Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:13, 14 December 2008

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

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

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78Auto-archiving period: 25 days

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

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

• WT:AFD

Archives

For discussions that have not been well-archived (before 2004), the page history of the Articles for deletion page has to be used as a contingency archive. One can look in the Deletion log to obtain date and time of a deletion, then look in the page history of VfD near that time to see which edit regards the unlisting of the page, then view the previous version. Misplaced Pages utilities/Page titles to be deleted – edit history before 13:45, 19 May 2002 (UTC) – also see its talk page), histories go back to November 2001 Votes for Deletion – edit history (22:22, 15 May 2002 (UTC) to 06:24, 28 May 2004 (UTC)) Votes for Deletion – edit history (04:53, 28 May 2004 (UTC) to 22:58, 20 September 2004 UTC)) Votes/Articles for Deletion – edit history (00:03, 21 September 2004 (UTC) to Current) Old VfD archive index (now AfD archives 1–31) 1, 2, 3, 4, 4a, 5 Z1, Z2, Z3, Z4, Z5, Z6 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 Renamed Articles for deletion about this time. 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48

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

WP:BEFORE

I've been seeing a LOT of AfDs where sources are immediately found by doing a Gnews search. I mean whole ABC news articles on the exact topic (for example). I'd like to make the following change to WP:BEFORE

From:

• If the article lacks adequate sourcing, consider a quick Internet search to verify that no reliable sources exist.

To:

• If the article lacks adequate sourcing, do a quick Internet and News search to verify that no reliable sources exist.

Thoughts? Hobit (talk) 13:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• • Support I'd be in favor of making that a suggested/encouraged approach (and the word "consider" implies that). I doubt that it could become an enforcable policy (for how could you prove that one did or did not do it?) AND there are some notable topics that just aren't on the internet much. Personally, I can think of several articles I'm involved with that if the AfD nominator had bothered to do that, it would have saved a lot of efforts.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think this is enforceable. Most people do this, I think. But how do you know when they don't? "Trust me, I did a search." And if someone finds something on google that they didn't, maybe that just means they weren't 100% thorough. If an AFD starts, and it closes as no consensus or keep because someone found some good sources, then the AFD process is working exactly as it's supposed to. It's a discussion about how to save the article, or what to do with the article if it can't be saved. Randomran (talk) 13:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

We just had this discussion at #Searching before nominating. Starting it all over again doesn't seem productive to me. Fram (talk) 13:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• In all honesty I missed that. I think the arguments against are largely hooey (passing off work to others because you can't be bothered to do a trivial search?) and not doing this creates more work overall. That said, consensus wasn't clear above, so I guess we run with the status quo for now and hope consensus changes... Hobit (talk) 14:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• Too many AFDs are proposed on the basis that an article lacks sources. The presumption is that this is a reason to delete but this is the mistake - a lack of sources is not a reason to delete. We need to start pushing back on these AFDs so that nominators get the message that the onus is on them to show that sources cannot be found. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • That's not what WP:BURDEN says. Randomran (talk) 14:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Indeed, the situation is quite the opposite : the onus is on those adding information to back it up with sources, not those challenging the information. Shereth 15:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Sure, but CW is correct. An article not having sources is not a reason to delete per policy. WP:BURDEN is good and true, but also not a reason to delete. Hobit (talk) 15:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
        • Per WP:DEL#REASON which you link to : "Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to, the following ..." Per WP:V, also policy (of which WP:BURDEN is a subsection) : "Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed." If the whole article is unsourced it may be removed; we call this deletion. Shereth 16:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
          • That's a fairly long logical leap. If you think that is the case, please discuss at WP:DEL#REASON and get it added there in a more direct way. I don't think you'll find anything near consensus to do so. Hobit (talk) 17:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
            • WP:DEL#REASON has the disclaimer stating that it is not all-inclusive of every deletion rationale; therefore there is no pressing reason to add "lack of sources" to that list when it is covered already in policy, WP:V. Failure to meet any policy is a potential rationale for deletion. Shereth 18:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
              • • Again, I don't think this view has anything resembling consensus. Deleting article due to a lack of sources in the article has never carried the day at any AfD I've ever seen. That is, I've never seen an article get deleted where people agreed sufficient sources existed, but deleted the article because they weren't in the article. Have you? Hobit (talk) 18:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
                  • I think it has happened a few times, specifically concerning articles that have undergone multiple AfD's with promises of "we will source it" and no action. I don't really consider it to be a terrible idea. At some point we have to worry about just letting OR or uncited claims sit on wikipedia forever. Protonk (talk) 19:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
            • I also believe that the lack of consensus you refer to deals more with the proposed speedy deletion criteria for "no sources cited". Protonk (talk) 18:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
              • That certainly, but I've been involved in many deletion discussions, both in AfDs and talk pages about deletion, and I've never seen anyone seriously argue that an article having no sources is a reason for deletion when those sources exist. Hobit (talk) 18:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
                • I'll look for the archived discussion, but I've seen a CSD proposed as well as some "14 day, non removable deletion tag" for no sources. Neither were very popular. Protonk (talk) 19:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
            • I agree with Hobit that the lack of cited sources isn't a reason for deletion, but the lack of appropriate sources should be--That is, if there are sources out there, but they aren't in the article, the proper course of action is to always add them. If and only if no such sources can be found after a good faith search should an article be considered for deletion, in which case, it is to be deleted for failing WP:V. Jclemens (talk) 18:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose It's not practical in all cases to perform an internet search for sources, that is why an editor should be asked to 'consider' it rather than commanded to do it, practical or otherwise. --neon white talk 15:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• Under what situation is it not practical? Hobit (talk) 15:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

