Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 30

message: There is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Reducing VfD load about ways that the size of VfD might be reduced.  While there is still much discussion about possible new procedures and policies, there is a general consensus that one way to reduce the size would be to encourage editors to use other processes before or instead of nominating a page for deletion.  Some of these other processes are:
#Research the subject. A lot of articles are placed on VfD because of very little/poor content, but then kept because the subject is determined to be encyclopedic, even if the article in its current state is not.  Nominators should put more effort into finding out if the subject of the article is keepable, and make sure it is correctly categorized/stub-tagged/cleanup-tagged.
#Patience.  Two applications of this -
## Give an article at least a little time to develop; It is understood that some RC patrollers feel they need to take action before an article disappears off the RC page, but nominating an article for VfD within minutes of its creation is often inappropriate.  Use the "Watch" button - it won't kill us if a questionable stub is created and sits around for at least a couple of days until the author gets a chance to work on it.
##"A month" isn't exactly a long time either; many VfD's seem to be based on "this article's been around for a month (or 2 or 3) and nobody's worked on it!!!!!"  Nobody knowledgeable about the subject may have found it (especially if it hasn't been categorized/tagged/listed) or had time to work on it.  Not all editors are Wikipedaholics.
#Categorize/Stub-tag/Listing on the appropriate "needs attention" page.  In conjunction with the two points above, an article may not have been "placed" or linked to a place where an editor with knowledge of the subject can find it and fix it.  
#Merge and Redirect. Any editor can do this.  See Wikipedia:Merge, Wikipedia:Redirect and Wikipedia:Duplicate articles.  This would help with sending "cruft" articles/info to a place where the info will get attention from informed sources, and unnecessary/inappropriate stuff can get deleted without clogging VfD and requring admin attention.  Also Move can be used by any logged-in user, when appropriate.
#Use the article's Discussion page to raise questions about an article's appropriateness.  Also, discussions on the talk pages of articles related to the subject can be especially useful in determining if an article should be merged with a larger article.
#So fix it.  While "write about what you know about" is certainly useful, it's definitely not a rule or requirement or anything.  No reason that editors couldn't or shouldn't do some research (even if it's just online research) and make some improvements themselves rather than VFDing it. 
Please note that this is not a suggestion about changing policy or procedure.  This is simply "spreading the word" about some possible ways that we can reduce the size of VfD, and so this will be posted in several places around Wikipedia.  Thanks for listening.  Soundguy99 15:31, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reducing VfD load 

message: I've come across a number of articles such as 32 universes that have been vfd'ed, gone through the voting process, but then have had nothing further done to them. The example article I mentioned was nominated on the 25th - 12 days ago. It has no indication that the decision is being postponed in some way. Are there any specific steps to get them moved along? --TheParanoidOne 21:01, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Old.  Like everything else on Wikipedia, closing out the old discussions is a volunteer activity.  Discussions get closed when someone has interest, experience and ability.  The backlog of discussions that have expired but not yet been closed tends to run between 4 and 10 days (though it's been much higher at times).  Be patient and it will get closed eventually.  Or even better (especially if you are an admin), review the Wikipedia:Deletion process and help us stay caught up.  Thanks.  Rossami (talk) 21:37, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the info. --TheParanoidOne 22:25, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Unprocessed vfds

message: At Lucky Octavian's VFU which I brought to VFU, RickK voted keep deleted on the grounds that "the admin has the clear right to assess the votes and determine how to interpret them". I'm a bit interested in finding out how many people would "interpret" Lucky Octavian's VfD debate as a consensus to delete the article. For me, if I found out that a closing admin started interpreting my merge votes as endorsements for the article's deletion I would be quite astonished. What about you? Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:32, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I count 3keep, 7del and 3merge, which means that there is a consensus that this does not deserve its own article. Thus the info should be merged and this article become a redirect. IMHO --MarSch 13:51, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed.  In my humble non-sysop opinion, I would tend to read a small majority of delete votes, combined with merge votes and only a few keeps as an opportunity to merge as a sensible compromise.  The redirect also tends to cut down on recreation of the articles, so we can avoid having to go through VfD again.  Then again, I'm a closet mergist, so maybe I'm biased. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 14:35, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interpretation of votes 

message: Okay, I know reducing VfD lod is curretly a big deal, so here's a little help I can offer. First, have you noticed a lot of articles listed for deletion that are "already transwikied?" Well, a lot of times there were previous VfD decisions for transwiki. Also, a lot of times the discussion drags on even when there is a clear consensus to transwiki, and only then is it marked, and then there is some confusion as to whether it needs to be deleted or relisted. So I'm here to tell you that I transwiki all tagged articles for transwiki to Wiktionary within a day or two. So if you see a candidate for transwiki listed please mark it while it is listed, so I can transwik it first. This will prevent double listings, and most likely allow many clear-cut cases to be closed early. --Dmcdevit 06:54, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transwiki on VfD 

message: Please take a look at a proposal at User:MarSch/deleteproposal for changing the deletion process. --MarSch 14:24, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  a proposal for a different process 

message: WP:VFDL is not up date any more, but currently stops at June 10. Am I the only one using that page? It's much more convenient than the individual pages if you want to find your own votes. Martg76 22:34, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ouch! That page takes eons to load... --MarSch 15:12, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please keep long form up to date 

message: Would it be possible to have a navigation template for the days on Vfd, updated daily by bot, so that users can work their way between days? Susvolans (pigs can fly) 07:55, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Or, failing that, "previous day"/"next day" links on each day's transclusion. Yeah - anything that makes navigating vfd even easier would help. Grutness...wha? 02:03, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Navigation template? 

message: Some editors vote for or against a VfD without providing any reason. Given that "it's not about the votes", this seems to be a useless jesture. It is also annoying to editors who take the VfD seriously. We can't obviously, enforce a ban on unexplained votes, but we could put a recommendation on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion:
:"Because VfDs are conducted on the basis of consensus instead of a vote count, please provide a reason for your vote. Failure to do so could result in the administrator disregarding your vote in determining the outcome of the discussion."
Comments? Ground Zero 20:10, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It used to be explicitly listed in the header of the main VfD page but was removed (with a lot of other stuff) when the header was trimmed back.  (See m:instruction creep.)  It remains in the Deletion policy but it is not strongly worded there.  It is clearly explained in Wikipedia:Guide to Votes for deletion although it is buried down in the sixth paragraph of the Discussion section.  Rossami (talk) 21:49, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree. However, I don't think VfD regulars read the heading text any longer, so you'd have to advertise it by other means. I think, at the very least, users voting should put one reason, even if it's "Delete per User_Name". --Deathphoenix 20:23, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right that regulars don't read the header, but putting it there would enable people to refer to it when others vote without a reason. Over time, it would encourage better behaviour. I also agree that "Delete, as per Bob Terwilliger" as an acceptable reason. It's a short cut that still explains why. Thanks, Death. Ground Zero 20:31, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Reasons for VfD

message: Can we drop the google-test template please? It's making a crowded page even more crowded. I'm perfectly capable of Google-testing something myself without a pre-built template. —Wahoofive (talk) 17:53, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is listed at Templates for deletion.  Please vote there if you want it deleted (as would any sane person). smoddy 17:55, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Google template 

message: On the June 16, 2005 VfD page, there's a bunch of full sized images included inside the deletion discussions. This to my mind at any rate, is inappropriate, distracting, and a bad use of images. So... should these be apppropriate for use on VfD pages? (I have not noticed them being used before, in the quite a long time I've glanced at VfD) 132.205.95.65 20:02, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sock Puppet images 

message: I've requested to change the name to Votes Regarding Deletion. Superm401 | Talk 04:06, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
*Why? AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 04:55, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
::This is a question that comes up from time to time.  The name Votes for deletion is perhaps nonideal for two reasons.  The use of the word votes implies that it is a democratic process, a referendum, a ballot—and unfortunately, it encourages a sort of winners versus losers all-or-nothing attitude towards discussions.  Not only that, but it encourages misguided individuals to use sockpuppets or attempt to stack the discussions under the mistaken impression that sheer numbers are key.  The second issue–which Android79 seems to be hoping to address–is that by calling this Votes for deletion, a particular course of action may seem to be advocated.  Votes regarding deletion may be perceived as a more neutral statement.
::As far as my two cents are concerned (and if a change and all its attendant updating and chaos were absolutely necessary) I would suggest Deletion discussions to dispense with the voting connotation.  (The shortcut WP:DD is still available, too.) Mind, my preference is to leave well enough alone unless there's a really overwhelming desire from the community to make a change. --TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:21, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Wikipedia:Article Deletion says what this page is about (unfortunately WP:AD goes to accuracy dispute) without making unwanted references to voting or any other way we go about deleting articles. --MarSch 13:42, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name Change

message: What happened to the edit links on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Log/2005 June 19?  RickK 20:30, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
:Someone added __NOEDITSECTION__ to Template:Vfd top. It has already been reverted, but one of the discussions must still have it. We just need to look at the 100+ of them and remove any __NOEDITSECTION__ left. --cesarb 21:26, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I got them all for June 19. Related changes and a tabbed browser can be really helpful. --cesarb 21:39, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit links

message: The user who nominated an article for deletion can prematurely close the VFD with a keep result, unless the "delete" opinion has already got more votes. - Sikon 12:31, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal: VFD recall 

message: I  formally request that an admin close the VFD vote as KEEP on Starfleet ranks and insignia.  The VFD tag was posted by a user who has some very strong feelings about the existence of this article on Wikipedia.  In less than twenty four hours, we have 20 keep votes against 2 delete and many users have expressed a degree of shock that this was ever even considered for VFD.  As the situation is unlikely to change, I am hoping to get the VFD tag removed and close this vote.  Of course, if admins decided to keep it opne that is fine.  I also say that the person who put it for VFD had every right to do so, as he felt he had a case and wanted a vote.  There's nothing wrong with that and this request is not an indication of anger towards the VFD, just a hope for a speedy resolution. -Husnock 6 July 2005 20:39 (UTC)
:Not likely. Policy and precedent agree neatly here: every entry gets its minimum of five days on VfD, except speedy deletion candidates, whose nominations may be closed prematurely. Righteous indignation is no grounds for premature delisting; even trolling isn't (when Jesus was put on VfD by a huckster, the article got five days of people lambasting the nomination, but it wasn't closed before its time). It doesn't pay off to make exceptions, even in obvious cases; you'll just get people arguing that clearly their article shouldn't be nominated, etc. Drafting exact policy on this (X% of keep votes in Y days) is a waste of time and effort. Let the discussion run its course. If it's clear-cut, it's clear-cut.
:Besides, being listed on VfD is not a mark of shame; some of our best articles were listed on VfD once. JRM · Talk 6 July 2005 21:40 (UTC)
::Thats a good answer.  We will wait out the storm as it were. P.S.- Jesus was put on VFD?!?  Do I hear thunder? -Husnock 6 July 2005 21:54 (UTC)
:::Actually, nominations like these make for a fine opportunity to really pin down the criteria for VfD. Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Jesus is a fun read. JRM · Talk 6 July 2005 21:58 (UTC)
There are examples of exceptions. Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/L._Paul_Bremer ended with speedy keep. Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/George W. Bush was in fact deleted (the debate that is, not the article). Sjakkalle (Check!) 7 July 2005 10:06 (UTC)
: I am going to dispute those examples.  Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/George W. Bush was an April Fools joke - supposed to be funny for the day and then the "discussion" was shut down.  Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/L._Paul_Bremer was prematurely closed out of process.  Had I seen it, I would have immediately re-opened the discussion.  We got lucky that time and it turned out not to be controversial but our own history has taught us repeatedly that prematurely closing a discussion creates far more ill will and confusion than leaving the discussion in place for a few more days.  user:JRM is right - the Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Jesus example is the right way to go.  Rossami (talk) 7 July 2005 12:43 (UTC)
::However, there does seem to be some precedent for speedily removing a debate if all the votes are to keep and the original nominator withdraws their nomination: See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Lucky 6.9.  Oh geez, all of this is putting me on an administrivia high. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) July 7, 2005 14:24 (UTC)
:::The situation here (noticed by at least three editors) was it was felt that the original VFD nomination was created by the nominator to "get back" for comments left on the Featured Article Candidate Page.  At least one user wrote that it was an abuse of VFD and another wrote he found the entire VFD insulting.  I wonder if, in cases such as that, VFDs can be closed quickly if its clear that the VFD itself should never have been made. -Husnock 9 July 2005 05:24 (UTC)
:::: The problem in the past has been that we would immediately get into arguments over whether it really was a bad faith nomination.  I can remember more than a few which were attacked as "bogus" or "retribution" nominations but then were defended as reasonable questions.  We argued and argued and it still took the full 5 days.  I know it's difficult to be patient when you really believe the nomination was in bad faith but the very fight is a form of feeding the trolls.  In my opinion, the best way to get the encyclopedia back on track is to shout down the nomination with lots of "keep" votes then let the process run its course.  Rossami (talk) 01:02, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Speedy Closing of [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Starfleet ranks and insignia|Starfleet Ranks VFD]] 

message: I feel that this is (or should be) a FAQ question but was unable to find an answer. Could someone explain how to add the VfD to one's watchlist. TIA. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 03:04, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Go to User:Sjorford/VFD pages and click on all the links in the bottom section. —Cryptic (talk) 03:31, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to watch VFD list 

message: I have begun to notice many articles, recently, that have been speedied before or after listing on VFD. I am not sure why that is done, but that gave me an idea, which I wish to "borrow" from WP:FPC. Why not have a period where we can figure out if the article can really be speedied or the nomination is even valid (I seen at least a few speedy keeps, since the VFD were started by socks/trolls). I am not sure what to call it, but it could be something like "Proposed VFD" or something to that effect. Not sure how yall will think about it, but it is worth a shot. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:38, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another idea reducing the load 

message: GNAA trolls were attempting to start a meatball:ForestFire re: Kick the ass... GNAA articles. I put out the fire. This fire stays out. Anyone recreating or undeleting said pages might find themselves blocked. :-) 
Kim Bruning 01:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You have the most inappropriate, idiosyncratic use of smilies I've ever seen. Unless you're just evil, of course. JRM · Talk 17:47, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoops. Almost forgot: :-) JRM · Talk 17:47, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Of course I'm evil! You ever doubted? Kim Bruning 17:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Jocularity aside, don't threaten to block people for doing things that don't violate policy, please, not even jokingly. Which I'm pretty sure you weren't doing. Putting forth your arguments, then asking people nicely, is bound to be more productive. Especially if one considers the only people who can "undelete said pages" are administrators, and the last thing we need is sysops warring over something like this. Comments like these just rub me the wrong way, y'know? JRM · Talk 17:56, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  In the end I ended up not blocking people at all, but hadn't changed the statement here. I'll admit to having dropped dead in my bed after a long night ^^;; Kim Bruning 18:16, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  There there. At least now you know what happens to people who put out forest fires: they get burned. Or at least a burnout... JRM · Talk 18:20, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  IMHO, I think some of the VFD's were created by GNAA socks themselves for a laugh or two. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:16, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Kick the ass... forestfire 

message: Hi.  I am somewhat new around Wickipedia.  I recently have been helping out in the (disambiguation link repair project) and as I have been going through correcting bad links I have noticed several candidates which I strongly believe meet the criteria for VfD.  Is it bad form to submit multiple such articles in a single day?Barkeep49 01:44, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nominating Multiple Articles 

message: There has been some confusion recently on whether a vote to 'redirect' would qualify as a keep or a delete. In my own opinion (as well as the WP:GVFD) people vote 'redirect' if they find the content discardable; if they didn't, they would vote 'merge' or 'keep'. Any thoughts? Radiant_>|< 08:55, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
*When I close debates ending with redirect, I keep the history unless the redirects vote specifically request the history deleted. The history underneath the redirect is usually quite harmless as long as it isn't copyvio stuff or something else  evil (see e.g. Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Colon health), and if people are interested in accessing and reading this, why not let them? Sometimes parts of the old content has been merged into another article already. Also, it might take a little load off my, and other VFD closer's backs, if we allow non-admins to close the debates with a clear redirect consensus. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:28, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect votes 

message: Is there any policy about deleting media associated with pages that are deleted? For example, if various images were uploaded to illustrate an article but this was deleted, what is the fate of the images? Usually, these become orphans. Should they automatically go on IFD? There must be 100s of orphans as a result of VFD. JFW | T@lk 19:44, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Related media - automatically on IFD? 

message: I reluctantly tolerate folks commenting below new users' votes for deletion to indicate that they're new users.  I was vaguely amused when a recent vote of mine got tagged in this way; I've read Wikipedia for a while now and have contributed edits from a number of IP addresses.
However, the same vote that was tagged "first edit" was also subsequently edited to have "invalid vote" in front of the vote text; that is, my actual vote text was edited rather than the comment being placed below it.  The word "keep" in my vote text was also un-bolded.
Is this bad?  When is it okay to actually edit someone's vote text? --Takeel 17:24, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  People editing other users' vote texts: bad? 

message: I just ran across an article on VfD that had received only two votes and that had been posted barely five hours before the debate was closed. It seems a little hasty to me, given that this is VfD and not CSD. I had always thought that articles appearing here had five days to demonstrate their merit before a final decision was reached. Is this unrealistic? (BTW, I have no opinion in favor of or against the article itself. My concern is with the process.) Denni☯ 00:38, 2005 July 23 (UTC)
: Manning Bartlett closed it early as a purely procedural matter.  From his edits, he apparently believes that the deletion discussion about article you cite, The Cosmology of Love, should be consolidated with a related deletion discussion.  Since the complete text of this article is "Poetry collection by Matthew Charlton", I am inclined to agree that the fate of this article should probably follow the fate of the Matthew Charlton article.  It's a bit unusual but not unreasonable.  Rossami (talk) 04:18, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  How long on VfD? 

message: I've noticed a few votes for "smerge" in today's VfDs. Could someone enlighten me as to what this stands for (and possible also add it to the VfD guide)? --fvw<SMALL>*</SMALL> 06:18, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
:User:R. fiend#Smerge. —Cryptic (talk) 14:04, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Smerge? (sounds like a scandinavian delicacy but isn't) 

message: I propose that redirect should not be used as a vote. Instead, every deletion vote should be considered a redirect vote if all of the following holds:
* The page or its history does not include copyright violations
* The page, its title or its history does not contain other material clearly not fit to remain even in history
* There is a page that could serve as a reasonably helpful redirect target (i.e. it would not typically be deleted at WP:RFD)
* The vote does not explicitly state that redirection is not an option
Reasoning:
* Redirects reduce the risk that an article that has been removed according to policy is recreated
* Avoids breaking inbound links to Wikipedia from regular sites and from search engines
* Less contentious than deletion, since the material does not get eradicated from Wikipedia. May pacify retentionists/inclusionists.
* Does not require an admin to actually perform the procedure – reduces the gap between users and admins
* Redirect votes are very confusing at this time when tallying the votes. Should they be counted as deletes or keeps if there is no clear "winning" side?
* Policy is unclear on what should happen to a deleted page that is recreated as a redirect immediately after being deleted
So, what do you think? Sounds reasonable? Have I missed any obvious problems with this approach? — David Remahl 03:32, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, yes - if you don't want to delete a page, it should not be listed here.  Any user can redirect a page - VfD is a request for admin-only deletions.  In essence, a "redirect" vote should be counted as a "keep" vote.  VfD is only for pages which need to be deleted, for one of the reasons listed in the Deletion Policy.  Guettarda 03:43, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That is true. But then I must ask why this page is sooo huge and getting larger. Do people really have such a desire to destroy? Or are they not aware of the option of redirecting? — David Remahl 04:16, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I wish I knew - time after time I see VfDs that don't meet the deletion criteria, or that say "merge and delete", as if that didn't violate GFDL.  Guettarda 20:15, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of redirection as an option 

message: ::See related thread at Wikipedia_talk:Votes_for_undeletion#VfU_notice_in_VfD
A long discussion is underway at Wikipedia_talk:Votes_for_deletion/Harry_Potter_and_the_Half-Blood_Prince_-_Full_Plot_Summary about how users are not informed when a page that's been deleted is up for an undeletion vote at VFU. So, I've taken the liberty to create , which can be used in conjunction with  to resolve this issue. Please look over the discussion at VFU's talk page. --Titoxd 02:09, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  VfU notice in VfD 

message: The message at the top of the VfD page is rather long, and contains a reference to a closed RfC and a moribund proposal.  Would it be OK to trim/update it?  -- Visviva 14:03, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Message 

message: What is the proper procedure when a deleted page is recreated?
(See Willosaurus & Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Willosaurus)
Fornadan (t) 15:26, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recreated pages