| Revision as of 18:47, 18 February 2016 editIvanvector (talk | contribs)Checkusers, Administrators52,288 edits →RfC: Should AFD relists be allowed or disallowed?: snow close← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:51, 19 February 2016 edit undoJames500 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers80,268 edits →RfC: Should AFD relists be allowed or disallowed?: Disallow in some cases; allow in others.Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web editNext edit → | ||
| Line 96: | Line 96: | ||
| ---- | ---- | ||
| : ''The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.''<!-- from ] --></div><div style="clear:both;"></div> | : ''The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.''<!-- from ] --></div><div style="clear:both;"></div> | ||
| *'''Disallow''' the relisting of an AfD that has no participants other than the nominator. Such AfDs should be closed as no consensus. There is a problem of editors flooding AfD with more nominations than the system can handle, apparently in a bid to prevent proper scrutiny of nominations, to sneak nominations through with a small number of participants that do not constitute a sufficient quorum. There should also be a 'cooling off period' during which the article cannot be re-nominated. An AfD that has only one or more valid keep !votes should likewise be closed as keep and not relisted. '''Allow''' the relisting of an AfD that has participants other than the nominator and only has !votes for deletion, unless the number of valid delete !votes is sufficiently large that the result is not in doubt (eg certainly not less than half a dozen, and I would really like to see it pushed up to a dozen or perhaps even twenty, in cases of verifiable non-BLPs etc where the only issue in question is the precise meaning of "significant coverage"). This would be consistent with our presumption against deletion. @], the proposal is not entirely without support. If no one else has supported this, it might be because it was shut down almost immediately. Most editors won't have had time to even ''think'' about what was being proposed. In fact, I didn't even see it till after it was closed. ] (]) 01:51, 19 February 2016 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 01:51, 19 February 2016
| Skip to table of contents |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Articles for deletion page. |
|
 view · edit Frequently asked questions
Q1: I don't like this page's name. I want to rename it to Articles for discussion or something else.
A1: Please see Misplaced Pages:Perennial proposals#Rename AFD. Note that all of the "for discussion" pages handle not only deletion, but also proposed mergers, proposed moves, and other similar processes. AFD is "for deletion" because the volume of discussion has made it necessary to sub-divide the work by the type of change.
Q2: You mean I'm not supposed to use AFD to propose a merger or a page move?
A2: Correct. Please use Misplaced Pages:Proposed mergers or Misplaced Pages:Requested moves for those kinds of proposals.
Q3: How many articles get nominated at AfD?
A3: Per the Oracle of Deletion, there were about 470,000 AfDs between 2005 (when the process was first created) and 2022. This comes out to about 26,000 per year (2,176 per month / 72 per day). In 2022, there were 20,008 AfDs (1,667 per month / 55 per day).
Q4: How many articles get deleted?
A4: Between 2005 and 2020, around 60% of AfDs were closed as "delete" or "speedy delete". This is about 270,000. More detailed statistics (including year-by-year graphs) can be found at Misplaced Pages:Oracle/All and Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages records#Deletion.
Q5: Is the timeline strict, with exactly 168 hours and zero minutes allowed? Should I remove late comments?
A5: No. We're trying to get the right outcome, not follow some ceremonial process. If the discussion hasn't been closed, it's okay for people to continue discussing it.
Q6: How many people participate in AFD?
A6: As of October 2023, of the 13.9 million registered editors who have ever made 1+ edit anywhere, about 162,000 of them (1 in 85 editors) have also made 1+ edit to an AFD page. Most of the participants are experienced editors, but newcomers and unregistered editors also participate. Most individual AFD pages get comments from just a few editors, but the numbers add up over time.
|
 | This project page has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
 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, 78 |
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 25 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
| About deleted articles
There are three processes under which mainspace articles are deleted: 1) speedy deletion; 2) proposed deletion (prod) and 3) Articles for deletion (AfD). For more information, see WP:Why was my page deleted? To find out why the particular article you posted was deleted, go to the deletion log and type into the search field marked "title," the exact name of the article, mindful of the original capitalization, spelling and spacing. The deletion log entry will show when the article was deleted, by which administrator, and typically contain a deletion summary listing the reason for deletion. If you wish to contest this deletion, please contact the administrator first on their talk page and, depending on the circumstances, politely explain why you think the article should be restored, or why a copy should be provided to you so you can address the reason for deletion before reposting the article. If this is not fruitful, you have the option of listing the article at WP:Deletion review, but it will probably only be restored if the deletion was clearly improper.
List discussionsWP:Articles for deletion WP:Categories for discussion WP:Copyright problems WP:Deletion review WP:Miscellany for deletion WP:Redirects for discussion WP:Stub types for deletion WP:Templates for discussion WP:WikiProject Deletion sorting WT:Articles for deletion WT:Categories for discussion WT:Copyright problems WT:Deletion review WT:Miscellany for deletion WT:Redirects for discussion WT:Stub types for deletion WT:Templates for discussion WT:WikiProject Deletion sorting |
Closures
Hi, Just a query - For well over a year I've been closing AFDs a day early which I'm now banned from ... So this new way's a tad confusing at the moment!,
So say basically instead of closing at 12pm (midnight) on the new day I should be closing at 12pm (midnight) on the 8th day if that makes sense?
I've done a picture which should hopefully do a better job at explaining than me! 
,
Thanks, –Davey2010 15:48, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
- I always thought it was seven days from the creation timestamp of the discussion, so if I were to start a discussion right now, you could close it at 15:53, 3 February 2016 (UTC). So if you're going by midnights, then you would need to wait for midnight on the 8th day, yes. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
- Oh right, But closing them at the timestamp would be even more confusing surely ? .... To be absolutely honest I don't think anyone knows really when to close them....,
- Ah well I'll close them at midnight on the 8th that way I won't end up blocked .... Hopefully! , Anyway thanks for clearing that up for me - Much appreciated, Thanks, –Davey2010 15:59, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)::Midnights have nothing to do with it, the rule is quite clear, see WP:CLOSEAFD: "A deletion discussion should normally be allowed to run for seven full days (168 hours)". Go by the timestamp in the nominator's signature, and don't close before the same clock time seven days later. Nothing is gained by closing early, it only give people an excuse to go to DRV and complain that the decision was rushed. JohnCD (talk) 16:06, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
- I tend to close around midnight to make life easier atleast for me anyway, So I was doing it on the 7th day but not leaving as a full day ... riiiiight!, Well I had my reasons & all that but anyway was just querying it so thanks for your help, –Davey2010 16:15, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
- I edit-conflicted again, coming back to say: of course they don't have to be closed at once after 7 x 24 hours. If midnight is a convenient time for you to work that's fine, but wait for the next midnight after 168 hours have passed. JohnCD (talk) 16:17, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
- Okie dokie will do, Thanks again for both your helps, –Davey2010 16:22, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
- I edit-conflicted again, coming back to say: of course they don't have to be closed at once after 7 x 24 hours. If midnight is a convenient time for you to work that's fine, but wait for the next midnight after 168 hours have passed. JohnCD (talk) 16:17, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
- I tend to close around midnight to make life easier atleast for me anyway, So I was doing it on the 7th day but not leaving as a full day ... riiiiight!, Well I had my reasons & all that but anyway was just querying it so thanks for your help, –Davey2010 16:15, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)::Midnights have nothing to do with it, the rule is quite clear, see WP:CLOSEAFD: "A deletion discussion should normally be allowed to run for seven full days (168 hours)". Go by the timestamp in the nominator's signature, and don't close before the same clock time seven days later. Nothing is gained by closing early, it only give people an excuse to go to DRV and complain that the decision was rushed. JohnCD (talk) 16:06, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Help completing an AFD nom
I have put up the article Neil Cohn for deletion; since I'm not registered, I only did step one (adding {{afd1}} to the page). Can someone help me create the actual deletion page? I have posted the deletion rationale to Talk:Neil Cohn#AfD nomination; I just need someone to create the deletion page and paste that rationale in. Thanks! 80.4.164.166 (talk) 04:47, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Outcomes discussion
There's a discussion here: Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Interchanges which might be of interest to you. Onel5969 01:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Are delete decisions set in stone?
There is a page that was recently deleted even though there were some strong requests to keep it. I strongly disagree with the decision and believe that it should be reconsidered. I know that absolutely nobody will read the talk page although it is still accessible. I already reverted the deletion once and was told off. Apparently the decision has been settled and can never be undone under any circumstances. I am afraid of reverting again for fear of being banned or having the page locked. I do not believe this is a reasonable way to manage pages.
The page is https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Fallacy_of_relative_privation&redirect=no
74.109.213.249 (talk) 04:19, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
- You'll want to look at WP:DRV. Cheers! DonIago (talk) 05:04, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, 74.109.213.249 please remember that zillions of people have edited WP since it was founded 15 years ago. There is nothing new under the sun here, and the community has processes to deal with pretty much any problem you can imagine. Reverting the deletion decision was a bad move; coming here to ask what to do, was a great move. Please read what it says at WP:DRV carefully and if you file for review, please listen to the discussion that ensues. You may want to re-review the deletion discussion (following the links people provide to policy and etc) before you file. Good luck. Jytdog (talk) 06:22, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
RE: Carrier Enterprise Canada
Hi folks. Appreciate it if someone could nominate this article for the deletion it deserves.
All text on the talk page of this article acknowledges that this was created by Carrier Canada shills for PR purposes. No reliable sources are cited. The company in question is just some marketing arm of the multinational Carrier Corporation. 121.75.210.240 (talk) 06:12, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
RfC: Should AFD relists be allowed or disallowed?
Proposal by a community banned editor. Quite obviously no support for their proposal. (non-admin closure) Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:47, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should AfD relists be allowed or disallowed? Relevant guideline Misplaced Pages:Deletion process#Relisting discussions and related RFCs at WT:MFD.
Allow
- Allow. Our policy at Misplaced Pages:Deletion process#Relisting discussions is not broken and does not need fixing. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:19, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
- Allow- but encourage AfDs where the only votes are one or two deletes to be treated as seconded PRODs. Reyk YO! 14:24, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
- Allow - As much as I hate seeing AFDs listed to death which is more or less the common thing here.. there is alot more participation at AFDs/RFDs etc then MFD and consensus isn't always obvious so relisting is needed, Personally I think without the relists it'd just be chaos ... So yeah Relisting is needed here. –Davey2010 15:53, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
- Allow. If the relisting policy needs tinkering, then fine. But this proposal is overbroad - and doesn't seem to actually address any of the problems people claim exist. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 16:22, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
- Allow They are often necessary. If there is a problem of overuse, that is a separate discussion. – Philosopher 16:29, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
- Allow - relists both allow healthy discussions a chance to continue to reach a consensus, and cases on obscure articles which are absent discussion more opportunity to let objection be heard. -Nat Gertler (talk) 16:57, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
- Allow - relisting gives more time for the deletion process to work properly, and gets more eyes on both the article and the deletion discussion. This makes it less likely that bad decisions either way are made, which is surely the whole point.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:10, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Disallow
Disallow. Deletionists have enough tools and no one is convinced after a week, then close as no consensus. We need less at AFD not more. 166.170.46.102 (talk) 10:02, 18 February 2016 (UTC)166 is community banned. — JJMC89 (T·C) 18:41, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Discussion
- Note: This RfC was started by 166, who is community banned. — JJMC89 (T·C) 18:41, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Disallow the relisting of an AfD that has no participants other than the nominator. Such AfDs should be closed as no consensus. There is a problem of editors flooding AfD with more nominations than the system can handle, apparently in a bid to prevent proper scrutiny of nominations, to sneak nominations through with a small number of participants that do not constitute a sufficient quorum. There should also be a 'cooling off period' during which the article cannot be re-nominated. An AfD that has only one or more valid keep !votes should likewise be closed as keep and not relisted. Allow the relisting of an AfD that has participants other than the nominator and only has !votes for deletion, unless the number of valid delete !votes is sufficiently large that the result is not in doubt (eg certainly not less than half a dozen, and I would really like to see it pushed up to a dozen or perhaps even twenty, in cases of verifiable non-BLPs etc where the only issue in question is the precise meaning of "significant coverage"). This would be consistent with our presumption against deletion. @User:Ivanvector, the proposal is not entirely without support. If no one else has supported this, it might be because it was shut down almost immediately. Most editors won't have had time to even think about what was being proposed. In fact, I didn't even see it till after it was closed. James500 (talk) 01:51, 19 February 2016 (UTC)