For instance if the term contains extremely common phrases or words that would make searching almost useless. For example ]. How do you search a term like that to find anything relevant?--neon white talk 18:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Meh. This has been discussed before, recently. The answer there was no. The answer here is going to be no. It isn't a matter of practicality but a matter of irrelevance. What google search should I do? Should I put the article name in quotes? Should I filter wikipedia, wikia, and other mirrors? Should I search for common synonyms? Should I do a search in a news archive service? Should I search google books for related terms? At what point is it sufficient to call a search exhaustive? How do we prove that a search was done? If we change WP:BEFORE from a suggestion to an imperative, then we have to ask these questions. Blood Angels gets 600k hits on google. "Blood Angels" gets 249k. Yet you would be hard pressed to find a reliable source on the Space Marine chapter called the Blood Angels. It might exist, but I'm not sifting through 249 thousand sources to look for it. I am also not interested in just assuming that a reliable source exists because of the search hits for that text string. If I am required to search, what is the appropriate outcome? Do I list the AfD after that search? Do another search? Furthermore, what burning problem does this solve? An AfD is made on an obviously notable subject. Sources are shown at the AfD. The result is keep. Life goes on. If, for some reason, the result is delete, then DRV will reverse it. We don't need some procedural criteria which requires the nominating editor to effectively prove a negative. Protonk (talk) 16:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• It took me about 30 seconds to find a major reliable and definitive source for Blood Angels. Verifiability is not at all a problem for a topic of this sort. But nominators don't search for sources in such cases because they don't want to improve the article - they actively want to destroy it. Such nominations violate WP:BEFORE because there is no good faith attempt to consider improvement or other alternatives first. If a nomination provides no evidence that the multiple points of WP:BEFORE have been addressed then it should be speedily closed as inadequate. Deletion is too serious a matter to be made on a casual basis and that's why the process clearly indicates that it should be a last resort after all other alternatives have been tried and failed. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• ...Games workshops makes and sells the fiction, rulebooks and miniatures for the Blood Angels. They are not an independent source on the blood angels. I'm not sure what you mean to tell me by linking that. It certainly is possible to construct a search for the topic, however, as you have shown, your search reveals what you consider to be a reliable source and so my search would have been inadequate. Rather than discussing the merits of the source we would be discussing how I was violating some instruction. Protonk (talk) 00:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• The source in question is a reliable source per our guideline. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• It isn't intellectually independent from the content creator. This honestly isn't the place to debate whether or not it is an independent, reliable source, but I can assure you, it isn't. We can't really speak of Games workshop "reporting" on a games workshop creation any more than we can speak of Hasbro "reporting" on a new toy. It isn't reportage in any sense of the word. It is either exposition or advertisement. Games Workshop makes money selling figurines. In order to sell more figurines they invent a new army (or in this case, a space marine chapter). In order to fully use that army, I need to buy the figurines (From Citadel, a fully owned subsidiary), the guidebook (that codex you mentioned), and in order to get the whole package, I can pick up some fiction from Black Library (owned by GW). The source is at best the equivalent of a press release and at worst purely promotional. I really wish you would account for the possibility that I might know what I am talking about here. I have spent close to 25 hours scouring databases and news archives for pretty much every Warhammer 40K source out there. I understand which parts of that fictional universe have been covered by multiple, independent sources and the list is short. Blood Angels (to stick with this example) may actually be among them as they are the subject of a board game and a video game, which means they might be mentioned in some reviews. But again, back to my original point, I could have searched google using the string "Blood Angels" -Misplaced Pages -wiki -wikia and dismissed the IGN and gamespot reviews of the game (for the purposes of discussion). I could consider that a good faith look. But if you searched and said "this codex is RS", then we wouldn't be having this discussion. We would be talking about how the AfD should be closed because I obviously didn't do a good faith search. That's not an acceptable outcome. Protonk (talk) 01:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• It's a reliable source and if you don't understand this, you should read WP:RS until you do. You have subsequently introduced the concept of independence. This is largely irrelevant as, in this case, the codex is definitive canon which is a more important concept for verifiability. Anyway, my point is that you said that it was difficult to find a reliable source on this topic and it isn't - it is is trivial. In any case, such arguments are no reason for nominators to fail to make searches per WP:BEFORE as you can't tell what you're going to find until you look. Many/most editors don't even seem to take that first step. Colonel Warden (talk) 02:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Only independent sources contribute to notability. Anything published by Games Workshop is completely irrelevant in terms of whether the article should be kept.—Kww(talk) 02:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• We were talking about verifiability per WP:BURDEN which is policy. Notability is something else again - a lesser guideline to be used with common sense. If one finds that there are ~250,000 search hits for something then common sense indicates that it is notable. An AFD nomination in such a case is quite inappropriate since, at the very least, the title is a useful search term and so redirection would always be preferable to deletion. This is another point made by WP:BEFORE which a search will highlight. Nominators should not be shooting in the dark and it wastes everyone's time if they do. Colonel Warden (talk) 02:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• We can bandy about this all we want. You know as well as I do that the result of sourcing articles to those codexes was almost unanimously deletion. We can also quote WP:V if you care to talk about policy: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Misplaced Pages should not have an article on it." The point stands. If you somehow feel that I've introduced this foreign notion of "independence", then take a look at WP:RS : "Misplaced Pages articles should use reliable, third-party, published sources.". Either way, this is getting pretty tiresome. Protonk (talk) 04:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• No, on checking I find that the voting on AFD for that group of articles was 10-6. The AFD ought to have been closed as no consensus but a tiny handful of editors were allowed to delete a group of articles that got about a million hits a year. And we now see that Blood Angels is back as a blue link so the deletion was worse than pointless - it was an afront to all the editors that worked upon the material and is contrary to our principles: "Remember, whatever you write here will be preserved for posterity.". This example clearly shows that the current AFD process is broken, is being abused and that the bar to time-wasting, disruptive nominations needs to be raised. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think people who are trying to enforce WP:V, WP:OR, WP:RS and WP:N appreciate being called abusive or disruptive, and you need to assume good faith. These are all considered reasonable causes for an AFD, by a consensus of Wikipedians. Randomran (talk) 17:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
• I tend to forget that you treat WP:N as a triviality. However, both sides of this debate should at least learn how to get a true Google count. Try actually looking for the 250K hits ... they don't exist. Editing the "start" field in the Google search to "start=n" makes it list starting with the nth hit. It gets a little rough right at the end, because Google's algorithms for discarding duplicates isn't quite deterministic. http://www.google.com/search?hl=ja&lr=&pwst=1&q=%22Blood+Angels%22&start=580&sa=N shows pretty clearly that there are only 556 actual hits, not 250K. That's still a fair number of unique sources, but not overwhelming. I've never understood why Google bothers with such an unreliable estimate, but that field bounces all over the map, and rarely corresponds to the actual number of returned items. It seems worst when you have a quoted phrase of extremely common search terms.—Kww(talk) 04:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Kww, you are wrong (sorry!). Distnct google hits returns the number of distinct hits in the first 1,000 results. Repeat the action you just took for "Microsoft" or "Misplaced Pages", and you'll also get a few hundred results. DIstinct hits can never give more than 1,000 hits, even when there are millions of them. Distinct hits should only be used whene the number of hits is small to start with (below 2,000 or so), to weed out duplicates. IF you want to get a more accurate number of hits, and make it easier to find potentially reliable sources, narrow the search down: this gets it down to some 60,000 hits. Fram (talk) 07:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Agree it's been discussed. But when news articles on the topic show up at ABC or the NYT as the first or second news source, it is just wasting everyone's time. Can we make people look? Of course not. But when a simple news source search shows tons of notability, I want everyone to agree that the nom didn't do his job.Hobit (talk) 16:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• Wait, huh? You want everyone to agree that who did a bad job? 16:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• I think he's proposing something similar to what I had previously proposed a WP:UWT (since we seem to have one for everything else) that anyone can slap on the nominator's talk page that says "Thanks for your nom. Next time, try searching first"--politely, of course. Jclemens (talk) 16:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• Correct. Thanks for saying it better than I did. Hobit (talk) 17:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support the wording change. We may not be able to make it mandatory, but I don't think making the expectation more forceful actually hurts anything. If it matters, I am the author of the current wording. Jclemens (talk) 16:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• I have no qualms with beefing up the wording as such, although I seriously doubt it's going to change things one way or another. Shereth 16:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

How about this

Rather than insisting on searching, how about this:

• When nominating an article for deletion due to sourcing concerns, a good faith attempt should be made to confirm that such sources aren't likely to exist.

Hobit (talk) 19:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no issues with this. Shereth 19:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with this. ... even if it will be hard to verify that they did, indeed, make a good faith attempt. But at the very least, it's good advice. Randomran (talk) 19:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

This is fine. I don't relish the prospect of this snippet being used to send nasty-grams to editors (that way lies drama), but I'm never going to send one, so I won't object on that basis. Protonk (talk) 19:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it'd be better to point "sourcing concerns" to WP:V instead of WP:RS, but the text is great. Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Particularly WP:BURDEN. Randomran (talk) 21:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I like this modification (it's a briefer version of advice at Misplaced Pages:Guide to deletion#Nomination) and agree that it should point to WP:V rather than WP:RS. Paul Erik 21:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I seven this. ;) — ceranthor 23:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• Woot, done. Please feel free to change if I didn't do what people thought I should have. I personally would have preferred WP:RS rather than WP:V, but I guess that works too. Hobit (talk) 01:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I too think it should point to RS - V is much too general. But otherwise a good start. DGG (talk) 00:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Policy has said to look for sources first for a long time

Asking editors to look for sources themselves before nominating things for deletion on grounds of verifiability is not a new thing. This idea has been in our policies for some several years. Before it was converted to prose form in February 2007, Misplaced Pages:Deletion policy used to look similar to what can now be found at User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage#What to do. See this version of deletion policy, for example. Earlier versions of deletion policy, such as this one from January 2006, said to "Follow the procedure at Misplaced Pages:Verifiability" and only if it failed to come back and consider deletion. At the time Misplaced Pages:Verifiability was where the procedure was, and it looked like this. Looking for sources onesself was step #4. Indeed, this step has been in the verifiability policy since Martin Harper's original formulation of it in 2003. Following that procedure before nominating articles for deletion has been explicit deletion policy since July 2004. This procedure has been in our content and deletion policies for several years. Uncle G (talk) 18:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• This is a very important point and has to be reenforced and made as clear as possible in the relevant policies. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Little late on this but it is not the fact the editors look for a "source", it is the fact that when at an AfD some editors will find "any" source. This is what I am trying to get a grasp on. For example, in my case, I will spot an article that is lacking sources and citations and start looking for some, ones that correlate to the existing Policy and Guidlines. If all I can find are press releases, user submitted "news", myspace, facebook, blogs, concert listings, release dates and so on I will go ahead an do the nom. What is happening a lot now is that some Editors will simply do a search, find lots of hits and start tossing all of the above, and more, into the AfD as "look at all these sources!" They do not bother to read the "article" or they just assume that a press release in Rolling Stone is more valid than the exact same press release on the subjects myspace page. There was a recent AfD where a few (two, maybe three) editors were so desperate to save the article they put everything they could find into the AfD and the article. Some could say it was good faith but I am still trying to figure out what policy or guideline says it is ok to use bootleg audio and video as proof of "notablity". Soundvisions1 (talk) 03:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
    • That is actually a good thing. As mentioned here, the proper study of encyclopaedists is finding, reading, evaluating, and using sources. That you've managed to get past the finding stage is actually a good thing. Many discussions don't get past that, or even to it in the first place (and AFD is the worst for it — look what happened at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Talk page and what happened to the article as a consequence). The next stages are the reading and the evaluation. So read the sources and deal with their depths and their provenances. If they are not indepent or not reliable, or don't document the subject in depth, then you can argue that they should be discounted on those grounds, and that they do not show that the Primary Notability Criterion is satisfied. Uncle G (talk) 15:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Are you referring to the Lotus (rock band) AfD again? The article's creator included some links to (legal, as far as I could tell) live show download sites. These had no bearing on notability. Lots of other sources that were neither download sites nor press-releases were added. Trouble is, some editors consistently ignore good sources and keep harking on about a few bad sources, as if the existence of bad sources is a reason for deletion. It isn't. Neither is notability based on the proportion of sources in an article that are 'good'. If any 2 sources in an article about a musician or band constitute significant coverage in reliable sources (these could be sources that you've never heard of before), then that article passes the WP:MUSIC guideline. Too many AfD's take up far too much time and effort because people ignore good sources and argue (sometimes at enormous length) that articles should be deleted because such and such is not a reliable source "because it includes a line from a press-release", or "that looks like a blog to me", etc. Forget about the bad sources at AfD and concentrate on the good ones. The bad ones can be dealt with later. Only if there are no good sources should an article be deleted. Also bear in mind that sources do not only exist to demonstrate notability. Verifiability is just as important, and what may appear to be trivial mentions may be included if they reliably back up facts in an article. Getting back to the issue of searching before nominating, sometimes adequate sources are easily found from a Google/Google news search, and I find it very disappointing when people bring things to AfD without carrying out such a search. It is even more disappointing when those editors refuse to admit their error when sources are presented during an AfD, and just as bad when editors misrepresent guidelines to try to influence an AfD (the "they haven't released 2 albums on a major label so fail WP:MUSIC" argument is particularly annoying). I would go as far as treating persistent nominations of this type (CSD and PROD also) the same way as we treat vandalism, as it does just as much, if not more damage to this project. Put the first one or two cases down to inexperience, but if editors keep doing it, block them. --Michig (talk) 17:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Michag can't you just let this go? You start off your rant with the comment "Are you referring to the Lotus (rock band) AfD again?" yet you are the one bringing that up - again. Did you bother to look at the date of my post? November 15, which is the date you and I stopped the discussion on the topic below. So move on Michig. I won't even bother to respond to the implication I should be blocked because I follow the policy and guideline at Misplaced Pages when making noms or being involved in discussions. On the topic and to reply to Uncle G's posts: I look at the guidelines and they are fairly clear in most cases. What Uncle G says it 100% true in regards to finding sources to establish notability. "If they are not indepent or not reliable, or don't document the subject in depth, then you can argue that they should be discounted on those grounds, and that they do not show that the Primary Notability Criterion is satisfied." Soundvisions1 (talk) 19:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I did not imply that you should be blocked - please re-read my comments, and you have raised this particular AfD at least twice outside the AfD discussion itself. My comments were based on dozens of AfDs that I have participated in, only one of which involved you as far as I remember. My post above had two sections: the first about looking for good sources at AfD rather than concentrating on the weaker ones, and the second about editors who bring articles to AfD in clear contravention of policy, i.e. making no effort to search for sources. The first part was in response to your comment above. The second was addressing the topic of this discussion. If at any point I believe you've done something that merits being blocked, you'll be the first to know, and I have no reason to believe this at present - I don't see how my comment above could reasonably have been interpreted they way you interpreted it. The key point is that AfD is about determining notability by looking for good sources, and should not be about arguing until the cows come home about sources that have no bearing either way. If none of the sources found are good enough, by all means make that point, but if good sources are present, AFD isn't the place for cleaning up the rest of them.--Michig (talk) 19:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Mergers at AfD

Which best describes current practice regarding mergers taken to AfD?

1. An intention to merge is wholly incompatible with nomination at AfD. Due to GFDL attribution, the history must remain visible – deletion is precluded, and any such AfD should be speedy closed as disruptive, bad-faith, or WP:POINTy inappropriate toned down Flatscan (talk) 04:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC).
   • Leroy Jethro Gibbs added Flatscan (talk) 05:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC), outcome endorsed at DRV Flatscan (talk) 04:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
2. A good-faith intention to merge is an acceptable justification for filing an AfD in some cases. Merge/redirect is a valid AfD outcome. AfD attracts a wide range of editors who would not have seen discussions on the article's Talk page.
   • Taser controversy
3. Either party in a merge dispute may file a procedural nom, including those who oppose the merge.
   • Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations

My impression is that practice is somewhere between (1) and (2). (2) is generally discouraged, but happens infrequently and is allowed to run for the full duration. (3) was heavily opposed, but there was a lot of drama in that specific case.

I asked a related question at WP:VPP, received no responses, and copied it to Help talk:Merging and moving pages#Mergers at AfD. Flatscan (talk) 04:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

A disputed redirect might be appropriate for AFD in certain cases. But a disputed merge is probably something that should involve other WP:DR processes. I can't think of a situation where people disagree about whether to merge, so the compromise is to delete. ... that said, there are situations where the larger population thinks they should delete. But then it would still be odd, maybe even bad faith for someone proposing a merge to then propose deletion after their merge proposal is shut down. Randomran (talk) 05:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I know I've seen it, but can't think of the article: the nominator thought it should be merged, but after the article was analysed, every statement that could actually be verified was redundant, so there wasn't anything left to keep. As for the main question, I think a good-faith intent to merge or redirect is a valid reason to bring an AFD. I understand why people object, but it can be the only place that a community-wide, semi-enforceable consensus to redirect or merge can be obtained.—Kww(talk) 05:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom does think that a deletion debate is sometimes preferable to an RFC about an article... I'm of mixed feelings on this. Truthfully, I wish there were a way to solicit feedback from a wide range of editors on a merge, the same way we do for deletion. I think AFD gets a bad rap because it's "article for deletion", when really it's an "article for discussion" -- what the heck do we do with this article that seems to fail fundamental guidelines? Randomran (talk) 05:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages's deletion processes have only one mandate - determining whether or not the pagehistory should be kept. If it's an unsuitable topic for the encyclopedia or if there is no redeeming value to the history, the page should be deleted. Otherwise, mergers and redirects and content changes are all variations on a "keep" decision. If there is no nomination to actually delete the pagehistory, Misplaced Pages:Speedy keep clause 1 would make the discussion eligible for immediate closure (though the implication above that the nomination is in bad-faith may not be supportable - most are new editor errors, not deliberate disruption). Nominations to merge, redirect or change content should be sorted out using other discussion processes. They are not proper topics for AfD. If the Request for Comment process is not working well, we need to fix that process, not bastardize the already overloaded processes here.
Incidentally, while AfDs do tend to get some degree of community visibility, policy and long-standing precedent is that a recommendation to merge a page is no more binding than any equivalently well-attended discussion on the article's Talk page. So a nomination here generally won't achieve the "decisive" end that the nominators usually want when they make these non-delete nominations. Rossami (talk) 05:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

• I agree partially with Rossami but I've always felt that the concerns about mergers don't always match up with what we see. An example of a merger we would like to avoid at AfD would be a complex merge of one page into another (or several), like Celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks to Reactions to the September 11 attacks. That requires subject matter experts, deflecting SPA's and weighing presentation of content WRT WP:UNDUE. That's distinct from merging Eldar Harlequins into Eldar (Warhammer 40,000). The former should never be merged from an AfD. The latter, practically, can be. I don't think articles like that should, but they don't represent the reason why mergers are eschewed. Protonk (talk) 15:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

• I disagree with Rossami. AFD is not fundamentally about the preservation of page history. It is about whether Misplaced Pages should have an article on a particular topic. AFD is neither about the current state of the article, nor about the technical requirements to preserve page history, it is only about the question whether a particular topic should have an independent article. All possible answers to "should we have an article on this topic" are legitimate, including "we should cover this topic as a section in that other article". If the AFD is closed with the consensus being that the topic should not have an independent article, then we can decide whether to delete the page entirely, or merge it into another page. In the latter case, we need to preserve edit history, but that's a technical issue. If we keep a redirect from the old page, then the edit history is automatically preserved. If we do not keep a redirect, then we can move the old page to a subpage of the merged page's talk page and then delete newly created redirect, which will have no nontrivial edit history. But GFDL requirements are just a technical issue for the closing admin to deal with, they have no relevance to the deletion discussion itself. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Copy that. If only because we close AFDs with outcomes other than delete/keep all the time. Randomran (talk) 17:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
    • I agree with Carl as well. Granted, merging and redirection aren't deletion, but they are ways of dealing with subjects that should not have a full page article. Since the issue is sometimes contested as to whether there should or should not be an article on a subject, and talk page discussion tends to attract those with a strong interest in the article, skewing the weight of a discussion, a wider discussion attracting more neutral and uninterested members of the community can be a good option. And in practice, people argue to merge/redirect at AfD all the time, and discussions are closed as such quite frequently. So to respond to the original question at the top, I think 1 and 2 are acceptable. 3 is disruptive, as nominating an article for deletion (or merger, redirect, etc.), when you don't really want it to be merged, redirected, deleted, etc., is pointy. Seraphimblade 18:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for all the responses. I agree with the points made by Kww and CBM.
  • I see that this usage is scope creep from core deletion. Are merges frequently or rapidly escalated to AfD?
  • Regarding Mergers for discussion, there is WP:Proposed mergers, but it's an optional step and poorly subscribed. Most merges don't require wide visibility or extra process, so a new formal process would probably be overkill.
  • I understand that (3) is generally considered disruptive/pointy, as the nominator actually opposes the nomination, on its face. Thus, only an editor supporting the merge may nom, but this asymmetry may be offset by unmerged being the current state. Flatscan (talk) 04:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I would encourage anyone still following this thread to please see the extensive comments being offered at DRV by some very experienced admins on the topic of AfDs and merger recommendations. Rossami (talk) 00:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Merge outcome

I found lists of valid outcomes here:

• WP:Articles for deletion (lead): a list of resulting actions, not the actual outcomes
• WP:Deletion process#Articles for deletion page: NO CONSENSUS, REDIRECT, MERGE are described as variants of KEEP

I support clarifying the distinctions between each outcome, not conflating the non-deletes together simply because they don't require the delete button to implement. A difficulty is that merge describes a range of possible implementations (zero to all content merged), a content issue, but one that may affect an editor's !vote. Appending a percentage – Keep or Merge 100% – seems silly and adds a burden to the closer. Flatscan (talk) 05:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

• Just in case it's not clear enough from my prior comments, I strongly oppose the proposed expansion of AfD's mandate. Mergers are ordinary-editor actions which can and should continue to be sorted out on the respective article Talk pages. Many thousands of mergers are discussed and decided without ever resorting to AfD. That's a very postive thing for the encyclopedia.
  There is no burden on the closer because the page returns to ordinary editing as soon as the deletion discussion is completed. The closer is under no burden to to decide whether the consensus was "keep", "100% merge", "partial merge" or any variation. The closer merely has to decide if there was consensus to delete. Everything after that returns to the responsibility of the ordinary editors working on the article's content. (By the way, the facts uncovered in the AfD discussion and the opinions expressed as a result of it become part of the page's history and should be carefully considered just as if the same discussion had been held on the article's Talk page. It's just no more binding than the rest of the discussion about the article's fate.) Rossami (talk) 15:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
  • • Your position has been clear to me. I recognize opposition here and at the linked DRV, but I saw enough support expressed to attempt a more directed discussion. Flatscan (talk) 23:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I tend to view it as an abdication of responsibility when the closer takes a discussion where there was a consensus to merge, and closed it with "I'm not deleting, go discuss the merge again." If there is consensus that the topic under discussion should not have its own article, the closer should say so. This can happen either because there is consensus to delete, or because there is consensus to merge the content with a different article. This does not mean that a merge cannot be done without going to AFD, but it does mean that if the AFD conversation is clearly in favor of a merge the close should reflect that. —  Carl (CBM · talk) 03:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
    • My view is that a "merge" closure is a suggestion, saying that there is consensus here that a merger should be done, and so if anyone wants to do it they should feel free. So there isn't any need to discuss a merger again, you've already got consensus for it (unless it meets significant opposition, in which case you might not have had consensus in the first place). At the same time, because AfD doesn't get the input from the editors at the merge target article, it should not represent any sort of mandate that a merger must be done. Outside of the delete/!delete result, an AfD has the exact same weight as any other editorial discussion, and we shouldn't try to represent it as having anything else. Cheers. lifebaka++ 03:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
      • However, the stereotypical "I'm not deleting, discuss the merge on your own if you want" close does give the impression that a separate discussion is needed. That's why I think it's such a suboptimal way to phrase an AFD close. Moreover, an AFD consensus that a topic should not have a separate article does have more weight than a random editorial discussion - that's the whole point of AFD. —  Carl (CBM · talk) 04:10, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
        • I agree with CBM that a close rationale should at least mention a merge or redirect consensus if one exists. I think that a solid AfD consensus should carry more weight than nearly any other discussion, not because it's AfD, but because it's 1) well-attended by a wide range of editors, 2) with consensus evaluated by an admin. Flatscan (talk) 23:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
        • I completely agree with the first part. So, how about we change it to suggest such a statement in closes? That should pretty much alleviate your concern, I'd think. As for the second, Flatscan pretty well sums up my opinion on it. Cheers. lifebaka++ 21:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
          • Misplaced Pages:Guide to deletion#Closure already has a sufficient description, in place since at least the end of 2005. I found it after some browsing around, so it may not be prominent enough. I could not find an appropriate place for a brief insertion in either Misplaced Pages:Deletion process#Articles for deletion page or Misplaced Pages:Deletion guidelines for administrators. Flatscan (talk) 04:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm somewhere in the middle on this. Merging definitely is an editing issue, but there are times when a merge or redirect needs to be enforced. Dildozer is a good example of this. The discussion at AfD resulted in a redirect/merge closure. The lone keep !vote waited a month and then reverted the article. So we are back to an article that makes no assertion of notability, but will probably be reverted again if someone changes it back to a redirect. (I can come up with more examples if anyone needs them...) --Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

If an editor makes edits or reverts against a consensus then it should be dealt with the same way all disruptive behaviour is. --neon white talk 22:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Quite coincidentally, said editor has now been indef blocked for disruption and sockpuppetry. I've reverted the article back to a redirect.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I think a comment of mine may have started this discussion, and I apologize for not following up on it. I think that in practice a central place such as AfD would be a good place to discuss proposed merges that are contested and cannot be compromised--the pages at WP:MERGE and related are probably in need of being adjusted to reality. The problem is more that a "merge" can be anywhere from 100% to 1% of the content, and a limited time AfD is not usually the best place to discuss just what should be merged. This typically takes subject awareness and in practice, a good deal of alternate proposals and compromises.

But a redirect or a merge is not in any sense a form of keep--if an afd is seen as a discussion of whether there should be a separate article, a decision to merge or redirect is a decision that there should not be a separate article., That seems to me exactly the case with a delete. The difference is the preservation of the edit history--in all three cases, though, its a removal of the article. I suggest rewording things here to that effect. DGG (talk) 09:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely that "merge and redirect" is much more like delete than keep. A merge/redirect results in the topic no longer having an independent article, just like deletion. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Except you still have the original article history so that if users want to try improving the old page in user space, there is no admin action needed to recover it. Yes, this means a user has to know how to stop at the redirect page instead of letting the redirect take them all the way through, but that's an educational barrier, not a technical one. --MASEM 12:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Re DGG: if you do change the description in this way, it may be worth announcing it on a village pump or on AN, since I doubt many admins follow the discussion here. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

@DGG: While I have seen a separate process Help talk:Merging and moving pages#Mergers for discussion occasionally mentioned, I received no responses when I posted that discussion to Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy). I agree that nuanced merges are poorly suited for AfD, and I see the possibility that a merge consensus could be used as a fixed point to push towards less merged content. I favor the "separate article" interpretation of AfD myself, but I see substantial opposition expressed here. I created #Outcome table to present various interpretations together, and I have some interest in working on an essay. Flatscan (talk) 05:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

