Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by David Gerard (talk | contribs) at 14:15, 11 May 2007 (→Take care with public relations). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Latest comment: 18 years ago by David Gerard in topic Take care with public relations
Learn more about this page
Shortcut


Battlemaster game page

Latest comment: 18 years ago15 comments6 people in discussion

The result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BattleMaster discussion was To Keep it. WHY then this page Battlemaster is removed??? I request restoring it or a good explanation why it was removed against the strong keep vote from users. Merewyn 01:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BattleMaster (second nomination) ~ trialsanderrors 02:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Let's see, 5 votes of Delete with 2 votes for Keep in Second Nomination versus 7 votes of Strong keep and 5 votes for Keep with 0 (null) votes for Delete in First Nomination. Altogether: 5 votes for Delete, 14 to Keep and the page is deleted. Now, who would dare to call it a fair decision?? Merewyn 02:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
"Votes" don't accumulate between discussions. The result of a previous discussion can be used as precedent in a new discussion by those participating, but it is not used by the closing admins, as discussions are meant to be independent. -- ReyBrujo 05:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
So, please explain to me why ever the second discussion occured while the first one unanimously decided to KEEP? Do you organize the Nominations as long as the decision happens to be congruent with your expectations?? I would like to call the third nomination and you will see that the decision will be To Keep again. Merewyn 11:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
First of all , they were MONTHS apart. Secondly, in the first discussion none of the keep votes used any sort of coherent policy. Finally, the only reasons EVER given for keeping were basically "well it exists I played it lol". If you think the discussion was improper you can take it to Wikipedia:Deletion Review or have someone do it for you, but please remember that AfD is not a vote, it is a discussion, and that all articles must conform to WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:N -- and this one didn't conform to any of them. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 11:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

How can I prove the Reliable sources or Verifiability more and more than by giving a link to the manual and community?? Other MMOG games pages are kept, why Battlemaster is different? Merewyn 12:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

By providing independent sources which have mentioned this game in a non-trivial manner. I could set up a website with a game, but it wouldn't automatically deserve an article. If we can only source something directly from the subject in question, there is no way to know whether what they are saying is accurate. And the existence of other articles does not mean this one should also exist; Wikipedia is (by its nature) not consistent. Trebor 15:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Aha, I see your point. Now please show me the example of independent source for other MMOG games. For example Anarchy Online has links only to its own webpage, nothing more (if not counting those "citation needed" brackets). Merewyn 19:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Excellent find. Let's send that to AfD too. ~ trialsanderrors 20:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Good god, I can't agree more. Anarchy Online is a complete piece of crap as far as sources go. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 23:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

So, still no example of a good page about MMOG game with Reliable sources or Verifiability...... Or rather let's say it aloud that to fill those requirements for a page about games is simply impossible and it will be all deleted - it would spare time for those who want to/did write it. Merewyn 09:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

That's a very insightful comment. I'm all with you. ~ trialsanderrors 10:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply


Please someone finally give the clear rules for the articles about MMOG games or delete ALL such articles! Impossible to write such rules? Then restore BattleMaster now. Merewyn 12:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Request for Deletion

Could somebody please put Monday Night Mayhem up for deletion as failing reliable sources and verifiability requirements? Due to my lack of an account (and lack of a wish to make one) I do not have the capability to do so? Nevermind, disregard this post: I thought this was an internet radio show but apparently it has radio syndication.

In The Woods (2007 film)

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Could someone check out In_the_Woods_(2007_film)? The page is a pretty blatant promotion for an unreleased film that is pretty much unheard of outside of Wikipedia. I'm not usually someone who edits or tries to have articles deleted, but this person is spamming this movie at various message boards using wikipedia as his primary source.

If someone is spamming it or simply using Wikipedia as a source of promotion, then it probably does need to be deleted. Jmlk17 02:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

New York Anime Festival

First, this looks legit, and second, I found out about it on the Comic Con site. Therefore, deletion shoukld be denied. NoseNuggets 5:19 PM US EST Mar 2 2007.

Requested move

Latest comment: 18 years ago16 comments13 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 08:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Proposed rename Wikipedia:Articles for deletion -> Wikipedia:Articles for discussion

