Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 44

message: Why is the "8 December (Saturday)" red even though it has content?  I've refereshed several times, but it stays red.  Corvus cornixtalk 00:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  8 December (Saturday) 

message: Hi, I have listed an article for WP:AFD. However, while the discussion is still ongoing the 'author' (User:The Dragon of Bosnia)of the article has unilaterally removed the tag. Probably to stop a debate about the merits of 'his' article. I have since put the tag back in place. However, is there any remedy for or means to stop this type of behavior from being repeated?Osli73 (talk) 01:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your edit. The tag should stay until the process is over, I though it is not needed anymore as I included five different sources and improved it a lot. The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 01:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  vandalism of [[WP:AFD]] tags - remedies? 

message: The article List of locations in Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars was placed for deletion by User:Henke37, a suspected sockpuppet of User:TTN.(See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of locations in Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars (2nd nomination)) A user requested I utilize Wikipedia:Request for checkuser, however, I indicated that it did not qualify for checkuser, until the AfD was over. The AfD is not over yet, but User:JzG deleted Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/TTN, which is not the propper process, since WP:SSP archives suspected sock puppet discussions. (see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 December 7#Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/TTN). I'm curious what to do in this specific situation. Taric25 (talk) 19:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: the AfD is over, and we kept the article, so the SSP does not qualify for checkuser. I still don't know what to do in this situation. Please advise. Taric25 (talk) 07:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, since the AfD is over, I'm taking this page off my watchlist, so if anyone has any comments, please feel free to leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Taric25 (talk) 16:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD & SSP (with DRV) 

message: ...this. --EEMIV (talk) 20:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please close and delete... 

message: I don't follow AFD as well as I should, but have any AFDs been submitted for the articles in :Category:Guantanamo Bay detainees?  While some of them may have a some limited notability, and WP:V can be satisfied by the reams of reports the US Government has been turning out, I fail to see why someone like Nasrullah belongs in an encyclopedia.  It runs afoul of WP:BLP1E off the bat, and would suggest that every individual person that the US has imprisoned under questionable circumstances (Japanese internment camps, Indian Removal) is notable.  Burzmali (talk) 16:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Many.  Many.  See  User:Geo Swan/working/Guantanamo related articles which have been nominated for deletion and Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Guantanamo Bay detainment camp for most of the deletion discussions.  GRBerry 18:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I missed that.  Looks like an entire category being use as a memorial to those folks.  That's depressing.  Burzmali (talk) 18:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: as more sources are found, as more people notice and write about them, I expect to see all the articles justified and restored. I think every individual one of them will in their own country be considered notable;  and we cover the world, if we have the editors to find the sources and write the articles.  There are things that are merely "questionable circumstances,"--but then there are also international prominent outrages. If we in the US are forced to witness the loss of our nation's claim to civilized behavior, we have the obligation to at least bear witness--though if we do so here, we must do it within the standards of WP. DGG (talk) 08:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Bearing witness sounds an awful lot like WP:MEMORIAL.  Also, that still doesn't justify the WP:BLP1E violation.  Let's face it, this guy was a tailor (non-notable) that got recruited by the Taliban (non-notable) and who got captured and held by the US (possibly notable).  It seems difficult to have an article devoted to him that isn't just a WP:COATRACK to hang attacks against the US governments' behavior in this situation.  Burzmali (talk) 14:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I see a lot of evidence of bad behavior in that list, including nominating articles with "NN" as the only explanation, nominating articles minutes or hours after creation, speedy deletion after , and nominations by sock-puppets. Dhaluza (talk) 15:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Speedy deletion after a  tag isn't necessarily bad behavior. It's up to the deleting admin to weigh the merits of the speedy request against the merits of the hangon request.--Fabrictramp (talk) 16:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AFDs Guantanamo detainee articles 

message: If an article has been nominated previously and then nominated again the link goes to the old nomination. What do you do about this? --Neon white (talk) 02:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the article, use the  template (with appropriate parameter: 2nd, 3rd, 4th, ... 15th ...) instead of .  GRBerry 03:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2nd nomination 

message: An article that I nominated for deletion successfully was recreated.  The new one is WORSE then it was before. Am I able to renominate and lock the article? wiki_is_unique (talk) 15:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the article does not address the reasons why it was deleted via an AFD discussion previously then you can nominate it for speedy deletion via WP:CSD#G4. To quote from the speedy criteria "Recreation of deleted material. A copy, by any title, of a page deleted via a deletion discussion, provided the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version and that any changes in the recreated page do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted."  If you feel it does not fit this criteria then renominating the article is probably sensible. Davewild (talk) 19:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are talking about Hood Surgeon, an administrator speedy-deleted it today as a G4, and protected it against re-creation. (A smart move, since it's already been deleted and re-created seven times). EdJohnston (talk) 02:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And it was also logically salted meaning no one other than an admin can recreate it now. --67.68.152.170 (talk) 01:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Recreation 

message: I tried to create a deletion request for Squacketball. This is the second time the article has appeared, it was deleted after the last deletion request. But I think I screwed up the entry on this page for it. I can't make it appear.Archer3 (talk) 15:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what you did, but it doesn't seem to be listed.  Generally, recreated content shouldn't be listed on AFD, and seems there was a clear decision in the debate, so I retagged it as speedy deletion. -Steve Sanbeg (talk) 17:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It all looks fine to me. Can you give us more details on what isn't appearing correctly? --Fabrictramp (talk) 17:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

text: And FWIW, I've deleted the article, as it hasn't addressed the notability issue from the AfD.--Fabrictramp (talk) 17:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a DRV would be pointless. Bearian (talk) 17:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  HELP 

message: I'm wondering if the the current backlog in AfD is a function of not enough users voicing their opinions on articles or a lack of admins closing them once consensus is achieved.  From the articles I've seen, it looks more along the lines of users not contributing, but I'm not certain. Mbisanz (talk) 06:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Backlog 

message: :I asked this on Deletion debates, but that page doesn't seem to get much traffic, so I'm re-asking here.
Two things:
* Is adding the template,such as , to an article's talk page part of the discussion closing procedure, or is it up to the people who work on the specific article to add it? If it's not part of the procedure, could it be added? There are quite a few articles that don't have the tag, probably just because nobody thought to add it. It is very helpful to be able to point people to/refer to the old debate(s) when someone brings up the acceptability of the article, or if it gets renominated. (Yes, I know consensus changes so it's not a discussion closer, but it is nice to have the history to refer back to).
*Should we bother adding the tag at all if the result is speedy keep? It would seem to me that pages are speedy kept when the nomination was pointless and just a waste of people's times. Therefore tagging the article as being speedy kept really serves no practical purpose aside from record keeping. Additionally many debates that are speedy closed are because the nominator vandalizing/editing to make a point/trolling, so slapping the tag on the debate only serves to keep it going.
- Koweja (talk) 04:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To see the full process for closing deletion debates, go to Wikipedia:Deletion process where you'll find that, yes, it is part of the process to add a note about the deletion debate on the article's Talk page (perhaps using the template but perhaps just using text).  However, that's a relatively new part of the process.  If you're looking for many of the older discussions, they're not noted.  Those links also tend to get archived off or flat removed by partisans who are offended that their page was ever nominated for deletion in the first place.  It's also a somewhat optional part of the process.  (In a volunteer-run operation, everything is optional to some extent.  This just a bit more than most.)  If you see one missing, go ahead and add a link on the Talk page.  To your second question, I don't think anyone has ever explicitly addressed the issue of "speedy-keeps".  Leaving it up to the closer and/or the page editors seems to work.  Rossami (talk) 06:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Old XFD" templates 

message: I found Eileen Hayward from clicking on "Random Article", and decided it could be nominated for deletion. Then I noticed in the template on the page that theres lots of similar pages for Secondary characters in Twin Peaks. I think all of them could be merged into one page, especially because some of the characters are played by actors who dont have their own wikipedia articles. But although Ive done some editing here before I got a username, I dont think I could nominate all the different pages without getting something wrong. And I dont know if what I'm thinking (merging) should be done at Articles for deletion or somewhere else. Can anyone suggest what to do? Horsesforcorses (talk) 20:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:FICTION has the relevant guideline. Probably the majority of the characters in Twin Peaks aren't notable enough for their own article, so merging them into a single article on the characters would be the way to go. If you're feeling brave, you can create the article on the characters, copy the information from each character into the new article, and then change the individual character's article to a redirect. If you aren't feeling brave, you can add a  tag to each article and leave it for someone else to do. If you need more help, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, and I'll be glad to step you through it. --Fabrictramp (talk) 21:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: but do not be surprised if you get some opposition if you do all the characters. The major characters in that series are probably notable. DGG (talk) 12:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eileen Hayward 

message: I created a page AMP Credit Union yesterday. I think it was speedily deleted. Is there any place where I can see why it was nominated and why I wasn't informed? I like to think that given my experience if I have created something that wasn't upto scratch, I would be told......Todd#661 02:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It was deleted at 15:28 on  31 December 2007 by user:Keilana  with the explanation "CSD A7 (Corp): Article about a company that doesn't assert significance)".  Looking at the page at the time it was deleted, I can understand the concern.  Do you have evidence that the company meets any of our generally accepted inclusion criteria?  Rossami (talk) 05:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: it should not be speedy deleted if it even asserts some importance, but the article did not clearly do so. The nearest was to say 'Only employees of AMP and GIO are allowed to join.",and a category putting it among companies listed on the Australian Stock Exchange. If you explain the importance of those two companies,and put the Stock Exchange statement in the article, it should pass speedy. But as Rossami says, it may not be enough to prevent deletion of the article at WP:AFD. Some financial information might help. DGG (talk) 12:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  AMP Credit Union 

message: While sorting AfD's, I came across a debate without a nomination. An IP, , added the AfD nom to the article here, on 29 December, but apparently failed to actually nominate the article by creating the subpage. An editor created the debate subpage with a comment in favor of keeping the article, and Dumbbot later completed the nom. Given no rationale for deletion, and the fact than an IP nominated the article without comment, I'm inclined to non-admin close - BUT, reading the article, I'm not 100% sure that the article would survive an AfD debate. I'm mentioning it here for additional input. If the article is to be nominated, I'd recommend re-nominating or re-listing it, which I am happy to take care of. Thanks, UltraExactZZ  Claims ~ Evidence  14:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Critical Information Studies]], IP nom 

message: I started an AfD on an article which didnt have any sources at the time. People have found sources for it now so I'd like to withdraw the AfD if possible. If anyone wants to close it, please go ahead. We have two reliable sources talking about the site in a non-trivial way (,) so this qualifies for WP:WEB now. Otherwise we can wait for the normal process with whatever the outcome is, I am fine either way. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 02:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Strike the nomination out. Like thisMarlith 03:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requesting close of AfD I started 

message: Whoever's responsible for the template code might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Toa (2nd_nomination) - something needs fixing here, I think. Tevildo (talk) 20:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template issue 

message: I asked this at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical), but thought I might as well bring it up here, too: is it possible to do something with AfD closures so that it indicates in the AfD TOC when the AfD is closed, or does the fact that AfD uses transclusion prevent that? I know it's considerably simpler at the BLPN noticeboard, which I frequent, given that the tickets are on the actual page, but I don't want to presume it's impossible to do with transclusion without asking. People who do technological stuff (I do not) are constantly impressing me with their ingenuity. :) It would certainly make it easier to close if we could simply look at the TOC and see what's outstanding. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's possible by changing the section title on the AfD subpage itself. I can't think of an easy way to make  do that automatically, though. --ais523 21:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  could substitute a new heading using  if closers are told to remove the existing heading as well as the REMOVE template, and the closing rationale would have to be typed completely within the first parameter. But this would take getting used to. –Pomte 05:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you suppose this would make things easier to use or be more trouble than it's worth? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template indicate with AfD closed? 

message: We now have articles listed latest-first, which has, I think, improved things a bit (or at least reduced slightly the number of AfDs getting tiny numbers of !votes).  I'd like to suggest that as a next step we rename this as "Articles for discussion" (as with Wikipedia:redirects for discussion).  This is to recognise current practice, which may result in keep, merge, redirct or delete consensus; three of these are not delete.  Additionally, "keep and improve" is often advocated but the second part of this is frequently omitted.  Eventually I would advocate having an "expedited cleanup" close, which gives, say, 14 days for the major problems with an article to be remedied - bands that look notable but lack independent sources, say - after which time if the article is not properly fixed according to set criteria it would be treated as a .  But that's an aside.  Articles for discussion is closer to RfC and other processes, recognises the non-delete closes, and also lacks some of the stigma of "This article is teh suck, we nuke!" in the Big Reg Infobox at the top of the article; WP:BLP subject in particular find this quite hurtful. Guy (Help!) 23:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But the purpose of listing an article at AfD is to argue for its deletion. Merge/redirect and redirect are both in effect keep or delete, depending on context. "Articles for discussion" suggests that people can propose merges and cleanup tasks here. "Articles nominated for deletion for discussion" would be more precise, but that's too long and we can safely go for the more abrupt title, with an explanation at the top of WP:AfD. There are potential BLP concerns for every scenario: a subject may not realize the potential severity of "Articles for discussion," and feel hurt when the result is unexpectedly deletion. –Pomte 01:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No it is not--the purpose of listing at Afd is to suggest the possible deletion of a article, and ask for discussion on it. The best end for an AfD is an improved article, kept as a result of the discussion. The point of the entire process is the community discussion. DGG (talk) 01:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. By focusing on discussion, rather than deletion, we also remove some of the contest aspect of winners and losers as well. What we want is community input in the discussion, not any particular outcome. Dhaluza (talk) 03:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I thoroughly agree with Guy's excellent suggestions. I would like to see them implemented. - Neparis (talk) 04:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I have to believe that, if an editor writes an article that ends up under Discussion at an Articles for Discussion "debate", the editor might not realize that the article is at risk of being deleted. With Articles for Deletion, that risk is front and center. From an improvement of articles standpoint, the knowledge that the article may be deleted has spurred many an editor to make good, solid changes to the article in a short period of time. With an Articles for Discussion issue, however, I think some editors will see the discussion as no real threat, and will not make the improvements necessary to keep the article. tl;dr: Keeping the name as Articles for Deletion acknowledges that deletion is possible, while discussion may not necessarily do that. UltraExactZZ  Claims ~ Evidence  04:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

text: * Good point. We can fix that with the user talk notification templates. Guy (Help!) 14:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  A seriously bad article on a marginal or good subject can legitimately be subject to "keep and clean up" only so many times, in my view.  It all comes down to whether we think a bad treatment of that subject is better than no treatment, once it becomes obvious that nobody has the resources (or can be bothered) to fix it. Guy (Help!) 18:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

text: there are editorial ways to deal with this.. I've sen many articles get improved even after years of neglect.  In the extreme, articles can be stubbified. The forced removal of an article makes it very hard to have a good one reinserted. DGG (talk) 05:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fixing AfD: step 2 

message: isn't there a bot that automatically creates the next day's page with all appropriate headers?  it's now 30 minutes after midnight UTC and the 9 January log isn't created yet.  Corvus cornixtalk 00:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  9 January log 

message: Is there any objection to establishing discussion before deletion as a part of this policy? The basic idea is that there should be some attempt to engage the article creator(s) prior to starting an AfD. Even in the case of a possible hoax, is there a problem with tagging the page with  and dropping a note on the talk page to the effect of "Is there any evidence to show this is not a hoax?" first. If there's no answer in a reasonable amount o f time (and there does not need to be a fixed limit), then go ahead and start an AfD. But if there is an answer, then evaluate the evidence before proceeding. Isn't this a more reasonable approach than the current practice that anyone can start an AfD discussion, without any prior attempt at discussion? Dhaluza (talk) 00:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *I'll buy the hoax and similar "need to remove now" issues, but for notability issues, I'd say it makes sense.  thoughts? Hobit (talk) 02:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: *Should AfD be the very first discussion of the issues in the article? Wouldn't it be better if two editors could address the issue on the talk page without unnecessarily involving the entire community in a discussion when there is a simple misconception of misunderstanding (for example  fixing a fixable problem, or getting an author to request speedy delete)? There is no issue of ownership--it's common sense (not to mention common courtesy) to see if the author can address the objection. Dhaluza (talk) 03:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion before deletion? 

message: I'm a new admin (I mean, really new. As of 16:00 UTC yesterday), and I was wondering the proper procedure for closing AfDs as Merge. Do I perform the merge? Is there a category I can add it to? Thanks, J-ſtanContribsUser page 04:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about outcomes 

message: I asked above if it is possible to alter the closing procedure so that the index of an AfD day indicates which AfDs are closed. (For an example, see Wikipedia:BLPN.) This would allow admins to look at the TOC and quickly navigate to AfDs that are not. User:Pomte indicates that it can be done by substituting a new heading, removing the old heading and adding the closing rationale to the first parameter. It sounds like it would be a simple matter of learning a new procedure. If it's that simple, would asking admins and non-admin closers to learn this new procedure be more trouble than it's worth? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revise AfD closing procedures? 

message: There used to be a bot which would create tables for each day's list of articles for deletions. Anybody knows what happened to it? Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 21:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The bot I follow, User:AfDBot, updates two tables: One is the count by day, with open and closed debates listed, found here. The other is a listing of Debates by Category, found here. They seem to be up to date - but there might be another tracker out there that isn't. UltraExactZZ  Claims ~ Evidence  23:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where did the tally bot go? 

message: Is this allowed? In my understanding, an AFD isn't closed because of a nom withdrawal when it does not result in a speedy keep. shoy 02:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks incorrect to me. You could ask the original nominator to undo his close and re-open the AfD for additional time. Due to the confusion, relisting for another five days seems advisable. When the AfD does close, an uninvolved party should do it.  If the nominator declines, you could take it to WP:DRV as a procedural error and ask for a new AfD.  EdJohnston (talk) 04:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a case where it's better to close and open another debate if necessary. Technically cogent delete arguments would supersede a nominator's withdrawal (i.e. not just delete per nom, or per <editor> who said delete per nom, as the first few comments were). But in a case like this where the nom was in error, and several editors commented delete based on that error, it would be difficult to find a proper consensus for delete. Also, since suggestions for improvement were made, it would also be reasonable to allow editors to try to improve the article, since that is the preferred outcome per policy. If there are valid reasons to delete despite the improvement, a new and more on target AfD can always be started. Dhaluza (talk) 15:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Because of the size of it, it may well need to be its own article, linked from the main one, but that is a matter for editorial discussion. Tyrenius (talk) 19:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Withdrawing a nom when delete !votes are present 

message: What's the current thinking on lists? List of breast cancer patients according to survival status and List of breast cancer patients according to occupation look like indiscriminate collections of information to me, and their potential scope is huge. As they themselves say "According to the United States National Cancer Institute, an estimated 212,920 new cases and 40,970 deaths (women only) will occur nationwide in 2006."
Do lists like this get deleted nowadays or is will it just be a waste of time nominating them? --kingboyk (talk) 20:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You can expect them to be defended: remember its implied that they are "lists of people notable enough for WP articles who are breast cancer patients according to survival status" not the entire world. How the actual decision will go is somewhat a matter of chance. DGG (talk) 05:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lists 

message: A recurring problem on wikipedia, a consensus is reached to delete a page only for it to be instantly recreated. Pages should be "salted" until notability, etc. is achieved. Example, this page was unanimously decided for deletion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/See You Next Tuesday (band), and now it has returned. -RiverHockey (talk) 22:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like, from the deletion log, that the article was deleted in May 2006 and November 2007, then a new version was recreated after a Deletion Review, and the result of that third debate was to Keep, citing additional sources that document notability. Normally, I'd agree that a deleted article shouldn't be recreated willy-nilly, but this case appears to have followed the proper process. UltraExactZZ  Claims ~ Evidence  22:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think the problem is that the new sources are very dodgey, largely minor reviews self-published webzines that really can't be used to assert notability and should be removed as they fail WP:V. Neither can a list of dates in Alternative Press. It has no more claims of notability to the last time it was deleted. --neonwhite  user page talk 02:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I took that article to DRV and there was a consensus to restore. I will be doing the same with Alesana today, which was deleted yesterday. Chubbles (talk) 23:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

text: ...And All Shall Perish's site, as recreated, clearly demonstrates notability. Not to be flippant, but one of the ways that an editor attempts to establish the notability of a previously deleted article is by simply recreating it with more information and better sources. This is totally legitimate and even encouraged, at this point, and I don't think that should be revoked. Chubbles (talk) 23:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is this a case of editors not understanding policy with regards to WP:N or willfully ignoring the decision by an afd? --neonwhite  user page talk 02:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recurring Problems 

message: I'd like to propose a different kind of deletion sorting: One that would consolidate CFDs that recommend "listify", and AFDs that recommend "categorize".  For some time editors at CFD and AFD have noticed that some kinds of topics get bounced around. The Actors who died in their 20s and :Category:Actors who died in their 20s is a perfect example. Both are up at the same time at AFD and CFD, respectively. List/articles and categories have different functions and therefore different criteria for keeping or deleting, but it's apparent to many of us who observe both fora that there is not always perfect consistency in outcome, and certainly a lot of editors involved in only one forum and not the other don't "get" the other one, and make comments based on imperfect knowledge. Thoughts? cross-posted @ WT:CFD & WT:AFD & WT:Deletion sorting --Lquilter (talk) 16:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  consistency b/w CFDs & AFDs 

message: Is there a way of formally requesting a merger like there is to formally requesting a deletion where the results are binding and overseen by someone independent. The only way I can find is to request an article or group of articls for deletion and give reasons why it should be deleted. Only to say actually I dont favour deletion I favour merging of the article. This is because lots of petty arguments can be bought up in a merger request which would be avoided in a more formal merger procedure.--Lucy-marie (talk) 13:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed there is - WP:MERGE. Tevildo (talk) 22:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The above is very under utilised users and serves little to no productive purpose, a system similar to AfD need setting up with binding results similar to AfD.--Lucy-marie (talk) 16:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formal merger proposals 

message: The mathbot has just counted the open discussions in this log down to zero, but that isn't correct. So while I've noitified the bot, we stiil ahve to go through the AfDs before removing the log. --Tikiwont (talk) 10:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 January 19 

message: Is that good enough
Soccermeko (talk) 19:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you asking whether the article Elektric Blue Sampler should be considered for deletion? — alex.muller (talk • edits) 19:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Ah, I see – you recently edited it to remove a PROD at expanded it. If anyone has a problem (including the person who originally added the PROD tag) they'll bring it to AfD for consideration. — alex.muller (talk • edits) 19:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elektric Blue Sampler 

message: This has been suggested on the episode notability request for comment. The proposed system cuts AfD out of the loop entirely, using the TV Wikiproject and other mediation methods.--Nydas(Talk) 11:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree. The article talk pages are the appropriate places to discuss merger proposals. A dispute about a merger is a content dispute, and if editors can't agree then it not ought to happen. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What if the debate is degenerating into attacks and violating policy eg WP:DEMOCRACY or WP:CIVIL.--Lucy-marie (talk) 20:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely that's cause for something contained in WP:DISPUTE, isn't it? — alex.muller (talk • edits) 21:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have personal experience of the failing of all but arbitration it seems.--Lucy-marie (talk) 21:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is AfD an inappropriate place to discuss mergers and/or redirects? 

message: I just put an afd tag on Edgar's fall and discovered that it had already gone through AfD once before.  Editing the page again to see the instructions for a second nomination I get instructions that are really confusing.  I tried to follow them, but they don't make sense, and I don't think I'm a stupid person.  I eventually did a manual nomination, which also required me to add the la tag and the AfD category by hand.  There has to be a better way.  Even now, I don't think I have the nomination put together correctly.  Corvus cornixtalk 22:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have twinkle, it will check for a previous nom, and create an "(xth nomination)" page. If you ever need something like this done in the future, let me know. Justin(c)(u) 23:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  I'm an old fashioned kinda guy, I don't use all these new-fangled devices.  :)  I'll take you up on the offer though. Corvus cornixtalk 00:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nominating an article for a second time 

message: What happens when an article does not pass the notability test but many editors vote for keep? They vote not because it passes the test but because they want the article to stay? Bstone (talk) 16:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If the closing admin is doing his/her job, they won't be looking at AfD as a vote, but will instead be looking at the strength of the arguments themselves. WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid keep reason (just as WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid delete reason), and the closing admin should be ignoring those comments. If you think the closing admin took those into account, it's perfectly fine to ask them about it. --Fabrictramp (talk) 16:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  mob keep? 

message: This AfD was closed a couple days ago with a result of Delete but the article is still there. If there is a normal lag time for this procedure then ignore me. Ham Pastrami (talk) 22:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sometimes the closing admin gets distracted and forgets to delete. I'd suggest dropping him/her a friendly note asking if this was intentional.--Fabrictramp (talk) 22:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done by JzG — alex.muller (talk) 00:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article not deleted 

message: If I add Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 February 8 to my watchlist, then I won't get to see what gets added on February 9. Is there a page I can add to my watchlist that will keep track of every add to the log no matter what the date? Kingturtle (talk) 05:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No. You have to manually add each day's log to your watchlist. Pegasus «C¦T» 01:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's awful. I hope someday someone can come up with a way for it to be automatic. Kingturtle (talk) 13:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: For a while at TfD, there was a bot that created each day's page at a fixed name and then moved it into the right place. Watching that page would cause a user to watch every day's page as soon as it was created. I wonder if something similar could be done at AfD? --ais523 13:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  watchlist question 

message: I see 2 open afd's on the same article on today's page.  Not sure how to fix it myself.--Cube lurker (talk) 03:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Taken care of, thanks.--Cube lurker (talk) 03:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soul and salsa (2nd nomination) 

message: Reading some AFDs got me thinking, so I wrote Wikipedia:Notability does not degrade over time. Might be insane, but tossing it out for consideration. Is this a lunatic essay, or did I just describe practice that is policy? Lawrence § t/e 08:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's probably noted somewhere else in some other policy, but in any case, I like it. I'll probably end up citing it a good deal for some AfD participants. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 09:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I'd been saying for a while in AFDs that notability doesn't degrade over time, and functionally is permanent once established, and never once was challenged on that. Seemed to just make sense: how do you get less notable? Does someone go back in time and erase the publication of the sources to retcon them out of history? Lawrence § t/e 09:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

text: We actually have a section in the notability guideline called Notability is not temporary.--Tikiwont (talk) 09:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but this actually addresses a branch of it, so they aren't really redundant (although one is of course an essay). David Fuchs (talk) 13:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Also note that the concept the "notability is not temporary" is a disputed point.  The larger statement that it "does not degrade over time" would appear to be disputable for all the same reasons.  Rossami (talk) 14:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not aware of such disputes, could you please give some examples etc.? Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 09:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Rossami, recently there was complaint over the logic of the expression of the section.  There was no voiced dispute of the intent of the section.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I happen to agree.  Saying that something is not temporary is not exactly the same as saying it does not fade away.  For example, love may be temporary or fade away. Bearian (talk) 20:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed as well. If anything, continuing to be known through history makes something more notable, not less so. (At the same time, we're really not Wikinews, we shouldn't be writing about things which were fleetingly "in the news" and then faded away. That's not a case of notability fading—it was never there in the first place, in such a scenario.) Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:DEGRADE]] 

message: :Proposed this page for deletion. Everyone take a glance at it and see that it is nothing more than a poor list and a bunch of links. The page offers nothing. I inserted the prod which has been contested because I would like to see the main contributors to the article drastically clean the article. Isn't that the purpose of the prod. You have 5 days to clean it? Had I not thought the article was so bad I would have just put a standard clean up tag. However, the page at its current state offers nothing to Wikipedia. Just look at the list of facts. 1999 was the 1st year, 2003 was the 4th year, etc. Then its nothing but links. I would propose deletion of it or at the very least have it merged under fantasy sports as a whole eliminating the awful lists and links. -UWMSports (talk) 18:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Appropriately listed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 February 27 -UWMSports (talk) 19:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Yahoo! Fantasy Sports]] 

message: please delete this page Nymphodorus  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.169.7 (talk) 20:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nymphodorus 

message: I just noticed the deletion sorting projects, and they're very useful.  I think it would be worth adding a line just above Consider checking "Watch this page" that says Consider adding an appropriate deletion sorting template to the nomination.  (Though I'd probably want to link to a better page than that one, on that actually just lists the templates to use.) —Torc. (Talk.) 22:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I, on the other hand, consider them at best a waste of time and at worst actively harmful when they have the unintended consequence of increasing the partisanship of a debate.  If you want to add such a sorting tag, I won't stop you from wasting your time but adding that line as a requirement or even as a "suggestion" would be instruction creep and not, in my opinion, good for the project as a whole.  Rossami (talk) 15:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: the people from the project are not necessarily supportive of low quality articles on their subject--it's usually quite the opposite. We want to increase informed participation. It should be required, not just suggested. DGG (talk) 21:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Having people interested in music being able to focus on deletion discussions relating to music causes "partisanship"?  That's like saying "let's not let anybody know what we're doing, since they might point out that we're wrong". —Torc. (Talk.) 08:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, when I'm nominating something for deletion, I like to notify the appropriate wikiproject. Often those participants know about resources for checking notability that I'm unaware of. Some of the wikiprojects have also helped me to confirm items are hoaxes. I'm not fond of instruction creep, but it is nice to know where the resources are, and it's not always easy to know how and where to notify the projects. (And I've made a note of the link to deletion sorting template -- thanks Torc2!) --Fabrictramp (talk) 17:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Change made.  Let's see who notices. —Torc. (Talk.) 11:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request: Add the line suggesting deletion sorting to the numbered instruction section 

message: User:24.12.117.102 posted some comments here about the article Heather Kuzmich - I think the comments are better placed on that article's talk page, so I moved them there. --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heather Kuzmich 

message: Here's an interesting one. The article is a thin (three line) stub about a software package, with only an EL to the official site as a source. Nommed for deletion on 29 Feb, the nom and two seasoned editors recommended Deletion, with one dissenting comment. Seems to be a clear consensus, and I am inclined to delete - but, the nom is indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet, which indicates that the nom may have been in bad faith and should be procedurally closed. Could I get some advice or a second set of eyes on this article's case? I know the nom should be closed, but... If it were me, I'd just delete and be done. Thoughts? UltraExactZZ  Claims ~ Evidence  03:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Your instincts serve you well, young padawan.  :D  In other words, if deletion is what you are feeling, go with it!  ArcAngel (talk) 03:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have closed it as delete, there was a very strong consensus for deletion regardless of the nominator being blocked. Davewild (talk) 07:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My thanks for the quick response. UltraExactZZ  Claims ~ Evidence  13:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yasper]] 

message: FYI, I closed two Buffy article AfDs.  For the record, I am not a fan of those shows.  Bearian (talk) 20:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buffy articles 

message: SoftVideo, created 6 March 2008, is almost an exact duplicate of TruDef, which is has an Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TruDef that was started earlier on 6 March 2008.  What's the best way to handle this? I've already commented about it in the AfD. --Ronz (talk) 23:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 16:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  SoftVideo & TruDef 

message: A quick question about the process of closing old AFDs. If the closer determines that the nomination needs to be relisted, is it accepted practice to remove the nomination from its original date index? If it is, then I've noted that a lot of people don't — but if it isn't, then some consideration needs to be given to the fact that a relisted item will still count as an open AFD on its original date, even though it probably shouldn't. So if the general practice is to leave the open discussion on its original nomination date's page, then Mathbot should also remove relists from its open count (although it should certainly tally them as relists rather than closures.) Bearcat (talk) 20:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Deletion process#Articles for Deletion page is clear that when an AFD is relisted the listing should be removed from the original log for the reason you have identified. Anybody consistently not doing so should probably be pointed to the deletion process page. Davewild (talk) 20:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, thanks. Bearcat (talk) 20:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question re: old AFDs 

message: Many editors don't know it, but the WP:BLP1E shortcut currently links to a section of the WP:BIO guideline and it has been linking there since December 11. Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Shortcut WP:BLP1E should not link here for some suggestions about how to clean up the problem. Noroton (talk) 23:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  We have a mess with the WP:BLP1E shortcut 

message: Is there an afd warning template for multiple afd nominations? --neonwhite  user page talk 14:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would you warn a user who made an AfD? Just use a custom message if you must. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 06:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The only circumstance I can see is if they were nominating lots of articles in a bad faith or disruptive fashion, in which case the templates for Disruption would serve. If they are disruptive or combative during the debate itself, that'd go to one of the decorum templates - NPA or so forth. UltraExactZZ  Claims ~ Evidence  14:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Afd warnings 

message: I was thinking, how about creating a minimum time for AfDs of around 24 hours, that way every time zone has had a chance to see it. Thoughts/Opinions/Molotov cocktails? +Hexagon1 (t) 22:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you clarify. Do you mean at least 24 hours before we have a speedy close of the debate? You realize that barring a speedy close, the normal process is that debates are kept open for a mimimum of five days before they are closed.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean a bare minimum for any AfD closure, including speedies and what the admin perceives to be WP:SNOW deletions. The normal process may be five days but many (or most) AfDs are closed long before they are fully up. +Hexagon1 (t) 12:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Non-snow speedy deletions are not part of the AfD process. They are articles that qualify under the separate WP:CSD process but for whatever reason, were taken to AfD when a criteria for speedy deletion applied—articles that should never have been brought to AfD, and would have been deleted if tagged for speedy deletion in the first place. Such articles are generally deleted not through any admin reading the AfD debate, but after considering whether the article meets the CSD tag placed, after being found through CAT:CSD. If thereafter deleted through that separate process, the AfD becomes moot, and any subsequent "early" closure is a ministerial act. So your proposal relates really only to speedy keeps and snow deletions that are deleted less than 24 hours after nomination. Of those two classes, how many are there and how many of those are a problem? Most speedy keeps are obvious. Most snow deletions are as well. So, is this is a solution in search of a problem?You are not even close to the mark when you say "The normal process may be five days but many (or most) AfDs are closed long before they are fully up." The vast majority of AfDs are closed five or more days after going up and of those that don't, the majority are not in question, either because they are obvious speedy keeps, nominations withdrawn, or tagged for speedy deletion and deleted through that separate process, with the AfD ministerially closed after such deletion.An analysis of any given day will show this. I arbitrarily chose Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 March 2. 90 debates were listed for that day. The results are: 69 closed after 5 days; 4 withdrawn nominations which don't count, 2 speedy keeps (both obvious), 1 speedy redirect; 14 speedy deletions under CSD which don't count, and no snow deletions whatever. I'm sure there are days where there are more of the two  classes of debate closures this could relate to, but I think this shows that any policy revision would be to address a tiny subset of articles taken to AfD; probably too small a group to merit the change.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I don't think this change is necessary. A snow close isn't likely to change just because some people in (say) Australia get a chance to see it (no, really, Aussies aren't that different). dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 23:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not us, you're the different ones... :) And OK, I see the point, I just tended to notice an number of AfDs being closed pretty early for a full round-the-board consensus but I recognise now that they were not the majority. Never mind then. +Hexagon1 (t) 01:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed policy change 

message: I'm a newbie, and am starting to try and figure out what to do.  I came across this article, and it looks like a bored teenager added this.  But, I'm not sure what to do.  King Pickle (talk) 02:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi there, good question. One approach is to look at the history tab; in this case you can see that there are a few edits in the past, plus several recent ones from the anon IP. If you click on each date you can see the iterations, and in this case you can see that the IP hijacked an OK stub. I've reverted it to the last decent version. Good catch! --AndrewHowse (talk) 02:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks.  Don't want to inadvertently delete Wikipedia!--King Pickle (talk) 15:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been attempted before... UltraExactZZ  Claims ~ Evidence  13:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brad Farrow 

message: Are there specific criteria under which an AfD can be closed early?   (an involved party, after a fashion) closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Astrid Peth stating: "as no reason for deletion has been asserted."  I've never seen this rationale for closing before, and want to make sure the closing is above board.  —  pd_THOR | =/\= | 18:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been discussed more at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#AfD throttling?. Davewild (talk) 19:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  closing procedures? 

message: To head off some of the more heated AfDs here, I've been working on a supplementary notability guideline for criminal acts that receive a lot of media attention.  Trying to get some wider feedback in an effort to find consensus.  Have a look at WP:FELONY WP:N/CA.  Thanks Fritzpoll (talk) 19:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  May be of interest... 

message: Is there any statistics on AfD. Like the number proposed for deletion per month(or other period) the number of those then deleted. ChessCreator (talk) 13:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD stats? 

message: Is there a "guide to AfD"s? Also, who exactly is allowed to close an AfD? Would I, as a non-admin, be able to close an AfD, say with (0/15/0) according to WP:Snow? Thanks for your answers and please provide me with reading-material *must...read...more...wiki..guidelines...* (I hope it's not just me addicted to them..!) Thanks --Camaeron (talk) 13:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Typically, it's accepted that non-admins can only close snowball keeps. The rest should be left to admins. I'm not sure if there is a page for your question, if there is I'm sure it'll be found shortly. Wizardman 13:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Non-admin closure is similar to what you want, I believe. Wizardman 13:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks so much. I am very grateful! --Camaeron (talk) 14:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

text:  Actually, the governing section is Wikipedia:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions.  WP:NAC is a personal essay written to expand on some points and synopsize others but if there is ever a disagreement between the two pages or if you want to find all the detail that led up to the decision, the Deletion process page has precedence.  Another useful page you should consider reviewing is the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion which covers lots of topics about the deletion decision-making cycle, not just the closure question.  Rossami (talk) 15:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enlighten me 

message: I would like to know why this article is being considered for deletion.  First of all, it is a Worldwide entity, like Microsoft, HP, IBM, and others.  They are in 65 countries and have been around since the 80's.  I think this entry would be nice to have considering that it is a global entity, and people worldwide could benefit from this information as well as add their two cents on Futurekids.
This article can be found here: Futurekids  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.7.66.50 (talk) 20:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Comments supporting or opposing deletion should be left at the specific article's AfD to be considered, which you can find here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Futurekids. AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Futurekids Inc. 

message: I started a new AfD discussion five days ago (Jakob Trollbäck) and there are still no comments. What should I do? Add it again to a newer log? Vints (talk) 09:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no need for you to do anything at the moment. If nobody comments on the AFD today, then tomorrow an admin will almost certainly relist the discussion on the latest daily log to obtain some comments on it. We count the five days as being up once today has finished. Davewild (talk) 09:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you have a few comments now, but it may end up being relisted anyway for more discussion. KnightLago (talk) 22:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion ignored 

message: Would someone who knows how to do so add in links to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fat cats(2), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fat cats and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fat cat in one of those nifty box things. Thanks, Guest9999 (talk) 02:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Added it for you. Check the dif to see the code :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the quick response. Guest9999 (talk) 02:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fat cat (term)]]