Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:47, 19 July 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: 30 days

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

• 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 30 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)

I think part of the instructions are wrong

In Step II of the instructions, for preparation of the Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/PageName page, I believe the small print for a second or later nomination is incorrect. It says:

Insert this text: {{subst:afd2 | pg=PageName | cat=Category | text=Reason the page should be deleted}} ~~~~ replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion, Category with a letter indicating the category of the debate, and Reason... with the reasons you think the page should be deleted.

If you used template {{subst:afdx}} instead of {{subst:afd1}}, use "PageName (2nd nomination)" instead of "PageName" for a second nomination, etc.).

The small print is incorrect. If you put "2nd nomination" in here, you will get redlinks that shouldn't be there. For an example of how this works, compare , which works, with , which doesn't. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Just spent a minute toying with it, and I think I've got a solution. Change {{afd2}} to this and it oughta' work; without even having to have that extra line of text. I tried it out here and it seems to work the way I wanted it to. The interaction with {{afdx}} would now have it display whichever subpage name it's at. 'Course, I dunno' how to make it wikilink in the subtitle that way, but other than that it works pretty well. Drop a line at Template talk:Afd2 if you like it. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 03:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Better solution found, at least. Just link the whole header to the article. I'll be taking it to Template talk:Afd2 now. If/when it gets fix't, I'll also go update the instructions to remove that line. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 17:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

What am I thinking, all this has already been fixed. I feel smart now. Sorry for wasting watchlist space. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 18:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Help please

Would someone who is logged in please nominate Anne-Marie Samuel for deletion please? I tried but can't as I don't have a user name and don't want one. The subject is non-notable and the entire page reads like an advert for her services. She has also spammed other pages, such as Poole Athletic Club (see its history where I removed one of her entries). Thankyou. 86.133.48.32 (talk) 12:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Template:Cent should stop being added too the individual log pages.

I think the centralized discussion template should stop being added to the daily AFD logs because it is not relevant and while I do realize that the WikiMedia Foundation's server capacity is vast; having a frequently updated template on an ever growing log that most people will never ever visit again after five days is an unnecessary burden. -IcewedgЁ (*bleet*) 06:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The devs had said time and again that we shouldn't worry about serverload. The pages are only transcluded when the page is loaded so this isn't really an issue anyway. Obviously we can removed the templaye but need a non-server related reason to do this. Spartaz 12:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Transcludable XfD discussions

Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)#Transcludable XfD discussions - I have made a proposal that TfDs and CfDs be handled in the same way as AfDs and MfDs, as transcluded subpages. A small consensus seems to have formed, but there have been few responses. As these are very important Misplaced Pages pages, please take a look and help form a broader consensus (or tear it apart). Thanks! JohnnyMrNinja 08:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/International Surfing Day

A DYK nomination is pending for International Surfing Day and will expire shortly. The AfD for International Surfing Day, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/International Surfing Day seems a snow keep. Please speedy close this AfD so that the article can be used on DYK before its DYK nomination expires. Thanks. -- Bebestbe (talk) 22:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Log page formatting

Could we have, on each day's log page, a simple bar with links to the next and previous days' logs, like there already is at the top of the page? It wouldn't mean much of any extra difficulty, but it would make the page easier to use, just like with categories or page histories we have links to the next group of pages at both the top of the page and the bottom of the page. Nyttend (talk) 14:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

You mean at the bottom of each log? It's been brought up before, I know, but you'll need to take it to User talk:LDBot, who creates all the log pages themselves. Last time it was brought up I pinged the bot, but I don't think its owner checks its talk page often. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Abongo Obama