I think such a rename would promote "discussions" rather than "votes". After all the intention in a nomination is creating a discussion over the "usefulness" of an article. The proposed change is indeed mostly symbolic but I feel the end results might be worth it. They are both AFDs so the shortcut wouldn't change. -- Cat chi? 22:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Um... why does including the word "discussion" rather than "deletion" change anything? It makes sense for CfD, because CfD also includes merge and rename decisions. AfD does not, and renaming it might encourage people to start bringing their rename and merge discussions here. -Amarkov moore cowbell! 22:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
I don't agree. It isn't uncommon for an AfD to end up with a merge, keep or even move. -- Cat chi? 23:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
No, but it isn't binding either. A redirect is arguably binding, since that can be seen as equivalent to "Delete but I'm going to make something useful with the title". A merge outcome is widely considered not to be binding, move outcomes are definitely not binding, because that is an editorial decision that should be made by people familiar with the topic, and a keep decision is just a decision not to delete it. -Amarkov moore cowbell! 23:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose. The primary purpose of the AfD process is deletion. People who nominate articles for AfD with the intention of having them merged or redirected are told outright, "Do not bring articles to AfD unless you want them deleted." howcheng {chat} 23:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose. If articles are brought to AfD one outcome is deletion, another is merger, another redirection, another cleanup, another nothing. "Articles for Discussion" captures this as poorly as "Articles for Deletion". A better term, though I do not advocate changing the name at all, would be "Problem Articles Considered for Change" WP:PACC. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose "Articles for discussion" doesn't read well. "Articles for deletion" reflects much better what happens at AfD, as stated above. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose for now, until these discussions can have other binding results (like renaming, sourcing, cleaning or splitting). -- ReyBrujo 00:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose. Nothing wrong with having a page entitled Articles for discussion, but there is nothing to be gained by losing a page specifically dedicated to nominations for deletion. Cbdorsett 06:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose ... Deletion does not imply voting. Instead it should be made standard to not allow people to place KEEP/DELETE at the front of their comment, instead let the comment stand for itself.--Dacium 09:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose - As almost everyone else has mentioned, naming it "deletion" does not imply a vote. Actually, the instructions themselves state Remember that while AfD may look like a voting process, it does not operate like one. Justification and evidence for a response carries far more weight than the response itself. Thus, you should not attempt to structure the AfD process like a vote (from WP:AFD#AfD etiquette). --Kimontalk 23:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
    • Although I have pointed out the irony in Dacium's remarks on the subject matter, I believe that underlying assertion is true. However, as long as remarks are preceded by bold-faced phrases and one-liners, the system will always be considered a vote by those who are removed from wiki-mechanics. Aarktica 20:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
  • Weak Support although I'm going against the flow here. I don't think the proposed name change would cause a problem in terms of it being used for move, merge or redirect proposals; non-controversial moves, merges or redirects already take place without discussion, and I don't think it would be harmful if controversial ones were to be brought here. I also think it would fit better with the other XfDs (redirects for discussion, etc.) if the same system was applied uniformly. However, I can also see the opposers' point of view, in that "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", and the proposed change would be more symbolic than practical. Walton Vivat Regina! 18:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

It's a pity that I didn't see this discussion...I would have chimed in with a "support" statement because I think such a change could prove beneficial. It wouldn't affect AfD's primary mission--to remove inappropriate articles from the encyclopedia--but expand the forum to greater community input on matters that aren't as simple and that are (often clumsily, IMO) handled by other pathways. I personally have no problem with editors bringing an article to AfD to seek a consensus on a non-deletion activity (merge, move, redirect, etc.) as it can be nigh impossible to garner enough external input on edit wars in the darker corners of the encyclopedia. Wikipedia:Resolving disputes is great, but AfD generally provides succinct, enforceable conclusion in a timely manner by involving outside parties. Of course, a name change alone wouldn't be enough to enact my (likely overly ambitious) vision...but I like the idea. — Scientizzle 21:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Reverted changes by Rossami

Latest comment: 18 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Rossami, I've reverted your changes. I'm not fundamentally opposed to the idea of pruning some of the instructions overall, but you've removed important instructions which, as far as I can tell, are contained nowhere else. Specifically, you took out the instructions on how to bundle multiple related articles for deletion, as well as the instructions on what to do when nominating an article for the 2nd time. Also, you removed the link to the page which shows which letter to use for which deletion category. You've taken out so much of the instructions that people wouldn't even be able to properly do an AfD via the instructions on this page. --Xyzzyplugh 13:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

  • "Edit, don't revert." is a good guiding principle in many instances. It would have been better to simply add what you thought had been lost in transit to the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. Uncle G 13:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
  • The instructions on bundling were still in the "main article" on AFD nomination steps. The link in the pruned version looked like this:
Main page: Template:AfD footer
That's not an ideal title but that's where we have the text today. Following that link takes you to a page with the line
To list multiple related pages for deletion see here. which covers the "bundled nomination" process in excruciating detail.
The instructions for modifying for a second nomination and for deletion categorization are also at that "main article" on the nomination steps.
New users aren't supposed to be able to properly open a nomination based only on this page. They are supposed to read the detailed instructions first. This page provides a bare overview and a reminder for experienced users. Rossami (talk) 13:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Perhaps discussing the changes before making them would be in order next time. I see no problem with streamlining the steps as long as the detailed steps can be found elsewhere. --Cyrus Andiron 13:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
As I was reading the new version of the page, it didn't even occur to me to click on something called "Template:AfD footer". I see now what you did, though. (In fact, if you look here, I was myself complaining about the template within a template hiding the AfD instructions, a few months ago.) It's obviously completely inappropriate to have the main article on deletion instructions be called Template:AfD footer, especially as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion or Wikipedia:Guide to deletion are already the main articles on this.
Basically, first of all, I question why it's a good idea to offload the full AfD instructions onto a 3rd page, when they are not in fact really all that long. Your new updated version is much shorter, but why is that necessarily better? But if we do want this page to be short, and the more lengthy instructions to go elsewhere, the whole thing should at least be done in a clear way. The odds of anyone clicking on "template:AfD footer" in the middle of the page, and then happening to read to the bottom of that page and clicking on the link to "Template:AfD footer (multiple)" are about one in a thousand, so your update will prevent most anyone from ever figuring out how to list multiple related pages for deletion.
We can't expect people to wander through multiple deletion policy pages, reading every line and happening to click in the right spots to lead them to 2nd pages and 3rd and 4th pages until they finally find how to do what they want, it needs to be simple and clear. If you want this page to contain merely brief instructions, begin the "How to list pages for deletion" section with something along the lines of, "Here is a brief summary of how to list pages for deletion, for full instruction click here", giving a link to some new renamed Template:AfD footer page. The Template:AfD footer page should contain the instructions which are now in Template:AfD footer (multiple), under a seperate subheading, this would allow people to actually find these instructions. --Xyzzyplugh 14:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Heads up about another long term AFD vandal

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

As described at WP:ANI#User:Wikipedian.2C_Historian.2C_and_Friend.3F_-_AFD_disruption I have indef blocked User:Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? as a bad hand sockpuppet of User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles. Also be alert for possible edits from sockpuppet IP164.107.223.217 which basically can't be blocked long term because it originates from Ohio State University. This vandal strives to keep all articles regardless of policy or precedent and behaves with florid courtesy. In November 2006 I blocked the sockmaster account for 6 weeks for attempted AFD vote fixing and gross violations of WP:POINT. DurovaCharge! 16:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Difficulty in achieving consensus

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I'm struggling to get a consensus on whether to delete/keep Amit Avner and BWitty. They've already been re-listed once and it would be nice to have the matter settled either way. Is there anywhere you can request examination from more users? TreveXtalk 15:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

The debate was listed twice, meaning that it's received as much discussion at it's probably going to get. If anyone disagrees, they can post a message to WP:DRV - although this will be unlikely to have an effect as there was only one vote to keep (from an anonymous account that made no other edits.) --Sigma 7 19:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

New noms to top or bottom?

Latest comment: 18 years ago7 comments6 people in discussion

Awhile back on wikien-l (see January 2007 archives, the "not so broken, after all" thread), it was brought up that sending new nominations to the bottom of the AfD log page tends to mean that discussion input comes on a "first come, only served," basis -- the later discussions are further towards the bottom, and don't seem to get as much attention. A few people mentioned the possibility of adding new nominations to the top, instead, giving each discussion a turn, however brief, in the limelight at the top of the page. I'm not sure if this ever got discussed, on-wiki, so thought I should bring it up, here. What do people think? Would that help balance out the attention various discussions get? – Luna Santin (talk) 22:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sounds like a very sensible idea. Tyrenius 22:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
I agree. —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-16 00:47Z
It's been suggested before. There were no objections that I remember but also no one who felt strongly enough about it to do the scut work of rearranging all the currently active lists (so users would see a consistent list) and changing all the instructions pages. If you're willing to volunteer, have at it. Rossami (talk) 03:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
It would save work by announcing a date from which new lists would be in the new order. After a few days of dual systems, it would right itself naturally. Tyrenius 04:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Would it be possible for a bot to handle the shuffling of the log entries? --Coredesat 06:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Relisting and conflict of interest

Latest comment: 18 years ago9 comments8 people in discussion

In my experience, when an AFD has been inactive for a couple days, it is unlikely to receive further input before closure, and last-minute comments in such don't receive much attention. Therefore I extend/relist not only when there haven't been enough comments in an AFD, but also when the latest comment in an AFD has introduced new information or arguments that merit more discussion.

Occasionally, when doing closures, I see AFDs where I believe prior discussion has missed important information or arguments, and I make a contrarian comment instead of closing. Once in a while I have relisted a debate while making a comment [1] [2] [3] [4]. It has been suggested that this is inherently a conflict of interest. I agree that relisting a debate in which one has made a comment could potentially be gamed and abused, but I don't think it should be disallowed altogether, especially when done in a responsible and open manner. (There exist much more effective and less transparent ways to game the system, anyway ...) However, if others think the issue is serious enough that one should never comment and relist, I'm willing to go along with codifying such a rule. Thoughts? —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-16 00:46Z

As long as you aren't the one who subsequently closes it after relisting, I don't see the conflict. Disclaimer: I'm not an admin. --Christopher Thomas 01:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
I concur with Christopher Thomas: no problem as long as there is reason to believe further input will be helpful, and another admin closes the AfD after the relisting. Newyorkbrad 01:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
I think it could be abused, but I don't think it's an inherent abuse or something that should never be done. If the discussion clearly is in a no-consensus state when relisted, and whoever does the relisting also comments, I wouldn't see any issue. On the other hand, if there's a pretty clear consensus one way or the other and someone relists and comments contrary to that consensus, that could be an issue. (Though one could argue that if it's really a consensus of the community, the discussion will keep going the same way it was before anyway). Doesn't seem a tremendously big deal, although I personally have always refrained from doing so if I relist. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
If I remember correctly, I've relisted and commented once or twice. I don't consider it a problem, because any admin can close a relisted AFD at any time after the original run is up. On the other hand, it is not something that i would do lightly either; it would either need to be one lacking consensus before and after my comment or a major piece missing from the puzzle. GRBerry 01:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Way, way back when I first stumbled on VFD, closers didn't relist debates at all; if there was one where consensus was unclear due to lack of participation, they'd comment on it themselves, and leave it for another admin to close. As vfds fell off the main page once they were five days old, and almost nobody but active closers looked at /Old, typically this would decide the debate then and there. I can't see how a comment and an explicit relist for greater transparency could be viewed as a bad thing. —Cryptic 02:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
There's no conflict IMO. Admins are allowed to comment in a debate just like anyone else: think of that first, and then ask what harm the relisting could do in such a circumstance. Relisting does not have any substantive effect, apart from clearing an item out of the backlog. Just because a debate has been relisted doesn't mean it has to stay open for any set amount of time, so any admin that feels comfortable closing a relisted debate can do so at any time. Mangojuicetalk 03:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
  • It is certainly not a conflict of interest to comment-and-relist. However, I do think we're somewhat too quick to relist things these days, in effect adding more work to already backlogged processes. I basically do what Cryptic says: if I have doubts about closing a debate, I simply add a comment along the lines of what I think the closing should have been. This generally makes it easier for a subsequent viewer to close the debate. >Radiant< 10:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for all the excellent comments. —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-16 20:58Z

Some of the answers seem to assume that the relisting is done by an admin. But relisting can be done by anyone. Does anyone see a difference in scenario between an admin and non-admin in the context of your comments? --Chan-Ho (Talk) 22:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Relisting is an action taken by a closer who is saying that the discussion is not ready for closing. WP:CSK describes the situations in which a non-admin should be closing AFDs, and a lack of consensus is definitely not one of the times when they should be doing it.
Non-admins can renominate for a second discussion after the first has been closed, but that is very different from relisting. A relisting by a non-admin should generally be reverted or ignored. GRBerry 22:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Two technical problems

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

First, I had trouble listing two pages for deletion because the "preloaded debate" produced Wikipedia:Articles+for+deletion/Foo instead of the correct syntax without addition marks. I had to fix those manually. I noticed that User:DGG had the same problem with one of his/her nominations around the same time, and I fixed that too. I tried it again by creating a test page and nominating it, and it worked fine. If the problem persists, please look into it.

Second, the link to "today's afd log" is broken on the "preloaded debate" page. Instead, we see a non-hyperlinked full-length URL, and possibly an incorrect one (I didn't check). I couldn't figure out how to access the source code of that page. It may require admin access. Thanks for making things work so well. YechielMan 06:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

A change to {{subst:afd}} broke AfD for about 6 hours, but it was fixed. The 'view log' link is working now too; the problems that you saw were due to changes to the AfD templates that have now been fixed, so there should be nothing to worry about. --ais523 15:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

afdx - could we make it seemless?

Latest comment: 18 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

Right now it's kind of a pain to nominate something for a 2nd or xth time. You need to use a seperate template, figure out what nomination it's on, figure out what the pagename should be ("third nomination", "3rd nomination") and all in all it's kind of murky. This is how FAC used to work, but now when a FAC is over a bot moves it to WP:FAC/article/1st nomination, and at WP:FAC/article there's a note explaining where the old FACs are and inviting someone to add the new nomination below. The advantages are standardized numbering and a much easier process, that's also a lot harder to screw up. It also keeps old AFDs very organized... sometimes you have to do some real detective work to figure out where all the old nominations of an article are (such as checking "what links here", which can contain a ton of links). The disadvantages is that this requires someone to run a bot and is probably not very backwards compatible with the old system.

So uh, thoughts? I've invited the operator of the FAC bot mentioned to comment. --W.marsh 15:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

We could use a tweaked version of {{highrfa}} to produce the next nomination, instead, which I thing would be easier. -Amarkov moo! 23:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

The idea of the bot-assisted FAC system was to make it foolproof for editors. Editors just have to add a template (which never changes and isn't subst'ed) to the talk page, and edit the link it creates. At some point a preload will be added. FAC (and peer review) have to my recollection always used a different system than AfD for subsequent nominations, with the most-recent FAC always at WP:FAC/{PAGENAME}. This was running into some maintenance issues, which the bot tries to straighten out. The AfD system doesn't have quite the same maintenance issues. Although it would be good to eliminate any need for editors to determine nomination numbers for AfDs, there are various ways to make that work "under the hood." The FAC solution relates to some issues particular to FAC. Gimmetrow 00:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

If we wanted to get tricky with it we could get rid of "afdx" altogether and just use some parser functions to determine how many nomination pages already exist, so that {{subst:afd}} would always link to the correct page, no bots involved. Thoughts? — CharlotteWebb 18:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Isn't that what Amarkov and I said? Gimmetrow 19:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
If so, it wasn't made very clear. — CharlotteWebb 03:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

This would all be simpler if we could decide which convention ("third nomination", "3rd nomination", "nomination 3", etc. or in rare cases the date of the nomination is used) we prefer, and move all old pages to match that convention (which wouldn't be that hard). But this still doesn't address an article that was nominated for deletion, kept, moved to a different title, then nominated again. — CharlotteWebb 03:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Separate templates for renominations and bulk nominations aren't needed with {{subst:AfDU}}. The documentation for the template gives the details. Uncle G 15:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Can you vote Keep for your own article?

Latest comment: 18 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

An article I created was recently nominated for deletion, and a discussion is occuring right now. Am I allowed to vote Keep, even though I created the article? I notice the person who put up the VfD didn't vote Delete.Ye Olde Luke 23:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Ye Olde LukeReply

Yes, you can. However, it isn't actually a vote, so if you feel uncomfortable doing so, it shouldn't matter, so long as you do voice your opinion. -Amarkov moo! 23:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
If it isn't actually a vote, isn't that a conflict of interest in a way? Jmlk17 02:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
If you mention that you're the article's creator, it helps avoid any problems with that. An explanation by the article's creator is often helpful at AfD. --ais523 12:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

You can of course recommend keeping any article, and it's a good idea to give your reasons. There's no such thing as "voting to keep your own article," because (as mentioned above) there's no such thing as voting... but even more so because there's no such thing as "your own article." zadignose 13:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Screening for vote-stacking.

Latest comment: 18 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Recently, I closed an AfD with decision as "keep by majority consensus." Some of those who voted keep apparently had robust contribution histories, so there was no reason to think that they were shills with week-old accounts. How can I make sure that vote-stacking does not occur? --Aarktica 21:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

For on-wiki stacking, feel free to use the "What link's here" special page on the AFD itself. Unless I see large numbers of IPs, SPAs, and low contribution editors, I usually don't worry about off-wiki stacking, and if I see them I don't worry about proving it, I instead worry about what the consensus of wikipedians. Sometimes I use the smell test for IRC vote-stacking of experienced wikipedians - a bunch of people expressing the same opinion without significant evidence of looking at the evidence themselves in a short amount of time is the warning sign here. GRBerry 21:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for replying. How does one handle the last scenario? --Aarktica 22:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Go to strength of arguments, and ignore the numbers. GRBerry 02:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Section on withdrawing an AFD

Latest comment: 18 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

I am not that versed on the AFD process so and don't feel qualified to write it, but would someone who is knowledgable please include a section in this article about how an editor can go about withdrawing an Afd once this editor has initiated one. There does not appear to be any method that can stop the process once there are comments - Is that correct? I've searched WP and could not find anything written about this, although there is one prior question about this topic on the WP helpdesk (and my question is posted there also). Thanks! pgillman 20:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

If you are the nominator, it is probably enough to close the discussion early and drop the issue. If not, you can work to improve the content of the article, so that it nullifies the argument for deletion. I hope that helps. --Aarktica 21:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, but proceduraly what does an editor do to close the discussion early? It would be a useful section in WP:AFD that outlines the steps the nominator can take to close the discussion and withdraw the AFD. Is the only option to leave a comment in the discussion that a consensus is reached NOT to remove the article? A real life example is Guided speech IVR which I nominated for an AFD, but after discussion with another editor, it seemed best simply to redirect it to another article, which was done during the AFD process. The other editor recommended withdrawing the AFD, but no one knew how. A simple procedure (or even a note that it cannot be done) would be worthwhile here in WP:AFD, don't you think? Thanks again! pgillman 23:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
If you are the nominator, it is probably sufficient to leave a note under your initial remarks for deletion. When the discussion is closed, it will should then be closed as nomination withdrawn. Of course, you probably should avoid closing the discussion in any event, as this might be considered a conflict of interest (generally speaking, of course.) --Aarktica 11:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Since the article in question has been redirected to another article, it looks like the nomination is null and void. The AfD will simply be closed without any further actions, as it would have been more appropriate to send it to WP:RFD ({{rfd}}). --Aarktica 12:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Oops!

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I'm new at this administration stuff, and ajudicated some articles for deletion and retention in archived discussions, which I guess I wasn't supposed to do. So, what should I do now? fishhead64 06:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Don't worry you closed the right ones- that's the "Old discussions" section. The bit about archived discussions is a link, not a description of the pages. Maybe the archived discussions bit should be below those pages not above them- it may also be putting people off expressing opinions in those discussions, which they can still do until they're actually closed. WjBscribe 06:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Living bios in need of attention or removal

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

User:Messedrocker/Unreferenced BLPs - go through, give a severe sourcing critique, remove from list (or from Wikipedia - is what's left after sourcing or removal of unverified info worth keeping?). Apply your harshest WP:BLP - these articles are trouble - David Gerard 17:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Proposed policy change at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A modification to the deletion policy regarding biographies of living persons has been proposed. The proposal seeks to reverse the default retention of biographical articles that attain "no consensus" results at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. That is, it seeks to make deletion the default action for AfD discussions of biographical articles that do not reach consensus. Comments regarding the proposal are welcome and may be made here. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 19:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I'm stumped

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I relisted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mazen Kawar and Petra Tours on today's afd page. I can't figure out what the hell's going on, but it's not formatting properly. The afd tag in the article itself had been messed with, but I reverted that.--Fuhghettaboutit 00:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Fixed. Thanks Cryptic (it didn't appear to be on the same line when i viewed it in edit mode, will remember that one).--Fuhghettaboutit 01:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Article disappeared?

Latest comment: 18 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

I can't find "Cocoa High School" (Florida) an admittedly lame article about the school but it was coming along. Notability: the comedian, Carrot Top, graduated from there. All links were repaired. There just seems to be a "hole" in wikipedia, which I somehow missed. No listing of "recently deleted articles" anyplace. Student7 12:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Special:Log/delete. --ais523 12:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

If the article existed at one time, and now shows up as a redlink or is otherwise "gone", then chances are it was deleted as being non-notable or otherwise unencyclopedic. Sometimes young people put together wiki articles about their school, football team, chess club, etc. These are generally of interest only to those few individuals, and therefore is non-notable. Some schools and clubs are retained, due to special circumstances - perhaps having famous alumni, unusual historical links, national recognition due to some event or athletic or academic accomplishment, atypical ___location, etc. If you feel your school was unjustly deleted, you can appeal that deletion to have it re-established for the time being, and another consensus debate can be conducted to consider your additional information which might make the school notable and interesting to the general public. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 13:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

These comments seem confusing to me, since as far as I can tell Cocoa High School is not deleted and never has been. Dcoetzee 13:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Perhaps the query was for "Cocoa High School" i.e. a possible typo? --Aarktica 13:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Whoops. <blush>. It is definitely there. I don't know why my search failed. Thanks. Student7 13:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Missing from May 1st log

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Why can't I see this Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Steve_Van_Dyck on the May 1 page? I thought I'd followed all the stages, and my addition is in the History looking like the others, but no sign of the article. Johnbod 03:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Looks fien to me: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_May_1#Steve_Van_Dyck. --Tikiwont 11:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Yes it's up now - thanks to Celithimis I think Johnbod 12:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Can normal users end AFD discussions?

Latest comment: 18 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Let's say that an AFD request is met with overwhelming and reasonable Delete arguments, can any average user close the discussion? If yes, how do they do it? Cheers.--Kylohk 22:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Regular users can only close keep discussions. --TeckWiz is now R ParlateContribs@(Let's go Yankees!) 22:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Can you please rephrase the form of the question? I don't like the sound of "generally, AfD's with a delete result should only be closed by abnormal users." :) Newyorkbrad 22:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
  • Alrighty, editors in good standing may close AfD discussions as keep. In other cases, such as no consensus, delete, or otherwise, it is strongly recommened that an administrator handle the task. There we go, written to NYB's standards. :)--Wizardman 05:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
    • It's pointless for a non-admin to close an AfD as delete, because whatever admin actually did the deletion would have to look through the AfD anyway to check that it was in fact a delete closure. (In other words, a non-admin closing an AfD as 'delete' won't actually save admins any work.) --ais523 08:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Thanks for answering my question. To clarify my question, I am asking if a non-admin can close AFD discussions, since I heard of people mentioning it now and then. But I guess the answer is no for delete discussion, and yes for keep discussions. Cheers.--Kylohk 09:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Discussing Afd's

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

After participating in this discussion, apparently, I just learned that a vote entitled Delete and merge cannot be counted in an afd vote. In this article we should make it clear that these types of votes should be avoided.--Sefringle 23:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sandpoint Police Department

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This short article had a rather derogatory POV. This should be deleted and any information about the police could be included in the main Sandpoint, Idaho article. --Robbie Giles 13:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

AFD Marc Dagenais

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hey, I was just wondering why the article is being nominated for deletion, I've been told that it looks like advertising, so I changed it. I look at other people's wikipedia profiles and they look exactly the same, so I was just wondering what is wrong with it now, because I don't believe it should be deleted.TSchabbs 16:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ask the user who nominated it for deletion. They may be able to explain why. Failing that, raise the question in the AfD debate. Remember that individual editors put articles up for AfD, so the best person to ask about why is was listed is the person who listed the article. Vassyana 17:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Can this AFD be speedy closed?

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/State Route 1002 (Lehigh County, Pennsylvania) was created as the nominator's first edit, but the nominator did have previous edits as an IP, including putting the tag on the article. The AFD has also not been added to the main list. --NE2 22:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

regarding an article that is an autobiography, un-noteworthy, and bias

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I am unclear if this is where i state arguments for deletion of articles. however, i wanted to point out an article "Cory Williams" Mr. Safety is currently violating TOS.

the basic outline for the argument and dispute follows:

A. the article is an autobiography and blatant advertisement of "self-promotion" / ie: (see User_talk:Viralmediaman and/ or contributions)[[5]]

B. the aritcle completely bias, and lacks notability

C. the article inaccurate and reads like spam

going on further what is notable is that Cory aka Mr. Safety is a just a random guy that uploads youtube clips and openly admits to cheating. this where safety admits to cheating as well as on his channel it says "Watched: 418,88" videos. somehow i doubt he was able to legitimately watch that maybe videos. it's really sad that he blames "his friend".

the following is Cory Williams admitting to cheating, "HERE'S HOW I "CHEATED.... This all started while I was on a music tour back in March 2006. A good friend of mine offered to help promote me while I was away, so I left my account in his hands and offered him compensation for his help. At the time, I didn't feel the need to question his methods. Back then, I only used YouTube as a host to put my videos on myspace and that was about it. When I got home, started making videos again and noticed a few things were different on my YouTube account. I was still fairly new to YouTube because I only uploaded to it... but my number of "watched" videos was at 400,000 and I knew there was no way he could have possibly watched that many videos. So I asked him where that number came from and he told me how he did it. After that, I took back my account because I knew his method of promoting was wrong and a URL refresher was never used on my account again.

Even though I made this video confession, many people still don't believe my situation, but I can understand why. Although, I will not let this mistake or the people who don't believe me, effect the way I do videos. I am not a cheater and I will never be a cheater and I would never risk the consequences of cheating. I have worked very hard at what I do and I will not go down because of one petty mistake such as this. If YouTube thought I was a cheater, then they would have banned my account a long time ago.

Cheating did not get me ANY new subscribers and even if it did, then it was because THEY chose to subscribe because THEY enjoyed my videos. When this all happened, I only had around 400 subscribers. The refresher that was used only got my old videos a bunch of views. Many of the videos that were refreshed didn't even show up on the most viewed list because they were over 48 hours old. My total number of video views as of April 27th 2007 is 7 million views, so if 400,000 of them are fake from the incedent, then 6.6 million of those views are legit.

Here's another roomer I'd like to clear up... I have never created fake accounts for more subscriptions nor do I add fake comments or ratings. As of early 2006, all my stats are legit (minus the 400,000 fake views/watches from the incedent). Many of my subscribers came from Myspace once I became more active in the YouTube community. (I have over 20,000 friends on myspace)

Some people said I should have deleted my account and started over again after the incedent, but what good would that have done? Hiding what happened to me would have been worse than coming out and talking about it in public. No matter what I do, this will always be a part of my story... so why not tell it like it is.

For those who refuse to believe me, I forgive you. For those who do, thank you.

-Cory "Mr. Safety" "

In conclusion, its clear he is now cheating the terms of service for wikipedia. Thank you for time and consider on this issue of bias, neutrality, and advertising spam TomSkillingJr.

Wikipedia is not YouTube. You're confused. Dcoetzee 17:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
This sounds like a complaint about what is happening on YouTube, rather than about the Wikipedia article itself. This is not the appropriate place to air such complaints. Vassyana 22:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Reply


His Holiness Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi

Dear Administration,

I am seeking help for the last 20 days. I wrote an article on renowned Spiritual Personality Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi but it was not just deleted but also been protected to prevent re-creation.

Please be informed that I am the office bearer of Anjuman Serfaroshan-e-Islam an international spiritual movement founded by His Holiness Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi in 1980 in Pakistan and being an office bearer I am responsible to propagate and preach activities on Internet. His Holiness Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi is an internationally renowned spiritual personality with hundred thousands of followers in Pakistan and across the world. We have several online website to serve this purpose and I am officially authorized from His Holiness Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi.

I take full responsibility of the content placed on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gohar_Shahi by me. Therefore, may I request you to kindly restore my article on His Holiness Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi?

Look forward to your positive response.

Regards, --سگِ گوھرشاہی 08:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Minor formatting problem - please help

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There seems to be a "stray" comment at the bottom of this section: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_May_10#Sovereign_State_of_Aeterna_Lucina. I can't find it in the subpage, the logpage, or the subpage of the debate listed after it. Can somebody else have a look please? --kingboyk 19:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Found it. It's in the next one: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rapture (film) --Kimontalk 19:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Take care with public relations

Latest comment: 18 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

AFD is still the source of some of our, ah, trickiest public relations problems after living bios (and it would probably be bad for it to necessitate a similar Foundation smackdown). Could I please strongly suggest you stick to verifiability, not "notability" in nominations? Note that "notability" was invented as a Wikipedia jargon word right here on VFD AFD as a euphemism for "I don't like it" - this is why it's so hard to get across to outsiders (a) what we mean by the term and (b) why it's supposed to be a good idea - David Gerard 11:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

What is the problem with saying that an article doesn't assert notability as defined by Wikipedia. "The subject of the article is not notable" is hardly comparable to "you are a criminal" (to paraphrase the BLP problems). Verifiabilty (or attribution) has the same problems of misunderstanding between Wikipedia and the real world. I have just nominated a few MMORPGs: while some of them are verifiable (in the general sense: look, I have a website, you can play my game or at least look at some screenshots!), they are definitely (maybe) not notable. Saying to someone that we will delete your article because it is unverifiable is equally insulting to some people, and is not equal to what consensus currently is. "Yes, you are a professor, but you are only a run-of-the-mill professor, not a notable one, so we delete the article": the problem isn't that we can't verify that X is a professor, but that X isn't a notable professor. Notability is not a euphemism for "I don't like it", I like myself, but I'm not notable. "Notability" is a shorthand for "We (consensus) think that this subject is not important enough (with "important" being "verifiably discussed in whatever we deem notable or reliable enough sources") to be included in Wikipedia". If you want to suggest a different name for "notability", be my guest, but don't just forbid it. By the way, when you threaten with Foundation action, is that you speaking in an official Foundation role or just your personal opinion? Fram 12:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
My personal opinion, based on what's happened before and how problematic AFD is in practice. It's not just a private organisation's internal mailing list. Same reason "vanity" is considered an unsuitable term to use in an AFD - David Gerard 12:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Would it be good enough if we changed WP:NOTE to Wikipedia:Inclusion standard (WP:IC) and gave the AfD rationale "subject doesn't meet the general or a specific inclusion standard for Wikipedia" or something similar? We can disagree on what these standards have to be (just like people disagree about the notability guidelines now), but I don't think anyone can have a problem with the fact that Encyclopedia X determines on its own what standards are used for deciding which subjects are suitable and which aren't, as long as it is expressed in such a way? While it may take a while before I drop the habit of sying 'non notable', I have no objections against such a terminology change. Fram 12:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Might help. Then there's the problem of getting everyone to do so, because changing words on a guideline page doesn't actually change behaviour. It's a tricky issue all the way down, caused by the unfortunate interaction of regular people colliding with overworked AFD regulars dealing with the FIREHOSE OF CRAP that hits Wikipedia every day. (I find explaining that we get 11,000 articles a day and shoot 6,000 of those on sight helps a bit. But that's cleaning up after the problem rather than solving it.) The problem is that jargon is fundamentally newbie-hostile, even when it arises for very good reasons - David Gerard 13:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Well, I'm glad you agree that deletion is often needed, I at first feared that you somehow wanted to keep a lot more articles by removing "notability" alltogether :-) Getting everyone to do so is mainly a case of repeating it often enough on AfD's (and ProD, I use and see it there all the time as well). We have largely gotten rid of all uses of Xcruft, so getting rid of "notability" should be possible as well. However, renaming the pages (notability and so on) should probably be discussed on the WP:NOTE talk page, with enough announcement (WP:AN, village pump, ...) to get consensus for it. If I just start saying on AfD that "notability" should be avoided, I'll get probably laughed away for going against consensus. Will you do a proposal on the talk page, or do you prefer taht I do it or that we proceed in some other way? Fram 13:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Might help, even if it's just cosmetic ... I suspect a lot of the problem is the application of "notability" and AFD determining inclusion standards that just don't make obvious sense per the fundamental core policies of Wikipedia - either to outsiders or to other Wikipedians. "Verifiability" is a fundamental unchangeable, "notability" really did start as a euphemism for "I don't like it" on VFD as was. The actual problem is trying to justify things that are good in theory but problematic in practice. With living biographies, we can set harsher standards for inclusion because (a) we have a spam problem (b) it helps protect people from attack "biographies" to some degree - so we can set duelling policies, and WP:BLP is quite deliberately phrased as a restatement of the core content policies of neutrality, verifiability and no original research ('cos I wrote the second draft of it that way). "Notability" doesn't obviously and evidently follow from any of these, or at least I haven't seen a formulation of it that does. (Most justifications of "Notability" I've seen frequently speak of "Not an indiscriminate collection of information", but the articles this is being applied to are in encyclopedic format - just that the justifier is using "indiscriminate collection of information" as a euphemism for "cruft" in the derogatory sense, i.e. he doesn't like the subject.)
So, the actual solution: explain really simply how "notability" follows obviously and evidently from neutrality, verifiability and no original research. Looking at the way WP:BLP is a particularly harsh application of these might provide ideas.
I realise I'm asking for something that no-one including me has come up with a formulation for in three years ... - David Gerard 14:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion&oldid=130092084"