The result of the move request was: not moved. — Ed (talk • majestic titan) 07:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Administrator instructions → Wikipedia:Administrator instructions for Articles for deletion — Most pages regarding the AfD process have their own pages, not subpages, like Wikipedia:Deletion policy, Wikipedia:Deletion process, Wikipedia:Guide to deletion, Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines to cite in deletion debates, Help:Before commenting in a deletion discussion. "Administrator instructions" and "Common outcomes" follow the format of an AfD on articles named Administrator instructions and Common outcomes. Naming should be more uniform. Incidentally, an Administration: namespace might make sense. Relisted.--÷ seresin 08:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Шизомби ( talk) 03:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I am pretty new to all the procedural rules so hopefully this will make sense. In general, I am talking about a possible problem with fair notice to impacted editors when an AFD results in a MERGE decision.
THE PERCEIVED PROBLEM
THE PROPOSED SOLUTION
If an AFD is ready for closing with a MERGE alternative, I suggest that the admin first determine the PROVISIONAL RESULT. A provisional result can become a FINAL result only after an AFD or merge to/from tag has been on all the impacted articles for 7 days. If needed, the proposing editor should be required to place any missing tags after which the 7 day minimum comment period clock should be reset to zero.
Note that it is not enough to bury a tickle on a talk page, because some people only watch the ARTICLE space. There are excellent merge to/from tags for the article space, so I am specifically proposing that the already-established process be followed, and that AFD discussions not be treated as an exception as they presently are.
REASON That process will build a bridge between the AFD and MERGE processes and ensure that all impacted editors get fair warning. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 13:04, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
The sentence in this article, "If additional explanation is needed as to why you have closed a deletion discussion as a certain result, add additional comments immediately after RESULT.", would make sense only if *some* explanation had already been given and a place giving that explanation is provided. But none is; Admin instructions apparently don't require any explanation (or even encourage any explanation). The sample shown reflects same. Conclusion: the word "additional" s/b removed from the sentence; it implies something might exist which can't exist given the current instructions. (If I've missed something please inform.) Ihardlythinkso ( talk) 06:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
The bold revision to these instructions by MuZemike in 2011 followed a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive226#Well overdue AfD.
IMHO we should reinstate the instructions to remove backlinks after deletion. There are similar instructions to do this in the cases of WP:PROD and WP:CfD (see links at Wikipedia:Proposed_deletion#Deletion and Wikipedia:Deletion process#Step-by-step instructions).
The instructions should allow discretion to leave some redlinks, but as a general rule they should be removed if the AfD has shown no current scope to have an article on the subject. – Fayenatic L ondon 16:12, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm trying to relist Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kayli_Barker, and ran into a bit of process I couldn't figure out. The instructions say: Go to WP:AFD/T, and add to the top of the list of AfDs the relisted AfD, but when I went there, I didn't see any list to add this entry to. Unclear what to do next. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:34, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
The instructions currently draw a distinction on whether to place an OldAFD template on the talk page of redirected pages according to whether the talk page exists or not. It is also instructed to (normally) remove Wikiproject templates. Frequently, the only things on the page are Wikiproject templates so the page ends up with the OldAFD template and nothing else. Presumably, the purpose of the distinction was to avoid this very situation. I don't really see why we want to do this and propose that the instructions are simplified to always post the template if the page is not deleted. Spinning Spark 14:59, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
There seems to be disagreement between this guidelien and WP:Talk page layout. I have started a thread at Wikipedia talk:Talk page layout#AFD history to try to resolve this. Spinning Spark 12:47, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
@ Gparyani: I agree that your wording is more appropriate than the more general wording of the criterion at WP:CSD (which I think is what user:Beeblebrox was referring to) since the pages in question are explicitly talk pages in this case. It should be allowed to stand. However, I am extremely concerned by the reasoning you give in the edit summary and your reversion of Beeblebrox. It is completely unacceptable to change policy and guideline pages in order to match a template. The guidelines represent the views of the community on how things should be done. Templates, as a general principle, do not have that status. If anything, changes should be the other way round, change the template to match the guideline. I would also caution you against edit warring on such pages, not such a good idea, especially a page aimed at administrators. Spinning Spark 07:45, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Anyway, a big discussion over an edit we both agree with. Spinning Spark 12:53, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 22:15, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm a newbie admin entering this area for the first time. This instruction page does not discuss handling a "Move to Draftspace/Userspace" result, it needs to be added. What I want to know is, am I required to also perform the move when I close an AFD with a userify/draftify result? Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 19:43, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
(also posted at WP:AFD talk)
One thing that I've seen many times is a AFD where the result was sky-is-blue "no consensuses" where the admin closer closes it based on their own evaluation of the article with respect to guidelines, and pretty clearly says that that was their rationale for the close, including no reference to it being the outcome of the discussion. This is contrary to both the AFD page and normal practice. Perhaps addition of an extra sentence to that section to reinforce it would be good idea. Like "so, the close should be based only on the community discussion and not on the closer's personal assessment of the article with respect to guidelines." North8000 ( talk) 03:16, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Why is Disambiguate not in the list of closing options even though it is listed at " WP:AFDFORMAT"? Venkat TL ( talk) 06:56, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. — Ed (talk • majestic titan) 07:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Administrator instructions → Wikipedia:Administrator instructions for Articles for deletion — Most pages regarding the AfD process have their own pages, not subpages, like Wikipedia:Deletion policy, Wikipedia:Deletion process, Wikipedia:Guide to deletion, Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines to cite in deletion debates, Help:Before commenting in a deletion discussion. "Administrator instructions" and "Common outcomes" follow the format of an AfD on articles named Administrator instructions and Common outcomes. Naming should be more uniform. Incidentally, an Administration: namespace might make sense. Relisted.--÷ seresin 08:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Шизомби ( talk) 03:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I am pretty new to all the procedural rules so hopefully this will make sense. In general, I am talking about a possible problem with fair notice to impacted editors when an AFD results in a MERGE decision.
THE PERCEIVED PROBLEM
THE PROPOSED SOLUTION
If an AFD is ready for closing with a MERGE alternative, I suggest that the admin first determine the PROVISIONAL RESULT. A provisional result can become a FINAL result only after an AFD or merge to/from tag has been on all the impacted articles for 7 days. If needed, the proposing editor should be required to place any missing tags after which the 7 day minimum comment period clock should be reset to zero.
Note that it is not enough to bury a tickle on a talk page, because some people only watch the ARTICLE space. There are excellent merge to/from tags for the article space, so I am specifically proposing that the already-established process be followed, and that AFD discussions not be treated as an exception as they presently are.
REASON That process will build a bridge between the AFD and MERGE processes and ensure that all impacted editors get fair warning. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 13:04, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
The sentence in this article, "If additional explanation is needed as to why you have closed a deletion discussion as a certain result, add additional comments immediately after RESULT.", would make sense only if *some* explanation had already been given and a place giving that explanation is provided. But none is; Admin instructions apparently don't require any explanation (or even encourage any explanation). The sample shown reflects same. Conclusion: the word "additional" s/b removed from the sentence; it implies something might exist which can't exist given the current instructions. (If I've missed something please inform.) Ihardlythinkso ( talk) 06:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
The bold revision to these instructions by MuZemike in 2011 followed a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive226#Well overdue AfD.
IMHO we should reinstate the instructions to remove backlinks after deletion. There are similar instructions to do this in the cases of WP:PROD and WP:CfD (see links at Wikipedia:Proposed_deletion#Deletion and Wikipedia:Deletion process#Step-by-step instructions).
The instructions should allow discretion to leave some redlinks, but as a general rule they should be removed if the AfD has shown no current scope to have an article on the subject. – Fayenatic L ondon 16:12, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm trying to relist Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kayli_Barker, and ran into a bit of process I couldn't figure out. The instructions say: Go to WP:AFD/T, and add to the top of the list of AfDs the relisted AfD, but when I went there, I didn't see any list to add this entry to. Unclear what to do next. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:34, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
The instructions currently draw a distinction on whether to place an OldAFD template on the talk page of redirected pages according to whether the talk page exists or not. It is also instructed to (normally) remove Wikiproject templates. Frequently, the only things on the page are Wikiproject templates so the page ends up with the OldAFD template and nothing else. Presumably, the purpose of the distinction was to avoid this very situation. I don't really see why we want to do this and propose that the instructions are simplified to always post the template if the page is not deleted. Spinning Spark 14:59, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
There seems to be disagreement between this guidelien and WP:Talk page layout. I have started a thread at Wikipedia talk:Talk page layout#AFD history to try to resolve this. Spinning Spark 12:47, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
@ Gparyani: I agree that your wording is more appropriate than the more general wording of the criterion at WP:CSD (which I think is what user:Beeblebrox was referring to) since the pages in question are explicitly talk pages in this case. It should be allowed to stand. However, I am extremely concerned by the reasoning you give in the edit summary and your reversion of Beeblebrox. It is completely unacceptable to change policy and guideline pages in order to match a template. The guidelines represent the views of the community on how things should be done. Templates, as a general principle, do not have that status. If anything, changes should be the other way round, change the template to match the guideline. I would also caution you against edit warring on such pages, not such a good idea, especially a page aimed at administrators. Spinning Spark 07:45, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Anyway, a big discussion over an edit we both agree with. Spinning Spark 12:53, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 22:15, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm a newbie admin entering this area for the first time. This instruction page does not discuss handling a "Move to Draftspace/Userspace" result, it needs to be added. What I want to know is, am I required to also perform the move when I close an AFD with a userify/draftify result? Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 19:43, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
(also posted at WP:AFD talk)
One thing that I've seen many times is a AFD where the result was sky-is-blue "no consensuses" where the admin closer closes it based on their own evaluation of the article with respect to guidelines, and pretty clearly says that that was their rationale for the close, including no reference to it being the outcome of the discussion. This is contrary to both the AFD page and normal practice. Perhaps addition of an extra sentence to that section to reinforce it would be good idea. Like "so, the close should be based only on the community discussion and not on the closer's personal assessment of the article with respect to guidelines." North8000 ( talk) 03:16, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Why is Disambiguate not in the list of closing options even though it is listed at " WP:AFDFORMAT"? Venkat TL ( talk) 06:56, 29 September 2021 (UTC)