A general question

This is an basic question that is probably going to get a not so basic answer. My reading of the AfD process is that the nomination should be made based on one or more of the policies or guidlines. The discussion should be based on this as well. And finally it should be closed based on an admin looking over the actual discussion, not simply counting "Votes". For example a recent AfD for Lotus was closed as a "No Consensus" even though, by the end of the Afd, a great percentage of citations that were given (and added to the article) fall under the "do not" use area of policies and guidelines. The article now has citations to download bootleg audio and video, press releases, advertisements, blogs, re-printed and re-worded press release, trivial mentions and so on. There might be some legit stuff in there but editors desperate to save the article grabbed anything they could find on Google and stuck it in the Afd leading other Editors to simply look at the quantity of "articles" and voice a "keep". Despite these issues being brought up the AfD was still closed as "No Consensus". Another example is "The End of An Error" AfD where, at the time (September 6, 2008 dif) it was nominated, this album was not released. While it was nominated because it failed WP:NALBUMS it was closed as a "keep" based on the "votes", not because any of the guidelines or polices about notability were met. The primary discussion was about if the album was real or not by finding press releases. (Or, in other words, WP:NOTCRYSTAL which, in regards to albums, "should be discussed only in the artist's article".) One of the "keep" comments was "It's a real album from a real band. And it's really coming out. It has 3 different sources to cite that this is the truth". When the AfD ended the article looked exactly the same - no new citations had been added and the existing ones were all (and still are) one or two line press releases, or album details with track listings. There are many examples of this type of AfD disucssion, and my frustration is growing that Misplaced Pages maintains that the AfD is not a vote, yet it seems to be. I spend time looking at an article, reading the links and/or looking for other citations and refs that could be used - that meet the existing polices and guidelines - and trying hard to back that up with actual policy and guidelines. In other words I do try and follow the "How to discuss an AfD" policy/guideline. So my basic, general question, really is this: If AfD is really a "vote" we should state that or remove the comment "The debate is not a vote" from the section. If it is "a place for rational discussion of whether an article is able to meet Misplaced Pages’s article guidelines and policies" than shouldn't the overseeing admins enforce this? And have the "final" say based on that as well? A peer review is fine but asking "Does the article meet Misplaced Pages policy and guidlines?" and having a AfD closure based on an admin only looking at "delete" or "keep" seems counter productive to the whole process. Soundvisions1 (talk) 06:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Ideally, we should be judging the consensus in these discussions. However, no one really knows what consensus is or how to judge it, so we fudge it as best we can. Really, we're somewhere between the two extremes of it being a straight vote and only the best argument winning. So, strength of argument is mostly used when positions have similar support, and amount of support is used when positions have arguments of similar strength. This lets a 1:1 keep:delete AfD be closed as delete when keep arguments are crap, but 10:1 AfDs usually go towards the side with more support. There are two major reasons for this second part. First, generally arguments made by established users aren't crap. Second, if there's that much support behind a position, it's pretty much asking for a lynch mob to close it any other way (of course, sometimes closing either way is asking for a lynch mob, but that's another story entirely). Understandably, admins are hesitant to stand up and scream "LYNCH ME!" DRV also is extremely likely to overturn a closure like that, too.

While the examples you've brought up might be places where the process is broken, in my experience it generally works just fine. I'm not really convinced that anything needs to be done to this page in response to this, though I'm open to suggestions anyways. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll echo lifebaka's comments but add some thoughts that no process is perfect. We strive to close these discussions based on policy and hard evidence but our closers are human and they sometimes make mistakes. Sometimes, those are errors of fact (misreading a discussion, overlooking a policy, etc) and sometimes they are errors of motivation (bias whether conscious or unconscious to avoid conflict - lifebaka's "lynch me" example - or to support a preconceived end). We should do everything we can to minimize those errors but they will always occur.
That said, the evidence suggests that they occur at a strikingly low rate. The number of deletion decisions that are overturned at DRV (as a percentage of total deletion nominations) is amazingly small. That tells me that in the vast majority of cases, our closers do read the policy and the discussion very carefully in their attempt to judge both the consensus of the debate and the relevant facts. The fact that a few closers may not yet understand why Misplaced Pages considers voting to be evil is not a good reason to abandon the whole process.
In the specific situations you used as examples above, you generally have two options.

1. Nominate the discussion for a Deletion review. Decisions which were made by nose-counting where the nose-counts ignore the clear weight of policy the other way do usually get overturned.
2. Give the article the benefit of doubt for now and see if the people who argued to keep the page live up to their implicit promise to improve the page. If it remains unimproved after a reasonable period of time (generally measured in months), feel free to renominate it for deletion. When you do so, make sure that you provide a link to the prior discussion and be explicit about your evidence that the article was unimproved during that time.

Either way, remember that Misplaced Pages has no deadline. If it didn't get cleaned up this round, be patient. Meta:Eventualism has more on that line of reasoning. Hope that helps some. Rossami (talk) 17:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, yes I give two examples but as I said I can give more if need be. I did take one of the above to DRV and it seemed I was being asked "Why? The album is out now so what is this about?" rather than "Yes it was a 'keep' discussion based on WP:NOTCRYSTAL and the citations given do meet any of the criteria laid out in WP:NALBUMS so it does need to be 'fixed'." So I am still at a loss. Here is an active AfD I am involved in - Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Cher Doll Records. Before I put on the PROD I did a search to find information that would bring it up to meet WP:BIO but could not find anything the co-existed with the policy and guidlines for being "significant" or more than "trivial". The Prod was seconded but then removed because a band on the label was notable and a single by that band could be found on eBay for "hundreds of dollars". When discussion about their sources being not acceptable and citing guidelines as to why the editor concluded "I am a good editor, but you have no use for good editors, only ROBOTIC ACCOUNTANTS. Fuck you" and now, over the last few days, other editors have taken to saving the article by using not only the first editors sources but finding other interviews with artists on the label, reviews of records (that, of course, would mention the label), articles about other labels that mention this label, the business owners personal blog and even the suggestion that the owner be emailed (has been emailed) to supply information or to come in and edit the article herself, all are being used go for a "keep". (Talk:Cher Doll Records - "A source is imnottalwayssostupid blog, which would seem to be that of Nancy Ostrander. I have been reticent to use it as a ref as it doesn't explicitly say it is hers. What do others think on this? I've emailed the address given." and User talk:Soundvisions1 - "To find the answers to your greater curiosity, I suggest you contact Nancy Ostrander. There is an email address on her blogger profile. Maybe she could put this information online in a way it could be used as a reference.") (EDIT: This is the most recent comment being made: "I've heard back from her. Part of the email says, 'there are a few things on the entry (such as the quote about "Bucket" by Neutral Milk Hotel being a Cher Doll 7") that are pretty obviously untrue ... Unfortunately the most reliable source about the label appears to be me (even the 33 1/3 book about Neutral Milk Hotel gets some dates wrong).' I've emailed back with suggestions." So now the Article is, in a sense, being overseen by the label owner and the AfD's "consensus" is being swayed by references that, if one if to believe the above post, are not accurate or true.) What is the real concept of having all the policies and guidelines when, in an AfD, they can all be ignored? I am having real issues at the moment overall. It is hard to try to follow the "rules" when editors are invoking WP:IAR because they are either fans of the subject or because they feel the the guidelines do not apply to how they see it. I can read, and have read - several times - WP:GNG's definition of "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. and read the footnote about what is "non-trivial" and "trivial" and it seems clear to me. However other editors read it and seem to get something like "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject by name, and original research may be needed needed to extract the content. Significant coverage can be trivial and may be less than exclusive. And these are the loudest voices at times in AfD's. If an AfD is a "keep" based on the use of bootlegs, press releases, self published articles and such to establish notability does that also mean editors can go reword the related policies and guidelines to reflect the "consensus" here that, in a "keep" AfD, shows that those sources are allowable? And is the reverse of that also true? Soundvisions1 (talk) 22:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Courtesy break

Note on Lotus (rock band) - some of the sources added to the article by its creator were inappropriate and have been removed. A few more still need to be removed. There are plenty of good sources in the article. We've been through this in the AfD discussion and I don't see any point dragging this out here. If two good sources exist, that should be more of an argument for keeping than the inclusion of several bad sources are for deleting. You seem to be under the impression that every source used in an article needs to be in-depth coverage of the subject. It doesn't. Brief mentions and short articles are perfectly acceptable if they are reliable and can be used to verify any information in an article that may be challenged, and let's face it, with some deletionist editors, that's every statement in an article.--Michig (talk) 10:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I think if there were two sources/refs that covered the subject, per definitions found at WP:GNG, in depth, such as a Rolling Stone cover story and a Time Magazine cover story, than it would be enough to establish notability. Fact verification is another issue and I agree with you on that. But that is not the overall question, AfD's should not be about 'fact checking", they should be about "notability" overall and the the question in that regards is about "what" sources are being used as well as "how many". A printed press release about the subject in 50 publications, for example, does not make the subject automatically notable. A one line mention of the subject in an article, or many articles, is defined as "trivial" and does not mean the subject should have their own article. I think you are confusing sources used to "verify" a fact with sources used to establish notability of a subject, and maybe that is what needs to be refined in AfD's. Thanks Michig.

A basic example:

On September 11, 2001 a plane flew into the World Trade Center. In itself this one line implies something notable. An Editor should first check to see if, on September 11, 2001, a plane did fly into the World Trade Center and, in doing so, might find many sources on the subject. There is a very good chance an editor will find that the topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. This article would be safe from AfD because of the sources that were found to establish notability as well as verify the facts.

On June 6, 1997 a plane flew over the World Trade Center. This one line sort of implies that a plane flying over a building is notable. An editor could check to see if something happened on June 6, 1997 that would make a plane flying over the World Trade Center notable. If nothing could be found and the article was sent to AfD how would the discussion go? Logic would say "Nothing happened on that day to make a plane flying over, or near, the World Trade Center notable therefor it is non notable". But the world of AfD (right now, to me) is not logical because an editor could find sources about the World Trade Center and sources that mention planes near the World Trade Center or other tall buildings and use them to show the article is notable. Other editors could enter and use these sources to verify that the building exists, that planes exist, that there are airports in the area and that on the date given planes were flying in the area, maybe even over the building. At AfD, if there were more "keep" opinions, because of "all the sources", than "delete" opinions ,based on the articles failure to establish notability, what would the outcome of AfD be? A "vote" would show "keep" but AfD is, conceptually, a place to show, based on Policy and Guidelines, if an article either meets or fails notability and in a case such as this there would be nothing to establish the notability of the article subject - which is that On June 5, 1997 a plane flew over the World Trade Center. Invoking the Ignore all rules Policy would also "keep" the article because, even though none of those sources prove why the articles subject is notable, there might be interest in the fact that a plane flew over the World Trade Center on June 5, 1997.

