Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 33

message: Is there a reason Step II of the three-step process does not automatically include the page name? It does at the top of the page when you're editing, so clearly the server is aware of the name. Maury 15:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That is because there is no way to separate the subpage from the title.  When you do, Articles for deletion/Foo, that is the full title, so attempting to use the variable PAGENAME fails. --AllyUnion (talk) 08:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You could easily subtract the Atricles for deletion/ header and get Foo.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  07:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Automating... 

message: I think this article should be deleted. No verifibale evidence that Mandy Moore's next album is to be entitled Once Moore and plus it has yet to do anything notable.  Parys
: Nomination completed.  See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Once Moore (2nd nomination).  I abstained.  Rossami (talk) 20:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Once Moore]] AFD 

message: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sigma_Chi_Cal_Poly_Pomona ended with the recommendation to merge with Cal Poly Pomona. Angr added a paragraph to Cal Poly Pomona, which I reverted, because it was POV and because no other student organizations are currently included. JJay restored it (twice), stating that I do not own Cal Poly Pomona (duh!) and implying that the AFD vote required the merger.
I'm really puzzled by this. In my view, a decision was made about an article that was not originally part of Cal Poly Pomona, with no notice on the Cal Poly Pomona discussion page, that in effect forces a paragraph of content into the Cal Poly Pomona article. How can this be?
I have no intention of starting an edit war, so I plan to encourage other student organizations to add their bit, but I still don't think it is encyclopedic, even if it were made NPOV.--Curtis Clark 01:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: AFAIK, the only decision an AFD can make that is binding is to delete an article. Merging and/or redirecting is not binding, nor is even keeping. A kept article can be unilaterally merged and redirected. A redirected an article can be recreated. JJay is wrong here, IMO. The AFD is not binding, even more so on an article that was not the subject of the AFD. Johnleemk | Talk 03:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Johnleemk is correct that AFD is basically limited to just the "keep/delete" decision on the article in question.  All further issues should be sorted out through our normal processes on the respective article Talk pages.  However, AFD discussions do get a fair amount of visibility and attention from the community at large.  Most AFD participants carefully evaluate the article(s) before making their recommendation.  In many cases, it's more attention than the article's ever had before.  We have traditionally given AFD decisions a certain deference in proportion to the degree of serious thought and consideration that went into the discussion.  Rossami (talk) 07:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is vote for merger binding on destination article? 

message: Dear administrator, I wanna write an article on Doosan, but the 'doosan' page informs 'cannot be recreated without a good reason'. But I just want to talk about the Korean top 10~12 company Doosan with other users, and get more information and oppinion of the others. So, please let me create the 'Doosan' page(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doosan). Thank you. Sincerely, truism77
: The old article was deleted as a copyright violation.  Rather than rewrite the article, a number of users (apparently including you according to the edit history) kept reposting the copyvio text.  The page had to be repeatedly deleted and was finally protected to prevent further abuse.  If you want to create a completely new version with no copyright violations, you may do so but but given the history, I believe we are justified in some skepticism.  
:I recommend that you create a completely new draft as a sub-page of your user page - user:Truism77/Doosan.  When you have a completely new page that is not a copyright violation, bring your petition to Deletion review to have the page unprotected and your draft moved into the main article space.  It does not have to be a perfect article, but it should be more than a mere placeholder.  And given the history, please assume that other readers will scrutinize it very carefully for a recurrence of copyright violations.  Rossami (talk) 15:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cannot recreat Doosan article for long?

message: When an article is added to VfD, contributors to that article do not necessarily know of the VfD nomination. If the contributor is busy with other wikitasks or is otherwise distracted from visiting said article, that contributor might not be able to chime in.
I have come across on article in VfD that is nearly 3 years old and has close to 1000 edits. I feel compelled to contact many of the contributors and alert them of the VfD nomination - but I also wonder if such solicitation is considered poor etiquette in Wikipedia. My messages to these contributors can be phrased in a way so as not campaign - such as "I just wanted to inform you that the article insert article name here has been nominated for VfD. I saw that you made contributions to this article, so I thought you'd like to know. Kingturtle"
Is such action wrong? Is it considered campaigning? Are there any rules preventing this? I think it is important that contributors to an article have the right to know that their work is under review. 
Please advise, Kingturtle 19:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  etiquette and VfD 

message: This template is useless instruction creep cruft. It makes it more difficult and confusing to nominate an article for deletion. All you need to add to the AFD log page is . This is exactly what that template looks like after it's subst'd. So, it doesn't take much for a new user to figure it out from the other nominations, if they're confused. I changed the reference to it on the main afd page to the simpler form, and have tfd'd this. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 21:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: TFD on [[template:afd3]]

message: A new feature has been recently installed on the AFD List.  See User:AllyUnion/AFD List.  I hope this helps anyone who is closing AFDs. --AllyUnion (talk) 09:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AFD List update 

message: Could an admin possibly take a look and see about fixing the page? Looks like user Sleepyhead81 messed up some of his/her nominations, and older closed AfDs are now transcluded in three places below their noms. First example is at the SuperOffice listing. Thanks. Turnstep 21:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And again, look at "Bestsiteever.xoaonline.com". Turnstep 16:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Page Broken?

message: I know there's a deletion review, but I would like to know if there's some kind of AFD review for articles not deleted; i.e, a mistake in the tabulation or an inappropriate closure of debate.  I know I could nominate the article again for that kind of review, but there are big warnings to NOT clutter AFD, and I have read WP:POINT.  My issue is with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lueshi (2nd nomination).  Three votes for and eight votes to merge or delete is NOT a keep, and I don't believe that any of the keep votes were for valid reasons. - Hbdragon88 22:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Deletion Review is actually set up to handle all reviews of deletion decisions - whether the decision was to delete or not.  Please propose it there.  Be warned, however, that "merge" votes are almost always interpreted as "non-deletion" - that is, even if the article is radically changed through a merge and redirect, the edit history behind the article is not deleted.  It is a requirement of GFDL that we preserve the attribution history of any content that we keep or build from.  Please also remember that an AFD "keep" decision does not mean "keep as is".  Normal editing including mergers, redirects and complete rewrites resume as necessary and as discussed on the relevant article Talk page(s).  Having said all that, you might still have some grounds for a DR request based on the apparent sockpuppetry in this discussion.  Rossami (talk) 04:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see.  I interpreted "keep" as meaning that the article was notable, worthy of belonging at Wikipedia.  Of course editing would continue afterwards.  Technically, merge would mean non-deletion, but again I interpreted it as meaning that the article as-is was not notable enough and should be merged elsewhere.  I will propose it at Deletion Review should I feel up for making another stab at getting the article deleted... - Hbdragon88 05:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wait; confusion reigns. Merge votes are seen as analogous to keep?? I generally put merge or delete or merge when I think the article has salvageable content to be used somewhere else, am I sabotaging myself here?? -- nae'blis (talk) 21:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: delete or merge is a delete, plain merge is usually a keep unless the comment suggests otherwise WhiteNight T | @ | C 22:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, merge = merge and redirect for me. When I see merge and delete, I see if the article has any meaningful content that can be merged. If it doesn't, I take it to be delete. If it does, I merge and redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 05:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, I meant more in context to the above discussion. Also, technically as I recall merge and delete means a merge without a redirect (obviously problematic due to the GFDL, but there are ways to get around that) - merge or delete means merge and redirect if something useful otherwise delete - merge means merge and redirect and do not delete (if that makes sense, it does after you've been doing it for a while...). So, rule of thumb to me is, if you want an article merged but would rather it be deleted then kept, merge or delete or plain merge and specify that you would rather the article not be kept - otherwise, if you want it merged but don't want it deleted use merge or merge or keep. Finally, if you want something merged but don't want a redirect (bad spelling etc.) then merge and delete and specify it as such (although many administrators probably just won't do this anyway and interpret it as a merge or delete). WhiteNight T | @ | C 06:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Holy christ, that was much more confusing than I expected. Thanks (I think)! I'll try to keep that in mind, but I may hack on the instructions section a bit to clarify this, as I can't be the only idiot out there to have been confused by how their vote was counted... -- nae'blis (talk) 21:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are not the only one confused by this.  Before you "hack on the instructions section", I'd recommend approaching the problem from a different direction.  The problem is not the dozen permutations of "merge ..." but that many people are still confused about the requirement in GFDL to preserve attribution history.  But the truth is that most people don't have to understand the intricacies of that policy.  That's why we ask admins to close discussions - they've been here long enough to be familiar with the rule.  For everyone else, if you take the time to write out your thoughts and your intent in plain english, it doesn't matter what codewords you put at the front of your comment.  The absolutely critical thing to remember is that we are not voting.  Rossami (talk) 23:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With respect, right now we are 'voting', more or less (albeit in a supermajority way). I can count on one hand the number of times I've seen an admin go against the straight numbers. But I'll take what you're saying into account (and of course propose here before I start "hacking" on anything); I suspect what we need (as always) is more educated voters participants, and thus a simple clarification may be in order. -- nae'blis (talk) 20:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AFD review? 

message: ::: Wait; confusion reigns. Merge votes are seen as analogous to keep?? I generally put merge or delete or merge when I think the article has salvageable content to be used somewhere else, am I sabotaging myself here?? -- nae'blis (talk) 21:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: delete or merge is a delete, plain merge is usually a keep unless the comment suggests otherwise WhiteNight T | @ | C 22:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, merge = merge and redirect for me. When I see merge and delete, I see if the article has any meaningful content that can be merged. If it doesn't, I take it to be delete. If it does, I merge and redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 05:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I meant more in context to the above discussion. Also, technically as I recall merge and delete means a merge without a redirect (obviously problematic due to the GFDL, but there are ways to get around that) - merge or delete means merge and redirect if something useful otherwise delete - merge means merge and redirect and do not delete (if that makes sense, it does after you've been doing it for a while...). So, rule of thumb to me is, if you want an article merged but would rather it be deleted then kept, merge or delete or plain merge and specify that you would rather the article not be kept - otherwise, if you want it merged but don't want it deleted use merge or merge or keep. Finally, if you want something merged but don't want a redirect (bad spelling etc.) then merge and delete and specify it as such (although many administrators probably just won't do this anyway and interpret it as a merge or delete). WhiteNight T | @ | C 06:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Holy christ, that was much more confusing than I expected. Thanks (I think)! I'll try to keep that in mind, but I may hack on the instructions section a bit to clarify this, as I can't be the only idiot out there to have been confused by how their vote was counted... -- nae'blis (talk) 21:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are not the only one confused by this.  Before you "hack on the instructions section", I'd recommend approaching the problem from a different direction.  The problem is not the dozen permutations of "merge ..." but that many people are still confused about the requirement in GFDL to preserve attribution history.  But the truth is that most people don't have to understand the intricacies of that policy.  That's why we ask admins to close discussions - they've been here long enough to be familiar with the rule.  For everyone else, if you take the time to write out your thoughts and your intent in plain english, it doesn't matter what codewords you put at the front of your comment.  The absolutely critical thing to remember is that we are not voting.  Rossami (talk) 23:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With respect, right now we are 'voting', more or less (albeit in a supermajority way). I can count on one hand the number of times I've seen an admin go against the straight numbers. But I'll take what you're saying into account (and of course propose here before I start "hacking" on anything); I suspect what we need (as always) is more educated voters participants, and thus a simple clarification may be in order. -- nae'blis (talk) 20:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: merge vs. keep vs. delete vs....

message: "Please DO NOT try to update the AFD yourself, as it will confuse the AFD Bot." Does this refer to the AfD project page, or AllyUnion's page? If it is the project page, it should be moved or clarified to avoid confusion. It should also say what is meant by "update". I assume it means adding a new day to the list under "current discussions" and moving the bottom date to old discussions, but people may be afraid to edit the page if they don't know. -- Kjkolb 19:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This confused me too and I asked about it on Template_talk:AfD_in_3_steps as well. I have tried to wordsmith the text here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Week_at_a_glance a bit to clarify what is and isn't to be manually updated. Comments or corrections welcomed! (I would have proposed it first as this is a high traffic page but it's just a tweak) ++Lar: t/c 20:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Much better. Thanks, Lar. -- Kjkolb 16:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update warning 

message: Regular debate closers, I have written a script that automates the closing of AfD debates. Please have a look and try it out, and let me know of any bugs or changes you would like. I'm a Javascript novice, but I'll do the best I can to help. :) Johnleemk | Talk 05:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Automating AfD closing 

message: For people who close a lot of AfD discussions, you may also be interested in a number of headers that can be easily copy-pasted when closing. I find it most convenient to have them in two windows and dragging-dropping into the edit box. You may find these at User:Howcheng/afd. howcheng  {chat} 17:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD closing headers 

message: The page says: "You don't have to make a recommendation on every nomination; consider not participating if [...] you agree with what has already been formed." This doesn't seem like a good idea to me — often votes can drastically swing in the last day if a deletion gets a lot of last-minute attention for some reason. Regardless of what the current consensus appears to be, additional consensus may help to combat a dissenting faction that appears in the future. Deco 03:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, and I was just thinking this. Ideally the closing admin should only have to consider two or more competing meritorious rationales for Keep or Delete, not 99 'me toos'. This statement should be made more clear/prominent.KWH 04:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disagree with don't vote statement 

message: There is talk on Wikipedia:Consensus concerning the statement that certain Wikiprocesses, in particular WP:RFA and WP:AFD, no longer work on the principle of Consensus, but instead on the principle of Wikipedia:Supermajority, which seems to imply a more-or-less strict numerical limit. I would appreciate it if some AFD regulars would weigh in on the discussion on Wikipedia_talk:Consensus to comment on this. Radiant_>|< 14:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a fundamental wikiproblem that I'd like to see discussed seriously by some people who know what they're doing. I've been involved in cases where both consensus and supermajority (separate cases) were obtained with less-than-pleasing results, and it's gonna take some hard thinking to think of a better solution than either of those.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  08:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus or supermajority? 

message: At what stage do we begin to take a contributor's "vote" less seriously?  If we've got someone who participates in a huge number of AfDs but doesn't add much information to any one discussion, how is this interpreted from a point of view of "consesus", and how could the closer's commments reflect this in a sensitive manner?- brenneman(t)(c) 06:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I see a pattern of delete/keep "votes" with little or no apparent reasoning, I start to discount them. I also give less weight to "votes" without any reasoning. Johnleemk | Talk 10:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What about an editor who's major contribution was to AfD?  Also, we accept "delete, per nom" or "keep, per Foo", these aren't far from "votes". - brenneman(t)(c) 13:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but assuming Foo or the nominator provided valid reasons to delete, those "Votes" should be valid too, IMO. Johnleemk | Talk 16:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pseudo-boothy on AfD 

message: Please, take a look at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#"Redirect" option. The issue need clarification, since it has already led to a confusion. Mukadderat 18:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A hole in the policy

message: Wikipedia was mentioned in an article about a sex offender being unmasked.
"It was actually on a Wikepedia site.  Wikepedia is sort of an online encyclopedia where users submit information.  So it‘s basically a pool of knowledge that users submit.  And we found an entry submitted for deletion actually for Caspian James Chrichton Stuart IV and the user who submitted it for deletion coincidentally submitted it because he suspected it was—quote—“largely nonsense” and next to the name Caspian James Chrichton Stuart IV was the name Joshua Adam Gardner in parentheses.  So that‘s how we found his real name and that‘s what ultimately led us down the final stretch of our investigation."
-- Kjkolb 23:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's the link to the vote: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caspian James Crichton-Stuart IV (Joshua Adam Gardner), 5th Duke of Cleveland. A bizarre case of AfD archives having a notability of their own. :-) Deco 03:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Perhaps the article should be brought back to life now in this event? (with major modifications). I would like to know what the article looked like at first also. →AzaToth 19:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is an article about him at Joshua Gardner (now up for AfD).  The older article Caspian James Crichton-Stuart IV (Joshua Adam Gardner), 5th Duke of Cleveland looks like junk, it's a hoax. --W.marsh 19:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

text: To answer your direct question, the hoax article used to say: "Caspian James Crichton-Stuart IV, was born in Paddington London, on September 4th, 1983. He is the nephew of John Colum Crichton-Stuart the Earl of Windsor. He became the Lord of Dundee in 2003, when his mother passed away. He also abdicated from the throne of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in December of 2003. Her Majesty made him the 5th Duke of Cleveland in 2005." Deco 07:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia vandal is sex offender

message: Could an admin dig into the deleted revisions of this article and check the chronology please? As fas as I can tell:
# It was created around 30 September 2005
# AFD created (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terminator 4)
# Speedy deleted as an attack page (deletion log)
# Recreated around 4 December
# Second AFD created (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terminator 4 (second nomination))
# Closed with no consensus on 11 December, and presumably not deleted
# Deleted twice on 12 January 2006 as patent nonsense
# Recreated today
# Flagged for AFD as crystal ball (but with the original AFD subpage listed on WP:AFD)
I'm most interested in how an article can survive an AFD, and then be deleted as PN - was the article vandalised? Alternatively, if they'd just hurry up and make the damn film we'd be saved a lot of bother ;) — sjorford (talk) 00:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Terminator 4]] 

message: I propose the following (amended) policy change:
:A repeated AFD for an article that has survived an AFD in the previous six months will be automatically defeated in 5 days  unless it is seconded by two other Wikipedia users who are qualified to second.  The qualification for seconding an AFD is that the Wikipedia user must have done at least <x> edits at least <y> weeks before the AFD nomination was made.
Questions, comments, and suggestions are appreciated.
Regards,  Carl Hewitt 15:33 22 January 2006 (PST)
:I don't see the point, really. Practically all repeat nominations I have seen have at least three or four votes, making the minimum two delete votes (which is practically what this is) pointless m:instruction creep. If you think about it, all this is is a required quorum for deletion that would only apply to a very small number of AfDs which unnecessarily complicates the deletion process. Admins already discount (or at least weight less) suspect votes, and if the article is a copyvio, it doesn't matter how many people voted keep or delete -- it's got to go. This is a bad solution in search of a problem. Johnleemk | Talk 09:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requiring seconding for repeated AFD 

message: Every time I try to add an article to AFD, it doesn't appear on the current day's list. I have nominated this for AFD and it doesn't show up. It should be in between Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/411 (band) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islam in South Africa. Pc13 20:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's because you're not including the header.  I've fixed it.  (As an aside, this is exactly why hiding this step in an obscure template on the instruction page is such a poor idea.) —Cryptic (talk) 21:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Technical problem 

message: Could someone with good knowledge of AfD templates take a look at the page for January 20th? It looks as though one of the entries has somehow "captured" all of the ones below it into the "this AfD is done" blue bordered box. Perhaps the template inside that AfD is messing things up? Thanks. Turnstep 14:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see anything wrong. Johnleemk | Talk 14:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

text: That often happens if someone applies the "top" template and forgets to apply the "bottom" template.  It takes both templates together to close the  box.  It looks like it's already been fixed.  Rossami (talk) 16:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Closed AfDs

message: * Alejandro Armenta - I don't have time right now to investigate and go through this deletion process, but someone else might want to look at this article. Cheers. Ben Arnold 00:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A possible candidate for deletion? 

message: Would it be possible to delegate more work to WikiProjects?
At the moment most WikiProjects have some sort of system whereby they "adopt" the articles which fall within their purview.
Would it be possible to make this more "official"?
Maybe we could be more systematic in sorting articles and assigning them to WikiProjects;
we could create more projects to cover areas which aren't currently managed.
HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 13:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no reason this couldn't work; see WP:SFD for an example (there were other reasons for its creation, obviously, but it has effectively become a WikiProject-run deletion forum).  Having said that, there are questionable projects created on a regular basis (the various censorship/decency/whatnot mess from last year being a good example); perhaps some RfA-like process via which the community could approve particular WikiProjects for such tasks might work. —Kirill Lokshin 14:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unnecessary bureaucracy. WikiProjects are just voluntary collaborations of groups of editors who wish to coordinate their efforts on related articles. If you make them hard to create (by requiring some kind of Wikipedia:Proposed WikiProjects process) they'll just do it via talk pages or something instead, even for unsavory projects. If you want to clean up the Wikipedia: namespace, a better effort might be to find dormant projects and list them at WP:MFD. —Wahoofive (talk) 16:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ehh, I didn't mean requiring approval for creating WikiProjects, only for giving a particular project authority to conduct its own deletions (to whatever extent would be appropriate). —Kirill Lokshin 16:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Mmm. Some WikiProjects are more ... sensible ... than others - David Gerard 18:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry I misunderstood you the first time. I wonder how it would be decided how to categorize proposals for deletion under this scheme? Could article creators appeal if their article was put into a WikiProject for deletion instead of AFD? Stub types are a pretty clear-cut case. —Wahoofive (talk) 21:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

text:  I was thinking of something like WikiProject Biography: are the chaps in there sane enough to manage the strain of keeping track of vanity articles and stuff? —Phil | Talk 11:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Every little bit will help. I envision the debates being both listed at AfD (a meta holding pen for debates) and the Wikiprojects' various deletion pages. I already know some WikiProjects do this. We should probably publicise Dragonflight's tool that identifies controversial debates and debates lacking votes, as this is very helpful (even if it's often behind in updating itself). Johnleemk | Talk 14:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delegate to WikiProjects 

message: A short time ago on the wikien mailing list Jimbo brought up the problem of old AfD discussions showing up in Google and doing harm. The solution most people seemed to prefer was to institutionalize the blanking of old AfDs. We're already doing this on a case-by-case basis, I've even done it myself. Shouldn't we add this to some policy page? - Haukur 14:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  Morwen - Talk 14:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

text: At least for living bios. It's not onerous, it doesn't destroy the discussion (it should have a link to the pre-blanking version) and it's for a good reason. (The reason can be mentioned there.) - David Gerard 15:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Is there anything wrong with modifying robots.txt? I seem to recall there being some prior discussion to this, but I don't remember the end result of the discussions. If the concern is that mirror pages still retain AfDs, I have no objection to blanking AfDs per DG. --Deathphoenix 15:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Assuming the mirroring issues can be solved, just modifying robots.txt would seem to be a much better idea... old AfDs are of minimal interest at best to the web searching public anyway.  --W.marsh 16:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Modifying robots.txt is a good idea and I haven't seen anyone object to it. Of course there are some badly behaved spiders out there so it might not always be enough and we may want to blank some discussions anyway. But I still can't see any reason not to do it. - Haukur 16:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Robots.txt is the best option.  Blanking is not good, as one can link to old versions of the discussion (so its not really gone).  But, really, we also have to stop the large number of often needless and viscous attacks on bio article subjects.  It seems people feel free to make the most viscous attacks on suspected vanity authors.  It doesn't occur to some, that these same people might actually be reading what's written.  If somebody makes baseless and/or pointless put-down of a bio subject, that comment should be removed from the discussion on site.  WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA should protect all people, not just Wikipedians (of course its still ok to report factual but negative things about a bio subject, if the statements are relevant and verifiable).  --Rob 16:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I more or less agree. It should be noted that Jimbo's original suggestion was to delete the discussions but that met a lot of opposition. No-one seems to really mind blanking, though, or changing robots.txt. Any reason not to do both? I just don't want this issue to die because everyone seems to agree that we should do something and we should do it fast. Blanking the discussions is maybe not the optimal solution but it helps a lot and it's something we can start implementing right now, without even talking to a dev. - Haukur 16:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I think I brought this up before: why don't we simply modify the instructions so that instead of topping/tailing the discussion with  and  we replace the discussion with those templates. Then the result is displayed, as normal, and the discussion is hidden in the history. Or am I misunderstanding what is meant above by "blanking": is it being used to mean precisely this? HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 17:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I kind of like Phil's proposal. We could turn it into a single template then, and the actual votes would be available to anyone in the edit history. —Wahoofive (talk) 21:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Me likey; this gives more of a clue to what's happened to the debate, and could become standard procedure, rather than a subjective "well, maybe this one should be blanked..." -- nae'blis (talk) 22:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Fixing robot.txt is the right answer but we could also change the templates and the closing process.  No reason not to do both.  I'll go write up a draft on the Talk page.  Rossami (talk) 03:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blanking old AfDs 

message: A perennial suggestion is to create a new namespace to hold admistrivial stuff like deletion debates:
if we created a namespace like "WikiDelete" then we could easily fix it so that robots couldn't scan it, and maybe notinclude it in the default downloads.
HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 09:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New namespace 

message: I propose one change in procedure that might speed up the process of AfD.
The change is: 
:If a nomination after x hours has less than y endorsments of deletion, or the current consensus is against deletion, the nomination is regarded as speedy kept.
For example, x could be 24 hours and y could be 5 endorsements. →AzaToth 19:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See here.  There are many AFDs with fewer than 5 deletes well after 24 hours that are still entirely in favor of deletion.  Dragons flight 19:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The 5 was just an example, it could be for example 3 or 2 etc... →AzaToth 19:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the current process on this is working fine. -- nae'blis (talk) 19:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

text: The vast majority of AfDs aren't controversial and don't get a lot of comments, they're procedural and boring, and the lack of comments means no one really objects to deletion.  Until something better exists, it's the only way that non-admins have of dealing with articles that need to be deleted. In practice, AfDs that get an overwhelming consensus towards keep are closed early anyway.  So uh, sorry to keep opposing, but I don't see how this proposal would help in its current incarnation.  --W.marsh 20:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request to speed up process by changing procedure 

message: We've been discussing the merits and suggesting changes to AFD for at least half a year now. So it's about time we stop talking and actually do something. The simplest variant to AFD would be to list all proposed deletions, and delete all that nobody objects to within several days. Since about 80% of AFD are obvious keeps or obvious deletes, we can accomplish the same with far less bureaucracy and negativity. Wikipedia:Proposed deletion does just that, and is intended to go for a test run very soon. Please join the discussion there. Radiant_>|< 17:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A radical proposal 

message: As I mentioned above, I've written a script that helps reduce the burden on admins when it comes to closing debates. I don't know if anyone other than me uses the script, but I've recently updated it to automate the usage of  on Talk: pages, something which pisses me off more than the  and  templates (which I've already automated). Any regular AfD closers are invited to try out this script. Johnleemk | Talk 18:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Automated AfD closing part 2 

message: Most of the discussion above, initiated by David Gerard on the mailing list and brought here for further analysis, takes for granted that there is something major that is wrong with AFD and needs to be fixed. But I'm not at all sure that this is the case. Yes, Jimbo has some concerns about the process. But Jimbo, as important as he is to the project, is still only human and can (gasp!) be wrong. So the fact that he believes that there's a problem is not the end of the story.
Jimbo is, understandably, frustrated that he has received a bunch of irate e-mails from people whose articles were AFD'd, and to whom the shop talk on AFD sounded abrasive and harsh. I absolutely agree that AFD discussions should be kept off Google for precisely that reason. I have no objection to removing it from robots.txt and/or blanking the debates (as long as people can view them in the history) when they're closed.
But, in the big picture, is this really the serious "PR problem" that people are claiming it is? From my perspective, the most common criticisms of Wikipedia regard its reliability and accuracy. Major media isn't complaining that we're deleting as "vanity" a tiny handful of articles that really aren't. They're complaining that our open editing process is flawed or that Wikipedia has been used as a venue for libel. Of course, these criticisms are often misguided, and even when legitimate (as the Siegenthaler issue) they are hard to address, but they are the criticisms that are out there. I'm concerned that this AFD issue is a case of "letting the squeaky wheel get the grease". To put it bluntly, some people are upset that their NN-bios got deleted as vanity, so they're complaining about it. Why should that be surprising? We need to take such criticisms with a grain of salt. I don't see that happening. Individual bad deletions can be handled on WP:DRV (though, ideally, I'd prefer to allow administrators the discretion to undelete instead). I'm not convinced we should radically restructure Wikipedia because a few people got their feelings hurt. <TT>Crotalus horridus <SMALL>(TALK • CONTRIBS)</SMALL></TT> 19:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I consider the issues with content forks related to AFD (mentioned by David Gerard on the mailing list some time ago) rather more serious, in the long term, than NN-bio complaints. —Kirill Lokshin 20:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Debates should absolutely not be blanked - at least in the case where the article originator did not participate. They deserve to see the reasons why their article was deleted, whether spoken in a kindly or a not-so-kindly manner. I've seen people on the Village Pump who were very upset and confused because their article "vanished" while they were gone for a couple weeks and they don't know what happened. This is the reason I added a link to the VfD debate (if it exists) to the two "this page does not exist" MediaWiki messages. Do not blank debates - but do feel free to clean them up for politeness ("Vanity page" -> "Seems intended to promote its subject", something like that.) Deco 20:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Is AFD really "broken"?

message: I wonder why List of SWIFT codes has been deleted while the corresponding AFD-page said keep because of lack of consensus? --Donar Reiskoffer 11:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it was renominated here. —Cryptic (talk) 16:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  deleted page 

message: I've been in email contact with this user. It's a real person, that's the name he wants (even if it has some confusion value) and I'm unblocking the autoblocks too - David Gerard 22:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Regforafd unblocked

message: I submitted an AFD2 a few weeks ago and it only received one vote. I don't think it was spurious. What should be done? One vote isn't consensus. What happens when you hold an AFD and no one comes? - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 17:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's reached "Old", it needs to be relisted. If it hasn't, it's best to wait for it to reach "Old" before relisting it. What's the AFD that you submitted? I'll take a look a it and let you know. --Deathphoenix 17:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, it looks like it was already "relisted" on the 26th: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exopolitics. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 23:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stagnant AFD? 

message: I created a new template:
Uncyclopedia has more about this subject:
name
 
 
This way, when you tell someone "please don't post your jokes here, there are other sites for that stuff," you can also give them a shiny box to click on so that they know where to go to post their nonsense in peace.
--M@rēino 20:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can tell you bluntly, Uncyclopedia does not want this fuckwittery. Don't do this, thanks - David Gerard 12:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New idea for how to gently convince pranksters to stay off of Wikipedia 

message: I have two suggestions for the AfD etiquette section. I noticed that some editors are again using "speedy delete" as if it means "strong delete" and others are using criteria that don't exist. If recommending speedy delete, I think that the reason for speedy deletion should be given. Here is the suggested text:
If recommending that the article be speedily deleted, please give the criteria that it meets, such as "A7" or "non-notable biography".
Another issue is people saying "keep" or "delete" more than once. I've noticed two situations where this happens. Sometimes an editor thinks that he or she must reaffirm their position if they make another comment. Other times the editor thinks that each argument for or against an article can be given a separate keep or delete suggestion. For example, they might say that an article should be deleted because the subject is non-notable, and after considering it further, say that it should be deleted because it is unverifiable, too. Here is the suggested text:
Editors usually state their suggested course of action in bold. Giving it more than once makes the nomination seem to have more or less support than it actually has. If you change your mind, modify your original recommendation.
-- Kjkolb 11:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, but since most people starting AFD simply jump in instead of reading all the rules, the real best way to convey matters of etiquette is to simply tell them on their talk pages. I like the speedy description idea. JHMM13 (T | C)   21:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's probably true that most people just jump in, but after I have informed users about things like this, they sometimes say that they did not see it on the main AfD page, so I guess some people read it. We should probably try to keep the size down by not mentioning every little detail, at least on the main page, otherwise even fewer people will read it. I'm going to make the change. If anyone wants to revert or modify it, please do. -- Kjkolb 02:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Let's hope it solves some problems :-D JHMM13 (T | C)   07:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD etiquette additions 

message: A number of deletion discussions have involved Ruy Lopez also using his sockpuppet, Mr. Know-It-All; editors may wish to review said discussions and see if apparent consensus was distortied and a deletion is in need of review - David Gerard 23:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mr. Know-It-All is a sockpuppet of Ruy Lopez

message: Are we related to Wikiclassifieds?  I stumbled upon it today and I figure it's a fine dumping grounddrop off for spamvertisement articles.  Are the licenses compatible? --Perfecto  00:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They are not a WikiMedia project but they are licensed under GFDL so, yes, we can pass material off to them.  See their Main Page.  Whether we should dump things on them is a different question.  This appears to be a very new project with somewhat unclear goals and inclusion criteria.  Rossami (talk) 01:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yellowikis, an apparent competitor, is affiliated with a certain Wikipedian who runs a bot that automatically dumps spamvertisement into it. —Quarl (talk) 2006-02-07 03:05Z
Hey, I am the founder of Wikiclassifieds. Someone has created an article about it! I need to find the time to improve it. It shall be very much non-profit but there may be revenue for advertising. It's licensed under GFDL. -- Zondor 04:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikiclassifieds 

message: This morning I began the process of writing cart00ney (with two zeros).  I saved my work when I got up to refill my coffee, and when I returned, User:Savidan had nominated my incomplete stub for deletion with the cryptic reason "apparent nn selfref neologism."  The article had existed for a grand total of nine (9) minutes.  Savidan made no attempt to contact me, and made no effort to discuss the obviously in-progress article on its talk page.—More AfD toxicity on wikien-l, 2006-02-10
The obvious response is to say that a deletion nomination is no big deal. But content creators frequently don't feel that way about their work.
I suspect it's really not going to be optional for nominators to make a good-faith effort to contact the article creator and/or last substantial editor. Is there any good reason not to require this that doesn't boil down to "that'd be too much like work" or bringing up an obscure edge case where it would be difficult (hence the "good-faith effort" bit)? - David Gerard 16:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That happened to me not long ago, although the article wasn't nominated for deletion, it was just deleted.  No contact from the deleting admin, no comment on the article talk page, nothing.  After I reached out to the admin, a compromise was made, but I was left wondering why I needed to make that effort.  --Kbdank71 16:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

text: We need to stress that articles have no owner. Even so, they sure do have contributors! Kim Bruning 16:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. Although many AFD regulars do create content, really quite a lot don't and have AFD edits as a significant chunk of their entire contribution history.  More sensitivity to those who actually write stuff may be appropriate in some cases - David Gerard 16:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When I started out on WP I got upset at some deletions too, and I nominated some of my own, but soon I learned that there's a dynamic community process within AfD that "rewards" good noms and "punishes" bad noms (chiefly by stroking or bruising the ego of the nominator) so that over time the traditions that build up are constantly improving.  If you don't believe me, wade right in to AfD help us out for a while.  Ruby 17:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done my time on AFD, thanks ;-) And I really don't have an hour or two a day to wade in trying to fix the attitudes. I've tried that before. What I'm saying now is that current thinking is that AFD's attitude needs to change, and I'm posting this stuff to point out problems so it can be dealt with internally before a nonoptimum solution is imposed from without. (That's a very important point a lot of people in this discussion and the one above don't seem to be taking in.) - David Gerard 17:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I think calling the Afd nom bad faith was inappropriate.  You may or may not agree that this is slangcruft, but why assume the nomination was suspect?  When I saw this on new pages, I had half a mind to delete it myself. Friday (talk) 16:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, but do you now repent from your sinful thoughts? :) Kim Bruning 16:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I suppose it depends at what point does an obviously grossly negligent nomination may as well count as actual bad faith -David Gerard 16:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  (ec) I've repented, yes.  Why delete when you can turn it into a redirect? ;-)  Seriously tho, we hardly need individual articles on every phrase made up in a certain newsgroup.  This is just an ordinary content disagreement, I see no need to hastily modify the Afd page because of this.  This happens all the time.  If the article had been created by a new contributor, it would probably already be gone and we'd never have heard about it. Friday (talk) 16:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I read that as "most people don't know how or where to fuss so we should ignore this one too." Which is possibly not the best response to a strong symptom of trouble. Also read the stuff higher up on this page about AFD's relations with the rest of Wikipedia (and the outside world). I've suggested notifying the creator before and most of the objections were that it would be too much like work or might involve effort. Do you have other substantial objections? - David Gerard 16:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  (And yes, I realize that some people will respond to the last sentence by saying, "Aha! That's exactly the problem!" )  My point is that this is completely normal, as anyone who's looked at Afd can tell you.  The author feels their work is the Best Thing Ever, and other people see it as cruft or junk.  In this case, because the author was an established editor, folks are running around changing Afd procedures.  This is silliness.  We shouldn't care WHO made it, we should judge it based on the merits of the content.  Friday (talk) 16:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That deletion is symptomatic of the attitude. And if it was a newbie, it applies even more - we have two known contributor forks from Wikipedia which are due to AFD's way of comporting itself. There's an attitude problem here that needs solving internally lest it have a (probably non-optimum) solution imposed from outside - David Gerard 16:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  Yes, wikipedians must know their place, and all bow down equally to the power of Articles For Deletion! Kim Bruning 16:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: AfD. Think of WP as a company too cheap to contract for janitorial, so we have employees step up to clean the restrooms.  Ruby 17:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine, if everybody takes a turn and the situation remains friendly. What has happened is that a little group of "employees" who have hunkered down in the "restroom" and have taken to roundly abusing anybody who dares actually use the toilets for their intended purpose, which "ruins all the nice cleaning they've just done". Thing is, some visiting dignitaries tried to freshen themselves up and received a bucketful of abuse too, which is embarrassing to the company: said "employees" will need to smarten their act up, or the MD will smarten it up for them. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 18:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That puts it pretty well - David Gerard 18:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The problem isn't having a deletion mechanism at all (that's not in question), but the current operations and culture of the current one. See above: #Jimbo_on_the_warpath_re_.2AFD - AFD has been causing external and internal problems at the Foundation level - David Gerard 17:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I go both ways on this. If an article is very short and has a single anonymous or new user contributor, and is obviously deletable, raising it on the talk page is silly, as it's unlikely you'll even get a timely response. If Wikipedia:Proposed deletion is permanently adopted, this should help take care of this kind of article, to the point where I wouldn't mind mandating that the remainder be discussed on the talk page prior to AfD nomination. Deco 18:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, but cryptic to a newbie. Deletion reasons have two audiences, the voters (experienced Wikipedians), and the contributors, often clueless newbies. Avoid jargon or use links to describe them in more detail. Consider making a set of reasons you can copy paste together to save keystrokes. This should be some kind of guideline in my opinion. Deco 20:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I and most other AfD regulars use links when possible and will try to increase my use of them in the future. However, this should not be seen as a substitute for reading the deletion policy which is linked from every AfD notice. Newcomers to wikipedia are generally given little to no weight in votes because of concerns over sockpuppetry. At the very least, a "newbie" should familiarize his- or herself with the guidelines before participating in AfD. But, yes, I agree. Savidan 21:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "There is no way there will ever be more than five notable sentences to say about this." --Savidan  You almost sound like you're sure of that. How much do you want to bet? ➥the Epopt 21:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll be the first to agree that Afd sucks.  However, this particular case sure looks to me like it's been way overblown, possibly even intentionally in an effort to drive home the point that "something must be done".  Someone nominated the article for deletion.  Big deal; that happens to "normal editors" all the time.   The nomination was reasonable, WP:NOT says Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a slang guide.  Friday (talk) 21:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: AFD's public relations with the rest of Wikipedia

message: Interesting. Have a look. So far 52 people have signed up to watch it closely. Only objection I can think of is that it still doesn't involve notifying the article creator. But it strikes me as a damn good idea for getting the obvious off AFD and helping alleviate AFD-fatigue. - David Gerard 20:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For those who like lightweight, some of the experimental deletion methods are even lighter.  For those who want transparent deletion, some of the XD methods do not call for an actual "hard delete" at the end.  I personally think that a lightweight, transparent process would go far to fix some of the major problems people currently see with Afd.  Friday (talk) 22:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot of the problem is that AFD has an culture of stalemated trench warfare between notional "inclusionists" and "deletionists". Having somewhere else to take the obvious 95% would be a damn fine thing as it would set up a new space for a hopefully less embittered culture to emerge, and also takes a lot of the strain off AFD so people here have more time to take more care. Win-win-win - David Gerard 16:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:PROD]] - a lightweight deletion process

message: Would it be possible to create a page that lists all open AfD votes? Currently, users have to click on the listings by day which causes listing which were created more than 24 hours ago to receive far less traffic, with most of what they receive coming from users who were directed there by the article's main page or by a third party. "AfD regulars" are much less likely to click on older pages because many of these debates have closed and thus it is more time consuming to wade though them. This appears to create a moral hazard because disinterested parties are less likely to find the vote just when they are needed the most. It's possible that there is such a page and I just haven't been able to find it. If so, would it be possible to create a link to it in a more prominent place (i.e. near the links which lists AfD by day) so that other users with my level of competency would be able to find it. ;) Savidan 02:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The time of disinterested parties is a scarce resource, however. How about we just list stuff that's in its last day somewhere so they can take a last look? Deco 02:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

text: It's at User:Dragons flight/AFD summary/All. Just keep in mind that the whole thing is experimental and in development. - Bobet 11:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Woohoo! That's a fun-looking page, must check that out more thoroughly when I have some time. —Phil | Talk 10:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

text: A single page used to be the practice.  I argued strongly against segmentation of the page both for your reason and because it made it less likely that participants would return to the discussion to check for new facts or opinions which might affect their decisions.  We lost that argument because the sheer size of the page made it very difficult to load and use.  Unfortunately, I'm afraid that objection still exists.  We are trying to strike the right balance between usability and optimal decision-making.  Rossami (talk) 21:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

text: You might also want to take a look here which simply lists the current discussions, and is updated "every 15 and 45 to the hour". HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 10:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Listing by day 

message: Previously, copyright violations were listed on copyright problems when they are discovered after being nominated for deletion and the nomination was closed. However, I've seen several speedy deletions of such articles recently. An example is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary Woodford. Has there been a change in policy? -- Kjkolb 21:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there is the abject failure of a policy that is CSD A8. I imagine Capitalistroadster decided that the site amounted to a commercial content provider. Or, he may have decided that we can't keep copyright violations whether we want to or not and removed it accordingly as one that self-confessed to not being the owner of the material. (Trust me on that; it did.) -Splashtalk 23:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

text: There have been others, though. Anyway, we should do something about A8, either get rid of it, clarify it, or delete all copyrighted material unless permission is asserted, which is my favorite. I did try to clarify it, but people seemed to think I was changing its meaning instead because it is so misunderstood. -- Kjkolb 10:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I think there are many cases in which material which is not clearly copyrighted is put on Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Such claims are often made with little knowledge of copyright law. Many articles are taken directly from government websites and other sources that make them look like copyvios when they're not, and some content is contributed by the original author, which legitimately donates it under the GFDL. I don't think there should be any expansion of the already too-expansive right to delete copyrighted material. Deco 05:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My experience may not be representative, but out of the hundreds of copy and pastes that I've found, very few were from public domain sources or posted by the copyright owners. Some were from government websites, but the majority of those were from a government that does not make its work public domain. The number of mistaken deletions is further reduced by the fact that for the content to be deleted, the poster must make no assertion that it is public domain or that they have permission to post it. Finally, an admin has to confirm that it is a copyright violation whether it is speedied or listed on copyright problems and there is undeletion if mistakes are made. Given the amount of copyrighted material that is posted on Wikipedia, I would rather occasionally delete article by mistake than let a large number of copyright violations go uncaught. -- Kjkolb 23:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright violations being speedily deleted 

message: Can someone with all the stats confirm for me the suspicion that there have been far fewer articles on afd recently (down to only 100-120 per day from over 150) - and that this trend started long before the introduction of ? Grutness...wha? 01:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that it was around 180 to 200 for most days until recently. I suspect that prod has a lot to do with it. However, there are other possible factors. A big one that I can think of is not allowing anonymous users to create articles. Some of those users are probably just signing up for accounts to create bad articles, but new articles have been noticeably better on the whole. There was probably a big backlog in deletion candidates, and there still might be. However, the drop was sudden and occured around the time prod got going, so I think that it is probably the main reason for the reduction. -- Kjkolb 10:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I haven't seen any drastic reduction in AfD noms, and I still see a number of articles that should've gone through PROD (i.e. unanimous delete) instead of AfD. Johnleemk | Talk 10:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent stats?

message: My proposals (please respond/discuss/vote on sub page so as not to disrupt regular discussion here)
#I am quite satisfied with the m:9/11 wiki move proposal argument style and I propose it here for all deletions. 
#I also propose the merging of Wikipedia:Requested moves and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (Articles for deletion). Perhaps a system that takes care of both moves (renames), deletion and keeps would be more productive. 
#*Articles for deletion is misleading, this is not a page where only deletions are determined. Many (if not most) end up as keep or move/rename as well as delete. Also the process is more like a vote which is easily infested by "vote only accounts" and other nonsense
:--Cool CatTalk|@ 02:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Patch]]

message: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Contact-field microscopy seems to be orphaned. I can see it in the edit screen code for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 February 15, but it doesn't appear on the page. 86.143.208.102 02:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Orphan problem

message: Why is this listed on today's log even though it was closed in December and has not had any edits since?  User:Zoe|(talk) 03:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Campbells Bay Primary School]]

message: To work alongside something like User:Dragons flight/AFD summary, and solve a couple other problems along the way, I propose a simplified AfD script that will standardize the following:
*Voting terminology (a pulldown with a list of 5 or 6 options will help to automize the vote counting process, and largely eliminate votes like keep and rewrite, or delete)
*Terms used in justifying votes (e.g. nn, vanity, cruft, and other terms which may offend the public should be automatically instituted by a script in a way so as not to offent the public, such as "Notability is debated", "Article may not justify claims of notability", "Scope of popularity is debated". Such lubricated terms will never make it into common use if they are being input manually, and thus a script that can be used universally would be a huge plus)
Many of the functions could be shared between the adding and voting procedures, and it would save time, face, pain, and also make the AfD much more welcoming for bots and scripts to analyze, as well as other projects such as  WikiProject Deletion sorting. The script could build on AutoAFD.js and afd_helper, though I don't know how much of a help that would be.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  08:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I would prefer people to apply a little effort, to be honest with you. -Splashtalk 21:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

text: If I understand your proposal correctly, I agree with Splash.  This would seem to lock us into true "voting" and basing our decisions on pre-established positions rather than discussion and consensus-seeking.  It might work for the simpler discussions but often the best solution is one which can not be reduced to 5 or 6 preset options.  The complicated decisions require nuance and thought.  Our current process requires effort both on the part of the participants and on the part of the closer.  That seems appropriate for a decision as important as whether or not a topic should be included in the encyclopedia.  As to your second bullet about automatically re-editing comments so as not to offend, frankly, that seems like a slippery slope.  No matter what wording you choose, some people will decide to be offended.  Readers who choose to be offended today are already ignoring what we've written many different places about how specific terms are defined and used here.  We should all strive to be more civil but I'm skeptical that technology can do it for us.  Rossami (talk) 21:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal for AfD script

message: Could someone have a look at Owens_Park. I have been watching that article after another article that was linked from there was deleted. If you look through the history you'll find that the menue on there gets updated weekly, which is kind of odd for an enclyclopedia article. Agathoclea 14:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: University buildings, including dorms, seem to usually fail AfDs but it's hardly guaranteed, a good argument will usually sway enough people to want to keep it.  However this could just be a content dispute without any need for AfD... WP:NOT would seem to preclude lists of upcoming events like this, schedules, etc. under the "indiscriminate collection of information" clause. --W.marsh 15:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks - I deleted the menue now and made mention of it on the talkpage - I can just assume that the canteen owner won't be too happy with his advert gone. Agathoclea 16:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I stayed at Owens Park (Mall 8-1-6) during my first year at university and, although sometimes I thought the scrambled egg might be of interest to archeologists, in general the menu was not of encyclopedic value.  Architecturally, I always felt that the nearby catering college, called the Toast Rack because (believe it or not) the main building was designed after a toast rack and the hall was shaped like a gigantic fried egg, were more interesting architecturally. It's a couple of decades since I visited Manchester so I do not know whether those buildings are still there. --Tony Sidaway 12:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Owens_Park]] 

message: After three "keep" contributions, the nominator decided to withdraw the AfD, and removed the notice from the article.  I've replaced it, and explained that things aren't that easy — but what next?  Does the AfD have to finish its course, or is it permissible to close it early?  --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 17:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Craig]] 

message: In one of the AfDs, one of the contributors to the article was voting to keep and had not signed his post.  Another person noted he had a vested interest in the article, which was misunderstood to be a monetary interest.  Possibly there should be a Wikipedia:Vested interest page created (or subsection to WP:OWN) to link from the sentence "If you are the primary author or otherwise have a vested interest in the article, say so openly, and clearly base your recommendations on the deletion policy."?  In any case, I noticed there was a Vested interest stub and a Vested interests stub, so I suggested a merge on those. Schizombie 05:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm..I feel it's normally pretty obvious if someone's got a vested interest in the page, because the only people with said interest who usually come around to vote on an AfD are the article's creator or sockpuppets of that creator. However, I believe the AfD process is a process of consensus in which the bureaucrat who comes around to close out a discussion makes a decision on what the final result of the debate was. If the person with a vested interest makes a good point about the article, I think it deserves to be heard on AfD. JHMM13 (T | C)   07:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The usual practice is to add a note saying "Comment: I wrote most of this and ..." near the top - David Gerard 09:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

text: "edit history, which all AFD voters, and the closing admin, are supposed to look at anyhow" - *cough* *splutter* And how often do you think that's the case? - David Gerard 15:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I dunno...I look at that sort of thing most of the time if I see a debate going on. JHMM13 (T | C)   21:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it's courteous to mention any vested interest, and it improves their argument, but if they fail to state their interest, any other contributor can note it. Deco 19:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: AfD Etiquette: vested interest

message: Since one didn't seem to exist, I have created a template to notify people that an article they've editted is being listed on AfD.  See Template:AFDWarning if interested.  If we're going to try to encourage nominators inform various editors of AfDs, we might as well make it less tedius. --W.marsh 15:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely. Good one - David Gerard 08:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD notification template 

message: Several AfD have had subsections added to them by the use of multiple "equal sign" symbols.  Is there a policy on that?  Personally I think it confuses things - after it's done, which section are additional contributors supposed to add their comments to? Schizombie 06:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Subsections in AfD entries?