Could someone uninvolved please take a look at the wayMisplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Abongo Obama has been reformatted by the prime advocate for keeping the article, and the material he has added from "Who is Malik Obama" on down -- I think it all should be removed from the project page and moved to the Talk page, but as someone commenting in the AfD I don't think I should be the one to do it. Thanks Tvoz/talk 17:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• I tried to reformat them, before I commented at the AfD, and he's reverted me twice. Both the titles of his sections and much of the commentary is uncivil, and the formatting is wildly non-standard. He's becoming disruptive, in my view. S. Dean Jameson 18:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
• Just reading through most of the comments this user struck me as disruptive and uncivil. He seems to feel ownership of the article. mauler90 (talk) 18:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. Would be helpful if someone uninvolved would at least reformat the page to the way all AfDs are done and notify him that he's out of process. Tvoz/talk 19:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I did (while I was still uninvolved), with an edit summary explaining what I was doing and he reverted it with an angry edit summary. S. Dean Jameson 19:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes - I just saw that. He's way out of line. Tvoz/talk 19:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Tales of Hearts

As it stands, the nominator's only argument to delete is that the source containing the information, release date, developers, platform, images of game in play, etc. is in Japanese, which is obviously not an argument for a reference to be unreliable. I don't know if it's appropriate to request speedy close, but the only arguments that have been presented are Crystal Ball (which only applies if the article is speculative, and all of the information has been acquired from the scanned image) and "only English articles" - the article has clearly had its notability established. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

There's at least one delete !vote other than the nom, so speedy close wouldn't be appropriate. Besides, the discussion has only been up for a day. Have a bit of patience and let it run for a while.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Opinion on article at FAC

I could use your advice. I've been copyediting Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago) at FAC, TonyTheTiger is the nom, and we're stuck over the issue of how much information to keep about the spa at the hotel. The spa takes up 23000 sq ft, and 1 or 2 floors of the hotel are "devoted" to the spa in some sense; therefore, TTT and some others take the position that lots of space should be devoted to it. The FAC reviewers generally want to toss most of it, and I'm trying to find a compromise. It would help if you guys would answer the question: if the following material appeared in a stub nominated for deletion, what action would you take?

Spa

The 23,000 square feet (2,137 m) spa, named The Spa at Trump, opened in late March. It offers gemstone-infused (diamond, ruby, or sapphire) oil massages, a "robe menu", and, for customers who come sufficiently early, hydrating masques, exfoliating salts and the "Deluge shower". The gem massage uses an organic oil imported from Dubai, and a later reviewer mentioned a fourth gemstone (emeralds). The spa has also partnered with Kate Somerville, a Los Angeles skin care specialist with clients such as Jessica Alba, Kate Beckinsale, Debra Messing, and Nicole Richie. The deluge shower is described as "a waterfall that comes at you from all angles with color therapy" by one reviewer, although the Spa merely describes it as a "mood enhancing shower". The spa features a health club with an indoor pool, eleven treatment rooms, a private couples treatment suite, Swiss shower, and saunas. The Citysearch editorial review described this as the "Bentley of hotel spas". A Chicago Tribune critic spoke of the spa in glowing terms for both the treatment and the physical spa itself, but warned against expecting full enjoyment before construction was complete. During the summer of 2008, 53 spa guest rooms will be connected to spa via a large circular staircase.

1. ^ "The Experience". trumpchicagohotel.com. Retrieved 2008-06-10.
2. ^ "Just opened: Spa at Trump". Time Out Chicago. 2008-03-20–2008-03-26. Retrieved 2008-06-10. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
3. ^ Stevens, Heidi (2008-05-04). "Between a rock and a hot place: Trump spa's gemstone oil and heated table turn muscles to goo". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved 2008-06-10. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
4. ^ "Ready For A Little R&R?: Three big-name spas &mdash: and a few smaller local gems — hit the Chicago beauty scene", Chicago Social, p. 52, July 2008
5. ^ Moloney, Valerie. "Editorial Review for The Spa at Trump". Citysearch.com. Retrieved 2008-06-10.