A music related example:

The Two Brothers band is playing all over the country. The band has released their own CD. They have many fans. An editor should first look for sources that establish this subject notability. Per Policy and Guidelines an editor should look for feature stories or in depth articles that address the subject directly in detail and should disallow the sources that are not allowed per Policy and Guidelines. If these sources could not be found the article should be either PROD or sent to AfD. (Or CSD if it met one of those criteria) At AfD editors can come in and try to search for sources as well. Michig pointed out that an editor can come in and start to verify facts. This is a needed process, but doing this in an AfD makes it appear appears that there are many sources and this is when editors jump into the discussion without reading the sources provided and comment about how many sources there are, thusly establishing the subjects notability. So, in this example, after the AfD the article looks like this:
The two brothers band is playing all over the country . The band has released their own CD , . They have many fans

==''Notes''==

1. "The Two Brother band rocks!" (Reprinted bio on a music site)

2. "Amazing live concerts!" (List of live dates on a music site)

3. "Two Brothers band rocks at home" (One line press release containing date of release on a music site)

4. "Two Bothers band proves they have what it takes" (Track listing with a portion of a press release about their CD, entitled "We Got What it Takes", on a music site)

5. "Two Brothers band set to rock this town" (Two paragraph "article" about an upcoming live show that uses a tour press release as a source and says "the band is known to play to many fans at their concerts" in a college papers 'events' section.)

==''External Links''==

1. Myspace

2. Facebook

3. Personal blog

4. Official website

Now you have an article that has verified certain things - yes they are a "real" band, yes there are two bothers in the band, yes they have put out a CD, yes they play live, yes there are people at those shows. However there is still nothing cited to establish notability. Some editors have said that the content of the sources does not matter, it is the fact there "are" sources and that is what matters. I do not see where any policy of guideline says that. Yes, Policy and Guidelines say there needs to be sources both for establishing notability and to verify facts. But there are also, in some subject specific guidelines, detailed sources you can not use and there is good reasons behind that. Self-published sources explains this fairly well. A bio is an example of a "self published" source. It can be used to verify certain facts, such as band members, but could not be used to verify self made comments of notability. As you also mentioned Lotus here is a perfect example. A press release about the bands tour contained this statement Armed with a massive light rig and one of the most energetic shows on the circuit, Lotus proves why they have become a go-to act for late night festival slots. The exact wording or very minor variations of it, can be found in numerous sources. At the Afd these sources were treated as valid when they were pointed out, however when they were laid out on the article talk page some of them were removed, but it was when the AfD closed. None of this has to do with "deltionist" vs "inclusionist", it has to do with how discussions go at AfD's and how the "comments" relate to Policy and Guidelines, and at what point do the overseers step in and "close" based on the actual discussion, not just the words "keep" or "delete". Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Those particular sources in the Lotus article had no bearing on the AfD discussion, and again you are ignoring the good sources (of which there are plenty) and concentrating on the bad ones. If we expect "a Rolling Stone cover story and a Time Magazine cover story" to establish notability that is not realistic. Any reliable source is sufficient, and there are plenty of magazines, newspapers, online music sites, etc. that are professionally run, independent, and are reliable sources. Substantial articles in these sources constitute the essential "multiple significant coverage in reliable sources". We do not and cannot expect Rolling Stone and Time magazine articles for every subject here.--Michig (talk) 17:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not talking only about one AfD, but I did use the specific one you mention to illustrate where, in order to save the article, editors found whatever sources they could find and used them in an attempt to establish notability. This discussion is not about one AfD, nor is it about if two sources are enough to establish notability. It is about a few Afd issues, one of which is that, when an extreme amount of non-acceptable sources are brought into an AfD in order to "sway" the "vote", an Admin, who is not involved in the AfD, should step in and mention it, or at least take note of that when dong the close. Also I used Time and Rolling Stone as examples of notable sources that would be obvious and did not mean to imply that those are the only sources to be considered. You seemed to have read that wrong so let me rephrase it - I think if there were two sources/refs, per definitions found at WP:GNG, that showed the topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.. And as long as editors understand that "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. everything should be fine. (Editors should also read the footnote which helps to further define "trival"). Of course along with definition's found at WP:GNG the issues of external links, citations and notability are important and editors should check with External links style guidlines, in particular the Links normally to be avoided sub section; and the Sources policy as well as subject specific notability guidelines such as Criteria for musicians and ensembles, in particular criteria 1, "except"; Notability (people) guidelines, in particular "Basic criteria" and "Additional criteria - Any biography". And these are what should be looked at when discussing an AfD (And making one as well) by both participants and the closing admins. Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I would be surprised if an admin was swayed by any number of trivial mentions when closing an AfD, and neither would most experienced editors when contributing to the discussion. In the case of the Lotus article, I put a lot of links forward on the talk page that needed to be sifted through to find the valid sources for that article. Some of them proved to be good ones. There are sources out there that are obviously reliable, sources that are obviously not, and plenty somewhere in between where experience and judgment needs to be used. Over the course of many music-related deletion discussions I have become aware of several sources that I had previously never heard of but which have subsequently proven to be acceptable as reliable sources. It isn't just the 'big name' publications that can be used as reliable sources. For albums, for example, there is a list at Misplaced Pages:Albums#Review_sites that are accepted to be reliable independent sources for professional reviews. Another key thing to bear in mind is "Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive", i.e. an article can be primarily about an album, or even about another artist, but if it includes significant coverage of the band/artist in question, it can be valid for notability purposes.--Michig (talk) 19:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Overall I do not disagree with that and hopefully never gave indications that I felt only 'big name' publications or websites should be used. I have a lot more I could offer on the subject but this talk page is not the place for it, nor is this discussion about that. As far as AfD discussions go I do not think an overseeing admin is "swayed" at all, because that is not their "job". What I do get is that their "job" is to "oversee" the discussions and, when closing, read the comments, not just the "votes". But I do not see that always happening, thusly my purpose of asking and giving examples. I can agree that an in depth review of something can equate to "notability" of that subject, and it can hint at the notability of the creator of the subject. How that review is laid out is critical. It can be an in depth review and discusion of each song on an album but does it mean the studio it was recorded in is also notable? The label? The producer? The person who made the coffee each morning? As long as there is a mention where is the line to be drawn? And if this comes into an AfD when does the admin step in and say "It is nice that all this work is being done but all of these sources are..." I take the AfD process seriously and it is why I do try to say more than "Keep" or "delete". Soundvisions1 (talk) 21:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

← Now here is a perfect example, one that I have nothing to do with but one that seems to follow lifebaka's comment above of (of course, sometimes closing either way is asking for a lynch mob, but that's another story entirely), of why I started this thread. I ask everyone to take some time to read List of bow tie wearers DRV. I would say that this type of DRV is a possible reason why some admins who close a MfD or AfD simply count the number of "keep" and "delete" opinions rather than cite policy (or not) during a close. To a lesser degree (I say "lesser" because the overall discussion is not as heated or lengthy) there is also the Perry the Platypus DRV that relates to my question(s) here. Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Engineering and computer science

I'm hoping someone can help me get up to speed. Notability issues for engineering and computer science are hard for me, because I know that most of the papers that engineers and computer scientists write, especially if they're academics or government-funded, are written for the purpose of keeping the funding coming, in the sense that most of them don't result in actual products or deployed software. If someone got a patent on a device, or wrote a paper in a reputable, peer-reviewed journal about either a product that hasn't been built or an algorithm that hasn't been widely used or cited, and I have reason to believe that's not going to change, is that device or algorithm notable enough to survive AfD? I'm also wondering if it's notable enough for GAN, but I wanted to ask here first. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 22:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

P.S. When I say "I have reason to believe", I mean something like this: there's a history of a particular company, lab, academic or engineer cranking out patent after patent that doesn't lead to any product (presumably because the company is following a legal strategy of involving intellectual property rights), or writing paper after paper that manages to get published, but never gets cited or used by anyone other than the researcher and their students. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 22:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Forgotten AFD

Could someone have a look at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Dublin statues and their nicknames. The AFD was created in June but a tag wasn't put on the article and it wasn't added to the daily log so it's just loitering in Category:AfD debates (Society topics). regards, ascidian | talk-to-me 17:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Tagged as G6: It's four months old and no one actually voted to delete it anyways. If the nom really wants it gone, renomination seems like the best idea. Jclemens (talk) 17:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I closed it instead, 'cuz it still got some outside participation in the months it was technically open. Article's now sitting at Statues in Dublin, by my editorial preference. No point deleting it, though. Cheers. lifebaka++ 17:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

That works too, although I was worried about it appearing to be precedent-setting when, in fact, no conclusion was ever reached. Jclemens (talk) 17:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! seems like a reasonable outcome. ascidian | talk-to-me 17:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Pointless article duplication

Advice needed. A user has created an article called Best of Led Zeppelin, which is simply a rehash of a pre-existing article called Early Days and Latter Days. Should such an article be nominated for deletion? It's simply duplicating existing article and I don't think a redirect is appropriate since, the package was never officially called "Best of Led Zeppelin", see . MegX (talk) 23:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest seeing what you guys can work out editorially first, but it can be nominated if you believe that it really needs to be deleted. Likely, a RFC or similar is a better choice, however. Cheers. lifebaka++ 02:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of list articles is much more like deletion of categories: proposed fixes

In light of the discussion at WP:CLN it is apparent that lists and categories complement each other on Misplaced Pages, and are often used to do many of the same things. There is much overlap and duplication between them, and that's good. It is not good when deletion discussions involving them are not handled by the same people. Which is occuring now.

When somebody has a problem with a category they don't like, they come to category-for-deletion WP:CFD, because the criteria are not the the same as for articles (we also have separate deletion discussion boards as you see in WP:XFD, eight in all, for other things). However, when people want to delete a list article (list of ships, List of trees, List of birds), which is essentialy the same thing as a category, but in list-form, they go to the article deletion discussion page, WP:AFD. That's not good, because the criteria for notable articles are not the same as those for list-articles. The latter only need a header paragraph to explain themselves (see WP:LIST), and then elements which are individually notable. As in List of birds. But other kinds of wiki-articles normally put up for deletion have more stringent notability requirements, and their verifiability methods are not of the same type (a list article many only have hyperlinked elements and nothing else).

All this produces very WP:LAME edit wars, as you see on the WP:DRV page. For example, List of bow tie wearers has been up for deletion 4 times, and has only survived by now having many, many in-article cites, which makes it look very much unlike List of birds. All that because nay-sayers demanded article criteria for what is essentially a category in list-form. You can see much the same type of problem with List of notable people who wore the bowler hat, which is now up for deletion review on WP:DRV on the grounds that some people are arguing that the existence of the list itself needs defending as a point of WP:V, when in fact, this is really a "what categories are natural?" discussion.

• I propose that a separte page be created for proposed deletions of list-articles.

• OR I propose that WP:CFD be renamed Categories and list-articles for discussion in recognition of WP:CLN and the need to treat lists in line with category criteria on WP. Deletion discussion for list articles would then go on HERE.

Comments? I'm going to repost this around on the several TALK pages which deal with this matter. SBHarris 01:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

• This is a problem. Part of the reason some lists get policed heavily is because they may represent (like categories) a trivial intersection. Without sources, it is easy to see the list of bow-tie wearers becomes an "I spy" of biographies. Anyone can put on a bow tie (I can even tie one...after a few tries), so some consternation and discussion occurs around which entries get included. Likewise there are lists like Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Wealthiest families in history. The construction of the list represents original research. Or Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of fictional Alumni of Real Universities, where some demands for sourcing akin to articles may be appropriate. So I'm not sure that we can declare lists to be more like categories than articles unilaterally. Protonk (talk) 02:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, some are, and some are not. If you want to boggle your brain, consider what is happening at List of Chinese people. But I still think we need a separate page which discusses list articles WP:LAFD, so we can deal with this odd (neither one thing nor the other) category. SBHarris 23:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

One thing should not be done, which is created an additional XfD. There might be some point in moving many list discussions to Cfd to increase the traffic and the visibility there, but I fear that in practice it will restrict the discussion of the list articles also to a small self-selected group. DGG (talk) 05:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Advice sought--is this an AfD candidate?

Two issues: First, I am tempted to list Habitat (pressurised enclosure) as a candidate for deletion, but I'm really unsure, and I don't want to come across as somehow who willy-nilly nominates articles because they're imperfect. The article is really poorly written, but I recognize that this can be corrected with good editing. My reason for considering AfD is because it appears to be about a single commercial product manufactured by a single company, and it reads a bit like an advertisement. So I would like others to offer their opinions on it.

The second thing I want to know is this: When I do come across an article like this that I think potentially should be deleted, should I just go through the AfD listing process, or is there somewhere I can go for a second opinion before listing it? I don't need to ask everytime; I recently listed Millennial era and was confident that it would be deleted, which it was after 11 editors unanimously agreed with my feelings. But I have seen some editors get criticized for excessively listing articles at AfD, especially when those articles survive. How do I avoid this sort of thing? Unschool (talk) 09:00, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

• The article looks kind of spammy/non-notable. If you feel it should be listed I don't think that's too far astray. As for your second question, I would first check out the project talk pages (if there are links to them). Even though those folks might be more inclined to keep the article than the average wikipedian, they should have some insight. Beyond that there isn't really a "holding pen" as far as I know for articles that might be deletion candidates. My advice would be to start only from unambiguous cases and once you get a feel for how AfD works move to others. The other thing is to do research! If you do google searches and list your results in the nomination (just as a piped link, not actually listed), you will prevent many claims of "it shows up in search XYZ." You will also stop yourself from nominating articles which might actually meet the inclusion guidelines. Hope that helps. Protonk (talk) 03:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

• • Personally I would not nominate this article; in fact I would vote for keeping it. (It's on a very specialised topic, but not so bad now that the spam has been removed. The main remaining problem seems to be that the title word "habitat" is a trademark. There should be a neutral word.) But in my opinion it would be acceptable to nominate this for deletion. Don't worry about being attacked for trying to do the right thing. That happens to the best editors. Some of the attacks are justified, others aren't. So long as you are prepared to learn from the outcomes of your AfDs (and you don't start masses of them simultaneously before you have the experience) you should be OK. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, everyone. I feel pretty good about what has been done to the article, between myself and User:TastyPoutine, the article has gone from this to this, and it just looks a whole lot better. Again, thanks for the advice. Unschool (talk) 02:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

A proposal that needs discussion and wider input

• Misplaced Pages:Proposed Deletion for a Hoax

Uncle G (talk) 15:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Outcome table

1. "Slight merge", Misplaced Pages:Guide to deletion#Shorthands.
2. ^ The page history must remain visible to satisfy GFDL attribution, but the merged/removed page may be moved to a Talk subpage of the merge destination, per CBM's comment Misplaced Pages:Deletion process#Redirects for discussion page. Also mentioned at Misplaced Pages:How to fix cut-and-paste moves#A troublesome case.

Feel free to add rows to this table. Flatscan (talk) 02:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

After reading discussion at #Mergers at AfD and elsewhere, I have become aware of various metrics that distinguish AfD outcomes. I have collected them into the table above. I think a table like this could be useful in Misplaced Pages:Guide to deletion. Flatscan (talk) 02:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

How common is this misunderstanding of the subject-specific notability standards?

As we all know or should know, the subsections of the subject-specific notability guidelines, such as WP:ATHLETE, WP:POLITICIAN, WP:COMPOSER, etc. are suboordinate to the general/basic standard each of the guidelines begin with, which general/basic standards recapitulate WP:N. To put a fine point on it by example, there is no additional need in WP:BIO to meet the subsection, WP:ATHLETE, if the subject already meets the basic standard of "being the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." I found this Afd debate a bit disturbing in that not just the nominator, but others failed to understand that meeting WP:ATHLETE was irrelevant because the subject was already the subject of multiple, reliable, independent, secondary sources.

I am thus wondering if all of the general/basic standards in the subject specific guidelines need some express language explaining right after the basic standard that if an article meets it, the additional criteria set forth later in the guideline do not need to be met; that the subsequent bases are suboordinate to the basic standard. That topic as a whole should be addressed at WT:N, but I'm here because I'm wondering whether there really is a problem. Because I have not been a regular at AfD for over a year, I cannot gauge well whether the AfD debate I linked was just an idiosyncratic misunderstanding, or typifies a common failure in parsing the guidelines. So what I'm after here is identification from AfD regulars of whether the problem I've identified is common or not. Do you see this misconstruction of the guidelines cropping up in many debates?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 07:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

• It's not unheard of. More common is the misperception that CSD-A7 requires an "assertion of notability", though that could just be from colloquial use of the term. The daughter guidelines and parent guideline are also not clearly spelled out. While we can says that if something meets the GNG, it need not meet the daughter guidelines, we can't say that something which does not meet the GNG can be kept solely on the basis of the daughter guidelines (in practice however, this is usually the case). A clear case where the daughter guideline is more restrictive than the GNG is WP:NB. A clear case where one is much, much less restrictive is WP:ATHLETE. Given this ambiguity, it doesn't surprise me that people just say "Athlete yes/no" or "PROF yes/no" rather than trying to weigh the existence of secondary sources against this. Most of the time people do pretty well. Protonk (talk) 07:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
• Fuhgettaboutit, are you sure you are reading the Afd correctly? Only the nominator and the second !voter made this mistake, and both didn't push it very hard (so they probably learned something). There was also a discussion about changing WP:ATHLETE, which made sense to me (although it should of course be continued in the proper place). This subject specific notability guideline is often more inclusive than the general one, and the fact that the GNG had to be used here even though the notability was entirely sports related indicates that it produces counterintuitive results in the area of American college football. --Hans Adler (talk) 08:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
• You should look over Misplaced Pages:Notability/RFC:compromise, specifically the raft of proposals under B. I tend to disagree with you, personally: I think that articles have to meet both the general and subject-specific guidelines, but it was actually more common to believe that once a subject-specific guideline was in place, the general guideline could be ignored. It's educational reading, and it's clear to me that no one can authoritatively state the relationship between the guidelines.—Kww(talk) 12:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Exactly so. In general, "As we all know or should know" are famous last words in Misplaced Pages. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't that often agree with Kww, but I do agree with him here, that the issue is unsettled and not likely to be soon settled. Personally my choice is not the same as his, but I and he agree that there is no use pretending there is any real consensus here. That leaves each case to be argued separately. The specific problem that gave rise to this, Athletes, could probably best be resolved by reworking the specific guidelines so it agrees more with the general consensus. It remains true that no one small group can long impose their guidelines on the general community, they have to propose something that will be in practice accepted. DGG (talk) 05:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
• I've seen a wide range of understandings of this issue. My personal take on it is that the more specific guidelines, such as WP:ATHLETE (which has some problems that really need to be addressed), are a shortcut for deciding when there's a good chance that there will be enough secondary sources out there to meet WP:N. I'll use baseball as an example, since that's the area I'm familiar with. Even a guy who gets one at bat in one game in the majors often has several newspaper stories written about him. But many historical newspapers haven't made it to the web, and some that have, such as The Sporting News, are such poor scans as to be almost useless. So WP:ATHLETE lets us say "hey, we know it's very likely there are dead tree sources out there that show notability, so let's not get our panties in a bunch that someone hasn't dragged their laptop down to the newspaper archive to root it out yet."--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
• See User:Uncle G/On notability#Secondary notability criteria. Uncle G (talk) 02:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, an analysis of the Misplaced Pages:Notability/RFC:compromise is underway, by someone relatively outside the dispute. (It seems there was too much mistrust from the most passionate voices to trust each other's analysis.) But even without an "objective" view of the RFC, I think it's safe to say that there's a consensus against a "one size fits all" notability guideline. There's also a consensus supporting SNGs that can relax the overall GNG. The only outstanding question is how relaxed. But safe to say, they can't totally obliterate the GNG. Randomran (talk) 05:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

No more requirement to notify creator?

I just found in my watchlist that a page I spent weeks creating was turned into a redirect, even though the AFD result was to merge. No content was actually merged. I notice that there is no longer a requirement to notify the creator or primary contributor. Why was this change made? It would have been nice to find out prior to the AFD discussion being closed that there was going to be a discussion, so that I could have been involved in it. Instead it was wiped out by drive-by edit accumulators with no discussion. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-12-12 18:47Z

If you spent weeks creating it, why wasn't it on your watchlist?—Kww(talk) 18:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

You apparently don't know how big watchlists can get. It was in my watchlist, however I was away for the last few days and it was pushed off the bottom. And again I'll reiterate that I was never notified about it. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-12-12 19:12Z

I don't think it was ever required, but it's considered a courtesy. That said, just because it was merged with very little content, it doesn't mean you couldn't add in some more of the content to make a more perfect merge. Randomran (talk) 18:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

No, it wasn't merged at all. The AFD result was merge, but it was just deleted and replaced with a redirect. Nothing was merged and the editor who turned it into a redirect even says so in the edit summary: "nobody is merging this... redirect for now". Isn't the proper action to do nothing until the merge actually occurs? — BRIAN0918 • 2008-12-12 19:12Z

There are any number of good faith or bad faith reasons someone may have done that, but either way it's a mistake. And either way, the article wasn't deleted, only redirected. It should be easy to fix. Feel free to revert the redirect, even. Ideally, someone should complete the merge properly. Randomran (talk) 19:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

• There never has been a "requirement" (AFAIK). It is considered a courtesy and a well attended one at that. To top it off, twinkle does it for you if you use that. Protonk (talk) 19:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

comments several of them, some are personal opinion: 1) No, there's not a requirement to notify anyone that a page has been nominated for deletion. 2) As a courtesey, they should. 3) If they are butt-heads, they might not. But Misplaced Pages is for everyone (including the butt-heads). 4) I wish it was a requirement because I've been in that boat too! 5) This "twinkle" thing looks pretty darned cool. 6) You probably shouldn't call anyone a "butt-head" on Misplaced Pages or anywhere else for that matter...--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, alongside other insults, "butt-head" seems kind of quaint :). And twinkle is very helpful. Protonk (talk) 19:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

You punk kids and your newfangled gadgets! Back in my day we had to submit our edits through pony express! It took 3 months to check your watchlist, and edit conflicts were resolved through pistol duels at 15 paces! — BRIAN0918 • 2008-12-12 20:46Z

Uphill, in the snow, both ways. And talk page communications were handled over RFC 1217. Protonk (talk) 21:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oh, and Brian, if you'd like we can either revert the redirect or your can edit an old revision of the page to merge content to the target article. Protonk (talk) 21:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Already done. Thanks! — BRIAN0918 • 2008-12-12 21:23Z

The merge is now complete. Given that there is no evidence of notability for any individual on the list, the only material which needed to be transferred to the target article was a list of references to justify the figure of 250 casualties. I really hate it when people argue for merging when there isn't any information to be merged ... that's what causes messes like this to happen.—Kww(talk) 21:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

That's your argument. I would have provided my counterargument, except I was never given that chance. This list has been kept in the past. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-12-13 01:16Z

No one has deprived you of anything. If you believe that there is more information from the article that should be carried over in the merge, it's all available in the article history.—Kww(talk) 01:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

But back to the fundamental complaint. It is altogether absurd that creators of articles are not notified. Unlike speedy, many if not most articles that come here have long histories, and it's difficult to program a bot with the intelligence necessary to notice whom the main contributors are -- and this is really the only reason against having it totally automatic. I however do not see why a first step could not be made by having a bot that notifies at least the original creator. Even if it was 3 years ago and the person is no longer around, no harm would be done. I've never learned how to program these--any volunteers? This won't deal with the problem of notifying all significant contributors, but that can be discussed a little later on. DGG (talk) 03:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

A bot that notifies the creator, at worst, wouldn't do any harm. I'd support that. Randomran (talk) 18:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion to redirect most deleted pages to a userspace

Everyday large amounts of well referenced material gets deleted with WP:Articles for deletion. I propose that all articles which do not have copyright violations, biography violations, etc. be moved to the creator's user space with a link in the AfD closing edit summary.

So for example:

• If I created the article The Secret Life of Walter Mitty (2009 film) the article,
• after AfD would be moved to User:Inclusionist/The Secret Life of Walter Mitty (2009 film), and
• the closing administrator would write in the edit summary:
  Deleted "The Secret Life of Walter Mitty (2009 film)" ‎in AFD and moved to User:Inclusionist/The Secret Life of Walter Mitty (2009 film).

The benefits of moving deleted material to user space are numerous:

1. Future authors would not have to create content which was deleted before.
2. Deleted articles could be improved upon and eventually be resubmitted for recreation
3. AfD's would not be as hostile, since the contributors to the article would know the article could still be improved upon and submitted for recreation later.
4. Users' activity on the wikipedia is falling. New editors, who naturally do not know wikipolicy, often create new articles that do not satisfy wikipedia's stringent Kafkaesque bureaucracy, and those articles are swifty deleted. These deletions deter new editors from contributing to Misplaced Pages.

Caveat: In my experience, policy pages are frequented by veteran editors who fervently believe and enforce that policy page, and are resistant to change. So when deciding the merits of this suggestion, please keep in mind that these negative responses are not necessarily reflective of all wikipedians, but more reflective of supporters of the stats quo on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion. Thanks. Inclusionist (talk) 18:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Anent this see , the talk page on userfication appears to be exactly what you wish to discuss. Collect (talk) 20:13, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters