evil deletionist, I can't force an article to be deleted with good sourcing (and if it is, it can be recreated). And if I refuse to accept (here again I'm cribbing from AMiB) these good sources, I will be shouted down. The community will reject my position. Period. If you come up with sources about a topic scheduled for deletion and I say something like "Nutz to that, deletion is awesome, I love red links, cruft cruft, cruft...." people will ignore me. That is the community at work. It happens every single day. You can take any day in AfD and among 100+ articles at least one was improperly nominated and the sourcing provided in AfD improves the article considerably. Every day.

So we can either treat this like a community process or we can act as though editors are ignorant, spiteful and collusive. We can assume that some people will never vote a certain way and therefore ignore them or we can treat arguments as they come. We can treat deletion as an inherently immoral act, akin to vandalism, or we can just treat it as a process that the community enters into. This probably sounds like a false choice but it isn't far off. AfD is just another process. It is an important one, because it exists at the margin--choices here have a real result on the encyclopedia. that means it sees more fervor than GA review (which is backed up, please help!). But it doesn't make the deletion of an article an inherently ignoble act. Treating it as such is an insult to the people who work to delete articles outside the community policies and guidelines. Let's just work to bring evidence to AfD's and save articles through improvement and learning, not sealawyering. Protonk (talk) 04:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Soft redirects as an alternative to deletion

Thumperward suggested that I bring this idea here for discussion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 22:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Soft-redirects within the WikiMedia family of projects are generally supported without controversy. Examples include Wiktionary or Meta and cover using either the {{softredirect}} or sometimes {{wi}} templates (and probably more but those two are most common). They are an effective way to politely point new users to the project where their contribution will be most appreciated while preserving the pagehistory in case there is something potentially useful in an old version of the page. (For older pages, it also was part of the preservation of attribution history when a page was transwiki'd from one project to another. For more recent transwikis, that's less important because the pagehistory now moves with the page.)

On the other hand, redirects that go outside the WikiMedia family of projects get deleted at RfD with near unanimity. The concerns raised during those discussions include:

• perception of entanglement by readers could create legal complications for the Foundation
• potential for abuse as an "end-run" around Misplaced Pages's policies

The discussion thread you linked to seems to imply that you want to more agressively link outside the WikiMedia family. Is that a correct interpretation? If so, how do you propose to address the concerns raised during the RfD discussions? Rossami (talk) 23:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think we should be able to soft-redirect to GFDL compliant wikis, i.e. if we transwiki something, we should soft-redirect there as obviously someone(s) thought the material wikipedic enough for it to have existed here first and yet by soft-redirecting to the transwiked location we are sort of compromising by saying while it may not be suitable for coverage here, we know people who come here do look for it and some even want to work on it, so they can do so by following the link. If we can agree to allowing something like that, I would actually be far less likely to defend certain articles as outright keeps in AfDs and DRVs, as my main opinion is that we provide comprehensive coverage as a reference guide. If as an alternative to outright coverage ourselves, we instead provide convenient navigation among the transwikiable wikis for the benefit of our readers who come here looking for information and also for those editors who work on multiple projects, then that is something I'd much more be willing to support. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 00:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's be precise in our use of language here, please. Transwiki is a process specific to the WikiMedia family of projects. Copying content to another GFDL-compliant wiki is legal but it is not a "transwiki". (I'm not sure that there is another word for it except "copying content".)
Still thinking about the merits of your proposal... Rossami (talk) 00:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

So when we delete an article as non-notable, we should instead send readers off wiki to read more about it? Fail. It's inherent POV when picking a site to send readers to. Further, sending people OFF Misplaced Pages isn't our goal; instead send them to a reasonably connected 'trunk' article, from which readers can jump around learning more about the topic and finding our normal external link lists to read up on. But pickign ONE External link will result in numerous editing wars and POV pushes. ThuranX (talk) 02:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Whenever we can redirect without deleting the contribution history right on our site, than that would of course be preferred. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 02:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I think a better way to accomplish this goal would be to put a link on the talk page of either the redirect or the redirect target. "Content from (such-and-such) was (copied/transwikied) to (such-and-such)." Generally, the only thing that goes in article space is article content. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• No Chris was right. Misplaced Pages isn't a directory. It's a shame that edit histories get lost in deletion, but that is a pretty minor impact. Admins can see deleted contributions, good edit counters show a raw tally of deleted contributions and I've never seen an RfA fail because of a contributor had too few mainspace contributions but if he had X more (where X is equal to or less than the deleted contributions) he would have passed. The loss of edits due to deletion of articles that fail to meet policies or guidelines isn't enough of a negative impact to justify remaking the soft redirect policy. Protonk (talk) 04:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • In no way would this make us a directory and it is only for articles that are transwikiable, i.e. ones that are not hoaxes or libelous. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 04:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
    • What people are objecting to is that you want to add directory entries to off-wiki content. It wouldn't be anything near a complete directory, but there's long-standing practice to not have articles that are nothing but external links. Soft directs are traditionally only used on project pages, in the Misplaced Pages: namespace. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Just saying it doesn't make a directory doesn't make it so. If the mainspace article serves to do nothing but to provide a link off the project, it serves as just an entry in a web directory. Protonk (talk) 04:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

When the article to be delete is named as a valid search term (most common for fictional characters or episodes) which can be discussed in the context of a notable work, the redirect should point to a page that summarizes that element, and from that page can be the wiki-link to wherever the material may have found a home for (pending evaluation via WP:EL). This still preserves that page history. The difficulty (if there is one) is for articles named in a fashion that is not readily searchable and often cannot be incorporated into a larger article though still can be merged. Leaving a redirect to a notable topic it is a part of could work (leaving the history) but that tends to lead to a bunch of loose, unusable articles floating about. We should still point to that off-site wiki from the notable topic when content is moved, it just may not a direct link to the content for that page. --MASEM 04:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a bad idea for a two main reasons. Firstly, non-affliated external sites with user-generated content are frowned-upon anyway: they only occasionally qualify as valid targets for links in an "external links" section, never mind a soft redirect. Secondly, allowing such things encourages their proliferation: Just on AfDs in the last fortnight in the 40k domain alone you'd have Dark Angels, Titan (Warhammer 40,000), Khorne, Tzeentch, Emperor's Children, World Eaters, Ultramarines, Blood Angels... There are limitless external sites, and allowing anything not notable enough for WP to be soft-redirected off is going to quickly result in portalisation. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• I'm talking about using a tool already available: Interwiki links, as opposed to cluttering EL; or, in liue of this, one box at the bottom of such pages that states this wiki has more information. Mind first, editors of that topic must come to a decision as to what wiki is most appropriate that meets the requirements for WP:EL, and only one wiki should be selected (the interwiki map should be small as possible). Once done and a map created, then links can be easily added in context without portalizing the page. For example, maybe not the best example overall, but Xenosaga Episode I: Der Wille zur Macht story section has the bulk of the characters and terms pointed to an external source which doesn't have the same requirements for notability as WP does. Also, I agree soft-redirection is not the right solution - any WP redirection should be to a WP page; but subsequent linking to an external wiki would then be helpful. --MASEM 13:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• • My bad Masem... was replying to the main comment, not yours. I've reindented to avoid confusion. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

ARS project

Why is AfD part of the ARS project? Protonk (talk) 04:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

You might want to ask ARS, since they placed the tag here.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Non-English Title Deletion

What's the quickest to delete pointless articles created with non-English titles, I'm having issues putting them up here for nomination, please assist.Kenimaru (talk) 08:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Sample pages: http://en.wikipedia.org/%E9%85%92 http://en.wikipedia.org/%E6%88%B8%E7%B1%8D

These are, per previous consensus, legitimate disambiguation pages and don't do any harm. I.e. they should not be deleted. – sgeureka 08:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree, there are pages duplicating the English counterparts and providing trivial information. If anything, they should sit with the appropriate language wikis. One way I think I can do is to redirect them manually and migrate the little contents on there. Would you point me to where the consensus are discussed? Thanks. Kenimaru (talk) 09:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Just like Brandenburger Tor and München redirect to the English terms, these symbols would redirect to the responding English term. However, the symbols are ambiguous, therefore they are dab pages instead of redirects, which is legitimate. You can ask at Misplaced Pages talk:Disambiguation (or Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)) whether I assessed this situation right, because I remember that this was discussed before. – sgeureka 09:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the key issue here is that Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary and these trivial pages are created by individuals to clutter the information by introducing repetitive contents via foreign title. This is very different from the 2 examples that you brought up, which are the native names for foreign locales. There is nothing wrong to discuss the so-called ambiguity of wine and brown rice tea in different culture context, but it's not supposed to take the place on Misplaced Pages (or so I believe). Kenimaru (talk) 20:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

As we likely won't come to an agreement here, please take these articles to WP:AFD to get more input, because the other two ways of deletions (WP:PROD and WP:SPEEDY) will likely be rejected. – sgeureka 21:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Which is exactly what I was trying to do, except that the template doesn't work well with Chinese characters. If you know how, please do tell, thanks. Kenimaru (talk) 23:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Now I understand the problem. What will work is to create dummy AfDs with e.g. your sandbox via the usual way and subst'ing templates, and then change all links and names with the foreign symbols and finally make a page move. – sgeureka 05:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Where the situation is a straight redirect (as opposed to a disambiguation page), the decision was made here. It boils down to "discourage redirects for common foreign language words" but "allow redirects where the foreign title is either the original or commonly known". The discussion also formally acknowledged some users use cut-and-paste to try to figure out what a foreign phrase means. It may not seem like much value to you or I but redirects are cheap (and disambiguation pages are almost as cheap) so the bar for their inclusion is very low. Since, as with Sgeureka's observations, the discussions that I know of concluded that these can be appropriate to the project, there is no deletion shortcut that you can use. If you think these pages are actively harmful to the project, you'll have to use AfD/RfD to get consensus on it. Rossami (talk) 13:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I see your point and I agree, though these examples are what I deemed as artificial ambiguity. It's like creating a page called "Big Bear Cat" in Chinese, put it on the English Misplaced Pages, and say it's ambiguous because some think that is Panda and some think otherwise. Kenimaru (talk) 20:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Could this be a Speedy Deletion reason? like... A14 - Title and content duplicate extant content, but use foreign characters to duplicate a concept already covered in English on the wiki. Would that be acceptable, because I agree that it's stupid to end-run around NOT#Dictionary, and to allow people to turn us into a Berlitz course. ThuranX (talk) 06:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the fact that there's some debate here indicates that you shouldn't try speedying them, even if you could find an admin who was willing to delete them. Speedies are for distinct non-controversial cases. There's enough here to make me think that there will be differing opinions on whether or not they'll be deleted. You probably can bundle them, but I don't think a speedy or prod is appropriate. Vickser (talk) 06:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

No, no. I think you misunderstand. I'm asking, is there a way to take what we're talking about, and create another qualification for Speedy Deletion. In other words, is this idea material for actually changing CSD policy to add a 'Foreign Dictionary' reason for CSD. ThuranX (talk) 06:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I get what you're saying. It seems to me that that it would be possible to create a new speedy category, but you'd have to do so at Misplaced Pages talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. I don't think it should proposed until the afds hatch out for the first batch and consensus is established. On the basis of the redirects from foreign languages page linked by Rossami, you'd probably have issues getting such a criterion approved until you can show consensus that these should be deleted. Vickser (talk) 06:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

maybe this discussion will yield somethign that can be brought there. ThuranX (talk) 07:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I can't imagine every accepting this as a speedy criterion. It is perfectly reasonable for someone who also knows the original language to use it for a search even in the English Misplaced Pages--it will always be less ambiguous than any English transcription--and I think there would therefore be opposition to many such deletions even at RfD. DGG (talk) 02:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

New proposal to change certain AfD's to merge discussions

Brief announcement: see here for a proposal to apply WP:BEFORE in speedy closing certain merge-related debates. Skomorokh 16:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Date/Status bot back

I've got AfDBot running again on User:ST47/AfD and User:ST47/AfDC, if anyone was using that information, it should now be current until further notice. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 20:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