Thanks for any help you can offer. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 01:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Update: we lost that FAC fight, but this article will come around again some time, and other articles with similar issues are in the pipeline. My goal here is to speed up some of the more contentious noms by surveying Wikipedians on what they consider to be too promotional, and you guys have your finger on the pulse of this, I think. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 11:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... I'm not sure you're in the right place for that sorta' survey, a village pump might be more appropriate. Still, no point in not when it's here. I'd personally say that an article like that is sorta' advertising, but mostly it's just undue coverage of something really small. Some people could read it as a G11, I'm sure, but I'd say mostly it's just undue. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 13:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Anon !votes at AfD

Hi all - given that anon !votes are normally not considered at AfD, and that there is even a warning template to place on AfD subpages which might attract anon attention, why aren't all AfD subpages simply automatically given low-level protection to prevent IP edits? Sure, there'll still be SPA !votes through newly-crated accounts, but a low-level protection might just reduce such spurious comments. Grutness...wha? 02:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure we should necessarily dismiss anon "votes" as it's the discussion that matters and sometimes an IP might actually make a more on point argument than someone with an account. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 02:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

1) Low level protection also block recently created accounts, so semi-protecting the pages would bite too many new users. 2) We will attend to a new and relevant argument from an IP editor in the rare cases that one is made. It is unusual, but does happen. 3) There are a handful or so of long term stable IPs that are known to represent a single established editor that just chooses not to have an account. 4) We'd need an adminbot to protect the pages, and adminbots are officially forbidden by policy. GRBerry 02:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

It's the discussion and the strength of the argument that matters, not who gave it. You're mistaken that votes from any particular group of people (barring, of course, banned people) are thrown out simply because they come from some specific group of people. The important thing is that something gets said--I couldn't care less if they chose to create an account or not. Celarnor 04:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

We don't always treat them that way, but anons should be just as respected as any other editor. There's at least one anon who has over 10,000 edits! - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed that the OP is an administrator ... how on earth did that happen...? Celarnor 04:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

OP? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Original poster; the person who started the section. Celarnor 04:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

(To Grutness) If I am to close a debate with anon participation, I'll give every vote equal attention regardless of whoever these votes come from. So I certainly don't think "anon !votes are normally not considered at AfD". :) The warning template you mentioned, which I assume is Template:Not a ballot, can be used to prevent meatpuppets in general, not only anons. Correct me if I'm mistaken though. Also, even semi-protection of AfDs per requests at WP:RFPP can easily get reverted if no clear evidence is shown that deletion debates are abused by IPs, so I don't think adminbots/auto-protection (were they to exist) would have any chance. :) --PeaceNT (talk) 05:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd add that a lot of articles that go to AFD are new articles from new editors, and so semi-protection of the debate would specifically prevent the authors of those articles from participating. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 12:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

To answer the comments and complaints above, yes, I am an admin, and I have been working on AfD for several years, and also regularly close AfDs.

To Celarnor, I never once said that "votes from any particular group of people... are thrown out simply because they come from some specific group of people". I wouldn't say this for two reasons - 1) they are not votes, as you should well know; 2) if they are "thrown out" it would be because they have no relevance to the policy or guidelines used in AfD discussions, or contribute no meaningful arguments to the discussion - not because they are from a particular group. As to how I became an admin, it was in the usual way, via RfA - thougth i suspect that question could have been a case of facetiousness rather that a true request for information.

I regularly close AfDs, and have been doing so for over three and a half years. In all that time, I have not once closed an AfD where an anon IP contributed anything useful to the discussion. I haven't discounted IP comments because they were made by anons - only because they had no relevance to the process discussion. I cannot remember ever even seeing an AfD where an anon IP has contributed with more than a comment which was easily discountable. If, as is suggested above, it does happen, then I bow to your judgement on the matter. However, it must be very rare. I had, however, forgotten that blocking anon IPs would also block new users (and therefore, as UltraExactZZ states, likely block an article's creator - if it was only IPs, this couldn't happen, of course), so you are right that it is unworkable (I didn't know about policy against adminbots - I have nothing to do with botwork). And yes, it was {{Not a ballot}} I was referring to, though I still tend to think of it under its old name of {{afdanons}} (under which I notice it's still listed on the main WP:AFD page!) Grutness...wha? 12:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I've seen anons contribute meaningfully to most, if not all, of the deletion debates that I've seen them participate in, with a few high-profile (i.e, Encyclopedia Dramatica) exceptions; granted, I've only seen one or two that have struck me as incredibly insightful and really turned the tide of the discussion over the past year or so, but still, it doesn't really make sense to me why we should even consider who it comes from unless there's a possibility it's from a banned user--although that goes for both regular accounts as well, and thus don't have any bearing on the anon vs. registered discussion. Like I said, that's rather prejudicial and irrelevant, since the important thing is what is said; ultimately, since only the strength of a given argument matters, not who said it or even how many people parrot it, I don't really see any reason why this should be considered. Celarnor 21:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The standard about the weighting of anon comments has more to do with the risk of sockpuppetry and the demonstrated history of attempts to bias Misplaced Pages's decision-making processes than with the quality of the arguments that are or are not generally offered by anon vs inexperienced-but-logged-in users or with the problems of banned users. The sockpuppertry problems have proven to be too great to allow the opinion part of an anon comment to be counted during a closure. On the other hand, if an anon provides verifiable evidence that's relevant to the discussion or makes credible arguments that are based on established policy and sound reasoning, those comments can and should be given due weight during the closing. While I would agree with the sentiment that started this thread that most anon comments are irrelevant, I have seen a few cases where the anon comment offered new facts and so changed the conclusion. Rossami (talk) 23:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

What benefit does presenting new evidence under an IP sock have that you couldn't achieve by presenting it yourself? The only thing I could think of other than not wanting to be connected to said evidence would be to create the illusion of more people agreeing with the evidence, but that doesn't really matter anyway; what matters is how that evidence affects the discussion. Celarnor 03:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

If there's actual verifiable evidence, it doesn't matter who presented it. Unfortunately, many people mistakenly believe that that your second point does matter (the number of people believing the evidence). Unfortunately, even some closers make that mistake. There are also some questions which are inherently judgment calls - opinions about whether a particular topic is "encyclopedic", for example. That's a decision that has to be based on community consensus about what "encyclopedic" means as applied to that specific case. People have attempted to use socks to create the appearance of consensus (or at least of greater weight of opinion) than really existed. That why I worded it that evidence gets considered but that the opinion part of an anon's comment does not. Rossami (talk) 04:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Anon AFD nominations?

Somewhat relatedly: is it our intent that IP editors not be allowed to nominate articles for deletion? This was my impression, from the observation that they cannot, in the history of {{anon}}, on this page, and wherever-the-heck-else it was that I was thinking of. But it's now been put to me that this is just an observation of the technical limitation, that anons can't create the AFD subpage. (In the context of the creation of a "throwaway" account for such purposes, by an I-want-to-remain-an-IP-editor type.) Now, I'm not at all this is either historically the case (I think these AFD restrictions predate the page-creation change), or a correct reading of the current policy melange, but I do think it's worth clarifying one way or the other. If anons are welcome to make such nominations, we would ideally allow page creation within the WP:AFD portion of the namespace hierarchy. If they're not, we should say so explicitly. Alai (talk) 19:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I've seen several AfDs where the nom was started by an IP and completed by someone who has the ability to create a page (ie a non-IP). No one objected to the completion of the AfD in this manner. Personally, I prefer that users register before participating in AfDs because of the difficulty in determining sockpuppet and COI issues with IP users, but I'm not totally against IP participation, either.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I also think that clarifying this would be worthwhile. My personal feeling is that, with the ability to speedy close frivolous nominations, there's no strong reason not to permit IP editors to nominate pages for AFD (they can do CSD and PROD already, which get much less scrutiny than AFD). — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The current technical limitation requires anons to create a WP:SPA if they wish to nominate articles, which almost by definition forces them to WP:SOCK in doing so. An IP editor has to be awfully determined to want to delete articles, so that creates a good hand / bad hand aspect to the socking too. Bad faith nominations by socks, trolls, and blocked/banned editors have been a serious (sometimes severe) problem on occasion, causing a lot of people to waste a lot of time and turning productive editors against teach other. Nevertheless, I don't see the problem of socking in AfDs as being any different than socking in any meta-discussions. There's a higher risk of socks and bad faith from IP accounts, but that's the same here as everywhere else. So if we're going to allow them anywhere why not here too? On the other hand, I can see a plausible argument that for purposes of the project's stability, just like creating articles, deleting them is something reserved for editors willing to establish an account. Wikidemo (talk) 20:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that creating an account takes less than thirty seconds. Socking is not any more difficult for registered users, really. Solution in search of a problem, by my reckoning. Worse, a registered series of socks become nearly untouchable. But regardless of that problem, users who wish to remain anonymous are indeed required to create SPAs to nominate articles for deletion (which I have been doing for quite a while now before running afoul of Alai earlier today). The net effect is that legitimate editors look shady (Alai still thinks I'm a sock) and real socks just get smarter. It's a rock and a hard place, really. I, of course, have a vested interest in suggesting that IPs be allowed to create pages and so on, but should a sock army ruin the party, I'd be worse off than when I started. Hence, why I use SPAs to create pages and nominate articles for deletion. While people question my nominations and articles, their content speaks for itself (but that doesn't mean I haven't had an AfD or four end in keep). However, were drastic measures taken after a full opening of privileges to IPs, I could lose the ability to edit anonymously at all. 81.51.232.219 (talk) 20:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

My recollection of the history of {{anon}} is about as reliable as might have been predicted: when created, it contained the state that an account bestows "The right to be heard in formal votes and elections, and on pages like votes for deletion", which was progressively tweaked over time, before being removed entirely April 2007. I have no idea what basis in policy any of these statements and changes might have had: not much in the way of clues in the edit summaries. Certainly neither the statement or the removal appear to be related to the page-creation restriction, which occurred on the 5th December 2005, and which seemed to trigger only the most obviously-foreseeable such changes. In any case, it would of course not have formal standing as policy, so it appears we're left with a similar 'to be thrashed out' status as the weighting of the '!votes' in AFDs of IPs. (The argument for actual semi-protection of the AFD page seems to me to be much weaker, however.) At any rate, simple consistency would suggest either making it an explicit prohibition, or making it technically possible. The current halfway house would only be desirable if the situation described above where an IP starts a nomination, and another editor actually completes the process, were for some reason desirable, which seems a fairly unlikely scenario to me. Alai (talk) 22:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

help from experienced AfD folks, please

• OK, I know some folks are gonna think I'm being a WP:POINTy WP:DICK. I can accept that perception. But the simple fact is that List of battles and other violent events by death toll simply does not belong in Misplaced Pages's main space YET.. not from some misguided censorship, but because it is simply too huge of a humongous mass of unreferenced crap. I mean, looking at it, I feel like a surgeon who cut open a cancer patient, then simply sewed the patient up again 'cause the cancer was far too extensive to address. It is huge. It is.. I'm sorry, it is crap. Ling.Nut 12:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• Why not? The references are all in the articles. No use cluttering up a navigation page with unneeded references when those references are already on the relevant pages. Celarnor 03:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I know the references are not in the articles, since I personally brought Battle of red Cliffs to FA— and far far far more importantly, Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source. I am speaking from an extremely pro-Misplaced Pages POV; not slamming it. Ling.Nut 03:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_July_12

This page looks strange. Did anybody forget about {{subst:ab}} template ? Ruslik (talk) 05:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

It looks like we have a new closer who is accidentally using {{afd top}} at both top and bottom. I only found one instance of it. The rest of the page seems clear. Rossami (talk) 06:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Grrrrreeeeaaat rescue

I would like it to be known that I have rescued an article which was deleted through AFD twice and endorsed as deleted at WP:DRV once and taken the article Toni Preckwinkle to WP:GA status without a rescue barnstar being granted. I remain a bit upset. If this is not worthy of a barnstar at least a few tigers in my user page tiger gallery would do.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)