| Revision as of 06:44, 24 April 2008 editMiszaBot II (talk | contribs)259,776 editsm Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 30d) to Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 44.← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 21:04, 25 December 2024 edit undoSchazjmd (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users67,831 edits Undid revision 1265225745 by Schazjmd never mind, cyberbot just fixed itTag: Undo | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{ |
{{Skiptotoctalk}} | ||
| {{ |
{{Talk header|noarchive=yes|WT:AFD}} | ||
| {{FAQ|collapsed=no}} | |||
| {{WikiProject banner shell| | |||
| {{WikiProject Deletion}} | |||
| }} | |||
| {{Press | |||
| | subject = project page | |||
| | collapsed=yes | |||
| |author= Noam Cohen |date= 8 October 2006 |url= http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CE3DF1330F93BA35753C1A9609C8B63 |title= Misplaced Pages Wars: Giving the Heave-Ho in an Online Who's Who |org= New York Times | |||
| |author2=David Segal |date2= 3 December 2006 |url2= http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/02/AR2006120201111.html |title2=Look Me Up Under 'Missing Link': On Misplaced Pages, Oblivion Looms for the Non-Notable |org2= Washington Post | |||
| |author3= Daniel Terdiman |date3= 11 January 2007 |url3= https://www.cnet.com/news/to-delete-wikipedia-entry-or-not-to-delete/ |title3= To delete Misplaced Pages entry or not to delete? |org3= CNET News | |||
| |author4= Matthew Moore |date4= 1 October 2009 |url4= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/wikipedia/6250515/Wikipedia-20-articles-earmarked-for-deletion.html |title4= Misplaced Pages: 20 articles earmarked for deletion |org4= Daily Telegraph | |||
| }} | |||
| {{archives|collapsed=yes|search=yes|auto=short|bot=MiszaBot|age=25|index=/Archive index| | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Archived delete debates/Page history}} | |||
| * ] (]) | |||
| }} | |||
| {{Search deletion discussions|small=yes}} | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| |archiveheader = {{aan}} | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 150K | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 250K | |||
| |counter = 44 | |||
| | |
|counter = 78 | ||
| |minthreadsleft = 4 | |||
| |algo = old(25d) | |||
| |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for deletion/Archive %(counter)d | |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for deletion/Archive %(counter)d | ||
| }}{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn | |||
| |target=/Archive index | |||
| |mask=/Archive <#> | |||
| |leading_zeros=0 | |||
| |indexhere=yes | |||
| }} | }} | ||
| ==Discussion at ]== | |||
| {{archive box| | |||
| ] You are invited to join the discussion at ]. ] (]) 07:00, 23 November 2024 (UTC)<!-- ] --> | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Archived delete debates/Page history}} | |||
| * ], ], ], ], ], ] | |||
| * ], ], ], ], ], ] | |||
| * ], ], ], ], ], ], ] | |||
| * ], ], ], ], ], ], ] | |||
| * ], ], ], ], ], ] | |||
| <small>Renamed ''Articles for deletion'' about this time.</small> | |||
| *], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ] | |||
| }} | |||
| __FORCETOC__ | |||
| == The Economist on "deletionism" == | |||
| http://www.economist.com/printedition/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10789354 | |||
| As usual, I ask all AFD participants to please conduct themselves as if they are in the public eye and every cough and fart will be quoted out of context by the general media ... - ] (]) 21:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| * What's quite amusing is that they cite the difference in cover between the Solidarity movement and Pokémon as being down to inclusionism vs. deletionism, but the trivia being deleted is not, as far as I can tell, biographies of dull-but-worthy Communist-era activists, the crap that's being deleted is actually a lot more like the Pokémon. Cause of the week seems to be the absurdly inflated in-universe articles on minor D&D characters; I don't see how keeping those would encourage the authors to go on to write about the tens of thousands of important missing subjects. What people actually want to wrtite about is their garage band, their favourite website, themselves, and of course Jimbo getting caught with his trousers down. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 21:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| * David's admonition that we should always be professional in our discussions is always good advice. But I didn't see anything in that article that Wikipedians should be ashamed of. To be quite blunt, the Economist article came across as sour grapes by someone whose pet article got deleted. ] <small>]</small> 00:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| **Seriously. And I like the ridiculous idea that its the "deletionists" who tend to wikilawyer. Yea right. ] (]) 01:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| * No, I think it's that the project is generating enough interest now as a social experiment that some news organizations look in from time to time, that's all. This is a big thing here now, so it gets covered, as opposed to pinpoint topics like the images on Muhammad debates, which used to be about all we'd get coverage of. We went from THE scandal, to the Essjay scandal, to the images, which was progress ,because at least the third showed we had a 'better' side, to this, which is far more about the internal workings. Oddly, I must've missed the article in print, in this week's issue. I'll go look. ] (]) 01:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| * I read it on the way home this evening. It seemed a bit dated - you won't find good articles on Pokemon if you look currently. My impression was that the main source was the author who has been working on a book about Misplaced Pages. Anyway, its points are good ones. ''The Economist'' is one of the best English-language newspapers - famous for its informative and well-written style. Any criticism it makes should be taken seriously. | |||
| : I am myself an AFD regular. When I first encountered Misplaced Pages, I happened to read an interesting article that was being proposed for deletion and I was outraged at the proposed destruction of knowledge. Since then I have been checking the proposals daily and my imression is that the mechanism is poor. Few discussions seem to engage more than 10 editors and lately AFDs have been cycling round two or three times to try to attract comment. It seems that many of the participants see the process as an extension of Speedy Deletion and they consequently have a bias towards deletion. Nominators rarely seem to make a proper effort to search for sources and it is often easy to shoot them down just by making a simple Google search. Material which is out of Google's reach is tough to save because it seems that almost nobody is prepared to exert themselves enough to research paper sources. I occasionally go look in a book or magazine myself but the effort involved is so disproportionate that I only save it for last ditch defences. | |||
| : So, by being so dependent upon Google searches, Misplaced Pages is effectively becoming an extension of Google. The Economist makes the point that Google is now entering the field with its Knol idea. It will be interesting to see the balance of power in another 5 years time... | |||
| : ] (]) 22:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| * BTW, as a fresh example of deletionism in action, I offer ]. This seems like quite a good topic to me - the sort of material that ''The Economist'' might put into its Christmas issue or a special feature on forensics/policing. And yet we have a horde of deletionists wanting to destroy this article on a variety of specious grounds - that the article is hard to maintain; that other countries might want one too; that the murdered people don't deserve such fame. I am quite amazed at the negative and hateful attitude on display in this discussion. These are the instincts of petty bureaucrats not of inquiring minds. Tsk. ] (]) 22:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Uh... I noticed that the closing admin said "this article can be improved, let's keep it." So... who is working on improving the article? Nobody. Absolutely nobody. If you want to keep such an article so badly, you should contribute to its improvement. Will it sit there in the same condition for another year before someone else comes by and takes it to AfD yet again? ] (]) 21:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::One good point is "To create a new article on Misplaced Pages and be sure that it will survive, you need to be able to write a “deletionist-proof” entry and ensure that you have enough online backing (such as Google matches) to convince the increasingly picky Misplaced Pages people of its importance. This raises the threshold for writing articles so high that very few people actually do it." I have multiple times now seen a day or two old stub nominated for deletion only to have myself and/or others rapidly improve it during the ultimately unnecessary AfD. One error though: "“regular” deletion, which means the entry is removed after five days if nobody objects"--I wish! :) Obviously articles are (many times unfortunately) deleted even when there are objections. Anyway, have you checked out the ? Best, --<font face="Times New Roman">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 21:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Somebody edited ] just the other day. If the article had been deleted, they would have either given up or had to start from scratch again. Deletion would clearly have been an act of mindless destruction in this case. ] (]) 22:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *I agree with the Colonel above that the mechanism is poor. It almost seems purposeful the way that the Articles for Deletion page takes 3 links from the main page: Community Portal--->Quick Directory--->Articles for deletion (way down the list), then they are separated by day for some strange reason. It'd be better if they were all listed on one page, at least as an option. Plus, 5 days is entirely too short of a time to discuss these things. It should be changed to 2 weeks or so. Deletion in general is often a case of mindless destruction; many of these articles could clearly be spruced up rather than deleted. And that's what should happen. ] (]) 05:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :The fact that "many of these articles can be spruced up rather than deleted" is the reason that "If an article can be fixed or improved through the normal editing processes, then it isn't a good candidate for deletion. Unfortunately, many people still seem to hold the view that AfD is some kind of forced cleanup mechanism rather than something to be used to determine whether or not something is verifiable/notable enough to deserve an article. <font color="629632">]</font> <sup><font color="7733ff">]</font></sup> 06:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yeah. I'm not sure what the solution is; I'd hope that with more people, the results would be more reasonable. More people would keep track of them if the AfD link was displayed more prominently. Also, more inclusionists need to keep track of AfDs. The people who do track AfDs seem to be generally more deletionist. Also, there is trouble with the notability guideline: some organizations which are important receive a relatively small amount of third-party coverage because they are in unexciting areas; the attention just isn't uploaded on the WWW. Just because there's not a huge amount of Google hits for something doesn't mean it's not notable. Note ], an article I recently recreated -- it's highly important in the fertilizer industry, but you have to dig ''rather deep'' to find substantial third-party coverage. To me the fact that it was founded in 1969, publishes an academic journal, and hosts leading conferences seems notable, but apparently . Incidentally, how would I find the AfD for this? I looked through the achive and it's not on the day of that log. The archives need to be fixed so that they are searchable; putting them all on one page would allow me to use CTRL-F at least. ] (]) 06:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Taking a look at the log indicated, it was deleted by ] instead of ]. If it's cached, the PROD tag might be there. Otherwise, taking it to ] gets it undeleted in a hurry. As far as including all the AfD's on a single page, I'd really hesitate to do that. It already takes a while for a single AfD log page to load, simply due to the size of the pages. Including more would be a very bad idea. Maybe someone can write a tool to do it. Searching for "Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/<page name>" should work most of the time, at least. Cheers. --<font color="green">]</font> <small>(] - ])</small> 15:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::How do I find old PRODs? I want to see what that page looked like. I searched for PROD CRU; nothing. And aren't they just sneaky ways to delete articles? I doesn't seem like many people even browse through them. ] (]) 17:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Suggestion == | |||
| I suggest, to make it a tad easier, we keep score of the votes, like in the RfA. I see on some pages, a bunch of deletes and a bunch of keeps and oh, how to compare? Do you think we should do this? --]] 23:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : NO! NO! NO! (Can you guess that I have strong feelings about this?) ] and anything that reinforces the misperception that we're "voting" in a deletion discussion is equally evil. The "score" has nothing to do with the final answer and any admin who makes a call based only on nose-counting is seriously abrogating his/her responsibilities. A single well-cited argument in compliance with established policy can outweigh a dozen unreasoned "me too" opinions. More than that, though, vote-tallies can be actively harmful because they tend to polarize and stifle discussion. The best discussions find answers are discussion and fact-based research. Deletion discussions are contentious enough without deliberately making the problem worse. The truth is that we've tried this before and I'll even admit that I did it a couple of times when I was new to the process. Every time it turns out to be far more harmful than helpful. Nose-counting is a bad idea for deletion discussions. ] <small>]</small> 01:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Agree 100% with Rossami, make that 110% - we shouldn't be counting them in RFAs either! But in an XfD discussion the count is meaningless. We should have no interest in knowing ''the count'', it has no bearing on the outcome and it can only make things worse for everybody. You compare by reading the discussion, evaluating the strengths of the policy arguments, and determining a rough consensus from that information; 1 policy based keep can overcome dozens of "per noms" if the nom isn't grounded in policy. (BTW, there is a template for summarizing the ''points'' but not the count - but the only times it's really at all useful are in discussions that are extremely contentious, and then it will inevitably be seen as pushing one side or the other and essentially disruptive, it's been used once, and it was removed from the discussion at least once).--]<sup>(] <small>•</small> ])</sup> 03:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Volume of Deletes and Keeps ''is'' useful for gauging overall trends in support - particularly if most of the keeps come after an article was improved significantly, or if most of the deletes come in after an allegation of copyvio. In those cases, the "counts" help to show the weight given to a particular argument, and are useful only in that context. In general, though, a small number of good, solid policy arguments for keeping will outweigh a greater number of "zomg I Don't like it" !votes, which is why a raw tally would probably not be helpful. ] <sup> ] </sup>~<small> ] </small> 13:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| I meant, like if an article had 312412 deletes and 384720 keeps, should an admin take time looking or should we put (384720/312412)--]] 02:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :If you don't have time to read them, you don't have time to close that discussion. The raw numbers have no relevance to anything.--]<sup>(] <small>•</small> ])</sup> 05:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Agreed, I was under the impression that the only thing that matters in AfD is which argument is most successful in demonstrating whether or not an article meets Misplaced Pages rules and/or guidelines. You can have an AfD with 7 '''deletes''' and 3 '''keeps''' which should be kept; you can have an AfD with 3 '''deletes''' and 7 '''keeps''' which must be deleted. IT all depends on whether or not the article has addressed the concerns raised about it, and ''not'' who's voting how. We're supposed to make the ''right'' decision, ''not'' the popular one. ] (]) 15:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::As well, I'll agree even more what ] says: the very long, involved AfDs that I've seen went beyond your typical arguments about ] and so on, into very important and complex discussions about Misplaced Pages ethics, editing standards, conflicts of interest, synthesis, problems with biographies of living persons, problems arising from the use of non-English language sources, political brou-hahas, and so on. And that huge type of AfD discussion will probably involve several editors successfully addressing many different complaints about the article, in sequence, or also bringing up newer more esoteric complaints that are still valid. '''''No''''' admin should close that size AfD unless they're prepared to impartially and deeply consider each issue that has arisen in the AfD. If you personally don't have the time, leave it for someone else to close: there's always a better admin who has more time. They don't all have to close in 5 days. ] (]) 15:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Non-Admin Closures == | |||
| There seems to be a growing spat of non-admin AfD closures, and I'm finding it very disconcerting. If closing an AfD were a simple thing, it wouldn't be something admins are primarily supposed to do. I've disagree with two closings of AfDs I personally nominated that were closed by a non-admin. One, I felt needed admin closure as it was a contentious issue with ample discussion and needed more than just someone counting comments as votes. The second was closed after only three days with no other explanation than keep. | |||
| I've always felt it weird that non-admins could close an AfD, but it didn't bother me too much because most editors were extremely judicious about it and mostly kept it to withdrawals. Now, however, it seems people are starting to do it as though they are admins and making it part of their regular Wiki-activities and this does not sit well with me. This has caused me to wonder two things: Are any admins keeping an eye on these non-admin closures to give oversight and to reverse when an AfD was closed improperly? Should non-admins even be allowed to close an AfD except in the case of a withdrawal of an AfD one made? ] (]) 19:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : See ] and its Talk page archives where this has been endlessly discussed. No, non-admins should not be closing discussions that are in any way controversial. And if they do, it is entirely appropriate for any editor (admin or not) to re-open the discussion. Just make a note in the discussion that it was inappropriately closed and administratively reopened as such-and-such times. ] <small>]</small> 19:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I've left a note there, but after having yet another AfD closed by a non-admin after less than 24 hours of discussion, I'm wondering if it is time to bring the issue up for RfC or to a noticeboard to put a stop to non-admin closures all together, except for withdrawals. ] (]) 03:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::I've disagreed with Rossami before and will continue to do so, on whether non-admins can ever close controversial discussions - there is no need to get into that here; however, I entirely agree that there is nothing to prevent a non-admin from reverting a non-admin close (even though this is not explicit anywhere, it probably should be). The note in the discussion is important, one recent discussion over at MfD was closed and re-opened several times without any annotation to that effect - very problematic. I have a real problem with anyone, admin included, speedy closing a discussion without explaining the rationale.--]<sup>(] <small>•</small> ])</sup> 05:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| I think it's fine in the case of withdrawals, no delete votes after 5 days, AND THOSE ONLY. The reason for this is that unless there is a knowledgeable editor to keep these in check, . In this case, the user blatantly ignored the speedy deletion rules and felt that it was perfectly alright to do so. If it hadn't been taken to DRV and subsequently overturned, it would have stayed that way. <font color="629632">]</font> <sup><font color="7733ff">]</font></sup> 18:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == New project == | |||
| I am on creating a new project on ] (obviously I have not yet created the page) that would serve as kind of the reverse purpose or continuation of this project. So, long as articles that are kept after an AfD can be renominated for deletion following "consensus can change" rationales, we must be able to have new discussions for restoring deleted articles as well as consensus can certainly change that the article should be kept. And rather than force editors to start from scratch if consensus does change that the article should be restored, we would have a venue by which we can restore a deleted version of the article along with everyone's deleted contribs. Whereas deletion review focuses on reconsidering bad closures or when the AfD process is compromised, Articles for restoration would focus just on the articles' merits. Anyway, as the project would be related to and an extension of this project, I thought I should allow for some community discussion here first. Best, --<font face="Times New Roman">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 16:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : The Deletion Review process already covers that scenario. Deletion Review specifically allows reconsideration whenever there is evidence discovered that was not considered in the deletion discussion. Usually, that's evidence that existed but was not found by the discussion participants but sometimes it's new evidence - a subject who was not notable before but has since done something to achieve notability, for example. An entirely new process would seem to be an example of ]. ] <small>]</small> 21:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::The idea is to separate the relatively routine requests for recreation of improved articles from the challenges to AfD decisions, which are usually much more controversial. ''']''' (]) 17:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::The observation ''rather than force editors to start from scratch if consensus does change that the article should be restored'' does have merit; but then again, you can always pick up the deleted text from the Wayback Machine, and often from all the Misplaced Pages mirrors who haven't deleted the article yet. And any article can be recreated - you can avoid speedy deletion of these articles by putting an "under construction" tag on the article, and then adding sufficient reliable primary sources and explanation of notability into your article during those first few hours of re-creation that it is obvious the article's topic is now worthy of inclusion. (I did this with ], which had already been deleted, DRVed, recreated and speedied. It is now a very good, nearly undeleteable article.) My problem with an AfR is that could effectively nullify the AfD process. ] (]) 14:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::More so than anything else, there are several serious problems with AfD that somehow need to be reformed: 1) we have over two hundred "in popular culture" related deletions that were achieved in part due to widespread sockpuppetry; 2) it's allegedly a discussion and not a vote and yet most AfDs look like a list of deletes and keeps with some stunned or offended by anyone who engages them in actual discussion and with some closures clearly sizing up the number of deletes versus keeps rather than say how the article developed as the discussion progressed, which of course means any initial pile on deletes should have far less relevance than later discussion that acknolwedges changes to the article during the AfD; 3) a week long discussion in which sometimes only a half dozen or so accounts participate really shouldn't lay down the verdict on an article that may have been around for months and which dozens or more editors may have contributed to (not to mention that something which does not have a deadline being pounced on in an AfD seems odd); 4) articles that are not hoaxes, libel, or copy vio and for which a redirect location exists should never be deleted as it is important for any potential RfA that the community at large including non-admins can see as much of their contribution history as possible; 5) some accounts do nothing more than "vote" not discuss in AfDs and it is hard to assess their actual knowledge of what goes into making good articles without them having ever really contributed to article development; etc. An ] project may be a way to address some of these serious and detrimental problems with a currently terribly flawed system. Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 00:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Your numbered points, above, 1 2 and 5, are actually abuses of the AfD process which need to be rectified at DRV. They will typically happen with borderline articles, I find. Where there is an AfD with a bunch of commentless votes, a good administrator will discount those entirely: the only "votes" that matter are ones that address the rules. So, for example, if I say "'''delete''' - this subject is not notable", and you respond "'''comment''' - I have added references that pass ] which demonstrate its notability", my vote is discarded because you have addressed its point. Or, at least, that's how it usually is. If there are true sockpuppets, tell an admin - socks are supposed to be punished. How does an AfR process address this better than the DRV process? The DRV guys seem to be one step up in the hierarchy, compared to the peanut gallery in AfD. :-) ] (]) 15:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Hello! Just to clarify to those with whom I have discussed AfDs today (sorry for copy and pasting, but my one hand is still injured), going with my AfD participation for today, in the instances in which I argued to delete (], ], and ]), I provided evidence that I conducted a search for sources on multiple venues and made efforts to still do whatever I could to improve the article just in the off-chance that during the AfDs sources are indeed found and the article now has a start on being improved. In other words, I did not just throw down another repetitive “vote.” In cases where others already provided appropriate policy shortcuts like ], I did not merely repeat what they wrote. Once somebody has already provided a policy or guideline reason for deletion or keeping, there is no need to restate it as anyone reading the discussion should see it. After all, in a discussion, not a vote, the participants should advance new arguments and ideas as the discussion progresses. Now in the two instances (you read right, so far I argued to delete three articles today versus only two keeps) in which I argued to keep, consider them successively. ] was nominated as a non-notable book with four rapid delete votes claiming “no coverage” in secondary sources. Despite such assertions, KittyRainbow and I found SEVERAL sources including ones in which the article was given high reviews (Five Stars, Gold Award). I in turn used these sources to drastically revise the article by adding new sections and multiple references to an article only created four days ago anyway. And that is just with two of us conducting source searches in one day! So, here is an instance where you have a nom plus four delete votes with false claims and no evidence that searches for sources were even done to substantiate those claims only to have myself and another find a slew of sources with which I was able to significantly improve a four day old article. It frustrates me to no end to see so much of that in AfDs, i.e. editors just posting repetitive and false claims that could outnumber those keep arguments from editors who actually went out and found sources and spent time revising the article under question. Now, anyone approaching AfDs as a discussion would revisit his or her initial post taking into account the article’s development, but a minority of participants in AfDs ever do that. But my larger concern is still, why wouldn’t the nominators or initial delete voters just do what KittyRainbow and I did, i.e. look for sources and improve the article accordingly? Think how much would be accomplished, because then instead of KittyRainbow and I doing it here, we could be doing it to another article(s) without having to also post keep rationales in the AfD. The other AfD I argued to keep (]) was based on the First pillar and I offered some suggestions after checking the web to see if sources suggest legitimacy of the topic. Anyway, I hope that helps illustrate where I am coming from. Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 03:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::]: Yup, that's exactly what people are supposed to do. I am happy to meet an inclusionist with your attitude. I can't speak for other noms, but in my case, I've only nominated for deletion articles which are blatant spam. Now, other noms might just see other less-spammy articles, see a complete lack of sources, see that the article was only written by one person, and so on - and say "well, it's obviously spam or otherwise not notable, let's get rid of it." An article should have good referencing from reliable sources demonstrating the article's notability '''''before anyone nominates it for AfD'''''. If it has no references, no sources, no encyclopedic style, a lot of the time an editor will give up rather than waste his time attempting to fix the article. And well he should - most of those articles are blatant ]. You'll find a few bad articles worth improving - okay, improve them! The ideal contribution for an inclusionist editor is attempting to fix articles when they come up as AfDs or prods. If you truly can fix them, then you're doing what you stand for, and improving our content in general. Good for you! But it's perhaps too much to expect non-inclusionists to volunteer to fix articles that even the article creator has never included any sources or notability for. ] (]) 21:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Thank you for the nice reply. As you can see ] and ], just as surely as I am willing to go after accounts that use sockpuppetry to get an article deleted (and in the past couple of weeks, we have determined several such sock farms), I absolutely am also willing to argue against and identify those accounts attempting to create nonsense articles as well or compromise an AfD in any fashion. Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 21:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::I checked the reference you give. An article was deleted after allegedly being voted against by sockpuppets. That, coincidentally, is what happened at the ] AfD - a sokpuppet actually nominated the article. Unfortunately, ] at the time was still unworthy of inclusion in Misplaced Pages - it failed ] and ] and ] and ], for example. I see that the DRV result was a restoration of the article to your (or someone's) user space, where the article can stay until it's been improved and placed back into Misplaced Pages - whereupon, if the article has been improved sufficiently to meet inclusion criteria, it can stay. This is a good way of doing things, I think - if an article deserves future re-creation, put it in the hands of the user who wants re-creation, and if he ever does fix the article, he can put it back into Misplaced Pages. If an AfR process simply re-instates articles without putting the onus on an author to fix them, then we'll be left with the same old content we've just deleted under AfD. I like to see the onus placed on the author to re-create and meet Misplaced Pages criteria. The fact that the DRV process puts this in the hands of more experienced, regular users, makes the whole thing better, I think. ] (]) 14:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::: '' I see that the DRV result was a restoration of the article to your (or someone's) user space, where the article can stay until it's been improved and placed back into Misplaced Pages'' - It can stay as long as it's actively worked on. MfD routinely deletes articles sitting in userspace that have no sign of active improvement. Just to clarify.--]<sup>(] <small>•</small> ])</sup> 15:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Would someone who knows how to do so add in links to ], ] and ] in one of those nifty box things. Thanks, ] (]) 02:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Added it for you. Check the dif to see the code :) ] (]) 02:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks for the quick response. ] (]) 02:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == What to do with unfinished AfD? == | |||
| I have in several cases seen an AfD nomination that was not completed; e.g. the editor added the afd tag to the article but then did not add it to the deletion log, did not create the discussion page, or both. In one case, since I had a conflict of interest relating to the article, I finished the AfD as an act of good faith. However I have also seen the template removed because the nomination was not finished. What is the proper thing to do in this situation? Is it the responsibility of the nominator to make sure the nomination is completed, or else it will be ignored? Or should editors finish nominations for articles they think should be kept? Or is it just up to them? | |||
| Whatever the decision it should probably be codified in the WP:AFD page, because this isn't an unheard of occurrence, and it's likely to cause conflict when an AFD tag is removed, even if the nomination wasn't completed. For example, ] was put on AFD (for the third time), but the nom wasn't finished, so somebody removed the tag, but then somebody else reverted the removal. What's the right thing to do? --] <font color="#FFAA00">]</font> 06:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : If you can figure out enough to do it, complete the nomination, noting that you are doing so administratively and (assuming this is the case) that you don't necessarily agree with the nominator's opinion. (If the only mistake was failing to add the page to the log, that's easy.) If, however, you can't figure out the intended deletion rationale - if the person only added the AFD tag and nothing more - then removal of the tag is appropriate with the editsummary that it can be retagged if the person can articulate their rationale. ] <small>]</small> 15:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::The only thing I would add to the above is that if I can't figure out the rationale and I remove the tag, I put a quick, friendly note on the editor's talk page letting them know what I did and offering to help walk them through the AfD steps if they want to continue the process.--] (]) 16:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::The absence or presence of a rationale is a good point. In the YouTube celebrities case the person ''did'' add it to the log, but didn't add a discussion page, meaning there was no rationale. Somebody did in fact gave him notice on his talk page, but he hasn't re-nominated the article. | |||
| :::Based on that I'd add a section to this page saying: | |||
| ====What to do if a page is nominated, but the nomination is not completed==== | |||
| First, wait at least an hour to give them time to finish it--they may be in the middle of the nomination process. If after an hour the person hasn't done anything then: | |||
| *If the nominator forgot to add the nomination to the log or forgot to add the AfD tag to the article, but they created a discussion page with a rationale, complete the nomination for them even if you disagree with it. | |||
| *Check the nominator's history for a rationale. It might be in their edit summary, or they may have made the discussion page in the wrong place. If you can find a clear statement of their rationale then fix or finish the nomination yourself--even if you don't agree with the nominator--noting on the discussion page that you are completing the nomination for that user. | |||
| *If the person did nothing but add the AfD template to an article, with no rationale or explanation, then use your judgment: If you think the article should be deleted, finish the nomination yourself. If you don't think the page should go up for AfD, then remove the tag and contact the nominator explaining the issue and offering to help re-nominate the article if they explain their rationale. This is the ONLY circumstance under which you may remove the AfD tag without concluding the AfD discussion, and you MUST contact the editor to let them know what you have done. | |||
| ::Does this sound good? --] <font color="#FFAA00">]</font> 18:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Obviously it sounds good to me, because that's about exactly what I do. :) Adding the part about waiting is good -- someone unfamiliar with the AfD process (and man, do I love Twinkle for AfDs!) may take a while to read through all the steps. Always nice to give them a little reading time before swooping in.--] (]) 19:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I don't agree that AfDs lacking the discussion page should be helpfully completed by others. If the discussion exists but not the log entry, then it's fine to create the log entry. Though I can't recall more than one example of non-creation of the *nominator statement*, I would offer as evidence that trying to complete someone else's malformed nomination may do more harm than good. (The person on whose behalf the AfD was created went ahead and tried to do a 'non-admin close' by removing the AfD template from the article while the AfD discussion was still running, and that led to general chaos). Generally I expect to see an actual discussion page, as well as a signed nominator statement, before I believe that an AfD is real. By signing the statement, the nominator is formally putting his reputation on the line that it's a good faith nomination and he's done his necessary homework. No-one else can do that for him. | |||
| ::No objection to someone else taking over the nomination, if they independently believe the article should be deleted. ] (]) 19:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'll counter with ]. I really don't know if the article should be deleted or not, but I finished the nom, and can't see a problem with having finished it. It probably comes down to how well the person who is finishing the nom understands what the original editor was intending.--] (]) 19:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::I changed the words from "If you can find their rationale" to "If you can find a clear statement of their rationale" to avoid misinterpretation or misunderstanding. This policy might result in a few AfDs that have an overwhelming keep result, but I think that completing the nomination whenever reasonably possible will minimize the chance for anger or accusations of violating policy. Removing an AfD tag is somewhat taboo and understandably so because it makes people think you're stifling discussion and being arbitrary. The AfD nomination that I finished was for an article that I didn't want deleted, but I had a ] in it, so I figured that the most proper thing to do was to let the discussion happen and avoid being accused of manipulation, even though the concerns had been fixed and the ultimate result was overwhelmingly keep. Finishing it is least likely to cause controversy, and I think that would make a good policy. --] <font color="#FFAA00">]</font> 23:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: The things you are suggesting are the right things to do but I don't think we want to add them to the already-long instructions page. ] is a real and constant problem for us, especially on the pages around deletion. I don't think that this problem occurs often enough or that it's a controversial enough point to justify the extra text. Common sense and the occasional courteous reminder should be sufficient. <br> But if you disagree, the right place for it is probably the ] which is where we have a lot of this kind of helpful but not strictly essential commentary. ] <small>]</small> 23:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Withdraw AFD == | |||
| I'd like to withdraw the AFD for ]. How do I do that? ] (]) 09:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Blanking the deletion discussion and removing the AfD template is definitely ''not'' the way to go about it. All you needed to do was add the statement to the ] that you'd like to withdraw your deletion nomination. (I've restored previous contents of the page and added your statement back in.--] (]) 14:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Afd failings == | |||
| Afd is not a substitute for {{tlx|cleanup}}, nor for {{tlx|tooshort}}, {{tlx|notability}}, {{tlx|npov}}, {{tlx|unencyclopedic}} etc. I see all these things raised without first attempting to raise the appropriate tag on the articles page. | |||
| Note the above 'Withdraw AFD' section, a typical example of an Afd that is then withdrawn because the article has been ], such things should not come to Afd, they waste many editors time and such things should, in my opinion, be made a clear requirement in this articles page. ] (]) 17:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :See ] 'If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion'. ] (]) 17:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I couldn't agree more strongly. For the AfDs of ], ], and ] (which I addinged sources to and the nomination was subsequently withdrawn), all it takes is a simple search on google to provide more than enough sources to assert notability. Because Misplaced Pages is always changing, AfDs should be based on the subject of the article, not its current state. <font color="629632">]</font> <sup><font color="7733ff">]</font></sup> 18:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm going to alter the Afd article a little to encourage a bit more thought before raising an Afd. ] (]) 18:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Done a few minor things, hopefully the extra clarity in the article will cause less false Afd's being raised. ] (]) 18:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::At the same time, you must admit that poor or unencyclopedic articles can sit here '''''forever''''' without any improvement. No matter what flags have been put on an article. Submitting an article to AfD, when the notability is in question because there are no sources, is the best way of forcing the issue and getting the article either fixed or removed. '''''You would not believe how many hoaxes there are on Misplaced Pages, and flagging them doesn't help'''''. ] (]) 21:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::*If you come across something with questionable notability, your first action should be to try to improve it, not try to delete it. If it can't be improved, ''then'' delete it. All that is being asked is that people put in a little effort instead "Oh, the article doesn't cite sources. Delete it." What should happen is "Oh, this article doesn't cite sources. I'll have a look on google news.", followed either by "Not a lot in the way of sources for this subject", or "Wow, I found a lot of sources. Good thing I didn't nominate this for deletion. I'll add those in now." Hoaxes, if they are hoaxes, wouldn't be shot down in an AfD. If they are hoaxes, then they should be speedily deleted. If its status is a hoax is debatable, do some research. If it turns out to not be a hoax, insert your improvements and move on. If you still think it's a hoax, nominate it for AfD, presenting your findings, and let some other people see if they can prove it isn't a hoax. If they can't, then it gets deleted. Asking people to actually do research before throwing something at AfD will only result in a better overall encyclopedia. <font color="629632">]</font> <sup><font color="7733ff">]</font></sup> 21:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::*: One clarification only. Hoaxes are not speedy-deletable except in extremely rare and patently obvious cases (at which point, you're really applying ], not ]). Far too many pages are initially tagged as hoaxes but turned out to be poorly written stubs about real though obscure topics. The AFD process reduces our problem with false positives. See ] for more. Hoaxes definitely should be deleted, just not speedily. | |||
| == November 30 log formatting being weird == | |||
| ::::::CSD G1 provides for the deletion of obvious hoaxes. Thus, you're not implementing IAR at all. The deleting admin is perfectly in line with policy. AfD ''does not'' need to see biographies about living people that live in other solar systems, dogs that developed the ability to speak Mandarin, or Hitler's secret space battleship. You see new page creations of this type all the time; just watch ] for a few hours, and you'll find that these "rare" patently obvious cases are the norm and not the exception. Of course, for those that aren't obvious hoaxes (the AfD A Legand of Zelda movie that was an April Fools joke comes to mind), an AfD is the appropriate course of action. I just want to make sure no one gets the wrong idea and start nominating G1 material to AfD; more often than not, the result is someone from AfD tags it and it gets speedily deleted anyway, but it still wastes time that should be spent improving articles. <font color="629632">]</font> <sup><font color="7733ff">]</font></sup> 02:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Not sure how much of a priority this is, but I've noticed that every nomination below ] on the November 30 log is indented. I see what the cause is, but I don't want to mess around with it though (since I'd have to go to the actual nomination page for it, therefore being unable to preview properly), so leaving it here in the hopes that someone notices. ] (]) 15:06, 2 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::*Agreed. If after checking, an article is not notable to ], or still looks like a hoax etc then raise an Afd, the problem comes when simple things like adding {{tlx|notability}} to the article doesn't happen(at any time) and little or no effort is made by the nominator to find notability by looking on Google or checking with the contributors to the article. The lazy way is to create an Afd, without bothering to make any effort. That laziness is inappropriate in my opinion and I believe it violated some guideline the name of which currently escapes me. ] (]) 22:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| * I've said this before: I think we should use AfD as we do "redirects for discussion". Merge, delete, keep, are all valid, and I think we should also have "expedited cleanup" where the article needs to be seriously fixed in a set period or it's treated as delete. We have too many articles which are "keep and cleanup" without being cleaned up. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 22:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :*There are indeed a lot of articles that require cleanup. ] that around 67% are Stubs, however ] says ]. It certainly doesn't help here if those 67% or so of articles requiring attention come through the Afd process, even if 0.01% of them came to Afd it would just swamp the whole system. ] (]) 22:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :*An interesting idea, but doing so would make the "This was deleted before" argument between completely and almost totally invalid. Timeframes would be much more a focus in DRV, as "I didn't have time to improve the article because I didn't know it was up for deletion" would become a much more valid point. Essentially, "the 💕 that anyone can edit" would become "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, but you have to come back at least once every five days". It's much better the other way; people improve what they improve when they can, and if there are sources that show something can be improved, it doesn't get deleted because it can be improved. Misplaced Pages is not working toward a deadline every 5 days. Regarding RfDs, redirects are, well, redirects. It's not the same thing at all. <font color="629632">]</font> <sup><font color="7733ff">]</font></sup> 22:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I believe I fixed it. There was an unclosed ordered list (<nowiki><ol></ol></nowiki>). ] (]) 20:16, 2 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::* Actually I don't think either of those is a big problem. A sourced article on a subject that was previously deleted as unsourced, is fine. A new article on something thatw as deleted as non-notable, but which fails ], will still be deleted if it does not have evidence of notability. And "please restore, I have sources and will fix" has always been an acceptable request at DRV, in my view. Even if we userfy rather than simply deleting. I'd also be interested in seeing if we can work up a triage system: obvious keeps, obvious deletes, and ones which may or may not be worth having. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 15:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yup that fixed it. Sweet. ] (]) 12:59, 3 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| One of the failing of AfD is it is only for binding deletions of articles. This is a problem when disputed and controversial mergers are being discussed. I think that as a last resort AfD should not solely be for deletions there should also be a kind AfM as well for merging articles.--] (]) 00:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : I disagree very strongly on this last point. Mergers and other editorial disputes need to be resolved through the normal editing, discussion and conflict resolution processes used everywhere else in the project. Deletions get special treatment only because they involve the removal of pagehistory - an act that can only be undone through use of admin-powers and that can only be effectively reviewed by admins. Mergers and other changes to content which do not affect the pagehistory can be reviewed and if necessary undone by any editor. ] <small>]</small> 02:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == 'and has not participated' == | |||
| ::Part of the problem with AfDs are that so many have had serious issues within the discussions, consider all the disruption caused in numerous AfDs by these nearly thirty accounts ] as socks within the last week. These sock accounts were usually on the deletion side of the discussions. Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 03:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::I hope those socks' arguments were taken for what they are, whether or not anyone saw their sockiness. After all, an AfD isn't a vote, it's a debate, and you don't even need sockpuppets to participate in an AfD. One good, uncounterable argument, for deletion or retention, is all that is needed. ] (]) 14:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::As you can see , they may have influenced at least some participants in discussions. Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 16:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *Just want to throw something out there: does anyone feel that part of the problem is that there is a disconnect between different editors' interpretation of ], ], and ]? I generally limit myself to garage-band AfDs, but I do find that some people (sometimes connected personally with the article topic, but also some very productive regular editors) put forward sources that, to me personally, don't remotely establish notability and aren't remotely reliable sources - blogs, webzines, and so on. I'd personally like to see a lot more print sources instead of the easy internet sources; and maybe I'm also fixated on having external sources which ''actually assert the notability of the topic''. I am a deletionist, but you won't see me AfDing articles on e.g. minor 17th-century Sufi poets; my real desire is that the article establish the topic's notability, and uses good sources, like what you'd expect from a real encyclopedia. And that any article, even one created today, has at least one or two real sources backing up everything that's said in the article, so that the casual reader can tell the article was researched, isn't a hoax, isn't a vanity article, and so on. Otherwise, the casual reader may form the impression that Misplaced Pages is just a posting board that anyone can use to promote their own garage band or latest release through Lulu Press - which is happening right now. ] (]) 14:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| I'm not exactly certain this is the correct place. But recently there has been a conflict about the line | |||
| :Most of the sources I put forward when people are using AfD as cleanup are print sources derived from a ] subscription. However, since other people don't have the same subscription and I can't link to an abstract, my sources are often shot down as unverifiable. To me, it would seem that print sources, unless you can find an internet presence of the paper, are no longer considered valid sources simply because other editors can't click on them, which I find greatly disturbing. This may also explain the prominence of webzines and blogs being cited (although I think that blogs of notable people such as ] and blogs maintained by journalists and teams of journalists (such as IGN) are citable with the same reliability as print sources. <font color="629632">]</font> <sup><font color="7733ff">]</font></sup> 15:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm not sure how your source of ] can be shot down. My understanding is you only have to cite where the evidence for verifiability is ], and if necessary you could provide page, edition etc. If someone doesn't have the book or magazine then to me that's not your problem, you can't expect everyone to have every book. I hope you reconsider using all sources you have that you can verify exist. ] (]) 16:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::You'd be surprised how often I get comments like "The refs make a big difference. Onne thing really concerns me, though, and that is the fact that the (whatever newspaper) articles are behind a membership wall, which makes them a little tough to verify." <font color="629632">]</font> <sup><font color="7733ff">]</font></sup> 17:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I wouldn't worry about it. There might even be another person on wiki that subscribes anyway. Most subscription magazine/books type things have circulation of 5,000+ otherwise they wouldn't be viable. And another thing, anyone questioning it should ], so we work from an assumption that most people are trying to help the project, not hurt it. In short a reference is welcome and meets ]. ] (]) 18:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Wow, same here. Print sources (of decent quality, of course) should definitely be considered top-level. That certainly is disturbing. Internet sources, even articles from net portals of newspapers, disappear with regularity. And it says something about how serious Misplaced Pages is about being an encyclopedia. ] (]) 16:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *Indeed, I have now been in a AFD where editors in good standing have, in all seriousness, called a subject "not notable" even though it is covered in a ''separate article'' in a general purpose ''print encyclopedia'', something I would consider the strictest possible definition for "encyclopedic". ] ] 12:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :(edit conflict)I can well believe it "not notable print encyclopedia" articles being nomincated Sjakkalle, as least in your example the nominator defined a valid reason, which you can quickly challenge. It not always the case and some nominations can be vague, those are difficult to deal with, because to know the Afd is a keep you have to check every possible reason it could be a valid Afd and that takes much longer to research and longer to reply to. ] (]) 13:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *Indeed. Many responders seem to be quite lazy and frivolous. For example, see ] where most early respondents addressed the subject in the manner of giggling schoolchildren. I searched and immediately found a huge body of scholarly research upon the topic. My impression is that too many respondents are influenced by the title of an article and can't see beyond this to the topic which the title represents. There is a bias against plain English and a preference for prententious jargon. ] (]) 12:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::When someone adds a print source to an article, we assume that they have seen it and can verify (on request) what it contains. So I believe an editor who adds such a source should expect to answer questions about its contents. For instance, to give examples of the exact language that it uses to evaluate the subject of an article. An 'inaccessible' source had better be accessible at least to the submitter. ] (]) 12:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Such sources are most often required to establish notability in AFD discussions. In such cases, it is enough to establish that the topic is worthy of notice without going into the details of what has been said. Abstracts and extracts are adequate for this. ] (]) 12:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Well, in my case I see now that I had access to the online version because of a subscription, and that others may not have that. But I am still astounded that people will judge "Lotto" to be "not notable" when ] has an article on it, describing the rules, history, size, and use of profits. When that article goes (and that includes being redirected), I will know that AFD has gone haywire. ] ] 12:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Whether a source can be used without seeing it depends on what its used for. It certainly cant be used that way for proving contradicted points, or negative things about a living person. It can be used for notability, if it can be shown that thee is substantial coverage. Sometimes the is shown by extent of pages. But the existence of a book or article devoted to a subject is usually at least partial indication of notability, and a library catalog is enough evidence it exists. I wouldn't necessarily say the same about Amazon. If we required seeing the book, it would curt off many topics for most contributors. But google Books is pretty much equalizing things for pre-1920/1900 subjects,-- | |||
| ::::As another complication, we commonly use abstracts of magazine articles. These again may not give full or in-context information. But if we stopped doing this, a great many of our contributors couldn't work on any subject involving the academic world. some of us with access offer copies on a limited basis, but there is no way I could offer to do it generally for all of the people in wikipedia. (in fact, they're probably about to change the US copyright law to require that people go through their own library, not directly to another library.)''']''' (]) 00:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :'An ] who is ] and has not participated in the deletion discussion will assess the discussion for ]. For how to perform this, see ].' | |||
| == Closing AfD == | |||
| I won't mention names or places because I am not posting to extend that conflict but rather to make the same conflict less likely in future. I interpreted the line 'has not participated' to mean that any admin/user who has taken part in the conversation in any form should refrain from closing. I assumed that the line was there to stop any uneasily resolved conflict around what constitutes 'involvement' so that we had a clear point of fact that someone taking part in a conversation should not close it. However, it appears that the passage can also be interpreted along the same lines as 'involvement', as meaning that posting in the conversation previously is OK and does not constitute participation itself as long as, I think, they indicated no stake in the result (or something along those lines). It therefore appears that the passage is either redundant or insufficiently clear in expression. So what I think would help is either to remove the line about participation or be more explicit and leave less wriggle room about what participation is. ] (<small>]</small>) 22:03, 4 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Lately I've run across a couple closed but unsuccessful AfD's that have been moved back to the talk pages of the corresponding articles and then transcluded to the AfD Log (see ] and the article talk pages ] and ]). I'd like to raise this as a bad practice because it means that the relevant deletion log becomes categorized under the articles assessment rating. This is a completely unnecessary headache as there really in no reason that the entire talk page needs to be transcluded. Moving the discussion to a subpage of the talk and transcluding both to the talk and to the AfD log would make sense. As for these two articles, I've temporarily fixed the banners (encased in noinclude tags) but it still stands out as a bad practice. Does anyone have any input on how to prevent this? ] (]) 17:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Context: @] closed ] as redirect, after making a ] in the AfD: {{tq|@Deacon of Pndapetzim, can you give us your ] best sources that would show that the subject meets the notability guidelines at ]? That would help bring this discussion back on track.}} Deacon then ] that asilvering was {{tq|unduly involved}} in the AfD and part of a {{tq|bully squad}} because when ] over his conduct at the AfD, asilvering ] that Deacon's conduct was {{tq|astonishingly poor}}.{{pb}}The second paragraph of ] states that "an administrator ... whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits that do not show bias, <em>is not involved</em> and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that ... topic area". That paragraph also provides examples of actions that do not make an administrator involved, including "<em>suggestions on possible wordings and approaches</em>". asilvering's invocation of WP:THREE was quite literally a suggestion of an approach to get a discussion that had deteriorated back on track.{{pb}}I'm going to go ahead and ]ly delete the phrase "and has not participated" since the ] of that bullet point is to link readers to WP:INVOLVED. ] (]/]) 01:57, 5 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Well, that predates me. :) Have you run across any more current than 2005? If not, it might not be an active concern in terms of prevention. You might want to talk to the admin who did it on those two pages at ] to find out more about it. --] <sup>]</sup> 18:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I reverted. "has not participated in the deletion discussion" helps clarify what is considered "involved." ] ''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:top;">]</span>''·''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:bottom;">]</span>'' 02:01, 5 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Those were just the ones that happened to catch my attention, if it's not common it's not a big deal, I just happened across those two on the same page after one turned up in a category I work in. Thank you for responding nonetheless. ] (]) 03:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::I think INVOLVED is pretty clear on what being involved means. ] (]/]) 02:03, 5 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::: The process of VfDs used to involve discussion on a single page. When the discussion was completed, the text would be copy-pasted onto the article's Talk page as an archive. We did not then have the process of separate discussion pages and transclusions. There are lots of those out there. I don't know why anyone would have bothered with the hybrid approach that you've discovered here but the datestamps indicate that it happened about when the process was being changed so I'm not surprised that there were some mistakes made at the time. It's never been worth the effort to clean them up but if the tagging really bothers you that much, just fix them as you find them. Don't worry about it being accepted practice anymore. ] <small>]</small> 15:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::INVOLVED says nothing about participating in deletion discussions, whereas what you boldly reverted does. It clarifies that participating in a deletion discussion is something which involves an editor. ] ''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:top;">]</span>''·''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:bottom;">]</span>'' 02:08, 5 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Thanks for the informed and well-worded response. I'm just glad the process has changed. ] (]) 04:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::@], does it? Because it seems to be introducing confusion here. I don't think that asking people for sources in the AfD body text is any different from asking people for sources in the relist note, which closers do pretty frequently without being considered to be involved participants. -- ] (]) 02:06, 5 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I disagree. Your involvement in that AfD was not a purely administrative function - I'm sure the mileage will vary on that - and I would have voted to overturn if this had gone to DRV and not to a talk page. ] ''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:top;">]</span>''·''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:bottom;">]</span>'' 02:09, 5 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::When I relist with the comment "a source review would be helpful here", is it your position that I can't close that AfD? Or, if I remind editors to remain ], can I no longer close the AfD? ] (]/]) 02:11, 5 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I have asked admins whose relist comments have gone beyond merely relisting to be careful in the past. Just because someone relists a discussion doesn't make someone involved, but sometimes relisting a discussion with a specific comment may make an admin appear involved. It's very frustrating as a participant. As to your examples, though, those would probably be fine. ] ''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:top;">]</span>''·''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:bottom;">]</span>'' 02:18, 5 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I'm not sure why my examples are any different from what asilvering did. If I can ask editors to do a source review, why can't a relister (or otherwise uninvolved editor) ask a keep !voter to provide their three best sources? ] (]/]) 02:23, 5 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Because you start to blur the lines between an administrative role (relister) and a participant in the discussion. ] ''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:top;">]</span>''·''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:bottom;">]</span>'' 02:24, 5 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::How is asking a question blurring a line? ] (]/]) 13:58, 5 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::I don't see it either. The exercise here would be to try to guess which side of the debate I would agree with, based on what I'd said. My comments were that Deacon's conduct was poor, and that it would be helpful to show sources. Does it follow from that that I am biased against Deacon's "side" of the discussion? I don't really see how, since conduct has nothing to do with the outcome of AfDs, and while asking for sources does imply that I don't presently see sources that would help (which would suggest I was "anti-keep"), it also throws a clear lifeline to the keep proponents (so how "anti-keep" could I be?) -- ] (]) 17:49, 5 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I don't think rehashing this and editorialising like that does any good except to distract from its clarity of purpose. In any case, I didn't say anyone was part of a bully squad, I said this user posted along side it. Did you actually read some of the nasty things said towards me in that thread? ] (<small>]</small>) 18:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Nasty is certainly an overstatement. The focus of this discussion is whether the closer was defined as being involved or not. There's concerns by some about the intention of INVOLVED vs people reading too much into specific verbiage. ] (]) 19:07, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Contextually speaking, asilvering trying to help push the discussion in the right direction (away from the bickering to keep it on topic), while voicing no opinion or participating otherwise, does not at all come across as ] from my perspective. Frankly I'm not sure how the discussion could have been closed any other way. ] (]) 16:57, 5 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I have to agree with voorts and asilvering. The comment seems to be in the context of seeing assertions that may be valid, but feeling that more evidence is needed to close it that way. And so he is asking for that evidence. That isn't making him involved, it is giving the people making the assertions an opportunity to strengthen their case before closing the other way. ] (]) 20:01, 5 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I do agree that discussion couldn't really be closed any other way, and that comment did not prejudice the deletion outcome. But I've also been in situations like this before - ] says {{tq|whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits that do not show bias}}, and it really does not take much for a comment to go from a minor administrative comment to being INVOLVED, and as I've mentioned before, this doesn't happen frequently, but I have reached out to admins after a closed AfD to let them know I've thought the INVOLVED line was in play. In this instance, a participant thought this showed enough bias to post here, and asilvering themselves just said that it may imply that they were "anti-keep." If that implication exists at all, it's very easy to let someone else close a discussion... ] ''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:top;">]</span>''·''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:bottom;">]</span>'' 23:12, 5 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{tq|a participant thought this showed enough bias to post here}} Did you read any of the context provided about the conduct of this participant? ] (]/]) 23:54, 5 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Yes, I did, and it hasn't influenced how I see this at all. ] ''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:top;">]</span>''·''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:bottom;">]</span>'' 00:41, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::@], that's not a very fair restatement of my comment, which was decidedly ambivalent. In order to arrive at "may imply that they were 'anti-keep'", you'd have had to stop reading there, without continuing to the end of the sentence. -- ] (]) 03:09, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{re|asilvering}} I'm not doing a very good job of explaining myself then, and I apologise if I'm making it seem like you weren't ambivalent. The point I'm trying to make is that it may not come off as ambivalent if you're not experienced with the AfD process. ] ''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:top;">]</span>''·''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:bottom;">]</span>'' 06:00, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I would just like to point out that I am an administrator on English Wiktionary, which has a comparative dearth of administrators, and well-participated discussions, meaning that there are often discussions for which there is ''no'' uninvolved administrator to close. On that project, I frequently close discussions where I have been a participant (even a very involved participant), but where I can uncontroversially close the discussion because the outcome was very clear. Frankly, I see no reason why an administrator on this site should not be able to close a discussion in which they have participated if there is a clear and overwhelming outcome, and the close clearly reflects that outcome. ] ] 01:01, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I entirely agree with the above. It is perfectly OK for an admin to close a discussion, even if they had taken part, as long as the result is clear. Note that I was an admin but gave it up when I got old. but I am still clear about this point. ] (]) 02:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :'''ONINVOLVEMENT''' I had no objection to Asilvering's actions on the AN thread, Voorts or anyone else interested. I came across as rude on a aritcle for deletion thread in regards to two of its proponents, and Asilvering voiced the opinion commonly expressed on the AN thread that she disapproved of this alleged rudeness. Asilvering is entirely in her right to disapprove of anything she wants to, I have no objection. The perception of involvedness from my part has more to do with the fact that she came across to the deletion thread with a group of associates, then asked a question that I interpreted as partly adversarial. She requested that *I* in particular, only one of the opponents of the deletion proposal, provide three sources, I presume to establish the article's notability, and hence to determine what !vote. I'm not sure I quite understood the point of the question, because the article already contained three sources. I also withdrew from the thread because of threats on the AN thread. The article appears to have been subsequently deleted because a number of users completely misunderstood what the proposer was saying about the provenance of the saint, confusing the fact that the saint (like Beowulf) is known only from one medieval source (which I'm not sure is true actually & has nothing to do with Misplaced Pages guidelines) with the extent of commentary about the saint in modern scholarship. Asilvering subsequently closed the discussion. Even on the basis of "Involvement" I don't think she was the right person. It's completely reasonable for me to see her as involved here. On the other hand, I WAS definitely heavily involved and a stakeholder in the outcome as the creator of the article. MY opinion on this bears weight accordingly. Asilvering and I have discussed this already, Asilvering for their part did not see asking that question as constituting WP:INVOLVEMENT. She does not care that I saw her as involved. I also accept that the wooley nature of the 'involvement' guideline isn't decisive here, and that means that her closure is reasonable and that also she is entitled to the benefit of the doubt. This matter is already solved and WAS ALREADY solved before I opened this thread. I do not seek to revisit the outcome of that discussion, if nothing else it is not worth it. It's a loss to Misplaced Pages but not a big loss. | |||
| == Help, please, with AfD red link == | |||
| :However, in addition to the wooliness of Misplaced Pages 'involvement' guidelines, this page's own guidelines appear to list participation separate from involvement. Involvement is a wikilawyery concept, the meaning differs from standard English; participation is simply posting in the discussion. As a matter of fact Asilvering posted in the discussion. But the way its worded it can also be read as an oblique and redundant reference to 'involvement', and interpreted accordingly. I posted here because I am seeking to make the line clearer. I tried to keep Asilvering and her friends out of it by not mentioning them or the dispute. Part of the reasoning is that I thought it might be difficult for them to see the issue clearly because they would see it as tied up with Asilvering's closure rather than its own merit and might derail the discussion. They aren't tied up. When Asilvering closed the thread, the wording was ambiguous and fixing that ambiguity now would not make her action more or less judicious. | |||
| :'''On the topic of participation as separate from involvement''' . The line 'has not participated' can reasonably be interpreted to mean that any admin/user who has taken part in the conversation in any form should refrain from closing. I assumed that the line was there to stop any uneasily resolved conflict around what constitutes 'involvement' so that we had a clear point of fact that someone taking part in a conversation should not close it. However, it appears that the passage can also be interpreted along the same lines as 'involvement', as meaning that posting in the conversation previously is OK and does not constitute participation itself as long as they appeared to have no stake in the result (or something along those lines). It therefore appears that the 'participation' passage is either redundant (covered by involvement) or insufficiently clear in expression. So what I think would help is either to remove the line about participation or be more explicit and leave less wriggle room about what participation is. As I indicated in the opening post above, I am interested in clarifying the line about 'participation'. Not by ad hoc interpretations of the line that may suit one party one way now, another future interested party differently another time. Voorts to his credit tried to solve the problem by fixing the ambiguity, but as I suspected he was opposed. SportingFlyer has posted indicating that they did not share Voorts' interpretation, though they have not said enough for me to be certain about how their view relates to mine. But where things stand nothing has moved on, the offending line is still open to reasonable interpretations that are potentially contradictory. | |||
| :If you'll forgive me, as much as I've love to devote all my Wikitime to this topic (or even to correcting sidetrack editorialising), I also want to do other things. So if it has to be ambiguous because of opinion stalemates I'm just going to ''lump it'' as another part of the dogpile of chaos that makes Wiki guidelines.... but we'll all live. But if it can be fixed then great ] (<small>]</small>) 18:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{tq|The line 'has not participated' can reasonably be interpreted...}} – The problem is you seem to think someone trying to ask a question as an impartial observer, to help steer the conversation in a productive way instead of allowing it to spiral, constitutes being involved whereas other participants in this discussion do not feel that way. They were not involved in trying to sway the discussion in any capacity. They were clearly a neutral party to any observer. As such, there's no issue, and we can argue about specific verbiage til the cows come home, but I think it's fairly clear what the intent of INVOLVED is supposed to mean. Don't close discussions you were involved in on either side of the issue. ] (]) 19:10, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::: All I've got from this is that you haven't followed anything I've said, that you put a lot of more store in the concept of neutrality than I do, and that you think policy and guideline pages are 'verbiage'. ] (<small>]</small>) 19:19, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::When you dig your heels in and take a stance you sure do love to be dismissive of how others interpret and think of things. Must have some pretty long legs if you're able to do that from your high horse... I read it and I'm unswayed. I think INVOLVED as a policy is clear. I'm sorry that you feel my usage of verbiage somehow invalidates everything I've said. ] (]) 19:25, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: I'm not being dismissive, Josh, I'm not trying to put the 'involved' policy into consideration here, you can't have understood my posts if you think I opened this thread to invite opinions on the clarity of the Involved policy. ] (<small>]</small>) 19:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::If you say so. ] (]) 19:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| === Should we remove the phrase? === | |||
| I opened the AfD, ], and it clearly exists, but the AfD box on the article, ] shows a red link. What's wrong? ] ] 22:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| I say yes, as it aligns with current practice, which is that we apply INVOLVED rather than asking whether a closer "participated" in the AfD discussion. The current language was ] after ] in which the issue was raised that the guideline as then written was <em>narrowing</em> the definition of INVOLVED, rather than adopting that standard. ] (]/]) 21:17, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :looks like someone has fixed it. Maybe the database was slow in updating? ] (]) 00:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::It still shows red for me. (I specifically mean where it says "this article's entry" in the AfD notice box on the article. If you click on it, it takes you directly into editing the AfD page.) ] ] 00:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::It does not anymore for me, but did when it was first reported above. Perhaps this is an issue of the local internet cache. ] (]) 00:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Seems fine to me, though obviously on this question I am myself Involved. We could also try for the spirit of what they were going for back in 2014 with "!voted in" or "offered an opinion in" or similar. -- ] (]) 00:26, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Where are all the AfDs == | |||
| == ] == | |||
| I know that the list of AfDs is way smaller than it should be. What's the deal? To make things easier, we need to structure at least one AfD that is unorganized -- one that lists all AfDs, so I can just use a CTRL-F to find the one I'm looking for. Also, I'm looking for page. It's not in the organization category of AfDs, and it's not on the ]. ] (]) 18:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Why is this still hanging around in the ]? Relist it or close it please.] (]) 04:05, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Tools == | |||
| :@], the answer to that question is on the AfD itself. -- ] (]) 08:31, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ==Discussion at ]== | |||
| :I found one. Thanks.--] (]) 23:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ] You are invited to join the discussion at ]. <span class="nowrap">—''']'''</span> <sup class="nowrap">(] • {]•]})</sup> 13:47, 10 December 2024 (UTC)<!-- ] --> | |||
| == AFD request: ] == | |||
| == afd error == | |||
| Stub page for a random, no-name college professor that has just 6 sources and a "Life" section that consists entirely of 2 paragraphs - the first 4 sentences, the second just one. In addition, the first external link (which directs to an archived page from 1997) admits it has outdated content. Finally, this page's creation was literally the only edit its creator, ], ever made. ] (]) 18:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| So i just tried to afd an article using twinkle. It did everything but create the AFD page. Just a redlink on the log. What's the best way to fix it?--] (]) 02:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: Passes ] criteria 1 with large numbers of citations for her works as shown on Google Scholar, so it is very likely to be kept at AfD, imv ] (]) 21:54, 12 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Making sure I understand this right == | |||
| *It can be fixed by going to the article and clicking on "preloaded debate" in the template, which links to a page with the template, and the instructions for completing it. --] ] 02:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| {{closed-top|Closing to avoid duplication. The parallel discussion at ] remains open for anyone who wants to contribute. ] (]) 13:26, 13 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| The article states that: | |||
| {{TQ|If a redirection is controversial, however, AfD may be an appropriate venue for discussing the change in addition to the article's talk page.}} | |||
| Does this mean that an AFD can be started by someone with the intent of redirecting instead of deleting? ] (]) 04:06, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Discussion notice == | |||
| :Yep. ] (] • ]) 10:18, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| There is a discussion at ] about changing how AFD results are evaluated when the subject of an article is a living person. ] 19:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Don't post things at multiple places. There's no reason to have two separate discusssions on this at VPP and here. ] (]/]) 13:07, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{closed-bottom}} | |||
| == |
== Request == | ||
| I am the subject of this article: ]. I don't think it meets the notability criteria for an article on Misplaced Pages. The article is semi-protected. I'd like to request that an editor nominate it for deletion please? ] (]) 01:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I was just wondering if all AFD topics should be in the <nowiki>]</nowiki> so that when someone adds a comment e.g. here. then they would be automatically signed :). This might be able to be added in the template or something. What do you other guys think? <font color="blue">''']''' <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></font> 20:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== Closes before 7 days == | ||
| I have started a discussion at ] about AfDs that are closing before 7 days/168 hours that watchers of this page may be interested in. Best, ] (]) 04:09, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Dear fellow editors, I am increasingly seeing a real split among editors referring in Deletion review and even within AfDs about AfDs being "a discussion and not a vote", but also citing the "vote tally" or approaching the AfD as one would approach a vote. Now, if it is indeed a discussion and not a vote, then why do so many AfDs look like a vote, i.e. just a list of "deletes" and "keeps" with little actual discussion (interaction among the participants)? I have noticed quite a few AfDs where there may be the nomination followed by several rapid delete stances, but then the article is improved drastically and those editors never return to the discussion to comment one way or the other on the article's improvements/developments during the discussion, i.e. many seem to just go down the daily AfD list leaving deletes (or sometimes keeps) and then moving on without actually ''discussing'' the article. In other instances, such as ], some editors vehemently resist the AfD being a discussion rather than just a list of "votes" and aggresively criticize any who do attempt to discuss the article under question or who challenge others' arguments. So, I'm just curious on what the actual consensus is with regards to AfD? Are we supposed to engage each other in discussion, even if it's a spirited discussion/debate, and make attempts to resolve issues the nominator had as the discussion progressed and discuss those efforts during the AfD or is it really more of a vote? I guess I'm asking if there's a "right" way to approach these things? Thanks! Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 00:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *If you really believe AFD is a discussion and not a vote, you would accept that the lists of Columbine and Virginia Tech victims violated Misplaced Pages policy re:NOT#MEMORIAL and the admins were correct in closing them as '''delete''', regardless of how the actual "!vote" went. ] (]) 01:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| **I found the keep ''arguments'' far more compelling and that they successfully refuted any claims about the articles being a memorial. Best, --<font face="Times New Roman">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 01:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ***And obviously the closing admins disagreed. ] (]) 01:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ****One closing admin did, but other admins and editors disagreed with that closure as is playing at on Deletion review. Best, --<font face="Times New Roman">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 01:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 21:04, 25 December 2024
| Skip to table of contents |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Articles for deletion page. |
|
 view · edit Frequently asked questions
Q1: I don't like this page's name. I want to rename it to Articles for discussion or something else.
A1: Please see Misplaced Pages:Perennial proposals#Rename AFD. Note that all of the "for discussion" pages handle not only deletion, but also proposed mergers, proposed moves, and other similar processes. AFD is "for deletion" because the volume of discussion has made it necessary to sub-divide the work by the type of change.
Q2: You mean I'm not supposed to use AFD to propose a merger or a page move?
A2: Correct. Please use Misplaced Pages:Proposed mergers or Misplaced Pages:Requested moves for those kinds of proposals.
Q3: How many articles get nominated at AfD?
A3: Per the Oracle of Deletion, there were about 470,000 AfDs between 2005 (when the process was first created) and 2022. This comes out to about 26,000 per year (2,176 per month / 72 per day). In 2022, there were 20,008 AfDs (1,667 per month / 55 per day).
Q4: How many articles get deleted?
A4: Between 2005 and 2020, around 60% of AfDs were closed as "delete" or "speedy delete". This is about 270,000. More detailed statistics (including year-by-year graphs) can be found at Misplaced Pages:Oracle/All and Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages records#Deletion.
Q5: Is the timeline strict, with exactly 168 hours and zero minutes allowed? Should I remove late comments?
A5: No. We're trying to get the right outcome, not follow some ceremonial process. If the discussion hasn't been closed, it's okay for people to continue discussing it.
Q6: How many people participate in AFD?
A6: As of October 2023, of the 13.9 million registered editors who have ever made 1+ edit anywhere, about 162,000 of them (1 in 85 editors) have also made 1+ edit to an AFD page. Most of the participants are experienced editors, but newcomers and unregistered editors also participate. Most individual AFD pages get comments from just a few editors, but the numbers add up over time.
|
 | This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
 | This project page has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
 Archives |
|
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78 |
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 25 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
| About deleted articles
There are three processes under which mainspace articles are deleted: 1) speedy deletion; 2) proposed deletion (prod) and 3) Articles for deletion (AfD). For more information, see WP:Why was my page deleted? To find out why the particular article you posted was deleted, go to the deletion log and type into the search field marked "title," the exact name of the article, mindful of the original capitalization, spelling and spacing. The deletion log entry will show when the article was deleted, by which administrator, and typically contain a deletion summary listing the reason for deletion. If you wish to contest this deletion, please contact the administrator first on their talk page and, depending on the circumstances, politely explain why you think the article should be restored, or why a copy should be provided to you so you can address the reason for deletion before reposting the article. If this is not fruitful, you have the option of listing the article at WP:Deletion review, but it will probably only be restored if the deletion was clearly improper.
List discussionsWP:Articles for deletion WP:Categories for discussion WP:Copyright problems WP:Deletion review WP:Miscellany for deletion WP:Redirects for discussion WP:Stub types for deletion WP:Templates for discussion WP:WikiProject Deletion sorting WT:Articles for deletion WT:Categories for discussion WT:Copyright problems WT:Deletion review WT:Miscellany for deletion WT:Redirects for discussion WT:Stub types for deletion WT:Templates for discussion WT:WikiProject Deletion sorting |
Discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Articles for creation § Misplaced Pages:Articles for creation/Redirects/Reviewing instructions#Other types of submissions
You are invited to join the discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Articles for creation § Misplaced Pages:Articles for creation/Redirects/Reviewing instructions#Other types of submissions. 76.71.3.150 (talk) 07:00, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
November 30 log formatting being weird
Not sure how much of a priority this is, but I've noticed that every nomination below Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Hit Music Network on the November 30 log is indented. I see what the cause is, but I don't want to mess around with it though (since I'd have to go to the actual nomination page for it, therefore being unable to preview properly), so leaving it here in the hopes that someone notices. Procyon117 (talk) 15:06, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- I believe I fixed it. There was an unclosed ordered list (<ol></ol>). Skynxnex (talk) 20:16, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yup that fixed it. Sweet. Procyon117 (talk) 12:59, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
'and has not participated'
I'm not exactly certain this is the correct place. But recently there has been a conflict about the line
- 'An admin who is uninvolved and has not participated in the deletion discussion will assess the discussion for consensus. For how to perform this, see WP:AFD/AI.'
I won't mention names or places because I am not posting to extend that conflict but rather to make the same conflict less likely in future. I interpreted the line 'has not participated' to mean that any admin/user who has taken part in the conversation in any form should refrain from closing. I assumed that the line was there to stop any uneasily resolved conflict around what constitutes 'involvement' so that we had a clear point of fact that someone taking part in a conversation should not close it. However, it appears that the passage can also be interpreted along the same lines as 'involvement', as meaning that posting in the conversation previously is OK and does not constitute participation itself as long as, I think, they indicated no stake in the result (or something along those lines). It therefore appears that the passage is either redundant or insufficiently clear in expression. So what I think would help is either to remove the line about participation or be more explicit and leave less wriggle room about what participation is. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:03, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- Context: @asilvering closed an AfD as redirect, after making a single post in the AfD:
@Deacon of Pndapetzim, can you give us your WP:THREE best sources that would show that the subject meets the notability guidelines at WP:GNG? That would help bring this discussion back on track.
Deacon then suggested that asilvering wasunduly involved
in the AfD and part of abully squad
because when Deacon was brought to AN over his conduct at the AfD, asilvering stated that Deacon's conduct wasastonishingly poor
.The second paragraph of WP:INVOLVED states that "an administrator ... whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits that do not show bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that ... topic area". That paragraph also provides examples of actions that do not make an administrator involved, including "suggestions on possible wordings and approaches". asilvering's invocation of WP:THREE was quite literally a suggestion of an approach to get a discussion that had deteriorated back on track.I'm going to go ahead and boldly delete the phrase "and has not participated" since the obvious intent of that bullet point is to link readers to WP:INVOLVED. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:57, 5 December 2024 (UTC)- I reverted. "has not participated in the deletion discussion" helps clarify what is considered "involved." SportingFlyer T·C 02:01, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think INVOLVED is pretty clear on what being involved means. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:03, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- INVOLVED says nothing about participating in deletion discussions, whereas what you boldly reverted does. It clarifies that participating in a deletion discussion is something which involves an editor. SportingFlyer T·C 02:08, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- @SportingFlyer, does it? Because it seems to be introducing confusion here. I don't think that asking people for sources in the AfD body text is any different from asking people for sources in the relist note, which closers do pretty frequently without being considered to be involved participants. -- asilvering (talk) 02:06, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- I disagree. Your involvement in that AfD was not a purely administrative function - I'm sure the mileage will vary on that - and I would have voted to overturn if this had gone to DRV and not to a talk page. SportingFlyer T·C 02:09, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- When I relist with the comment "a source review would be helpful here", is it your position that I can't close that AfD? Or, if I remind editors to remain civil, can I no longer close the AfD? voorts (talk/contributions) 02:11, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have asked admins whose relist comments have gone beyond merely relisting to be careful in the past. Just because someone relists a discussion doesn't make someone involved, but sometimes relisting a discussion with a specific comment may make an admin appear involved. It's very frustrating as a participant. As to your examples, though, those would probably be fine. SportingFlyer T·C 02:18, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why my examples are any different from what asilvering did. If I can ask editors to do a source review, why can't a relister (or otherwise uninvolved editor) ask a keep !voter to provide their three best sources? voorts (talk/contributions) 02:23, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- Because you start to blur the lines between an administrative role (relister) and a participant in the discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 02:24, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- How is asking a question blurring a line? voorts (talk/contributions) 13:58, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't see it either. The exercise here would be to try to guess which side of the debate I would agree with, based on what I'd said. My comments were that Deacon's conduct was poor, and that it would be helpful to show sources. Does it follow from that that I am biased against Deacon's "side" of the discussion? I don't really see how, since conduct has nothing to do with the outcome of AfDs, and while asking for sources does imply that I don't presently see sources that would help (which would suggest I was "anti-keep"), it also throws a clear lifeline to the keep proponents (so how "anti-keep" could I be?) -- asilvering (talk) 17:49, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- How is asking a question blurring a line? voorts (talk/contributions) 13:58, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- Because you start to blur the lines between an administrative role (relister) and a participant in the discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 02:24, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why my examples are any different from what asilvering did. If I can ask editors to do a source review, why can't a relister (or otherwise uninvolved editor) ask a keep !voter to provide their three best sources? voorts (talk/contributions) 02:23, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have asked admins whose relist comments have gone beyond merely relisting to be careful in the past. Just because someone relists a discussion doesn't make someone involved, but sometimes relisting a discussion with a specific comment may make an admin appear involved. It's very frustrating as a participant. As to your examples, though, those would probably be fine. SportingFlyer T·C 02:18, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- When I relist with the comment "a source review would be helpful here", is it your position that I can't close that AfD? Or, if I remind editors to remain civil, can I no longer close the AfD? voorts (talk/contributions) 02:11, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- I disagree. Your involvement in that AfD was not a purely administrative function - I'm sure the mileage will vary on that - and I would have voted to overturn if this had gone to DRV and not to a talk page. SportingFlyer T·C 02:09, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think INVOLVED is pretty clear on what being involved means. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:03, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think rehashing this and editorialising like that does any good except to distract from its clarity of purpose. In any case, I didn't say anyone was part of a bully squad, I said this user posted along side it. Did you actually read some of the nasty things said towards me in that thread? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Nasty is certainly an overstatement. The focus of this discussion is whether the closer was defined as being involved or not. There's concerns by some about the intention of INVOLVED vs people reading too much into specific verbiage. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:07, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- I reverted. "has not participated in the deletion discussion" helps clarify what is considered "involved." SportingFlyer T·C 02:01, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- Contextually speaking, asilvering trying to help push the discussion in the right direction (away from the bickering to keep it on topic), while voicing no opinion or participating otherwise, does not at all come across as WP:INVOLVED from my perspective. Frankly I'm not sure how the discussion could have been closed any other way. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:57, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have to agree with voorts and asilvering. The comment seems to be in the context of seeing assertions that may be valid, but feeling that more evidence is needed to close it that way. And so he is asking for that evidence. That isn't making him involved, it is giving the people making the assertions an opportunity to strengthen their case before closing the other way. Rlendog (talk) 20:01, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- I do agree that discussion couldn't really be closed any other way, and that comment did not prejudice the deletion outcome. But I've also been in situations like this before - WP:INVOLVED says
whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits that do not show bias
, and it really does not take much for a comment to go from a minor administrative comment to being INVOLVED, and as I've mentioned before, this doesn't happen frequently, but I have reached out to admins after a closed AfD to let them know I've thought the INVOLVED line was in play. In this instance, a participant thought this showed enough bias to post here, and asilvering themselves just said that it may imply that they were "anti-keep." If that implication exists at all, it's very easy to let someone else close a discussion... SportingFlyer T·C 23:12, 5 December 2024 (UTC)a participant thought this showed enough bias to post here
Did you read any of the context provided about the conduct of this participant? voorts (talk/contributions) 23:54, 5 December 2024 (UTC)- Yes, I did, and it hasn't influenced how I see this at all. SportingFlyer T·C 00:41, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- @SportingFlyer, that's not a very fair restatement of my comment, which was decidedly ambivalent. In order to arrive at "may imply that they were 'anti-keep'", you'd have had to stop reading there, without continuing to the end of the sentence. -- asilvering (talk) 03:09, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Asilvering: I'm not doing a very good job of explaining myself then, and I apologise if I'm making it seem like you weren't ambivalent. The point I'm trying to make is that it may not come off as ambivalent if you're not experienced with the AfD process. SportingFlyer T·C 06:00, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- I do agree that discussion couldn't really be closed any other way, and that comment did not prejudice the deletion outcome. But I've also been in situations like this before - WP:INVOLVED says
- I have to agree with voorts and asilvering. The comment seems to be in the context of seeing assertions that may be valid, but feeling that more evidence is needed to close it that way. And so he is asking for that evidence. That isn't making him involved, it is giving the people making the assertions an opportunity to strengthen their case before closing the other way. Rlendog (talk) 20:01, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- I would just like to point out that I am an administrator on English Wiktionary, which has a comparative dearth of administrators, and well-participated discussions, meaning that there are often discussions for which there is no uninvolved administrator to close. On that project, I frequently close discussions where I have been a participant (even a very involved participant), but where I can uncontroversially close the discussion because the outcome was very clear. Frankly, I see no reason why an administrator on this site should not be able to close a discussion in which they have participated if there is a clear and overwhelming outcome, and the close clearly reflects that outcome. BD2412 T 01:01, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- I entirely agree with the above. It is perfectly OK for an admin to close a discussion, even if they had taken part, as long as the result is clear. Note that I was an admin but gave it up when I got old. but I am still clear about this point. Bduke (talk) 02:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- ONINVOLVEMENT I had no objection to Asilvering's actions on the AN thread, Voorts or anyone else interested. I came across as rude on a aritcle for deletion thread in regards to two of its proponents, and Asilvering voiced the opinion commonly expressed on the AN thread that she disapproved of this alleged rudeness. Asilvering is entirely in her right to disapprove of anything she wants to, I have no objection. The perception of involvedness from my part has more to do with the fact that she came across to the deletion thread with a group of associates, then asked a question that I interpreted as partly adversarial. She requested that *I* in particular, only one of the opponents of the deletion proposal, provide three sources, I presume to establish the article's notability, and hence to determine what !vote. I'm not sure I quite understood the point of the question, because the article already contained three sources. I also withdrew from the thread because of threats on the AN thread. The article appears to have been subsequently deleted because a number of users completely misunderstood what the proposer was saying about the provenance of the saint, confusing the fact that the saint (like Beowulf) is known only from one medieval source (which I'm not sure is true actually & has nothing to do with Misplaced Pages guidelines) with the extent of commentary about the saint in modern scholarship. Asilvering subsequently closed the discussion. Even on the basis of "Involvement" I don't think she was the right person. It's completely reasonable for me to see her as involved here. On the other hand, I WAS definitely heavily involved and a stakeholder in the outcome as the creator of the article. MY opinion on this bears weight accordingly. Asilvering and I have discussed this already, Asilvering for their part did not see asking that question as constituting WP:INVOLVEMENT. She does not care that I saw her as involved. I also accept that the wooley nature of the 'involvement' guideline isn't decisive here, and that means that her closure is reasonable and that also she is entitled to the benefit of the doubt. This matter is already solved and WAS ALREADY solved before I opened this thread. I do not seek to revisit the outcome of that discussion, if nothing else it is not worth it. It's a loss to Misplaced Pages but not a big loss.
- However, in addition to the wooliness of Misplaced Pages 'involvement' guidelines, this page's own guidelines appear to list participation separate from involvement. Involvement is a wikilawyery concept, the meaning differs from standard English; participation is simply posting in the discussion. As a matter of fact Asilvering posted in the discussion. But the way its worded it can also be read as an oblique and redundant reference to 'involvement', and interpreted accordingly. I posted here because I am seeking to make the line clearer. I tried to keep Asilvering and her friends out of it by not mentioning them or the dispute. Part of the reasoning is that I thought it might be difficult for them to see the issue clearly because they would see it as tied up with Asilvering's closure rather than its own merit and might derail the discussion. They aren't tied up. When Asilvering closed the thread, the wording was ambiguous and fixing that ambiguity now would not make her action more or less judicious.
- On the topic of participation as separate from involvement . The line 'has not participated' can reasonably be interpreted to mean that any admin/user who has taken part in the conversation in any form should refrain from closing. I assumed that the line was there to stop any uneasily resolved conflict around what constitutes 'involvement' so that we had a clear point of fact that someone taking part in a conversation should not close it. However, it appears that the passage can also be interpreted along the same lines as 'involvement', as meaning that posting in the conversation previously is OK and does not constitute participation itself as long as they appeared to have no stake in the result (or something along those lines). It therefore appears that the 'participation' passage is either redundant (covered by involvement) or insufficiently clear in expression. So what I think would help is either to remove the line about participation or be more explicit and leave less wriggle room about what participation is. As I indicated in the opening post above, I am interested in clarifying the line about 'participation'. Not by ad hoc interpretations of the line that may suit one party one way now, another future interested party differently another time. Voorts to his credit tried to solve the problem by fixing the ambiguity, but as I suspected he was opposed. SportingFlyer has posted indicating that they did not share Voorts' interpretation, though they have not said enough for me to be certain about how their view relates to mine. But where things stand nothing has moved on, the offending line is still open to reasonable interpretations that are potentially contradictory.
- If you'll forgive me, as much as I've love to devote all my Wikitime to this topic (or even to correcting sidetrack editorialising), I also want to do other things. So if it has to be ambiguous because of opinion stalemates I'm just going to lump it as another part of the dogpile of chaos that makes Wiki guidelines.... but we'll all live. But if it can be fixed then great Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
The line 'has not participated' can reasonably be interpreted...
– The problem is you seem to think someone trying to ask a question as an impartial observer, to help steer the conversation in a productive way instead of allowing it to spiral, constitutes being involved whereas other participants in this discussion do not feel that way. They were not involved in trying to sway the discussion in any capacity. They were clearly a neutral party to any observer. As such, there's no issue, and we can argue about specific verbiage til the cows come home, but I think it's fairly clear what the intent of INVOLVED is supposed to mean. Don't close discussions you were involved in on either side of the issue. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:10, 6 December 2024 (UTC)- All I've got from this is that you haven't followed anything I've said, that you put a lot of more store in the concept of neutrality than I do, and that you think policy and guideline pages are 'verbiage'. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:19, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- When you dig your heels in and take a stance you sure do love to be dismissive of how others interpret and think of things. Must have some pretty long legs if you're able to do that from your high horse... I read it and I'm unswayed. I think INVOLVED as a policy is clear. I'm sorry that you feel my usage of verbiage somehow invalidates everything I've said. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:25, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not being dismissive, Josh, I'm not trying to put the 'involved' policy into consideration here, you can't have understood my posts if you think I opened this thread to invite opinions on the clarity of the Involved policy. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- If you say so. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not being dismissive, Josh, I'm not trying to put the 'involved' policy into consideration here, you can't have understood my posts if you think I opened this thread to invite opinions on the clarity of the Involved policy. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- When you dig your heels in and take a stance you sure do love to be dismissive of how others interpret and think of things. Must have some pretty long legs if you're able to do that from your high horse... I read it and I'm unswayed. I think INVOLVED as a policy is clear. I'm sorry that you feel my usage of verbiage somehow invalidates everything I've said. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:25, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- All I've got from this is that you haven't followed anything I've said, that you put a lot of more store in the concept of neutrality than I do, and that you think policy and guideline pages are 'verbiage'. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:19, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
Should we remove the phrase?
I say yes, as it aligns with current practice, which is that we apply INVOLVED rather than asking whether a closer "participated" in the AfD discussion. The current language was added in September 2014 after a discussion in which the issue was raised that the guideline as then written was narrowing the definition of INVOLVED, rather than adopting that standard. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:17, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Seems fine to me, though obviously on this question I am myself Involved. We could also try for the spirit of what they were going for back in 2014 with "!voted in" or "offered an opinion in" or similar. -- asilvering (talk) 00:26, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Kai Trump (2nd nomination)
Why is this still hanging around in the Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 21? Relist it or close it please.4meter4 (talk) 04:05, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- @4meter4, the answer to that question is on the AfD itself. -- asilvering (talk) 08:31, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
Discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Redirects for discussion § Is RFD a valid forum to discuss cases of PTOPIC disambiguation pages?
You are invited to join the discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Redirects for discussion § Is RFD a valid forum to discuss cases of PTOPIC disambiguation pages?. —CX Zoom 13:47, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
AFD request: Brenda Dervin
Stub page for a random, no-name college professor that has just 6 sources and a "Life" section that consists entirely of 2 paragraphs - the first 4 sentences, the second just one. In addition, the first external link (which directs to an archived page from 1997) admits it has outdated content. Finally, this page's creation was literally the only edit its creator, Dani4, ever made. 100.7.34.111 (talk) 18:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- Passes WP:PROF criteria 1 with large numbers of citations for her works as shown here on Google Scholar, so it is very likely to be kept at AfD, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:54, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Making sure I understand this right
Closing to avoid duplication. The parallel discussion at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)#AFD clarification remains open for anyone who wants to contribute. Thryduulf (talk) 13:26, 13 December 2024 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The article states that:
If a redirection is controversial, however, AfD may be an appropriate venue for discussing the change in addition to the article's talk page.
Does this mean that an AFD can be started by someone with the intent of redirecting instead of deleting? Plasticwonder (talk) 04:06, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yep. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:18, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- Don't post things at multiple places. There's no reason to have two separate discusssions on this at VPP and here. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:07, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Request
I am the subject of this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/Terry_Blade. I don't think it meets the notability criteria for an article on Misplaced Pages. The article is semi-protected. I'd like to request that an editor nominate it for deletion please? BladeTerry (talk) 01:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Closes before 7 days
I have started a discussion at the Administators notice board about AfDs that are closing before 7 days/168 hours that watchers of this page may be interested in. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:09, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Category: