![]() | 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 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | Archive 41 | → | Archive 45 |
{{ editprotected}} Text similar to that at Wikipedia:Blp#Sticky_prod should be inserted as section 3.4 after standard prod. I don't think full protection is necessary any longer either, as WP:BLP isn't protected and the change hasn't been challenged there. I believe that text similar to what is in WP:BLP enjoys consensus at this point. Gigs ( talk) 15:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Actually, sorry, I just noticed I was editing it on this issue before it got protected, which I'd forgotten, so ideally someone else should do it. The text I was going to add was:
As of April 3, 2010, a new sticky prod process was established, requiring all BLPs created after March 18, 2010 to have at least one reliable source that supports at least one statement about the subject, or it can be proposed for deletion. The prod tag may not be removed until such a source is provided, and if none is forthcoming the article may be deleted after a certain number of days. This does not affect any other deletion process.
SlimVirgin talk contribs 01:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I added a discussion at VP to get consensus on additional CSD methods. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Additional_CSD_criteria to join in. Thank you. — Timneu22 · talk 20:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Imagine a relatively new editor, trying to understand the rules regarding the deletion of pages and other elements of Wikipedia. The editor will no doubt easily find the overall deletion policy, and the various XFD pages:
The editor will note some sort of structure to these pages. It appears that these pages were constructed such that each XFD page lists the specific options available for the type of item, and the overall deletion policy covers all options, along with a complete explanation of the option.
In summary form, we have a deletion policy listing and describing all options (A,B,C,....) and individual XFD pages listing the applicable options to X.
However, if you read the articles with this structure in mind, a number of questions may emerge. Most of the readers of this discussion have enough experience to answer all of these questions, but view this through the eyes of a new editor, trying to understand the overall deletion policy:
As an aside, I plan to propose guidelines covering when we userfy and incubate articles, but first, I think we should discuss a technical cleanup of the various policies first. While I am sure the veteran editors have no difficulty understanding our overall deletion policy, new editors face a small challenge when first encountering the policies. I'm not proposing any change in policy, simply editorial changes to the various pages to use consistent terms in all places.
The first question is whether it is worth the effort to copy-edit the various XFD and Deletion Policy pages. if it is, we can put together draft versions and debate the wording.
The following table is a quick summary,identifying which option is mentioned in which article.
Option | AFD | MFD | TFD | FFD | RFD | CFD | SFD | Deletion Policy |
Delete | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X |
Keep | X | X | X | X3 | ||||
Merge | X1 | X | X4 | X1 | ||||
Redirect | X1 | X1 | ||||||
Transwiki | X2 | |||||||
Rename/Move | X | X | X | |||||
Userfy | X | |||||||
Edit | X5 | X | ||||||
Discussion | X | |||||||
Incubation | X | |||||||
Other Projects | X2 | |||||||
Archiving | X |
1 Identified as a single option "merged or redirected" in AFD, but as two distinct options in Deletion Policy
2 Called Transwiki in AFD, "other projects" in Deletion Policy
3 Called "not deleting" in RFD
4 Included in the body of the article, but not the introduction
5 Called "Change Scope" in body of article
Note that the goal is not to ensure that there is an X is every cell, as some options should not apply to some XFD. My goal is to:
My hope is that we can have discussion to see if there's consensus to work on this, and then work on drafts for the intro to each XFD and a revised draft Deletion policy.-- SPhilbrick T 16:05, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Is it appropriate to delete an article due to a large number of errors? If so, what is the relevant threshold? What is the appropriate procedure? What should an SME do when he believes that an article has too many errors to be salvagable? Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz ( talk) 21:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I was accidentally looking at Special:NewPages, and clicking on one of the most recent articles, I noticed it had been nominated for a speedy deletion within two minutes of its creation. Since the user was new, and I was unsure whether the article could be salvaged or not (probably not, but I'd like to check sources first), I removed the db-spam tag, but it was added back. I removed it again, and it was added again. And again. Is this ok? Isn't there some rule about CSD being only for uncontroversial — with no objection — articles? Moreover, isn't there some guideline about not tagging articles for deletion within seconds of their creation, on grounds of WP:BITE or something? Shreevatsa ( talk) 08:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Here is a concern I would like to bring up:
The way things are now, anyone can propose any article for deletion at any time, even if the creator is on vacation and has no access to the internet. When this happens, the creator of an article may not be able to have any input in the discussion.
What I propose is as follows: A registered user who is known to create and edit articles in good faith and is generally aware of policies and guidelines can place the template {{ wikibreak}} on his/her user page or talk page, stating the exact dates s/he will be away. If anyone tries to propose an article s/he created for deletion during that time (by placing the prod or afd template on the page), a notice will appear when saving the changes alerting the nom that the creator is on Wikibreak, and to consider waiting before making the proposal.
There would be no actual requirement to wait on the nomination. It would only be a courtesy for the nom to wait, so the article gets a fair hearing.
As long as there is no gross violation of policy, there should be no reason to rush to have an article deleted. Sebwite ( talk) 00:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi all,
There is (and has been) some discussion at WP:Band regarding notability. Basically there was a discussion as to whether individual band members should or shouldn't have their own Wikipedia page. What seemed like some fairly good ideas in the talk pages resulted in what seems to be a rather draconian rule "members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band".
Personally I considered the arguments in the talk pages that suggested that a good long biography of an individual might be useful to readers and researchers, and might not necessarily be appropriate in the middle of a band article itself, to be a good argument in favor of at least some individual band member biographies.
However, whether or not you agree that their should be more leeway in the wording of this rule, the end result is that band member pages are being deleted out of hand and redirected to the band page itself, no questions asked.
The question I have is, should this type of redirect (that immediately deletes the biographical page in question) require any sort of notification or discussion prior to the immediate deletion/redirection?
Thanks,
Scratchsamples ( talk) 18:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 July 12#Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages. – xeno talk 20:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
An administrator just told me, if I understand correctly, that if an article is deleted, all material and edits must be destroyed. None of it can be used in any other article. For example, if an article about India's bid to be on the Security Council of the UN is deleted, there must be NO mention of it in any other article. This seems strange and wrong to me.
This appeared on BlackKite's page...
I see you commented about the AFD on Moses. One possible problem is that there is not clear instructions about the aftermath of AFDs. Is it "all edits must be destroyed, censored, and never appear again"? No. Is it "some material must be destroyed, censored, and never appear again"? No. It is "the material contained does not qualify for a separate article".
......
Suomi Finland 2009 ( talk) 16:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
END OF EXCERPT
Is this true? If so, the deletion policy should be modified. Suomi Finland 2009 ( talk) 17:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
I would like to flag the following page for deletion as it does not meet notability standards: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodrigo_Lopresti But I do not know how to flag for deletion.
Thank you. Slyforeman ( talk) 20:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Please note: This thread was initially posted on WP: AN and subsequently moved here. Stonemason89 ( talk) 04:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I would like to propose a change to XFD policy, which would apply across all namespaces.
Simply, if a piece of content (article, redirect, image, etc.) survives a deletion discussion, the user who nominated it before cannot nominate it again, ever (no statute of limitations). That doesn't mean it can't be nominated for deletion a second time; it just can't be nominated again by the same person who nominated it before. The purpose of this proposed policy is to prevent users from POINTILY attempting to get content they don't like deleted by nominating it again and again.
Failure to follow this policy will lead to warnings (if the user was not warned previously) or blocks (if the user has been warned before about breaking this rule).
The inspiration for this proposed rule is this discussion; a user has recently re-submitted a case to AFD even though the redirect survived a previous AFD that was also initiated by him. This same user has been found guilty of edit-warring on this and similar topics in the past. I think there should be a way of preventing things like this from happening again. Please note that this policy will not apply retroactively (so Tallicfan20 will not be disciplined no matter what happens).
Supports and opposes can go below. If you feel that the proposal should be modified (for example, if you feel there should be a statute of limitations), you can express that viewpoint too. Stonemason89 ( talk) 03:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
The below line marks the end of the discussion that started on WP:AN.
I would suggest that if an AFD is a no-consensus, there should be no plausible resaon why that article should not be re-listed by the same person, but if it is a Keep, then perhaps you have a point.--
Jojhutton (
talk)
04:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I can agree with this for Keep outcomes. It makes a certain amount of sense. Silver seren C 04:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I think multiple nominations of the same article (not necessarily by the same person) can indeed be a problem, if only because the article has to be defaced by a "This article has been proposed for deletion" template for so many days (I think in some cases this is what motivates the proposer - if you can't get rid of it, then at least make it look bad). Of course, there's also the wasted time discussing the same thing over and over again, as with all perennial proposals. I suggest, as an alternative proposal, that before nominating an article for deletion for a second or subsequent time, you should first have to get a consensus at (something analogous to) deletion review that the previous result was dodgy, and only then be allowed to template the article and start a new AfD process.-- Kotniski ( talk) 09:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I recently came across a block of copyrighted text in an apparently otherwise fine article and per this policy, I've been substing the copyvio template to blank the entire page. I've been doing this for years, and noone has implied that I was doing something wrong. The policy says: "For blatant, whole-page copyright violation, you can simply tag it for speedy deletion...". Since the whole page isn't a violation, I ignored that line. The previous line says: "For other pages, edit the page to replace its entire content with { {subst:copyvio|url=address of copied material} }." Since that line does not mention "whole page" I figured that was the step to follow for partial violations. If in fact, the substing of the copyvio template should not be done for partial copyright violations, I suggest the wording of the 2nd line I quoted be changed to reflect that.-- Rockfang ( talk) 17:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
It is not clear to me how the usual deletion criteria should be applied to stand-alone list articles, and after having read up some old AfDs on various "List of Xs" articles, it struck me that many discussants were struggling with the criteria. For example, unless a list is simply copied from another source, it can always be labelled "original research". The content guideline WP:STANDALONE states: "Lists that are too specific are also a problem", and: "Some Wikipedians feel that some topics are unsuitable by virtue of the nature of the topic". Particularly the latter observation, although unassailably true, is not overly helpful in providing guidance in the matter.
The starting point for this was the current Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional currencies. I see rhyme nor reason in the discussions why List of fictional weasels was killed but List of fictional raccoons survived, the latter even per WP:SNOW. For reference, here is a list of "Xs" such that "List of fictional Xs" did survive at least its last AfD discussion (or in some cases was recreated afterwards): actors · anti-heroes · archenemies · astronauts · Australian politicians · beverages · birds of prey · books · books within the Harry Potter series · brands · British monarchs · British Prime Ministers · businesses · butlers · cats · characters on the autistic spectrum · characters who can move at superhuman speeds · characters with heterochromia · characters with telekinesis · characters within The Simpsons · city-states in literature · clergy and religious figures · companies · computers · counties · countries · deer and moose · detectives for younger readers · diseases · doctors · dogs · guidebooks · hackers · institutions · Jewish LGBT characters · Jews · journalists · magic users · martial arts · media · monkeys · musical works · pandas · penguins · physicians · places in G.I. Joe · places on The Simpsons · police detectives · politicians · postal employees · psychiatrists · raccoons · radio stations · Romans · Scots · spacecraft · spaceships · swords · television shows · television stations · terrorists · toxins · turtles · United States presidential candidates · United States Presidents · universes · vampires · vehicles · Vice Presidents of the United States · witches · worms.
My question: should we have clearer AfD criteria for stand-alone lists (not only for fictional entities), and if so, how do we get around to formulating them? -- Lambiam 20:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Only one day after the above was written, a discussion about this was initiated at the Village pump (policy), from where it was moved to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Inclusion criteria for Lists. -- Lambiam 07:19, 26 August 2010 (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 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | Archive 41 | → | Archive 45 |
{{ editprotected}} Text similar to that at Wikipedia:Blp#Sticky_prod should be inserted as section 3.4 after standard prod. I don't think full protection is necessary any longer either, as WP:BLP isn't protected and the change hasn't been challenged there. I believe that text similar to what is in WP:BLP enjoys consensus at this point. Gigs ( talk) 15:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Actually, sorry, I just noticed I was editing it on this issue before it got protected, which I'd forgotten, so ideally someone else should do it. The text I was going to add was:
As of April 3, 2010, a new sticky prod process was established, requiring all BLPs created after March 18, 2010 to have at least one reliable source that supports at least one statement about the subject, or it can be proposed for deletion. The prod tag may not be removed until such a source is provided, and if none is forthcoming the article may be deleted after a certain number of days. This does not affect any other deletion process.
SlimVirgin talk contribs 01:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I added a discussion at VP to get consensus on additional CSD methods. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Additional_CSD_criteria to join in. Thank you. — Timneu22 · talk 20:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Imagine a relatively new editor, trying to understand the rules regarding the deletion of pages and other elements of Wikipedia. The editor will no doubt easily find the overall deletion policy, and the various XFD pages:
The editor will note some sort of structure to these pages. It appears that these pages were constructed such that each XFD page lists the specific options available for the type of item, and the overall deletion policy covers all options, along with a complete explanation of the option.
In summary form, we have a deletion policy listing and describing all options (A,B,C,....) and individual XFD pages listing the applicable options to X.
However, if you read the articles with this structure in mind, a number of questions may emerge. Most of the readers of this discussion have enough experience to answer all of these questions, but view this through the eyes of a new editor, trying to understand the overall deletion policy:
As an aside, I plan to propose guidelines covering when we userfy and incubate articles, but first, I think we should discuss a technical cleanup of the various policies first. While I am sure the veteran editors have no difficulty understanding our overall deletion policy, new editors face a small challenge when first encountering the policies. I'm not proposing any change in policy, simply editorial changes to the various pages to use consistent terms in all places.
The first question is whether it is worth the effort to copy-edit the various XFD and Deletion Policy pages. if it is, we can put together draft versions and debate the wording.
The following table is a quick summary,identifying which option is mentioned in which article.
Option | AFD | MFD | TFD | FFD | RFD | CFD | SFD | Deletion Policy |
Delete | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X |
Keep | X | X | X | X3 | ||||
Merge | X1 | X | X4 | X1 | ||||
Redirect | X1 | X1 | ||||||
Transwiki | X2 | |||||||
Rename/Move | X | X | X | |||||
Userfy | X | |||||||
Edit | X5 | X | ||||||
Discussion | X | |||||||
Incubation | X | |||||||
Other Projects | X2 | |||||||
Archiving | X |
1 Identified as a single option "merged or redirected" in AFD, but as two distinct options in Deletion Policy
2 Called Transwiki in AFD, "other projects" in Deletion Policy
3 Called "not deleting" in RFD
4 Included in the body of the article, but not the introduction
5 Called "Change Scope" in body of article
Note that the goal is not to ensure that there is an X is every cell, as some options should not apply to some XFD. My goal is to:
My hope is that we can have discussion to see if there's consensus to work on this, and then work on drafts for the intro to each XFD and a revised draft Deletion policy.-- SPhilbrick T 16:05, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Is it appropriate to delete an article due to a large number of errors? If so, what is the relevant threshold? What is the appropriate procedure? What should an SME do when he believes that an article has too many errors to be salvagable? Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz ( talk) 21:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I was accidentally looking at Special:NewPages, and clicking on one of the most recent articles, I noticed it had been nominated for a speedy deletion within two minutes of its creation. Since the user was new, and I was unsure whether the article could be salvaged or not (probably not, but I'd like to check sources first), I removed the db-spam tag, but it was added back. I removed it again, and it was added again. And again. Is this ok? Isn't there some rule about CSD being only for uncontroversial — with no objection — articles? Moreover, isn't there some guideline about not tagging articles for deletion within seconds of their creation, on grounds of WP:BITE or something? Shreevatsa ( talk) 08:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Here is a concern I would like to bring up:
The way things are now, anyone can propose any article for deletion at any time, even if the creator is on vacation and has no access to the internet. When this happens, the creator of an article may not be able to have any input in the discussion.
What I propose is as follows: A registered user who is known to create and edit articles in good faith and is generally aware of policies and guidelines can place the template {{ wikibreak}} on his/her user page or talk page, stating the exact dates s/he will be away. If anyone tries to propose an article s/he created for deletion during that time (by placing the prod or afd template on the page), a notice will appear when saving the changes alerting the nom that the creator is on Wikibreak, and to consider waiting before making the proposal.
There would be no actual requirement to wait on the nomination. It would only be a courtesy for the nom to wait, so the article gets a fair hearing.
As long as there is no gross violation of policy, there should be no reason to rush to have an article deleted. Sebwite ( talk) 00:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi all,
There is (and has been) some discussion at WP:Band regarding notability. Basically there was a discussion as to whether individual band members should or shouldn't have their own Wikipedia page. What seemed like some fairly good ideas in the talk pages resulted in what seems to be a rather draconian rule "members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band".
Personally I considered the arguments in the talk pages that suggested that a good long biography of an individual might be useful to readers and researchers, and might not necessarily be appropriate in the middle of a band article itself, to be a good argument in favor of at least some individual band member biographies.
However, whether or not you agree that their should be more leeway in the wording of this rule, the end result is that band member pages are being deleted out of hand and redirected to the band page itself, no questions asked.
The question I have is, should this type of redirect (that immediately deletes the biographical page in question) require any sort of notification or discussion prior to the immediate deletion/redirection?
Thanks,
Scratchsamples ( talk) 18:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 July 12#Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages. – xeno talk 20:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
An administrator just told me, if I understand correctly, that if an article is deleted, all material and edits must be destroyed. None of it can be used in any other article. For example, if an article about India's bid to be on the Security Council of the UN is deleted, there must be NO mention of it in any other article. This seems strange and wrong to me.
This appeared on BlackKite's page...
I see you commented about the AFD on Moses. One possible problem is that there is not clear instructions about the aftermath of AFDs. Is it "all edits must be destroyed, censored, and never appear again"? No. Is it "some material must be destroyed, censored, and never appear again"? No. It is "the material contained does not qualify for a separate article".
......
Suomi Finland 2009 ( talk) 16:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
END OF EXCERPT
Is this true? If so, the deletion policy should be modified. Suomi Finland 2009 ( talk) 17:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
I would like to flag the following page for deletion as it does not meet notability standards: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodrigo_Lopresti But I do not know how to flag for deletion.
Thank you. Slyforeman ( talk) 20:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Please note: This thread was initially posted on WP: AN and subsequently moved here. Stonemason89 ( talk) 04:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I would like to propose a change to XFD policy, which would apply across all namespaces.
Simply, if a piece of content (article, redirect, image, etc.) survives a deletion discussion, the user who nominated it before cannot nominate it again, ever (no statute of limitations). That doesn't mean it can't be nominated for deletion a second time; it just can't be nominated again by the same person who nominated it before. The purpose of this proposed policy is to prevent users from POINTILY attempting to get content they don't like deleted by nominating it again and again.
Failure to follow this policy will lead to warnings (if the user was not warned previously) or blocks (if the user has been warned before about breaking this rule).
The inspiration for this proposed rule is this discussion; a user has recently re-submitted a case to AFD even though the redirect survived a previous AFD that was also initiated by him. This same user has been found guilty of edit-warring on this and similar topics in the past. I think there should be a way of preventing things like this from happening again. Please note that this policy will not apply retroactively (so Tallicfan20 will not be disciplined no matter what happens).
Supports and opposes can go below. If you feel that the proposal should be modified (for example, if you feel there should be a statute of limitations), you can express that viewpoint too. Stonemason89 ( talk) 03:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
The below line marks the end of the discussion that started on WP:AN.
I would suggest that if an AFD is a no-consensus, there should be no plausible resaon why that article should not be re-listed by the same person, but if it is a Keep, then perhaps you have a point.--
Jojhutton (
talk)
04:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I can agree with this for Keep outcomes. It makes a certain amount of sense. Silver seren C 04:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I think multiple nominations of the same article (not necessarily by the same person) can indeed be a problem, if only because the article has to be defaced by a "This article has been proposed for deletion" template for so many days (I think in some cases this is what motivates the proposer - if you can't get rid of it, then at least make it look bad). Of course, there's also the wasted time discussing the same thing over and over again, as with all perennial proposals. I suggest, as an alternative proposal, that before nominating an article for deletion for a second or subsequent time, you should first have to get a consensus at (something analogous to) deletion review that the previous result was dodgy, and only then be allowed to template the article and start a new AfD process.-- Kotniski ( talk) 09:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I recently came across a block of copyrighted text in an apparently otherwise fine article and per this policy, I've been substing the copyvio template to blank the entire page. I've been doing this for years, and noone has implied that I was doing something wrong. The policy says: "For blatant, whole-page copyright violation, you can simply tag it for speedy deletion...". Since the whole page isn't a violation, I ignored that line. The previous line says: "For other pages, edit the page to replace its entire content with { {subst:copyvio|url=address of copied material} }." Since that line does not mention "whole page" I figured that was the step to follow for partial violations. If in fact, the substing of the copyvio template should not be done for partial copyright violations, I suggest the wording of the 2nd line I quoted be changed to reflect that.-- Rockfang ( talk) 17:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
It is not clear to me how the usual deletion criteria should be applied to stand-alone list articles, and after having read up some old AfDs on various "List of Xs" articles, it struck me that many discussants were struggling with the criteria. For example, unless a list is simply copied from another source, it can always be labelled "original research". The content guideline WP:STANDALONE states: "Lists that are too specific are also a problem", and: "Some Wikipedians feel that some topics are unsuitable by virtue of the nature of the topic". Particularly the latter observation, although unassailably true, is not overly helpful in providing guidance in the matter.
The starting point for this was the current Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional currencies. I see rhyme nor reason in the discussions why List of fictional weasels was killed but List of fictional raccoons survived, the latter even per WP:SNOW. For reference, here is a list of "Xs" such that "List of fictional Xs" did survive at least its last AfD discussion (or in some cases was recreated afterwards): actors · anti-heroes · archenemies · astronauts · Australian politicians · beverages · birds of prey · books · books within the Harry Potter series · brands · British monarchs · British Prime Ministers · businesses · butlers · cats · characters on the autistic spectrum · characters who can move at superhuman speeds · characters with heterochromia · characters with telekinesis · characters within The Simpsons · city-states in literature · clergy and religious figures · companies · computers · counties · countries · deer and moose · detectives for younger readers · diseases · doctors · dogs · guidebooks · hackers · institutions · Jewish LGBT characters · Jews · journalists · magic users · martial arts · media · monkeys · musical works · pandas · penguins · physicians · places in G.I. Joe · places on The Simpsons · police detectives · politicians · postal employees · psychiatrists · raccoons · radio stations · Romans · Scots · spacecraft · spaceships · swords · television shows · television stations · terrorists · toxins · turtles · United States presidential candidates · United States Presidents · universes · vampires · vehicles · Vice Presidents of the United States · witches · worms.
My question: should we have clearer AfD criteria for stand-alone lists (not only for fictional entities), and if so, how do we get around to formulating them? -- Lambiam 20:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Only one day after the above was written, a discussion about this was initiated at the Village pump (policy), from where it was moved to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Inclusion criteria for Lists. -- Lambiam 07:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)