Participation in Articles for deletion discussions often comes up in requests for adminship, because participation there can be a good yardstick for someone's general cluefulness, knowledge of policies, ability to engage with people they disagree with, ability to gracefully accept being wrong, and, unfortunately often, ability to remain calm while being accused of being an idiot, a fifth columnist, out to destroy the encyclopedia, or whatever. Also, there's a link to the AfD stats tool next to each candidate's name, and that's tempting to click on.
But people tend to just look at the match rate. That's bad! A high match rate might mean that the candidate is just vote-stacking, meaning they're joining in once consensus is already clear and no further input is necessary, just to raise their stats. And a lower match rate might signify that they only tend to get involved in discussions where the outcome is genuinely unclear. So, in the 2024 pilot elections, I made an elections guide to contextualize the numbers. This time around, I'm going to leave even most of those numbers out. If you want 'em, you can click on the report yourself, but don't say I didn't warn you.
I hope this helps you make decisions about who to support in the admin elections! If you have questions or want to argue with me about the table, please use this talk page. If you want to argue about the comments, please use the candidate discussion page!
Table
editFor some candidates, their AfD record will be more useful to understand their suitability for adminship than others. Many of the candidates haven't taken part in a lot of AfDs, or the ones they did take part in were years ago; in this case, their record doesn't say much about their current abilities. For admin candidates with an interest in taking part in article deletion processes, their AfD record is really quite important to consider, even if the data isn't very good. (Yes, I think it's important for all article deletion processes, even CSD and PROD.)
Overall impression legend:
- this AfD record reflects particularly well on this candidate.- - this AfD record checks out; nothing particularly grabbed me as worthy of note.
- this is not a good AfD record, but AfD isn't everything.
- this AfD record reflects poorly on the candidate in a significant way.
Usefulness of record legend (note that this is all my opinion):
- this is important for evaluating the candidate (they want to work in deletion and the results are helpful)
- this is useful for evaluating the candidate (the results say something about their temperament, judgment, or understanding of policies/guidelines)
- eh, whatever (typically because these results don't say much)
- this is not useful for evaluating the candidate (typically because data is too stale)
- using this to evaluate the candidate would be a particularly bad idea
My own comments are now complete, though I may later add more comments from the discussion period.
| Name | AfD stats link | AfD record overall impression | Usefulness of AfD record for evaluating candidate | Evaluative comment | Extra comments about deletion from me | Extra comments from others? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Darth Stabro | [1] | 
|
??? | n=109, plenty of recent participation. Here's a clear and valid nom: [2]. Here's a nom that clearly shows a WP:BEFORE, and was gracefully withdrawn when more sources turned up: [3]. Here's a stubborn relist after an earlier speedy keep, which doesn't make any sense to me: [4]. Here's one that makes very little sense when compared to the !votes: [5]. Frequently votes "per nom" or similarly, and does so even when the nomination statement isn't particularly helpful and/or there are already lots of other !votes: [6], [7], [8]. This is the strangest "per nom" I've ever seen (if you agree "per nom", shouldn't you tag as G7?): [9]. But also some more helpful !votes: [10]. I don't know how to describe this AfD record other than "uneven". | ||
| North8000 | [11] | 
|
|
n=1215, though only a handful in the last six months. Mostly deletes, but this is because almost all of their recent participation is nominations from doing NPP work; when it comes to !votes, they frequently argue for keep. Gives very clear nomination statements [12], even when there isn't much to say [13]; sticks to guidelines in the face of disagreement [14]. This is good AfD record that is better than the stats suggest (the "failed" nominations I spot-checked should not have been closed as keep, in my opinion). So I don't really know what to make of ones like this [15], a keep !vote that provides no sources and appears to be wholly incorrect, or this one [16], where they make an argument that no one understands (me neither) and appear to drop their WP:AGF. Well, nobody's perfect. But since Scouting also comes up in their Q3, maybe there's something there. | ||
| Patient Zero | [17] | /
|
|
n=17, only five !votes in the past five years. No red flags, but neither is this useful for evaluating the candidate. | ||
| Sahaib | [18] |
|
|
n=87, but <10 !votes in the past year. I read all of those AfDs and am left with little to say about this candidate. | ||
| Vestrian24Bio | [19] |
|
|
n=136, lots of recent participation, usually votes "delete". Almost all of their participation is about cricket. Some !votes suggest a lack of care, eg [20], others a lack of patience, eg [21]. Some turn on disagreements about deletion policy, eg [22]. They do not tend to explain their positions in depth. No fully red flags but no green ones either. | ||
| CoconutOctopus | [23] |
|
|
n=90, lots of recent participation, mostly nominations. Nominations and !votes show a good understanding of deletion standards. Samples: [24], [25], [26], [27]. | Disclosure: I nominated this candidate. | |
| Hilst | [28] |
|
|
n=10, all deletes, eight of which were nominations, and none of which were in the past year. Nominations are brief but clear; all green flags. Example: [29]. | ||
| Kj cheetham | [30] |
|
|
n=789; not much in the last year, but loads of earlier participation. Balanced between keep and delete (given that most AfDs end in delete), doesn't frequently advocate for ATDs. Mostly works on WP:NPROF articles; this is one of our trickier WP:SNGs. Extremely high match rate, owing to both their accurate nominations and their willingness to treat AfD as a discussion rather than a series of unconnected votes. Samples: [31], [32], [33], [34]. These are somewhat stale but demonstrate patience, collaboration, and helpfulness. | ||
| Smasongarrison | [35] |
|
|
n=30, most from 2023. There are some clear and thorough nominations: [36], [37], but also some less-good noms/!votes: [38], [39], [40]. | I don't think it's likely that an editor who's been around for so long will have significantly changed in the past year, so I hesitate to call this "stale". But I also don't think it's all that important for her candidacy, since she will obviously be much more involved at CFD. I would caution voters against using Mason's AFD participation history to inform their vote. | |
| Pbritti | [41] |
|
|
I spot-checked and don't feel any need to change my evaluation from last election, so here's a lightly-edited version of last election's comment: no strong preference for keep/delete, also a good handful of WP:ATDs. Some samples: a gracious withdrawal [47]; a clear and unopposed nom [48]; a nom where he's responded to a keep [49]; explaining his work and changing his mind [50]; another full nom (this one ending in merge) [51]. This one [52] is more than a year old at this point but illustrates well the candidate's approach to collaboration and dialogue in AfDs. | Last election's comment: I think this AfD record speaks really well of the candidate in general, beyond the bounds of simply understanding the related policies. Not afraid to disagree with others or to call for some WP:TNT where warranted; collaborative with others and happy to explain his thinking; makes a good honest effort to find sources before giving up, and points out where other sources might still be found. | |
| hinnk | [42] |
|
|
n=97; frequently makes use of ATDs, such as redirect and merge. A really good AfD record, with a particular interest on films (naturally). Some highlights: an accurate speedy delete !vote (these are rare) [43], a reasonable call for WP:SALT [44], makes and calmly acknowledges mistakes [45], a nose for promo [46], just a very thoughtful and empathetic !vote [47]. | ||
| Ser! | [48] |
|
|
n=163. For those who care about such things, I'd say that Ser!'s !votes these days lean inclusionist. Recent samples: [49], [50]. Most !votes aren't that extensive, and I was going to give an "all green flags, nothing much to see here", but looking through older AfDs where his !vote didn't match consensus, I found these two: [51], [52]. I really like these - going out of his way to do the work, and updating his position as new information came to light. | ||
| usernamekiran | [53] |
|
|
n=584. Extremely prolific, highly accurate AfD participation, though relatively minimal over the last year. Almost always votes for deletion. Not much else to say, since most !votes aren't very extensive, but no red flags. Some samples of more extensive ones: [54], [55], [56], [57]. | ||
| Curbon7 | [58] |
|
|
n=1000+. Votes "keep" more than half of the time (given that most AfDs end in deletion, this is quite a strong preference in favour of keep). Nevertheless, not afraid to advocate for WP:TNT where necessary [59], or to use a WP:NOPAGE argument [60]. Extremely high match rate that clearly owes more to their well-argued !votes than any vote-stacking [61], [62]. Also worth pointing out this accurate not-quite-SK (SK is rarely argued correctly) [63]. A mildly yellow flag here [64], but given the context [65], well. Call it chartreuse. An excellent AfD record. | ||
| jlwoodwa | [66] |
|
|
n=34, mostly nominations; highly accurate. All of her noms in the past year ended in delete. Participation shows a close attention to sources, eg: [67], [68], [69]. There's also a correct !vote for speedy deletion (which, as any AFD closer can tell you, is not typical of speedy delete !votes): [70]. | Disclosure: I nominated this candidate. | |
| KylieTastic | [71] |
|
|
n=265, extraordinarily high match rate, more than a decade of participation. I think this is the highest match rate I've ever seen. And it's not that high as a result of vote-stacking. A clear and brief explanation [72], chimes in and adds a source [73], explains the policy and is namechecked by two subsequent !votes [74], provides access to paywalled sources [75]. Had to go two years back to find a rare miss: [76]. This record reflects extremely well on the candidate. | Disclosure: I nominated this candidate. | |
| UndercoverClassicist | [77] |
|
|
n=54, votes "keep" and "delete" equally often. Most participation is from more than a year ago; no red flags. These examples show a good understanding of deletion guidelines: [78], [79], [80]. No recent signs of the bludgeoning they were blocked for two years ago. |