This brings up an interesting issue. The bot shows that July 21 isn't complete, and a look at July 21, specifically Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_July_21#Logitech_Attack_3, shows that to be true. (At least, as I type this). So I added July 21 back into the old discussions section, ran mathbot to update, and mathbot says zero open. Darned if I can figure out why. Any clue anyone???--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Relisted that one, so now the 21st is clean. Can't say why mathbot didn't pick it up, but it looks like further inconsistency is based on User:ST47/AfD picking up the commented out AfDs on the log page. My guess is there's eight of those. So I'm thinking both bots could use an update to avoid issues like this in the future, 'cuz they were both wrong. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 21:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Good thought on the commenting out, but there's only 4. :)

Sounds like it would be a good idea if people gave each day's list a once over before moving it to the archives.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Probably not a bad idea. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 12:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Much appreciated, ST47. Thanks, UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 12:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

AFD template banners

I've removed the Wikiproject: Pop culture banner from the shell above. While I think that discussion about the ARS/Deletion banners are important, I'm not inclined to think that the IPC project has much cause to place a banner here. their articles come here for deletion, but not much more than any other project. Project pop culture is able to think however they want about 'working in the trenches', but I think that the template messages at the top of this page should be kept to the bare minimum. Protonk (talk) 21:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It was added in this edit, so I suggest asking Benjiboi why. Cheers. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 21:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm just putting this post up here to let people know that at least one person objects to its replacement. That's for pointing that out to me, though. :) Protonk (talk) 12:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there a reason the banner should be here, other than occasionally some articles come up for deletion? If the only reason is the sometimes-articles-get-deleted, would Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Popular_culture be a good target for the banner? (I'm not trying to be snarky, I'm trying to understand the reasoning for the banner.) --Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

That seems like a good idea to me. Protonk (talk) 16:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC) Nevermind. Each delsort page is a subpage of the main one, so the discussion page is common to all. :( Protonk (talk) 16:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Clearly my brain was off somewhere wandering around this morning. That slash in the title should have clued me in. :) --Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/W-PuTTY-CD

Can someone take a look at this afd and possibly do some cleaning up? it's so full of spam that it's impossible to tell what's going on. --neon white talk 14:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not that bad. I removed the headers, as they're not necessary. Cheers. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 15:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Recommendation templates with icons

There are a couple of templates that have been around for a while but have been little used until now that incorporate icons with editors' recommendations. These are:

• {{keepvote}} or {{forvote}} - renders as Template:Keepvote
• {{delvote}} - renders as Template:Delvote
• {{afd comment}} - renders as Template:Afd comment

Similar templates are used as standard in deletion discussions on the Spanish Misplaced Pages. The ones here may need a bit of discussion and/or improvement to cover all cases and standardise on names for the templates. I'm not sure, for instance, that "delvote" and "keepvote" are appropriate names since deletion discussions are not a vote. Also, AFAIK there are no templates for the merge or rename options as yet. However, I do think we should take this on board. Vquex (talk) 01:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Ehm, you probably wanna' take a look at Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/Log/Deleted/June 2005#Template:Support and Template:Object and Template:Oppose for why we don't have those anymore. There was a DRV for them recently, at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2008 July 17, which pretty well endorsed the deletion. So I'm pretty sure consensus is against having these for use at AfD. Cheers. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 02:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I read that discussion as 'the community doesn't want them but you are free to drag them out of a userspace template if you really want to pretty up your !vote at AfD. Hopefully it doesn't become standard, but I think anyone is free to adorn their statement (caveat emptor, I can't speak for everyone). Protonk (talk) 02:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

And they've now been speedy-deleted under criterion G4 per the repeated discussions on these templates. Rossami (talk) 05:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, OK I was not aware of these previous discussions. Vquex (talk) 06:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Glad to have on record that they're gone here. They emphasize the wrong thinge entirely. AfD is not a vote on the enWP, though it is on some of the other WPs. But Im glad to know how you thought of using them from previous experience.. DGG (talk) 08:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The Bantalas, by Xesko

If I understand correctly, you are doubting the truthfulness of my article. You can check them in the links in reference or when I discovers how I can made an upload of a image, I can put an image of the magazine "The Bantalas" in the page. I have all the numbers. If this is not a trustworthy source, then I do not know what it will be. Xesko (talk) 06:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you're referring to The Bantalas - currently at AfD. I don't understand Portuguese - the language used in the external links, so I haven't check them. The main issue of this article however doesn't seem to be verifiability, but notability. Generally, when an article fails WP:N (wikipedia inclusion guideline), it doesn't matter whether that article can be verifiable or not.--PeaceNT (talk) 15:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Something wrong?

When I insert:

   {{subst:afd3 | pg=NominationName}}

It does not expand for some reason. Also, where do I use "PageName (2nd nomination)" instead of "PageName" for a second nomination?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 04:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

{{subst:afd3|pg=ROFL}} generates {{:Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/ROFL}}, so if it's a second nomination you need to put {{subst:afd3|pg=ROFL (2nd nomination)}} or whatever the AfD title is. Cheers. lifebaka++ 11:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Unclosed AfD

Can an uninvolved admin please close Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Kali Littlefield? It slipped through the cracks a few days ago. Thanks. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Closed. I archived the 26 July log; looks like I missed that AfD. Sorry. --PeaceNT (talk) 06:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Potential conflict of interest/bias in AfD closes?

Should admins who typically nominate or "vote" to delete certain kinds of articles be trusted to close the same sorts of AfD discussions? I do not wish to call anyone out just yet, but I have noticed a few AfDs that easily could have been closed as "no consensus" or "merge and redirect" closed as delete by a couple admins whom I frequently see nominating the exact same kinds of articles or who only argue to delete those kinds of articles. If that isn't a concern, then I see no reason why I shouldn't be able to close those kinds of disucssions as keep, no consensus, or merge and redirect. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 17:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

To address your second point, consensus has determined that non-admins aren't permitted to close debates where consensus isn't clear cut. Very clear-cut debates can be closed by anyone applying the snowball close, with debates that result in either keep or delete. Though the latter is more personal opinion than community consensus, as I think it's absolutely fine for a non-admin to close a debate that has run for 5 days with clear delete consensus ( {{db-afd}} can be used to mark the page for deletion). Seraphim♥Whipp 17:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

There's a reason we have deletion review. Also, administrators are trusted members of the community for a reason. If you no longer trust certain admins, there are venues to deal with what you perceive as their breaches of trust. AniMate 18:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I am considering it as there are at least a couple who are clearly going with their opinion when there is no clear consensus to delete. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 23:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It is generally recommended that non-administrators shouldn't close non clear-cut AfDs. This is however not a universally consensual rule - not written in black and white anywhere, either, so there must be exceptions. I suppose non-admins who have experience with the deletion policy and process can close no-consensus AfDs, and I have seen several non-admins who often do that quite well and help a lot in reducing the XfD backlog. :)

On the other hand, while I appreciate non-admins helping out with closing clear-cut AfDs as delete, I don't think it is helpful at all. The reason is that by deleting articles tagged with {{db-afd}}, an admin effectively endorses the AfD closure and accepts the responsibility for deletion. They still have to review the discussion to check if the tag is correct. It may save the admin one edit, but the time and effort spent on reading an AfD is still the same. (I do try to AGF as much as I can, but if I were to see something tagged with {{db-afd}}, I would review the deletion debate anyway to make sure. You never know when articles get vandalized ;)) --PeaceNT (talk) 03:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

You make some good points there. I too, would never delete an article without checking the debate first. I was referring more to debates where there is a pure delete result, no objections, and the closer is in good community standing. But I see where you're coming from regarding time spent - something I hadn't considered :) - and I think an adjustment of my stance is definitely required :). Seraphim♥Whipp 08:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

As another question, are admins required/expected to also look at the article under discussion, i.e. not just go by the comments? A few times I have noticed discussions that may have your usually rapid fire "per noms", but then right at the end of the discussion someone does a significant revision to the article thereby addressing all nominator concerns and yet few to no others return to or come to the discussion at this point and it gets closed as delete, which seems strange given the improvements. See for example, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ernie (Family Guy). Look at the last three comments in which an editor made a significnat revision and then someone who usually argues to delete or merge actually said to keep due to the rewrite (plus, it doesn't help that at least two of those who argued to delete later turned out to be sock accounts) and yet the article was closed as delete. Shouldn't the ending matter more than what happend at the start of the discussion? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 05:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, admins are expected to look at the articles they're deleting. Looking at Ernie, perhaps the rewrite wasn't as useful or illuminating as you remember. From what I've seen of East718, he appears to have good judgment. AniMate 05:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The character in question's notability has only increased since then as it appears in just about every season. So, if anything, I reckon the article could actually be improved further now. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 02:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure. It is advisable that admins look at the articles on AfDs, at least to put the deletion discussions in context. :) The cited AfD is indeed an unusual case, with noticeable improvement on the last day of the AfD - the day that article was deleted. Perhaps a relist could be warranted? Has anyone asked the closing admin about this AfD before? --PeaceNT (talk) 06:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if anyone has or not. If relisted, it would only be fair that it be undeleted during a relist. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 02:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

as for non admin closings in general, one reason to not prohibit them is to give prospective admins experience--and permit people to judge whether they do in fact understand. There have been RfAs turned down because of over-enthusiastic and ill-judged non-admin Afd closing. I admit it's somewhat paradoxical to permit people to do this so they can show if they make mistakes....

But as for admins who consistently close wrong, I think peer pressure is the first step, followed if necessary by RfCs, etc. Deletion Review can deal with clear isolated errors, but if people don't respond after criticisms of their closings there, there has to be a way of proceeding. DGG (talk) 03:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Sonic shower (2nd nomination) is another example. Seven editors in good standing argued to keep and one argued to merge. The closer claims that the only sources are wikis, but a Google book search (see ) shows that this claim is simply not true. Thus saying that verifiability outweighs consensus is inaccurate, because the article can be verified by multiple published books and because it is exists in multiple published books, it is thus notable. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 17:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

You've taken that particular one to DRV Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2008 August 13, let's keep the discussion about it there. Cheers. lifebaka++ 17:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It's part of a trend of ones that really could/should have been "no consensus", such as Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Pokémon types (3rd nomination), Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Emperor of Mankind, etc. If we're going to delete, then there really needs to be an overwhelming consensus to do so. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 17:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Where "no consensus" means "sufficiently derailed by red herrings and brow-beating that an untrained eye would have difficulty seeing the consensus", of course. Sandstein's rationale for closing Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Emperor of Mankind is basically a perfect example of how to do this properly. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

That was a bad close as it was inconsistent what the community actually wanted. Some uninterested in trying to further work on a topic does not trump when sufficient numbers of others do believe it has value and can be improved in some manner. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 18:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

That's a very good question. Garden variety bad deletes can be reviewed at DrV or, depending on the circumstances, by recreating the article in different form. Moreover, every administrator potentially has different judgment, experience, and standards - so just as in a courtroom where there are "tough on crime" judges and "soft on crime" judges, each administrator here may be disposed to certain patters of decision-making, which is completely normal and only human. Sometimes a particular closing administrator may, on the margins, be more likely to delete a particular kind of article. There is a certain amount of chance and luck in deletion outcomes, and as long as the decisions are fair and competent that's acceptable because the overall process is an effective one and we have DrV as a backstop. Where does an administrator cross the line? I would guess in three ways - (1) they are simply not making capable decisions; (2) their bias becomes so evident that it erodes confidence in the fairness of the decisions; or (3) their decision-making appears to dovetail with a content agenda, as evidenced by their mainspace editing, talk page comments, AfD votes, etc. I didn't see any obvious pattern or egregious cases from any of the AfDs mentioned here so it may be a tempest in a pokemon pot, but I can imagine that if someone makes a lot of bad closes in a particular subject area, the appearance of a conflict erodes confidence in the results and they should probably recuse themselves from using administrative tools in that area, AfDs included. Wikidemo (talk) 20:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Administrators would be more likely to make fair decisions if they stuck to their proper role, which is judging consensus, not making it. Their role with respect to deciding policy at AfD is properly limited to rejecting arguments that are clearly based on preference rather than policy. If there are conflicting policy-based arguments, then no administrator should have the right to decide which one is to dominate--they must go by what the consensus of people present think, and if there is no consensus, they do not get to have the casting vote. Perhaps we need a rule that no admin may ever close a debate on a subject in which he has a personal interest as judged by editing, or based on policy where he has taken a significant position on contested interpretations. DGG (talk) 03:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem with DRVs is that at least in my case some (yes, that seems to be a list of only ones I started kept by another user...) make it a point to follow them and reflexively comment in opposition to them. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 03:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• We've had a rash of deletion discussions where it appears that the closing administrator asserting her or himself. I don't know why that is. Those decisions were rightly taken to DRV (I'm thinking of the Fut Perf IfD for the two austrailians and the Sonic Shower article). I don't think they should be overturned, but they were right to go to DRV. I don't see how this turns into some broader problem of improper interpretation of consensus. Sometimes judging consensus is REALLY difficult. I don't envy the admins closing those 9/11 POV fork deletion discussions or the rough BLP deletion discussions. Nor do I envy the closers of truly close debates. But I think we are expanding the notion of which debates are truly close to mean debates where an editor disagrees with the close. That is BOUND to happen. With a broad enough set of preferences, you can find an editor to disagree with any close. Where the closes fall along ideological lines (Say, between editors who feel we should include daughter fictional elements and editors who feel we should not), there are a large number of potential editors who feel the close would be wrong. This is regardless of the actual strength of the close. Moving from there to some analysis of an editor's editing history to determine conflicts of interest is both unnecessary and absurd. It is unnecessary because we should demand that admins recuse themselves and take action (at the varying levels described above) when it appears that they don't. IT is absurd because it takes our most precious resource--editors--and pisses that away so we can save our most plentiful commodity--marginal articles--from being diminished. We are here to make an encyclopedia. If you don't like a policy, act to change it. If you think someone is not helping to build the encylopedia, work it out with them. We can't create new regimes of process and oversight in order to safeguard a few AfDs. And in this case we aren't even clear that any harm has come--that any closes made were in error. Absent that, what is the motivation for this at all. Also, WP:AGF Protonk (talk) 03:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

AFD reform

AFD desperately needs to be reformed. I am literally getting swamped with people posting google searches or references that contain only the name of the article as proof of notability. Further, the same people are doing it across all the AFD's, and it is completely disruptive to the process, as that discussion time and effort could be put toward finding actual references, and not shoving google searches in our faces and implying "your too lazy to find the references that may/may not be out there. Further, people are also posting essays as to why articles that fail our policies should be kept, and show disdain for actual Misplaced Pages policies, preferring their own opinions to our rules. I believe we need to have a rule about this, because AFD is becoming an opportunity for endless filibustering of discussion of actual Misplaced Pages policy, and is wasting vast amounts of time. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Will a rule actually stop this behavior?--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Not likely, it'll just let us block people that do it. Which would be punishment, which isn't good. If it's disruptive, talk to the editors, and if necessary bring them to WP:ANI afterwards. Also, just an FYI, but I'm pretty sure most admins who close AfDs have a good enough sense of policy to know when arguments contradict them. Cheers. lifebaka++ 22:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

It would be great if we could just say that it is not allowed, that way we can reprimand people who keep doing it, because I have talked to the people involved, and there has been zero movement by them to stop this behavior. Please, something must be done. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Many AFDs have people saying keep due to google searches: with many matches that aren't even related to the subject at all. Deletion debates shouldn't be a matter of how many google (or any other search engine) links that are found. Yet many people disrupt the debates by doing this, over and over again. As for essays: I think some sort of guideline on this should be made. People post these too much in AFDs, and treat them like guidelines... but it's just opinions. Guidelines determine what is kept and deleted, not personal opinions. RobJ1981 (talk) 23:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the previous comments have it exactly upside-down. Responding to someone who posts a AfD and say " not notable because there are no sources" by showing that there are source is very much to the point. the people being disruptive in such cases are the ones bringing articles to afd without doing even the most cursory check of sources. I would be another mater if they nominated an article and said, "the sources available, 1/ 2/ 3/ do not prove notability because .....," with emphasis ofn the part following the "because." But instead, there are those who place AFDs denying that sources exist,without looking, and hope to carry out the deletion if nobody else looks either. Then , when sources are found, and they appear very much to the point, only then do they start finding reasons why they are not applicable even if they appear on the face that they are. What I would like is a rule saying that nobody may bring an item for deletion where the primary matter in question is sourcing without doing and commenting a search, and that afd's nominated otherwise by thrown out summarily by a clerk, without prejudice to coming back again properly. This would cut down the debates sufficiently. Alternatively of course, people repeatedly bringing AfDs that are snow closed or almost unanimously closed as keeps, should lose the privilege of bringing items to AfD--I wouldn't go so far as to block them, for they might be productive users otherwise. As for essays, essays are summaries of common arguments. There might be some things we agree not to post at all, such as the word "indiscriminate" If it has any meaning in a particular case, let it be said in other words. Similarly, the general policies of NOT#whatever should not be involved without an explanation of exactly why the article in question falls under them.

Personally, I have my own idea of a reform, based on my own practice. No person can contribute more than two times in a single AfD- If you cant convince people by saying what you have to say, and then answering the objections raised, you're unlikely to convince them at all. At last, I never try beyond a certain point. Either I have it right, and people will support the view, or else they won't--it's not something personal where i feel any need to have the last word. DGG (talk) 04:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above comment. In my observation the real problem is that too many AfD nominations are made without any attempt to check if the sources exist first. If people did at least a few quick google searches (such as googlebooks, googlenews or googlescholar, which are good at fishing out reliable sources) before listing an article for an AfD to see if there are reliable sources covering a particular subject, a great many AfDs would be avoided and much time for discussion would be saved. In fact, I find it really surprizing that people do not do that as a matter of course. I have listed a few things for AfD myself and it always takes me longer to do an AfD listing than to do a few quick google searches. Nsk92 (talk) 04:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes people should check things before they put it in AFD. However, a part of the blame still goes to people that disrupt AFDs with various actions (listing google hits and claiming that instantly gives it notability, using essays instead of policies as a keep reason) and so on. I agree with the limit DGG said: two times in an afd should be the limit. RobJ1981 (talk) 05:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

In terms of assigning blame, people whom I blame the most are those who create WP articles without listing any sources. Trout all of them, I say! (seriously!) People should really work on developing a basic and at least minimally sourced version of an article in their userspace first, before posting it to mainspace. However, regarding AfDs themselves, I don't really think the examples you give qualify as disruptions, exactly (or maybe they are just not specific enough for me to understand the context of what you mean). Referencing an essay may be viewed as a way of indicating that you agree with the logic and the arguments given in that essay. Often it works rather well and saves time and space. E.g. WP:ILIKEIT is such a useful essay. Regarding claiming that plain google search hits prove notability, I have not seen this argument used too often and, in my experience, this argument is usually made mostly by new and inexperienced users. Arguments made in good faith, even if they are very weak or clearly invalid, are not disruptive. Nsk92 (talk) 05:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

This is definitely a growing problem. It's one thing to produce WP:GOOGLEHITS to show a bunch of appropriate sources. But when google only reveals blog posts, forums posts, and off-topic synonyms... it is perfectly reasonable to call someone on those google hits. And when they respond by saying "there's sources somewhere in there", that denigrates the hard work that editors often go through to actually read those sources and find that none of them are appropriate. If google really produces so many reliable sources, it shouldn't be hard to find TWO that verify some statements in the article. I think the simple answer is to include that as part of the AFD guidelines on this page: google hits are not enough to satisfy an article's referencing requirements. Not to say that we should ban people from posting google hits, but it should be seen as part of the discussion process rather than counting it as evidence of any value. If people were forced to stop treating it as evidence, we might actually find some sources to result in a keep of any merit. Randomran (talk) 05:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Everyone is free to make their arguments on AfD. The community, and ultimately the closing administrator, can weigh the arguments' merit and discount arguments that seem inappropriate or against policy. I'd have to see some examples to know if I agree, but google results are often useful, as are admonitions to overeager nominators to use google first. Frankly, I see more trouble with people voting to delete based on misunderstanding what the article is about or misinterpreting policy - or on both sides for not actually reading the article or thinking much about the issue. But blocking people and calling them disruptive for making poor arguments at AfD sounds quite WP:BITEy. Where do we ever block people for repeated incompetence? Only in the most extreme cases. Better to educate them. Wikidemo (talk) 05:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

This is a good point. It would be unfair to smack newbies too hard for misunderstanding the policy. Anything else should be dealt with on a case by case basis. Most people have the good sense to ignore the WP:GOOGLEHITS argument anyway. Randomran (talk) 06:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - This is all getting way off topic, and the topic is, people are doing things to knowingly disrupt AFD. They are not newbies, they have been warned 100 times by a dozen different people not to post google searches for any reason, since you are only supposed to post actual reliable sources for people to examine. It is as lazy as people who don't research articles and topic before they try to delete them. This is not an occasion to say "everyone is at fault, following Misplaced Pages policy is the same as obstructing it". No, this is about getting a consensus that those who constantly filibuster the AFD conversations should be called out for this. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

How would you distinguish a filibuster from someone trying to have an AFD discussion in good faith? Randomran (talk) 15:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

After having been informed that arguing based on personal opinion or wikipedia essays and that google searches are not examples of notability, and then doing this anyway in dozens of AFD's, then this is filibustering, which means they are filling the AFD with the above arguments that don't help us determine notability, but instead function to confuse the issue to the point where the closer says "no consensus" regardless of the articles actual merits, which are never discussed. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Could you point to a few specific examples of AfDs where such problems occurred? Nsk92 (talk) 19:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Let me offer a proposal. "Google searches do not establish notability. ... An editor who does not advance the AFD process with logic or evidence may only need a gentle reminder about our policies. If a pattern of behavior persists after efforts to correct it, please consider a Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution process outside the current AFD." Something to that effect. Very gentle, makes plenty of allowances for new or misguided editors, and would not come up in 99% of cases. But in the 1% of instances where someone is actually being disruptive, we'd have a specific issue to take up with an administrator or mediator. Randomran (talk) 19:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The issues of what does or does not establish notability belong in various notability guidelines, WP:N, WP:BIO, etc. I think that all of these guidelines already contain provisions requiring evidence of notability to be verifiable in the sense defined by WP:V. Google searches do in fact have some use. Specialized Google searches such as GoogleBooks, GoogleNews and GoogleScholar are very good tools for fishing out reliable sources and their use, for the purpose of locating such sources, should be encouraged, not discouraged. In fact, such searches cut both ways and low results there are often used to demonstrate the absence of notability (in fact, low plain google search results are often used for the same purpose). As I said, I only rarely see anyone try to argue in an AfD that an X number of hits in a plain google search proves notability; such arguments are typically made by newcomers and they are routinely discounted as a matter of course. In fact, if someone does make such an arguement, a quick and efficient way of responding to it is to point to the essay -:) WP:GHITS. Nsk92 (talk) 19:32, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I've seen people respond "that's only an essay", or "yeah, but the sources within the google search would prove notability". I can assume that they're making an honest mistake in good faith, but it would be more helpful if we could point to a tangible policy or guideline that would help correct the behavior. A pattern of serial mistakes becomes disruptive, whether or not those mistakes are being made in good faith, and whether the editor is a slow learner or just stubborn. Randomran (talk) 19:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

This thread looks very much like the points raised are primarily directed at the editor(s) who use(s) said tactics. Given that in no situation does this seem to actually affect the outcome of the AfDs in question (save for them taking three times as long) and that the primary problem is wasted time in dealing with bogosity generated by said editor(s), I think it would probably be better to leave AfD as it is (because it's getting the right results) and concentrate on reforming or rebuking said editor(s). I certainly don't look at something like Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mortimer Goth and think "the AfD process if flawed" in the first instance. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Bingo. As frustrating as this is, it isn't any different from any other argument listed at WP:AADD. In most cases, the result isn't that different. Protonk (talk) 20:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

This is the usual response; "tell them what they are doing is wrong, and then if they don't listen, take them to Dispute Resolution, where you will be told that it is just an argument about notability, and you should sort it out yourself with them, and when they totally ignore you, oh well", totally ignoring the disruptive nature of posting empty arguments/google searches. And by the way, it is not ok to post any kind of search engine search as proof of notability, it's like someone calling you lazy and saying "look in here, your so lazy you never looked here", when they themselves haven't looked themselves or found anything specific that demosntrates notability. I wish established editors would actually be listened to, and not have my concerns and others concerns completely ignored as is the usual procedure. This is not about deletionism or inclusionism, this is about people disrupting the whole conversation that is supposed to take place at AFD to determine notability by posting things that have no relevance and establish nothing. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

But in that case disruption is the problem and quoting googlehits is just a vehicle for that. I don't want to create a host of things people are or aren't allowed to say when we should condemn disruption or contempt. Protonk (talk) 22:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I see both sides of the argument here. We don't want to get people in trouble for good faith mistakes. But people who constantly use AFDs to assert opinions no evidence or policy backing, or the backing of weak essays or irrelevant evidence... it begins to frustrate the process. Which wouldn't be a big deal, except that when it's taken to higher forms of WP:DR it's treated as a personal attack or a difference in interpretation. Really, we just to know that there's a way to stop nonconstructive participation in AFDs if someone is frequently shown our AFD policies only to ignore them. Randomran (talk) 23:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

If it exists, please let me know, because the path people have already taken has lead to simply being told "this is a notability dispute, everybody is equally to blame, therefore we wash our hands of your dispute, sort it out yourselves". I would love to find a forum that actually takes the concerns/behavior seriously. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Me too. I'm hoping we can clarify that here, and offer a soft guideline of "what not to do in AFD" that is gentle on newbies, but enforceable on people who stubbornly ignore it after repeated explanations/warnings. Randomran (talk) 23:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure you could get any consensus for what constitutes repeated bad arguments. Personally, I'm fine with listing or counting google hits - I think WP:GHITS is overstated and often misapplied. Similarly, WP:NOTINHERITED is very murky and does not mean what a lot of people think it means. WP:OTHERSTUFF is a useful pointer to people, but the fact that stuff exists or does not exist elsewhere on Misplaced Pages is often a reality check or an indication of consensus. In fact, more or less the entirety of Misplaced Pages:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions is a self-referential statement of some people's opinion but not others. Personally, what I see as most disruptive in close cases where the outcome could go either way are people who argue for deletion because the article is unsourced (when it's perfectly verifiable), a recreation of a speedily deleted article (or one deleted on other grounds that no longer apply), "blatant advertising" or a "directory" when the article is describing notable features or economic impacts of its subject matter, or does not assert its own notability despite having sources that show it is notable - all misunderstandings of the deletion process. Other people have their own pet peeves. Should we block people who repeatedly make those arguments too? I don't see any way to have deletion discussions other than to allow people to comment freely. Frequently taking one side is perfectly fine if done intelligently. Gaining an advantage by kicking the legs out of the chair on one side of the debate isn't really productive. And I don't see any way to discipline people for simply being clueless, not without biting novice editors who ought to be educated and encouraged rather than chased away from helping the project. Wikidemo (talk) 00:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

If the rules are on the books, there is a deterrent effect to those who are warned. Newbies obviously will be told, and then will understand how AFD is supposed to work, but there are several people who continue to do so and totally disregard what others have been saying about non-productive statements. Here is how AFD is ideally supposed to work; A nominator who has checked out an articles notability nominates an article for deletion; a person who wants the article kept then either A) tries to find substantial notability material to justify keeping the article, or enough to go for a merge instead of deletion, posts a link directly to that material or adds it to the articles, and then everyone agrees the article is notable and should be kept, or B)keep voters research it themselves, uncover nothing notable, and also do not have any promising leads as to where notability can be found, and all agree the article is not notable and should be deleted. Either way, there is consensus, and notability is either clear or not. To have long time users post google searches as proof of notability instead of finding actual notable sources and references eats up time and effort that could actually save the article, and help come to a consensus. Instead, huge efforts must be made to explain why the google searches show nothing and are inappropriate, and those responsible simply continue to do it anyway. This causes the whole process, which should be about coming to a consensus on notability, to be disrupted. Some even argue against wikipedia policies or say we should ignore them in these debates! It is abundantly clear what "bad arguments" are; random internet searches are disruptive, and so is arguing to ignore or arguing against Misplaced Pages policies, which happens surprisingly often. I strongly believe this needs to be spelled out in AFD policy, as these bad arguments are eating up massive amounts of time having to explain wikipedia policy who refuse to listen or change their behavior. This is not about deletionism or inclusionism or anything like that, this is simply about a systemic disruption of the process of AFD that is occuring, and I am imploring those at AFD to take this seriously, as it threatens to corrupt the process. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Having rules on the books doesn't mean that we start banning and blocking everyone who violates those rules. That's what assume good faith is for: assume it's just an honest, well-intentioned mistake. The problem is when someone abuses that good faith assumption and makes the same mistakes repeatedly. Not that I can't point to a specific instance where this has happened. (Perhaps Judgesurreal777 has more examples than I do.) Having rules on the books goes a long way to fixing these mistakes, and improving the quality of discussion at AFD. Let alone eliminating bad or disruptive discussion. This isn't about inclusionism or deletionism: someone who repeatedly advances "I hate it" or "I like it" should be treated equally. Randomran (talk) 04:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. So, what are our thoughts on what the wording could be for discouraging people from doing this, and what would be the recommended recourse if they repeatedly failed to abide by it? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd propose this wording: "AFDs are a place for rational discussion. Reasonable editors may disagree about how to interpret our policies. An editor who relies upon proof by assertion for keep or delete !votes may only need a gentle reminder about our policies, and how every article needs to meet this criteria. If a pattern of behavior persists after efforts to correct it, please consider a Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution process outside the current AFD." We add an instruction, without being overly harsh or bureaucratic. We're really just writing down common sense so that we can point editors who lack common sense in the right direction. (It probably needs a copy-edit for clarity, but that's the essence of the idea.) Randomran (talk) 19:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) sounds reasonable to me. Protonk (talk) 19:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I like it, that way I can point to AFD protocol and tell them that we have made it clear that their continual use of proof by assertion is no longer acceptable. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

We might want to generalize it a little. The problem isn't just proof by assertion. The problem is also when they repeatedly make up their own policies or ignore policies. Randomran (talk) 20:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Good catch, definitely include something about how it is not ok to make AFD into a forum to argue against policies or to argue to ignore them, or sighting essays as trumping policies...Hmm... how to word that one... Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

We want to leave room for reasonable differences in interpretation... we also want to leave room for honest mistakes. We just want to make sure that someone can't repeatedly make assertions that have no grounding in policy or evidence, or make assertions that ignore the policy and evidence raised by others. I'm not sure how to phrase it. But if you wanted to take another kick at the can, maybe we can work it out. Randomran (talk) 20:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Another way of putting it... the most important word in an AFD should be the word "because" (or "since" or "as" or "due to"). Someone shouldn't be able to repeatedly make assertions without trying to back them up somehow, or ignore other peoples' "because" arguments in criticizing their position. Randomran (talk) 20:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

the flipside

Editor conduct is one aspect of AfD I would like to see changed, but I think a bigger issue is that of closing. Sadly, many don't understand that rough consensus doesn't mean "If twenty guys say keep, but the lone delete argument still holds water and is not refuted, the article can be deleted, as what matters is strength of arguments for keep or otherwise. This is partly the reason I scrutinize non-admin closures, but it seems many of our admins are also unwilling to step up to the plate on this issue as well, even when the relevant info is so close at hand. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 03:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

This is sometimes subjective. Another issue is the case of "about as many people are on one side of the room shouting as the other, but one of the two sides has a point based in policy". Also, consensus judging allows for dismissal of holdouts, so long as they aren't the only ones with a clue (the scenario you described). In my opinion there already is a relief in place for poor closures--DRV is right there. There exists no real relief for tendentious misuse of process (As described above). Protonk (talk) 03:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I share David's concerns, and I think that having something explaining that the pointless arguments are not allowed will help cut down on fillibustered AFD's and intimidated closers who don't want to make a horde of keep voters angry. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

How about this, another rough draft; AFDs are a place for rational discussion. Reasonable editors may disagree about how to interpret our policies. An editor who relies upon proof by assertion, or hold that essays or personal opinion to trump Misplaced Pages policies, and uses them to vote keep or delete !votes may only need a gentle reminder about our policies, and how every article needs to meet wikipedia's article criteria. AFD is not an appropriate location to argue against specific Misplaced Pages policies regarding articles. If a pattern of behavior persists after efforts to correct it, please consider a Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution process outside the current AFD. Closers of AFD discussions are strongly encouraged to remember that AFD is a discussion, not a vote, and that it is the quality of the arguments made, based on Misplaced Pages policies, that should guide decision making. Thoughts? improvements? Step right up! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Rename?

I propose we rename "Articles for deletion" as "Articles for discussion." My reasoning is twofold. First, in AfDs, people do not actually only argue whether or not to keep or delete, they also argue to merge, redirect, transwiki, etc. A good number of AfDs become not really whether or not we should just delete the articles in question, but what we should do with it altogether. Second, emphasising discussion in the title will further diminish the appearance and perception that it is a vote and seems a natural evolution from "Votes for deletion" to "Articles for deletion" to "Articles for discussion." And doing so also detracts from a polarizing approach to AfDs (inclusionism versus deletionism) by saying we are discussing what best to do with the article's content, not simply setting up a for or against deletion debate. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 16:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, there is something to your suggestion, but on balance I think the current name is better. There is a regular process for proposing merges which does not involve deletion discussions and it would not be a good idea to make AfDs into the main forum for discussing merges as well (even if the standard separate proposed merge process is retained, renaming AfD as "Articles for discussion" would create more confusion). AfD discussions are too fast and often involve a somewhat random collection of participants. Merge proposals often require longer and more in-depth discussions that assume more substantial familiarity with the articles in question (also, things like RfCs etc are sometimes used for merge proposals). There are too many AfD discussions already and it would not be beneficial to clog the AfD process further by increasing the number of articles discussed there. Keeping the two processes (proposed deletions and proposed merges) separate is a good idea. It is true that the outcome of some AfD is a merge or a redirect but in general I think we should discourage people from bringing merge proposals to the AfDs. I believe that AfD nominations should be used only for proposed deletions even if a merge is an occasional outcome. Regarding polarization, I do not think the current name is too polarizing. In fact, most people probably just remember the acronym anyway. Nsk92 (talk) 18:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

That AfDs do not always end in deletion does not mean that this is not the primary purpose of AfD. Furthermore, we already have a perfectly adequate discussion page for each article with which to propose anything whatsoever related to it, and this system has worked very nicely for years. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, a number of editors don't try the talk pages first. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 20:24, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

That is not a requirement of the deletion process. If you think it should be, then that's a separate proposal. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I definitely propose that as well as rushing to deletion without attempting a merge discussion or even redirect discussion first (barring of course there is some copy vio, hoax, or libel concern) seems discourteous to the editors working on the article. Editors should at least talk to the main article writers and ask, "Hey, I am not seeing any other sources, do you know of any you haven't yet added?" or something as deletion is a last resort. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 20:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

If we're talking about what ideally happens, editors should be adding sources before they are asked. :) Personally, I'm not opposed to combining the deletion and merge processes (common practice is starting to do that already), but I don't think the rename is a good idea. "Discussion" may lull new-ish editors into thinking that discussion is all that will happen, and that deletion isn't a possible outcome. I'd rather encourage them to come on over and stick up for their article, in the hopes that potentially good articles won't accidentally be deleted.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

What about "Articles for deletion or merging"? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 22:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I"m with Chris on this. His points about the significant differences between merge discussions and deletion debates are important ones, best served by the current process. That you think that they aren't being used as often as you think they should be is a thoroughly different issue. I see merge discussion work fine quite often, and I see AfD work great 95%+ of the time, the rest has DRV. I see nothing borken to fix here. ThuranX (talk) 20:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I would have to say that perhaps along with the whole notability stuff, AfD is perhaps our next most flawed aspect of Misplaced Pages. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 20:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

You are kidding aren't you? There are millions of things on wikipedia more broken then AFD. Spartaz 21:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I find that many AfDs stop a lot of work fixing those other things by instead of working to add citations to articles, we wind up going back and forth in AfDs that wind up being even longer than the articles deleted. Instead of now referenced articles, we get redlinked articles but even more disk space taken up by the deletion discussions. So, instead of contributing to catalogging human knowledge on the various deleted topics (and I'm only referring to ones where a sizable number of editors think it should be kept, not overwhelmingly decisive snowball or speedy delete scenarios) we conrtibute to catalogging human knowledge of wikipedians debating each other. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 22:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Sentence/links about notability

Shouldn't the sentence "Also, Misplaced Pages:Non-notability and this discussion on the talk page of Misplaced Pages:Deletion Policy regarding notability may be useful." at the end of the How to discuss an AfD-section be removed? One link leads to a failed proposal and the other one leads to a discussion which is outdated (not being notable is actually a reason for deletion, as per Misplaced Pages:Deletion Policy). How is that useful? It is confusing at best. Adrianwn (talk) 12:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters