![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | → | Archive 45 |
I was looking for an administrator to help me with a article deletion process, and "Requests for administrator attention" sent me here. I edited a section of an article, restoring chronological order and NPOV mostly, but also various little but necessary tweaks like a broken ref and redundacy. [1] Part of the changes is under discussion on the talk page. [2]
Someone created a new article copying the pre-edited content whole with POV and errors [3] hours later, then went and linked it from many article. [4] I was unfamiliar with the deletion process so I went and read the deletion policies. I couldn't find anything relating to this particular problem: is it OK to bypass the discussion process and simply create a content fork using old material? I'm not asking about weither this particular section deserve it's own article (I think it don't, it's just one controverstial ad campaign among many others and merely a content fork to evade debate), but rather what is appropriate for me to do in this situation (afd, proposed deletion or speedy?) and what arguments I'm supposed to make since they don't mention content forks. I can't go and edit the new article either, since it's the basicly the same content as in the main article and still under discussion on the talk page. I'll just be accused of silencing criticism anyway (again). Any help is appreciated. Jean-Philippe 23:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Would it be reasonable to move closed AFDs to a seperate page, and replace them with a one line summary & link? The sheer size of the daily log and the time it takes to load is hard to work with; seperating the ones that are no longer open for discussion seems like the simplest way to shrink this. - Steve Sanbeg 16:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
To endorse Sam's position, we used to have that step as part of the archiving procedure. It was never properly followed. We lost a lot of deletion discussions that were never properly archived. We got into countless arguments over renominations - arguments which we have been able to quickly solve since we changed to this archiving procedure.
What you can do instead is to create a .css subpage which will automatically hide all the closed discussions from your view while leaving it visible for people like Sam who still need it. Instructions follow. Rossami (talk) 19:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure we all know how burdensome the the process is. I just wanted to know if it was reasonable to make the page a bit smaller, so we wouldn't have to wait so long for it to render each time, since this makes it more tedious to participate in the discussion.
If admins don't want to do it (and of course, why would they) couldn't a bot just summarize the closed AFDs, and leave a link to the full discussion?
It looks like Rossami's css doesn't quite do what I wanted, but seems to speed rendering up enough that I'd do something like that anyway. But a few small changes to a few templates would probably make it feasible to keep a summary and block the discussion. - Steve Sanbeg 20:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
<incl<includeonly>u</includeonly>deonly></incl<includeonly>u</includeonly>deonly>
; might be a place to start. --
nae'
blis
15:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
div.vfd dl{display:none} div.vfd ul{display:none}
Which seems to kill most of the discussion, while still listing the the result, and leaving a lik to at least the wikitext discussion. Using a bot to move/delete the discussion would be a nice way to make things simpler for people to participate without css hacking, though. - Steve Sanbeg 14:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks to the Voodoo from Nae'blis, I have a working version of the afd templates that compact the closed discussions down to title and result, without the need for a new page and let you see the full discussion by clicking on a link.
See: User:Yomangani/Sandbox/AFDtestlog1 for an example.
It doesn't require any more work from admins as far as I can see: although the reason for deletion is a parameter to the template, it defaults to delete (as most AFDs are deleted I believe) and automatically signs it for you, so in theory it should be less work. It's not the most attractive template code in the world, but does anybody care about that? Yomangani talk 16:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
The templates are here: User:Yomangani/Sandbox/AFDtop and User:Yomangani/Sandbox/AFDbottom. I tried to think of a way round the parameter thing, but the reason for deletion is above the closing of the top template now (to allow the discussion to be enclosed in noinclude tags) rather than after it as it is in the current template. I can't see anyway of solving it without adding a third template {{ afd middle}} which would be more work. See if you can see any solution in the templates. Yomangani talk 19:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Is the entire aim of this to hide closed discussions so that the ones that are still open are easier to locate on per-day pages? We already have a mechanism for that. Being able to read prior discussion pages in their entirety without any extra hoops to jump through is useful, especially when articles are discussed again, as they sometimes are. (There have been several in the past few days alone.) Please don't prevent that. The discussion is just as important as the decision by the closing administrator. If your problem is with scanning through old per-day pages, please use the existing solutions for that. Uncle G 17:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
.afdlog * div.vfd, .afdlog * div.vfd ul{display:none};
There's a better solution down at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#A_bot_to_seperate_closed_discussions. Yomangani talk 20:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Anyone think it would be a good idea for header on each AfD to say something like:
Created: 10:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC); Current date: 18:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Similar to how an RfC header is, so that people can immediately see how much longer to go (barring early closure, of course). rootology ( T) 19:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
So, I notice that those "vote" icons might be making a comeback. If so, let's all try to do the sensible thing and hack them down mercilessly before the rot spreads in and Winamp gets stuck on Britney Spears for an hour, okay? fuddlemark ( befuddle me!) 12:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
It's funny that there are almost adjacent threads on how people can make the discusison render faster, and this one on how people can make it render slower. I'd absolutely agree with removing icons from the discussions. - Steve Sanbeg 19:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
image:pastelbox.gif - (image text-link by HighInBC see history [5] for reason)
Is there anything like a policy statement or guideline on this? I notice WikiCats has just added a section, top of this page, pointing to vote icons for use in these discussions. Mike Christie (talk) 02:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I've been following the discussion on the voodoo and seperate closed discussions thread. I'm wondering if a bot should handle this work instead. Thus alleviating anyone having to do it. I have someone willing to make the bot, and I'm willing to run it. If I can get a consensus here, I'll post it to WP:BRFA. Any thoughts? SynergeticMaggot 18:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I confirm that SynergeticMaggot has been in contact with me. I will set forth the proposed paremeters for the bot in a few hours from this post. —— Eagle ( ask me for help) 22:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Whoa there, steady on fellows... perhaps we should engage a slightly wider audience first? - brenneman {L} 06:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
There was discussion on the other thread about the possibility of doing it with a bot before the template voodoo came about. Considering how frequenty AFDs get speedied on the day they're submitted, I'd think the bot would need to run fairly frequently, at least on the current day; maybe every hour or so. For previous days, maybe not so much. Although I do like the instant gratification affect of the templates, I'm not too worried about how it's done; if a bot did the updated frequently enough, that would be cool. - Steve Sanbeg 13:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
An AfD I started recently was vandalised to look closed when it really wasn't. Don't know how often that happens, but it seems like this bot would prevent admins catching things like that. -- Jamoche 07:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
All of the discussions on the afd log page aren't transcluded properly for some reason. As far as I can tell, it's just because the page is too large, since removing random entries would cause the rest of them to format correctly. The problem seems to have started somewhere between
these edits (when the amount of discussions on the page took a dive, even though the page itself didn't change). It probably doesn't belong here, so if you know of a better place to post this, pass it along, thanks. -
Bobet
12:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone recall if this article ever went through an AfD, perhaps under a different name? It was deleted April 14 as speedy non-notable and recreated May 26 this year. It was tagged today as a speedy but this time as reposted AfD article. I can't find the AfD and it appears to me there is some claim of notabilty that I believe stops it being a speedy. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
This article was first posted for AfD on the 4th of August, it was then relisted on the 11th. Shouldn't it be closed by now? -- JRA WestyQld2 09:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry if this has been suggested/discussed before, but I'd like to suggest that a link to the appropriate log/day page appear on each individual AfD. The log pages transclude the AfDs themselves, so when you've edited an AfD to record your comment, the link at the top is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, from which you have to scoot down to the day links at the bottom. Am I missing some obvious navigation back to the log pages here? If not, it would be nice to have those AfD articles have a link back to the log page, so that for example on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Banjo Story (2nd nomination) there would be a link that leads to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 August 20. If it could lead back to the #section title, that would be even better; that would drop you right back in to the list where you were before you edited. Hope this makes sense. I don't yet understand templates well enough to go and experiment in my sandbox on this, but it seems to me that a change to afd2 is what would be needed. Mike Christie (talk) 00:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps am overlooking it, but I am suggesting that we create and make available a notice template for inclusion in the talk page(s) of related article(s) to one being suggested for deletion and to make this part of the steps suggested. This is useful in AfD for sub-articles, when a large number of editors might want to be informed of an AfD, and easier than informing each one. However I do not mean it to be a substitute to notifying the page creator in his/her talk page.
Something like this:
Comments?-- Cerejota 09:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
What's everybody's opinion on having an automated process for voting on AfD? Seems to me to violate the "discussion" purpose of AfDs. User:Zoe| (talk) 02:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I was randomly meandering around today and ran across a redirect that pointed to an article that was deleted via AFD ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of pejorative political puns2). Is it SOP to leave redirects after a successful AFD requiring the redirects to go through RFD or should these have been deleted? -- Bobblehead 21:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Can I suggest that step one of the process is tweaked in the following way to help make the edit summaries more helpful?
Also, step two could be improved with the following changes:
(1):
(2):
Overall, standards of edit summaries should be high here, to allow people to trace the history of such discussions and see more easily what is happening when viewing edit summaries either in a page history, or in a User contributions list. Carcharoth 12:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Erm, why? — Werdna talk criticism 09:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Is there really a point of having Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/old and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old? The first is the one that is rarely up to date and gets included in the main afd page, the second is the bot-updated one at WP:AFD/OLD. Wouldn't it be better just to get rid of /old altogether and include /Old on the main page with the irrelevant parts tagged with noinclude? - Bobet 13:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
hey guys, the article Cuddle puddle was marked for deletion, but i don't see anything wrong with it- anyone think it should be deleted? 71.136.78.103 19:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
how do you propose that a specific section of an article be deleted?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Shawn88 ( talk • contribs) (20:16, August 28, 2006
If this comment is in the wrong place, I would greatly appreciate direction to where such changes are discussed.
Am I alone in my dislike for the changes being made to the AfD nomination process? I was already not very fond of the new strong suggestion about putting the AfD discussion link into the AFD1 and the article title link into the AFD2 edit summary. Now we have a requirement that involves clicking an external link and looking down an ill-conceived table for a category. The most offputting thing to me is that I can't seem to locate an edit history for the template that gets inserted into this page describing all of this to see if there is some decent reason for the changes other than making nominations more difficult. Erechtheus 02:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
User:BrowardPlaya nominated Windows Neptune for deletion [6]... but the user used an old vfd substed - so it went to the old votes for deletion page.
On the deletion page it said [7]:
I just reverted since it is probably a speedy keep anyway... the question is how should this be filed? As-is or take the trouble to move it to the proper AFD page, closing templates etc.? RN 21:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I give. What does {{ cent}} have to do with "Articles for deletion" and all of its logs? Rfrisbie talk 02:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm trying to delete spam articles from some of the smaller Wikipedias, and I can't figure out how to do it. I insert the <<subst:afd1>> tag (according to the English instructions), but all that happens is that the tag is shown as the content of the article. I also can't figure out how to contact the administrators for those languages. For example, I am trying to delete an inappropriate article from the lu.wikipedia, and so far I haven't found any way to do it. Malangali 18:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Hey, I believe this article was deleted inadvertantly during a group of deletions in the commemorative coin department. User:Taurus876 created a few coin articles with copied text or no text and those have been deleted, but I think the Oregon Trail Memorial half dollar got marked and deleted along with them when it shouldn't have. I've checked the logs back to Aug. 25, with no luck. I'm not sure when all this occured. Here's a Google cache. If this page can be restored, great. Jo e I 20:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
The article Virtual record (or "virtual album") has been created. The article claims to define an album that is only available as a download (such as itunes exclusive albums) as a "Virtual album" and cites Tim Armstrong's album as the coining of the phrase. The thing is that the article is created and maintained by the guy who also created the article for Tim Armstrong's CD; so I asked the person if there was any actual citable source that uses the term virtual record besides Tim Armstrong's. He didn't reply. I posted the same question in the article's talk page, and I'm waiting to see if anyone replies there. In the meantime, assuming this is what it seems to me to be - an article that is attempting to actually spread the use of this term virtual album as a real used term (which I've never heard in any capacity as official), what should be done. Should the article just be deleted or what? I don't think the list itself is necessarily "Crap" but the actual intro and title "virtual album" seems baseless. The same person is going about changing entries for albums to make them read as "virtual albums" and I don't think that a term that I (am pretty sure) no one knows should be being put in the header when the basic definition of the term is usually right after that term (that the album is only available online). I don't know what makes a virtual album that special either. Albums used to be on vinyl, and 8track and cassettes. Download is just a new medium. It's still just an "album". It's not a special album. Thanks for any advice anyone has. TheHYPO 01:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
With the AfD categories in place, and testing my bot, I noticed some interesting query.php output; it seems that several AfDs are getting lost. I've compiled a list of AfDs unclosed for over a week according to the category at User:Ais523/UnclosedAfDs (this is basically the table the bot searches to find closed AfDs to decat), but many of them still seem to be unclosed, including some from September 2. The oldest (first on the list) obviously got lost because it wasn't transcluded to the logs, but many of them have been; this looks like it could be developing into a problem. Any thoughts? -- ais523 12:05, 12 September 2006 ( U T C)
Join us at deletion review's talk page for a discussion about moving DRV to a consensus-driven model. -- badlydrawnjeff talk 15:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Officially it never LEFT the consensus model. All you need to do is enforce it. Kim Bruning 15:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
This page was deleted *and* protected against recreation. (A rather drastic last measure). The actual Article for Deletion page lists it as kept. Could an admin please fix this discrepancy?
Crossposted message. Please discuss at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#Informing the creators is being ignored. Whispering( talk/ c) 16:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Can a bad faith AFD be considered vandalism? A series of ip addresses have been putting the AFD tag to General Electric for the past couple of days. Should they be just be warned with the regular vandalism templates? -- Lost (talk) 07:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Until yesterday there was a series of helpful templates for each step of listing an article. Apart from bundling nominations they seem to have gone. Can they be reinstated, please? BlueValour 23:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Is there any general AfD template for notifying a user when someone else nominated the article? For example {{AFDWarning|somerandomarticle}} produces this:
==AfD Nomination: [[somerandomarticle]]== I've nominated the article somerandomarticle for deletion under the Articles for deletion process. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that somerandomarticle satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. I have explained why in the nomination space (see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/somerandomarticle. Don't forget to add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of each of your comments to sign them. You are free to edit the content of somerandomarticle during the discussion, but please do not remove the "Articles for Deletion" template (the box at the top). Doing so will not end the discussion.
Notice how it says "I've nominated blahblah for deletion" but I'm thinking more along the lines of "(Insert user here) has nominated such-and-such for deletion" you know in case the nominator forgot or something. -- WikiSlasher 15:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
There is an article on the future 2012 Olympics which has a large section on the bidding process. There is also a main article on the bidding process that led to London being selected.
Is it realy necessary to keep either of them, let alone both? The event was quite interesting at the time, but no-one realy takes an interest in it now its over. -- The Spith 18:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Sometimes I see articles nominated for deletion that should in fact be tidied up and improved and have sources added. Some articles are a mess of Original Research, lack of sources, etc, but clearly there is scope for some sort of article on the subject. In these cases, is it proper to nominate for deletion? I would have thought that a better options is PRUNING. ie. reduce the article to a stub by vicious pruning, and then step back and watch it grow again, hopefully in the right way this time. The horticultural analogy works quite well. When you prune a plant, you often encourage new growth. So is it possible to encourage those nominating for deletion to try pruning instead? The example in question here is this one. Carcharoth 10:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is the correct place to raise this, but it would be helpful if the reason for deletion gave a few words of detail about the nature of the article, where this isn't obvious from the title. This would allow casual browsers of the AfD pages to pick out those debates that they are likely to be able to contribute meaningfully towards, without always having to click through to the article page. This is a particular problem with biographies, where the article name often gives no clue as to whether it's about, say, a wrestler or a woman's studies academic.
I'm aware that there's already a considerable burden on submitters, but this would only take a few extra seconds for the submitter and would save time for all the hundreds of AfD browsers. It would also make it less likely that controversial items get missed in a host of less controversial ones. Espresso Addict 01:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I am cleaning external links from the Special:Linksearch log, and there are several found in closed AFDs that are not necessary. In example, there are around 25 links to Digg which are not necessary in closed discussions. What would people say if the discussions are edited to remove the external links (by either deleting the http:// or using nowiki tags)? This is expansible to every other url, too.
It is not _that_ important, I can always write a utility to filter AFDs and User namespace links, but I believe they could be unlinked without many objections. -- ReyBrujo 04:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
~~~~~
. If you need to review this discussion, please restore it from history." This will still make it possible for others to find and review the discussion when they need it and will fully disclose that you changed the page. You should also provide a self-referential link to the discussion page since AFD debates are transcluded onto other pages and it can often be a bit tricky to find the source page. I think this discussion might be getting out of hand. It appears some users would like to misuse AFD to create a binding decision in a content dispute (too merge or keep as a separate article). Perhaps they could use a good talking-to. — CharlotteWebb 00:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Hmm... Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Lee Rose. — CharlotteWebb 19:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
A series of articles have been nominated for deletion, all because of an issue involving a music publisher publishing articles about composers on their roster. There is an RfA currently underway here : Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#User:Jean-Thierry_Boisseau_.28formerly_User:Musikfabrik.29.2C_et_al..
As one of the principals involved here, I have no problems with any of these articles being considered for deletion. However, on this AfD listing, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jean-Yves_Malmasson three individuals are listed including one Jean-Marie Londeix who has absolutely no connection at all with our company, other than being a slight acquaintance of one of the owners, who was only listed because our "company" account made a slight edit on this article (changing "Jean-Marie Londeix" to "Londeix, Jean-Marie" in the category section.
Cats, meet pigeon. User:David Gerard/Process essay is progressing and needs clueful input. AFD is mentioned in an unfortunate incident. Talk page to rip it to shreds - David Gerard 13:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Dominique_McKinley was deleted back on July 14, and it just popped up again. The lack of notability hasn't changed since then -- how do I properly mark a AFD request for the second time through? Thanks. -- ArglebargleIV 20:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Seeing that several articles created by this user have been speedily deleted, I have looked through his contributions, and discovered several very short articles about defunct minor teams. (They are: Reading Indians, Albany A's, Richmond Generals, Pittsburgh Patriots, Raleigh Renegades, Hawaii Mega Force, Jacksonville Wave.) I don't know what is the correct procedure - should they be nominated for speedy deletion? Regular deletion? Or are such teams considered notable? - Mike Rosoft 10:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
The AFD for it was completed a couple of days ago but it hasn't yet been deleted. In a case like this would a speedy be allowed? -- TheSeer ( Talkˑ Contribs) 12:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I'll guess this has been covered a bajillion times so if someone can point me in the correct direction... Policy states an AfD is not a vote. But that's the format most AfD's take. If someone agrees with the nom or a previous statement and has nothing to add, they'll state "Delete/Keep per whoever" which adds nothing to the dicussion - except for a vote. Wouldn't a better structure be for noms to list where they think an article fails, and have each point answered in a separate subsection? (Insert perennial disclaimer here). Thanks. *Sparkhead 19:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
It seems like there is currently a wiki-wide effort to delete articles from wikipedia. Many of the articles I have seen tagged as AfD have useful information on it. However, once they are deleted, that information is gone for good. I agree a balance needs to be set between bredth of subject matter and quality of work. Right now, balance looks off. Most of the contributions being trashed are from new users, who are put off by the quickness in which their work is destroyed. Has wikipedia reached a limit where the servers can no longer accept new pages? What is going on? Its no surprise people feel no longer welcome to contribute. -- Alpharigel 17:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I have been participating in the discussion here concerning the deletion of Evolutionary argument against naturalism. The article at issue describes a philosophical argument. The subjects of the argument are naturalism and evolution, but the argument itself is philosophical, NOT scientific. It has been placed in the category AFD:Science and technology. Is there a more appropriate one? This is a problem because (in my opinion) the afd discussion has attracted science-oriented Wikipedians who dismiss the argument (and by extension, the article) out of hand because it is unscientific. Philosophical arguments don't have to be "scientific." I think something like "humanities" would be a much more appropriate category, but there is no such category. Please advise. Lamont A Cranston 12:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
?right place As a newcomer, I find the whole deletion process to be highly arbitrary and authoritarian, almost the complete opposite of what I had imagined wikipedia to be. One way to improve the situation would be to adopt some software from slashdot, www.slashdot.org. Slashdot has features that, in wiki language, allow random and not random users to give opnions on random pages. This would at least remove some of the highly arbitrary small numbers problems in the current deletion process, whereby a very very small number (relative to usrbase) effect the decisions. I guess the current philosophy of deletion, which i find highly offensive, goes somewheres else...can someone redirect me ? For instance, why are non notable articles candidates for deletion ? The only rationale is that wiki is in fact a paper dicitionary, with paper limits; if the search and other software features actually worked, then you would not need to worry about a gazillionn non notable aritlce clogging up the space; they would transparnetly vanish. I also don't understand why there are not obkective citereia Chelsea Charms eg, if a person has a certain number of hits on google, they are , by definition (not counting spamm/ballot stuffing/bots etc) important and the software should automatically generate a place holder aritcle stub with a plea for info.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.137.141 ( talk • contribs) 15:30, 7 October 2006
REspectfully: sure there are problems with using google hits as a auto include for notability; the discussion shouldn't, at this point, revolve around technical issues, but around the concept of automatic inclusions; to make the point, surely there should be an article on each nobel prize winner As for the idea of recreating articles - is that not precisely the sort of things that computers are supposed to alleiviate you from, tedious repetiton of manual tasks. Stepping back, I have not hear a good reason why it is better to prune and delete, then include everything and give the user prune and delte tools to choose as they wish. I recently authored an article, retrogrouch, which seems to no longer exist. Assuming it was decent article, in that it concisely and pithly summed up the subject, why should I have to re write it ?
I haven't visited AfD in a while, but the atmosphere seems to have changed a bit. There are rather a lot of inappropriate AfDs that could easily be dealt with under Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Problem_articles_where_deletion_may_not_be_needed. Is it not possible to point people to those guidelines and speedy close some of these inappropriate AfDs? Even the ones that have attracted a lot of delete votes already? Carcharoth 11:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/08/weekinreview/08word.html - David Gerard 07:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
BTW, kids - this is why public-facing levels of civility are needed on AFDs. They're not just internal communications. Doing press, I get people upset that Wikipedia has called them a "vanity author" when their article was marked as "vanity" and they had no hand in it, and asking who to sue. Explaining it's a jargon term only goes so far. (And I thought the word "vanity" was supposed to have been expunged from AFD vocabulary for this reason anyway.) If it's a jargon term, please urgently pick another jargon term that doesn't say actual disreputable things about a third party if read as being conventional English. We're #12 website in the world now, we're going to be Top 10 very soon. To be sure, almost all such living bio articles marked for deletion on AFD are just that ... but the term causes us a hell of a lot of trouble. If those who participate in living bio AFDs could please help keep such discussions at public-facing levels of civility, it would be most helpful to all - David Gerard 07:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't see the point that Noam Cohen is trying to make. Is it that we have an open process for determining if something is worthy of inclusion? To try to make us look ridiculous because we are forced to debate the inclusion of what many would consider trivial? Or, was he having a lazy day and decided to pad half his word count with GFDL content? Unfortunately, NYT Online doesn't have a comment section or I'd ask him myself. -- Malber ( talk • contribs) 19:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I like the way he started: "Somewhere in the hierarchy of personal celebrity, between the discovery that you are listed in the phone book and, say, being knighted, sits the Wikipedia entry." - hilarious! This was picked up by the Signpost as well (see here). I wonder if anyone has added it to Wikipedia:Wikipedia in the news? Carcharoth 12:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I can't even grasp why this editor thought it more adequate to move his talk page to an article :-[ I say delete or, if the title subject is notable enough, rewrite. Dracontes 13:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Had to add this one as it was PROD'ed but the author of the article removed the tag. Dracontes 13:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Yet another talk page on article. And selected for CD?!
Dracontes 13:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
This one's a doozy (I think) but I'll state it here in case the author of the article decides to remove the PROD. Again!
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Web 3.0 (10th nomination) was listed last night, but it's only that article's second nomination. I moved it to the correct title ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Web 3.0 (second nomination)), fixed the tag on the article, and updated the log entry. Should this be relisted? If the move was inappropriate, feel free to revert it. -- Core des at 11:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Some weird issues have cropped up all of a sudden at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 January 13, namely some entire talk pages appearing instead of the actual afd debate. I'd really like to get this fixed (mostly just to get the templates outta there), but I can't for the life of me figure out what's causing it. -- InShaneee 14:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
There are a great number of articles pertaining to Imperial Japanese Navy ships, and to other topics, which need to be renamed, in order to be in accordance with WP:MOS-JP policies on macrons. This is unfortunately not as easy as it sounds, because many of these ship articles have categories, templates, and ship class articles associated with them. I am an administrator, and I do believe this should qualify for speedy moves, without discussion. But I do not know how to effect that change without a bot. I have just begun using AWB, but I am not sure if I can move/rename articles with that, let alone categories or templates. Please advise. Thank you. LordAmeth 16:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I am not an expert on AfD, and I wonder if the situation at Mall sainthwar is normal: nobody has commented save about 10 of newly registered users/anons objecting to it's deletion... -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 16:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I have an image and it's too small to use in the article I was hoping to. In fact, the same image I uploaded is already in the article except bigger. I was wondering if we could delete it somehow. Could someone take care of this for me? Thank you. Oh, and does anyone think we should archive the article? Sasuk e -kun 27 20:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
AfD has made the news again. Not quite the NYT, but have a look at this from The Stanford Review. I found this in the latest Signpost (see here). One of the better points was this bit: "The language used amongst Wikipedians is intimidating and bewildering to outsiders. Words like “walled garden” and “spamvertisement” are used to degrade articles. Inexperienced users are called “SPAs” or “single purpose accounts” as an attack on the credibility of anything they write on Wikipedia." Carcharoth 22:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
"It’s unbelievable to me that a person with no connection or self-interest in an article on The Review goes to such effort to compile reasons to delete it"
Hmm. Does this irritate anyone?
Especially the "per nom" votes, which most of them did not even bother to review the case. In some other times, people simply rather choose to use a lame, ignorant statement.
AQu01rius ( User | Talk | Websites) 23:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Jeff_Rense went through an Afd in June, which passed as a keep. Not "keep (no consensus)", but rather "keep". It's now been nominated as AfD again by the same user with a subset of the previous reasons (just WP:BIO this time). At this time, nothing has been provided to show procedure was followed per WP:CCC: If you think a consensual decision is outdated, you should ask around a bit, for example at the Village Pump or on an article talk page, to see if people agree with you. You cannot declare a new consensus all by yourself. Wasting the resources in another AfD without taking proper steps seems like an abuse of process. Opinions?
Your example is about repeated nominations of a particular article. I'm more worried about general, widespread misuse of AfD to nominate articles that could be rewritten or merged. In fact, I recently came across an old arbitration case that reminded me how much the atmosphere at AfD (then VfD) can change from year to year. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/GRider and the Request for comments linked from there. Back then, VfD/AfD was different. I haven't quite worked out which way the pendulum has swung yet... Carcharoth 15:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I've moved the "before nominating" section above the "how to nominate" sections. Seems to make more sense both chronologically and logically. Hopefully more users new to the AfD process will view that section before putting forth an AfD. Any concerns with this? *Sparkhead 01:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Folks. The page Bat bathing is scheduled for the chopping block. Neologism is the reason. But I say that something existing in other cultures of which we may not be aware doesn't mean it's a neologism. See the arguments I made to keep the page and tell me if my arguments have merit. Thank you. -- LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 06:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
An editor unhappy with an AFD on an article he created has opened an RFC in the middle of an AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Opposition to Iran-Iraq War, arguing that the article was being targeted by "Wikipedians of Iranian ancestry". (IMO the article itself is unsalvageable, but the author's perception is clearly different.) A few of the commentators in the AFD seem to have a number of edits on middle-eastern topics, though I have no idea of their ancestry; I have no ancestry in that part of the world.
I have a concern about what will happen to the AFD process if RFC's are routinely opened in the middle of it. Is there a policy on this? Should RFC's be used to mediate an AFD, or should AFD be considered a separate process which shouldn't be interrupted by another process? I've posted the same question at RFC talk. Fan-1967 02:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Is it appropriate for a user to move another user's comments on an AfD discussion page to that AfD's talk page on the grounds of excessive length ( Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Good_practice)? And is an AfD page considered a "talk page" in terms of policy reference, for example things like WP:ARCHIVE and WP:REFACTOR? It's a bit confusing to a newbie since those pages have their own talk pages? -- Milo H Minderbinder 12:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Example: Someone deleted the Myg0t page. Myg0t is an association of trolls. However, the GNAA page is still up and running, and GNAA is another association of trolls. If someone want to wipe out a topic, then shouldn't pages relating to that topic be deleted? The velociraptor 02:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
The correct way to deal with this is to use an umbrella nomination. It is important that all the articles are mentioned at the start of a debate, and not introduced halfway through, or later. If a group of articles is being nominated for deletion or transwikiing (see Wikipedia:Walled garden) then an umbrella nomination is essential. You cannot delete articles on the basis of previous AfD discussions. That way lies chaos. And each article should be debated on its own merits, as sometimes articles in an umbrella nomination can be merged, rather than deleted. Carcharoth 12:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Not sure if this has been pointed out, but it looks like AfD screwed up. Just to start the ball rolling and institute a culture change, I'm trying to get all admins closing things at AfD to remember to check the page history of an article before deleting, so that drastic changes in the nature of a page are spotted, and also urging those voting at AfD to do the same. See the following for details:
Copied to closing admin, restoring admin, deletion nominator, all who voted in the AfD discussion, and the AfD talk page. Carcharoth 23:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | → | Archive 45 |
I was looking for an administrator to help me with a article deletion process, and "Requests for administrator attention" sent me here. I edited a section of an article, restoring chronological order and NPOV mostly, but also various little but necessary tweaks like a broken ref and redundacy. [1] Part of the changes is under discussion on the talk page. [2]
Someone created a new article copying the pre-edited content whole with POV and errors [3] hours later, then went and linked it from many article. [4] I was unfamiliar with the deletion process so I went and read the deletion policies. I couldn't find anything relating to this particular problem: is it OK to bypass the discussion process and simply create a content fork using old material? I'm not asking about weither this particular section deserve it's own article (I think it don't, it's just one controverstial ad campaign among many others and merely a content fork to evade debate), but rather what is appropriate for me to do in this situation (afd, proposed deletion or speedy?) and what arguments I'm supposed to make since they don't mention content forks. I can't go and edit the new article either, since it's the basicly the same content as in the main article and still under discussion on the talk page. I'll just be accused of silencing criticism anyway (again). Any help is appreciated. Jean-Philippe 23:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Would it be reasonable to move closed AFDs to a seperate page, and replace them with a one line summary & link? The sheer size of the daily log and the time it takes to load is hard to work with; seperating the ones that are no longer open for discussion seems like the simplest way to shrink this. - Steve Sanbeg 16:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
To endorse Sam's position, we used to have that step as part of the archiving procedure. It was never properly followed. We lost a lot of deletion discussions that were never properly archived. We got into countless arguments over renominations - arguments which we have been able to quickly solve since we changed to this archiving procedure.
What you can do instead is to create a .css subpage which will automatically hide all the closed discussions from your view while leaving it visible for people like Sam who still need it. Instructions follow. Rossami (talk) 19:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure we all know how burdensome the the process is. I just wanted to know if it was reasonable to make the page a bit smaller, so we wouldn't have to wait so long for it to render each time, since this makes it more tedious to participate in the discussion.
If admins don't want to do it (and of course, why would they) couldn't a bot just summarize the closed AFDs, and leave a link to the full discussion?
It looks like Rossami's css doesn't quite do what I wanted, but seems to speed rendering up enough that I'd do something like that anyway. But a few small changes to a few templates would probably make it feasible to keep a summary and block the discussion. - Steve Sanbeg 20:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
<incl<includeonly>u</includeonly>deonly></incl<includeonly>u</includeonly>deonly>
; might be a place to start. --
nae'
blis
15:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
div.vfd dl{display:none} div.vfd ul{display:none}
Which seems to kill most of the discussion, while still listing the the result, and leaving a lik to at least the wikitext discussion. Using a bot to move/delete the discussion would be a nice way to make things simpler for people to participate without css hacking, though. - Steve Sanbeg 14:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks to the Voodoo from Nae'blis, I have a working version of the afd templates that compact the closed discussions down to title and result, without the need for a new page and let you see the full discussion by clicking on a link.
See: User:Yomangani/Sandbox/AFDtestlog1 for an example.
It doesn't require any more work from admins as far as I can see: although the reason for deletion is a parameter to the template, it defaults to delete (as most AFDs are deleted I believe) and automatically signs it for you, so in theory it should be less work. It's not the most attractive template code in the world, but does anybody care about that? Yomangani talk 16:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
The templates are here: User:Yomangani/Sandbox/AFDtop and User:Yomangani/Sandbox/AFDbottom. I tried to think of a way round the parameter thing, but the reason for deletion is above the closing of the top template now (to allow the discussion to be enclosed in noinclude tags) rather than after it as it is in the current template. I can't see anyway of solving it without adding a third template {{ afd middle}} which would be more work. See if you can see any solution in the templates. Yomangani talk 19:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Is the entire aim of this to hide closed discussions so that the ones that are still open are easier to locate on per-day pages? We already have a mechanism for that. Being able to read prior discussion pages in their entirety without any extra hoops to jump through is useful, especially when articles are discussed again, as they sometimes are. (There have been several in the past few days alone.) Please don't prevent that. The discussion is just as important as the decision by the closing administrator. If your problem is with scanning through old per-day pages, please use the existing solutions for that. Uncle G 17:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
.afdlog * div.vfd, .afdlog * div.vfd ul{display:none};
There's a better solution down at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#A_bot_to_seperate_closed_discussions. Yomangani talk 20:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Anyone think it would be a good idea for header on each AfD to say something like:
Created: 10:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC); Current date: 18:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Similar to how an RfC header is, so that people can immediately see how much longer to go (barring early closure, of course). rootology ( T) 19:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
So, I notice that those "vote" icons might be making a comeback. If so, let's all try to do the sensible thing and hack them down mercilessly before the rot spreads in and Winamp gets stuck on Britney Spears for an hour, okay? fuddlemark ( befuddle me!) 12:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
It's funny that there are almost adjacent threads on how people can make the discusison render faster, and this one on how people can make it render slower. I'd absolutely agree with removing icons from the discussions. - Steve Sanbeg 19:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
image:pastelbox.gif - (image text-link by HighInBC see history [5] for reason)
Is there anything like a policy statement or guideline on this? I notice WikiCats has just added a section, top of this page, pointing to vote icons for use in these discussions. Mike Christie (talk) 02:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I've been following the discussion on the voodoo and seperate closed discussions thread. I'm wondering if a bot should handle this work instead. Thus alleviating anyone having to do it. I have someone willing to make the bot, and I'm willing to run it. If I can get a consensus here, I'll post it to WP:BRFA. Any thoughts? SynergeticMaggot 18:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I confirm that SynergeticMaggot has been in contact with me. I will set forth the proposed paremeters for the bot in a few hours from this post. —— Eagle ( ask me for help) 22:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Whoa there, steady on fellows... perhaps we should engage a slightly wider audience first? - brenneman {L} 06:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
There was discussion on the other thread about the possibility of doing it with a bot before the template voodoo came about. Considering how frequenty AFDs get speedied on the day they're submitted, I'd think the bot would need to run fairly frequently, at least on the current day; maybe every hour or so. For previous days, maybe not so much. Although I do like the instant gratification affect of the templates, I'm not too worried about how it's done; if a bot did the updated frequently enough, that would be cool. - Steve Sanbeg 13:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
An AfD I started recently was vandalised to look closed when it really wasn't. Don't know how often that happens, but it seems like this bot would prevent admins catching things like that. -- Jamoche 07:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
All of the discussions on the afd log page aren't transcluded properly for some reason. As far as I can tell, it's just because the page is too large, since removing random entries would cause the rest of them to format correctly. The problem seems to have started somewhere between
these edits (when the amount of discussions on the page took a dive, even though the page itself didn't change). It probably doesn't belong here, so if you know of a better place to post this, pass it along, thanks. -
Bobet
12:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone recall if this article ever went through an AfD, perhaps under a different name? It was deleted April 14 as speedy non-notable and recreated May 26 this year. It was tagged today as a speedy but this time as reposted AfD article. I can't find the AfD and it appears to me there is some claim of notabilty that I believe stops it being a speedy. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
This article was first posted for AfD on the 4th of August, it was then relisted on the 11th. Shouldn't it be closed by now? -- JRA WestyQld2 09:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry if this has been suggested/discussed before, but I'd like to suggest that a link to the appropriate log/day page appear on each individual AfD. The log pages transclude the AfDs themselves, so when you've edited an AfD to record your comment, the link at the top is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, from which you have to scoot down to the day links at the bottom. Am I missing some obvious navigation back to the log pages here? If not, it would be nice to have those AfD articles have a link back to the log page, so that for example on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Banjo Story (2nd nomination) there would be a link that leads to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 August 20. If it could lead back to the #section title, that would be even better; that would drop you right back in to the list where you were before you edited. Hope this makes sense. I don't yet understand templates well enough to go and experiment in my sandbox on this, but it seems to me that a change to afd2 is what would be needed. Mike Christie (talk) 00:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps am overlooking it, but I am suggesting that we create and make available a notice template for inclusion in the talk page(s) of related article(s) to one being suggested for deletion and to make this part of the steps suggested. This is useful in AfD for sub-articles, when a large number of editors might want to be informed of an AfD, and easier than informing each one. However I do not mean it to be a substitute to notifying the page creator in his/her talk page.
Something like this:
Comments?-- Cerejota 09:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
What's everybody's opinion on having an automated process for voting on AfD? Seems to me to violate the "discussion" purpose of AfDs. User:Zoe| (talk) 02:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I was randomly meandering around today and ran across a redirect that pointed to an article that was deleted via AFD ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of pejorative political puns2). Is it SOP to leave redirects after a successful AFD requiring the redirects to go through RFD or should these have been deleted? -- Bobblehead 21:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Can I suggest that step one of the process is tweaked in the following way to help make the edit summaries more helpful?
Also, step two could be improved with the following changes:
(1):
(2):
Overall, standards of edit summaries should be high here, to allow people to trace the history of such discussions and see more easily what is happening when viewing edit summaries either in a page history, or in a User contributions list. Carcharoth 12:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Erm, why? — Werdna talk criticism 09:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Is there really a point of having Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/old and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old? The first is the one that is rarely up to date and gets included in the main afd page, the second is the bot-updated one at WP:AFD/OLD. Wouldn't it be better just to get rid of /old altogether and include /Old on the main page with the irrelevant parts tagged with noinclude? - Bobet 13:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
hey guys, the article Cuddle puddle was marked for deletion, but i don't see anything wrong with it- anyone think it should be deleted? 71.136.78.103 19:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
how do you propose that a specific section of an article be deleted?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Shawn88 ( talk • contribs) (20:16, August 28, 2006
If this comment is in the wrong place, I would greatly appreciate direction to where such changes are discussed.
Am I alone in my dislike for the changes being made to the AfD nomination process? I was already not very fond of the new strong suggestion about putting the AfD discussion link into the AFD1 and the article title link into the AFD2 edit summary. Now we have a requirement that involves clicking an external link and looking down an ill-conceived table for a category. The most offputting thing to me is that I can't seem to locate an edit history for the template that gets inserted into this page describing all of this to see if there is some decent reason for the changes other than making nominations more difficult. Erechtheus 02:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
User:BrowardPlaya nominated Windows Neptune for deletion [6]... but the user used an old vfd substed - so it went to the old votes for deletion page.
On the deletion page it said [7]:
I just reverted since it is probably a speedy keep anyway... the question is how should this be filed? As-is or take the trouble to move it to the proper AFD page, closing templates etc.? RN 21:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I give. What does {{ cent}} have to do with "Articles for deletion" and all of its logs? Rfrisbie talk 02:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm trying to delete spam articles from some of the smaller Wikipedias, and I can't figure out how to do it. I insert the <<subst:afd1>> tag (according to the English instructions), but all that happens is that the tag is shown as the content of the article. I also can't figure out how to contact the administrators for those languages. For example, I am trying to delete an inappropriate article from the lu.wikipedia, and so far I haven't found any way to do it. Malangali 18:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Hey, I believe this article was deleted inadvertantly during a group of deletions in the commemorative coin department. User:Taurus876 created a few coin articles with copied text or no text and those have been deleted, but I think the Oregon Trail Memorial half dollar got marked and deleted along with them when it shouldn't have. I've checked the logs back to Aug. 25, with no luck. I'm not sure when all this occured. Here's a Google cache. If this page can be restored, great. Jo e I 20:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
The article Virtual record (or "virtual album") has been created. The article claims to define an album that is only available as a download (such as itunes exclusive albums) as a "Virtual album" and cites Tim Armstrong's album as the coining of the phrase. The thing is that the article is created and maintained by the guy who also created the article for Tim Armstrong's CD; so I asked the person if there was any actual citable source that uses the term virtual record besides Tim Armstrong's. He didn't reply. I posted the same question in the article's talk page, and I'm waiting to see if anyone replies there. In the meantime, assuming this is what it seems to me to be - an article that is attempting to actually spread the use of this term virtual album as a real used term (which I've never heard in any capacity as official), what should be done. Should the article just be deleted or what? I don't think the list itself is necessarily "Crap" but the actual intro and title "virtual album" seems baseless. The same person is going about changing entries for albums to make them read as "virtual albums" and I don't think that a term that I (am pretty sure) no one knows should be being put in the header when the basic definition of the term is usually right after that term (that the album is only available online). I don't know what makes a virtual album that special either. Albums used to be on vinyl, and 8track and cassettes. Download is just a new medium. It's still just an "album". It's not a special album. Thanks for any advice anyone has. TheHYPO 01:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
With the AfD categories in place, and testing my bot, I noticed some interesting query.php output; it seems that several AfDs are getting lost. I've compiled a list of AfDs unclosed for over a week according to the category at User:Ais523/UnclosedAfDs (this is basically the table the bot searches to find closed AfDs to decat), but many of them still seem to be unclosed, including some from September 2. The oldest (first on the list) obviously got lost because it wasn't transcluded to the logs, but many of them have been; this looks like it could be developing into a problem. Any thoughts? -- ais523 12:05, 12 September 2006 ( U T C)
Join us at deletion review's talk page for a discussion about moving DRV to a consensus-driven model. -- badlydrawnjeff talk 15:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Officially it never LEFT the consensus model. All you need to do is enforce it. Kim Bruning 15:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
This page was deleted *and* protected against recreation. (A rather drastic last measure). The actual Article for Deletion page lists it as kept. Could an admin please fix this discrepancy?
Crossposted message. Please discuss at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#Informing the creators is being ignored. Whispering( talk/ c) 16:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Can a bad faith AFD be considered vandalism? A series of ip addresses have been putting the AFD tag to General Electric for the past couple of days. Should they be just be warned with the regular vandalism templates? -- Lost (talk) 07:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Until yesterday there was a series of helpful templates for each step of listing an article. Apart from bundling nominations they seem to have gone. Can they be reinstated, please? BlueValour 23:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Is there any general AfD template for notifying a user when someone else nominated the article? For example {{AFDWarning|somerandomarticle}} produces this:
==AfD Nomination: [[somerandomarticle]]== I've nominated the article somerandomarticle for deletion under the Articles for deletion process. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that somerandomarticle satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. I have explained why in the nomination space (see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/somerandomarticle. Don't forget to add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of each of your comments to sign them. You are free to edit the content of somerandomarticle during the discussion, but please do not remove the "Articles for Deletion" template (the box at the top). Doing so will not end the discussion.
Notice how it says "I've nominated blahblah for deletion" but I'm thinking more along the lines of "(Insert user here) has nominated such-and-such for deletion" you know in case the nominator forgot or something. -- WikiSlasher 15:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
There is an article on the future 2012 Olympics which has a large section on the bidding process. There is also a main article on the bidding process that led to London being selected.
Is it realy necessary to keep either of them, let alone both? The event was quite interesting at the time, but no-one realy takes an interest in it now its over. -- The Spith 18:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Sometimes I see articles nominated for deletion that should in fact be tidied up and improved and have sources added. Some articles are a mess of Original Research, lack of sources, etc, but clearly there is scope for some sort of article on the subject. In these cases, is it proper to nominate for deletion? I would have thought that a better options is PRUNING. ie. reduce the article to a stub by vicious pruning, and then step back and watch it grow again, hopefully in the right way this time. The horticultural analogy works quite well. When you prune a plant, you often encourage new growth. So is it possible to encourage those nominating for deletion to try pruning instead? The example in question here is this one. Carcharoth 10:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is the correct place to raise this, but it would be helpful if the reason for deletion gave a few words of detail about the nature of the article, where this isn't obvious from the title. This would allow casual browsers of the AfD pages to pick out those debates that they are likely to be able to contribute meaningfully towards, without always having to click through to the article page. This is a particular problem with biographies, where the article name often gives no clue as to whether it's about, say, a wrestler or a woman's studies academic.
I'm aware that there's already a considerable burden on submitters, but this would only take a few extra seconds for the submitter and would save time for all the hundreds of AfD browsers. It would also make it less likely that controversial items get missed in a host of less controversial ones. Espresso Addict 01:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I am cleaning external links from the Special:Linksearch log, and there are several found in closed AFDs that are not necessary. In example, there are around 25 links to Digg which are not necessary in closed discussions. What would people say if the discussions are edited to remove the external links (by either deleting the http:// or using nowiki tags)? This is expansible to every other url, too.
It is not _that_ important, I can always write a utility to filter AFDs and User namespace links, but I believe they could be unlinked without many objections. -- ReyBrujo 04:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
~~~~~
. If you need to review this discussion, please restore it from history." This will still make it possible for others to find and review the discussion when they need it and will fully disclose that you changed the page. You should also provide a self-referential link to the discussion page since AFD debates are transcluded onto other pages and it can often be a bit tricky to find the source page. I think this discussion might be getting out of hand. It appears some users would like to misuse AFD to create a binding decision in a content dispute (too merge or keep as a separate article). Perhaps they could use a good talking-to. — CharlotteWebb 00:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Hmm... Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Lee Rose. — CharlotteWebb 19:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
A series of articles have been nominated for deletion, all because of an issue involving a music publisher publishing articles about composers on their roster. There is an RfA currently underway here : Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#User:Jean-Thierry_Boisseau_.28formerly_User:Musikfabrik.29.2C_et_al..
As one of the principals involved here, I have no problems with any of these articles being considered for deletion. However, on this AfD listing, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jean-Yves_Malmasson three individuals are listed including one Jean-Marie Londeix who has absolutely no connection at all with our company, other than being a slight acquaintance of one of the owners, who was only listed because our "company" account made a slight edit on this article (changing "Jean-Marie Londeix" to "Londeix, Jean-Marie" in the category section.
Cats, meet pigeon. User:David Gerard/Process essay is progressing and needs clueful input. AFD is mentioned in an unfortunate incident. Talk page to rip it to shreds - David Gerard 13:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Dominique_McKinley was deleted back on July 14, and it just popped up again. The lack of notability hasn't changed since then -- how do I properly mark a AFD request for the second time through? Thanks. -- ArglebargleIV 20:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Seeing that several articles created by this user have been speedily deleted, I have looked through his contributions, and discovered several very short articles about defunct minor teams. (They are: Reading Indians, Albany A's, Richmond Generals, Pittsburgh Patriots, Raleigh Renegades, Hawaii Mega Force, Jacksonville Wave.) I don't know what is the correct procedure - should they be nominated for speedy deletion? Regular deletion? Or are such teams considered notable? - Mike Rosoft 10:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
The AFD for it was completed a couple of days ago but it hasn't yet been deleted. In a case like this would a speedy be allowed? -- TheSeer ( Talkˑ Contribs) 12:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I'll guess this has been covered a bajillion times so if someone can point me in the correct direction... Policy states an AfD is not a vote. But that's the format most AfD's take. If someone agrees with the nom or a previous statement and has nothing to add, they'll state "Delete/Keep per whoever" which adds nothing to the dicussion - except for a vote. Wouldn't a better structure be for noms to list where they think an article fails, and have each point answered in a separate subsection? (Insert perennial disclaimer here). Thanks. *Sparkhead 19:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
It seems like there is currently a wiki-wide effort to delete articles from wikipedia. Many of the articles I have seen tagged as AfD have useful information on it. However, once they are deleted, that information is gone for good. I agree a balance needs to be set between bredth of subject matter and quality of work. Right now, balance looks off. Most of the contributions being trashed are from new users, who are put off by the quickness in which their work is destroyed. Has wikipedia reached a limit where the servers can no longer accept new pages? What is going on? Its no surprise people feel no longer welcome to contribute. -- Alpharigel 17:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I have been participating in the discussion here concerning the deletion of Evolutionary argument against naturalism. The article at issue describes a philosophical argument. The subjects of the argument are naturalism and evolution, but the argument itself is philosophical, NOT scientific. It has been placed in the category AFD:Science and technology. Is there a more appropriate one? This is a problem because (in my opinion) the afd discussion has attracted science-oriented Wikipedians who dismiss the argument (and by extension, the article) out of hand because it is unscientific. Philosophical arguments don't have to be "scientific." I think something like "humanities" would be a much more appropriate category, but there is no such category. Please advise. Lamont A Cranston 12:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
?right place As a newcomer, I find the whole deletion process to be highly arbitrary and authoritarian, almost the complete opposite of what I had imagined wikipedia to be. One way to improve the situation would be to adopt some software from slashdot, www.slashdot.org. Slashdot has features that, in wiki language, allow random and not random users to give opnions on random pages. This would at least remove some of the highly arbitrary small numbers problems in the current deletion process, whereby a very very small number (relative to usrbase) effect the decisions. I guess the current philosophy of deletion, which i find highly offensive, goes somewheres else...can someone redirect me ? For instance, why are non notable articles candidates for deletion ? The only rationale is that wiki is in fact a paper dicitionary, with paper limits; if the search and other software features actually worked, then you would not need to worry about a gazillionn non notable aritlce clogging up the space; they would transparnetly vanish. I also don't understand why there are not obkective citereia Chelsea Charms eg, if a person has a certain number of hits on google, they are , by definition (not counting spamm/ballot stuffing/bots etc) important and the software should automatically generate a place holder aritcle stub with a plea for info.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.137.141 ( talk • contribs) 15:30, 7 October 2006
REspectfully: sure there are problems with using google hits as a auto include for notability; the discussion shouldn't, at this point, revolve around technical issues, but around the concept of automatic inclusions; to make the point, surely there should be an article on each nobel prize winner As for the idea of recreating articles - is that not precisely the sort of things that computers are supposed to alleiviate you from, tedious repetiton of manual tasks. Stepping back, I have not hear a good reason why it is better to prune and delete, then include everything and give the user prune and delte tools to choose as they wish. I recently authored an article, retrogrouch, which seems to no longer exist. Assuming it was decent article, in that it concisely and pithly summed up the subject, why should I have to re write it ?
I haven't visited AfD in a while, but the atmosphere seems to have changed a bit. There are rather a lot of inappropriate AfDs that could easily be dealt with under Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Problem_articles_where_deletion_may_not_be_needed. Is it not possible to point people to those guidelines and speedy close some of these inappropriate AfDs? Even the ones that have attracted a lot of delete votes already? Carcharoth 11:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/08/weekinreview/08word.html - David Gerard 07:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
BTW, kids - this is why public-facing levels of civility are needed on AFDs. They're not just internal communications. Doing press, I get people upset that Wikipedia has called them a "vanity author" when their article was marked as "vanity" and they had no hand in it, and asking who to sue. Explaining it's a jargon term only goes so far. (And I thought the word "vanity" was supposed to have been expunged from AFD vocabulary for this reason anyway.) If it's a jargon term, please urgently pick another jargon term that doesn't say actual disreputable things about a third party if read as being conventional English. We're #12 website in the world now, we're going to be Top 10 very soon. To be sure, almost all such living bio articles marked for deletion on AFD are just that ... but the term causes us a hell of a lot of trouble. If those who participate in living bio AFDs could please help keep such discussions at public-facing levels of civility, it would be most helpful to all - David Gerard 07:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't see the point that Noam Cohen is trying to make. Is it that we have an open process for determining if something is worthy of inclusion? To try to make us look ridiculous because we are forced to debate the inclusion of what many would consider trivial? Or, was he having a lazy day and decided to pad half his word count with GFDL content? Unfortunately, NYT Online doesn't have a comment section or I'd ask him myself. -- Malber ( talk • contribs) 19:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I like the way he started: "Somewhere in the hierarchy of personal celebrity, between the discovery that you are listed in the phone book and, say, being knighted, sits the Wikipedia entry." - hilarious! This was picked up by the Signpost as well (see here). I wonder if anyone has added it to Wikipedia:Wikipedia in the news? Carcharoth 12:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I can't even grasp why this editor thought it more adequate to move his talk page to an article :-[ I say delete or, if the title subject is notable enough, rewrite. Dracontes 13:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Had to add this one as it was PROD'ed but the author of the article removed the tag. Dracontes 13:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Yet another talk page on article. And selected for CD?!
Dracontes 13:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
This one's a doozy (I think) but I'll state it here in case the author of the article decides to remove the PROD. Again!
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Web 3.0 (10th nomination) was listed last night, but it's only that article's second nomination. I moved it to the correct title ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Web 3.0 (second nomination)), fixed the tag on the article, and updated the log entry. Should this be relisted? If the move was inappropriate, feel free to revert it. -- Core des at 11:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Some weird issues have cropped up all of a sudden at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 January 13, namely some entire talk pages appearing instead of the actual afd debate. I'd really like to get this fixed (mostly just to get the templates outta there), but I can't for the life of me figure out what's causing it. -- InShaneee 14:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
There are a great number of articles pertaining to Imperial Japanese Navy ships, and to other topics, which need to be renamed, in order to be in accordance with WP:MOS-JP policies on macrons. This is unfortunately not as easy as it sounds, because many of these ship articles have categories, templates, and ship class articles associated with them. I am an administrator, and I do believe this should qualify for speedy moves, without discussion. But I do not know how to effect that change without a bot. I have just begun using AWB, but I am not sure if I can move/rename articles with that, let alone categories or templates. Please advise. Thank you. LordAmeth 16:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I am not an expert on AfD, and I wonder if the situation at Mall sainthwar is normal: nobody has commented save about 10 of newly registered users/anons objecting to it's deletion... -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 16:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I have an image and it's too small to use in the article I was hoping to. In fact, the same image I uploaded is already in the article except bigger. I was wondering if we could delete it somehow. Could someone take care of this for me? Thank you. Oh, and does anyone think we should archive the article? Sasuk e -kun 27 20:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
AfD has made the news again. Not quite the NYT, but have a look at this from The Stanford Review. I found this in the latest Signpost (see here). One of the better points was this bit: "The language used amongst Wikipedians is intimidating and bewildering to outsiders. Words like “walled garden” and “spamvertisement” are used to degrade articles. Inexperienced users are called “SPAs” or “single purpose accounts” as an attack on the credibility of anything they write on Wikipedia." Carcharoth 22:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
"It’s unbelievable to me that a person with no connection or self-interest in an article on The Review goes to such effort to compile reasons to delete it"
Hmm. Does this irritate anyone?
Especially the "per nom" votes, which most of them did not even bother to review the case. In some other times, people simply rather choose to use a lame, ignorant statement.
AQu01rius ( User | Talk | Websites) 23:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Jeff_Rense went through an Afd in June, which passed as a keep. Not "keep (no consensus)", but rather "keep". It's now been nominated as AfD again by the same user with a subset of the previous reasons (just WP:BIO this time). At this time, nothing has been provided to show procedure was followed per WP:CCC: If you think a consensual decision is outdated, you should ask around a bit, for example at the Village Pump or on an article talk page, to see if people agree with you. You cannot declare a new consensus all by yourself. Wasting the resources in another AfD without taking proper steps seems like an abuse of process. Opinions?
Your example is about repeated nominations of a particular article. I'm more worried about general, widespread misuse of AfD to nominate articles that could be rewritten or merged. In fact, I recently came across an old arbitration case that reminded me how much the atmosphere at AfD (then VfD) can change from year to year. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/GRider and the Request for comments linked from there. Back then, VfD/AfD was different. I haven't quite worked out which way the pendulum has swung yet... Carcharoth 15:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I've moved the "before nominating" section above the "how to nominate" sections. Seems to make more sense both chronologically and logically. Hopefully more users new to the AfD process will view that section before putting forth an AfD. Any concerns with this? *Sparkhead 01:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Folks. The page Bat bathing is scheduled for the chopping block. Neologism is the reason. But I say that something existing in other cultures of which we may not be aware doesn't mean it's a neologism. See the arguments I made to keep the page and tell me if my arguments have merit. Thank you. -- LegitimateAndEvenCompelling 06:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
An editor unhappy with an AFD on an article he created has opened an RFC in the middle of an AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Opposition to Iran-Iraq War, arguing that the article was being targeted by "Wikipedians of Iranian ancestry". (IMO the article itself is unsalvageable, but the author's perception is clearly different.) A few of the commentators in the AFD seem to have a number of edits on middle-eastern topics, though I have no idea of their ancestry; I have no ancestry in that part of the world.
I have a concern about what will happen to the AFD process if RFC's are routinely opened in the middle of it. Is there a policy on this? Should RFC's be used to mediate an AFD, or should AFD be considered a separate process which shouldn't be interrupted by another process? I've posted the same question at RFC talk. Fan-1967 02:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Is it appropriate for a user to move another user's comments on an AfD discussion page to that AfD's talk page on the grounds of excessive length ( Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Good_practice)? And is an AfD page considered a "talk page" in terms of policy reference, for example things like WP:ARCHIVE and WP:REFACTOR? It's a bit confusing to a newbie since those pages have their own talk pages? -- Milo H Minderbinder 12:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Example: Someone deleted the Myg0t page. Myg0t is an association of trolls. However, the GNAA page is still up and running, and GNAA is another association of trolls. If someone want to wipe out a topic, then shouldn't pages relating to that topic be deleted? The velociraptor 02:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
The correct way to deal with this is to use an umbrella nomination. It is important that all the articles are mentioned at the start of a debate, and not introduced halfway through, or later. If a group of articles is being nominated for deletion or transwikiing (see Wikipedia:Walled garden) then an umbrella nomination is essential. You cannot delete articles on the basis of previous AfD discussions. That way lies chaos. And each article should be debated on its own merits, as sometimes articles in an umbrella nomination can be merged, rather than deleted. Carcharoth 12:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Not sure if this has been pointed out, but it looks like AfD screwed up. Just to start the ball rolling and institute a culture change, I'm trying to get all admins closing things at AfD to remember to check the page history of an article before deleting, so that drastic changes in the nature of a page are spotted, and also urging those voting at AfD to do the same. See the following for details:
Copied to closing admin, restoring admin, deletion nominator, all who voted in the AfD discussion, and the AfD talk page. Carcharoth 23:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)