Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 42

message: Please see Wikipedia:Categories are different from articles. -- Kendrick7talk 20:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soliciting [[WP:Essays|WP:Essay]] feedback 

message: When I click on "Add a new entry", it takes me to the May 12th page and doesn't open it for editing.  It should be taking me to the May 13th page and should automatically open it for editing.  Corvus cornix 21:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, an anonymous changed the link to goatse, and the one reverting it did not put the right link. -- ReyBrujo 21:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  Corvus cornix 23:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Add a new entry" is broken 

message: Dear Administration,
I am seeking help for the last 20 days. I wrote an article on renowned Spiritual Personality Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi but it was not just deleted but also been protected to prevent re-creation. 
Please be informed that I am the office bearer of Anjuman Serfaroshan-e-Islam an international spiritual movement founded by His Holiness Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi in 1980 in Pakistan and being an office bearer I am responsible to propagate and preach activities on Internet. His Holiness Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi is an internationally renowned spiritual personality with hundred thousands of followers in Pakistan and across the world. We have several online website to serve this purpose and I am officially authorized from His Holiness Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi.
I take full responsibility of the content placed on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gohar_Shahi by me. Therefore, may I request you to kindly restore my article on His Holiness Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi?
Look forward to your positive response.
Regards,
--سگِ گوھرشاہی 08:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe you are in the wrong area for this request. Jmlk17 07:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  His Holiness Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi 

message: The steps required to list an AFD seem cumbersome.  Is there a utility that shortcuts through the process?  Please reply to my talk page. Thanks—Gaff ταλκ 08:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Replied on user's talk page. --ais523 09:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shortcut for AfD listings? 

message: I feel that if people registered on Wikipedia have profile pages that contain a blank space, they should be allowed to edit thier page just as long as it fits with the encyclopedia's guidelines (not putting up false info or pictures).  Just because one has won no awards or has no notable accoplishments they should not be told by some everyday joe editor that they cannot exert their first amendment right.  
Landonjones 19:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedians should be able to create profile pages, why should a peoples dictionary restrcit the people who help create it? 

message: "Note that if you are editing under an IP address because you have not yet created a user account, you will not be able to complete the AfD process, as anonymous contributors are currently unable to create new pages (as required by step 2 of "How to list pages for deletion," below). If this is the case, consider creating a user account before listing an article on AfD."
What should a user do during the four-day cooling off period between signing up and performing step II? Except for alleged defamation, is the answer always "it can wait"? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 19:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Such new users can use the  with the test "Requesting AFD because..." - it's a simple trick, and any person who sees this text can easily bump it to an AFD.  Alternatively, they can post a message to another page (e.g. Help Desk) to request assistance in tagging the page for deletion (especially if it can't wait).  --Sigma 7 20:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New users? 

message: Could someone please create a separate subpage for the new discussion? YechielMan 16:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Ryan]] 

message: After participating in this discussion, apparently, I just learned that a vote entitled Delete and merge cannot be counted in an afd vote. In this article we should make it clear that these types of votes should be avoided.--Sefringle 23:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussing Afd's 

message: Do the Wiki standards about advertisements and notability apply to articles purporting to be about a religion?  If a new article on a religion only relates to its own website, and lists its beliefs, does the "advertisement" tag apply. And, in case you are wondering, this is a real question. I've just come across something on Special:New Pages Bielle 03:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If they have a real existence and there's any references at all to them, they are sometimes kept,so I'd tag it unsourced. But if they've just imagined it, & you yourself can find no refs, please nominate it for AfD. I think such a deletion may always be controversial, so I don't think it fair game for a speedy unless it's really absurd. DGG 05:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The world does tiptoe around belief, doesn't it? Thanks for the answer. I shall be circumspect. Bielle 05:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Religion 

message: are non-admins permitted to close deletion debates? (no intention of doing so myself, was wondering about another user. & if not should i just, politely, inform that user or what?)  ⇒ bsnowball  02:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. See here, and the discussion here. --Ezeu 02:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a pretty common question actually. Jmlk17 05:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  who can close? 

message: An interesting discussion regarding the proposed deletion of an article has arisen. I propose that the article Corporate libertarianism be deleted, but I have been overrulled on the following grounds: --Gavin Collins 21:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your arguments against the speedy deletion are eloquent, but I put it to you that the article was indeed created with the intent to promote the commercial interests of an individual. Promotion of individual or organizational endeavour (as in this case, a book), is not necessarily self-seeking or can be categorised as spam in itself. On the other hand, nor does the fact that the article has been edited by several users (related parties perhaps?) make the article encyclopaedic. By extending your analogy that the article does not facially serve as blatant advertising, once the veil of intent is formality is lifted, it is clear that this article purporting to be an encyclopaedic article is in fact an example of self-promotion similar to an author writing a review about his own book on Amazon. Proof, I would suggest is apparent in the fact that the contributors of the article did not see fit (or find time) to include reference to the book to any other article would lead me to the (cynical) conclusion that this article is indeed self serving spam.--Gavin Collins 21:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing interesting about this - put it up for Afd like the man says. Johnbod 23:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corporate libertarianism 

message: Since the XfD talk page has been pretty dormant, I've decided to post here.
I'm a regular closer of AfD discussions, and I am thinking of "brodening my horizons" by participating and closing in image, stub, cat, and other deletion debates. The problem I find is that there are different ways of nominating and closing discussions. I know that these are different media and have various criteria, but standardizing would make the process much simpler. Also, this is a small suggestion in change of process, so it wouldn't be much of a problem if change need be made. Thoughts? Sr13 02:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I participate in image deletion discussions and would love separate pages.  Or at the very least that the templates actually pointed to the right entry.  On the other hand most images for deletion get almost no discussion.  Most articles get 10 comments or so.  jbolden1517Talk 11:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standardizing deletion process 

message: I wish to nominate 2000s in American fashion for deletion.  It barely survived a previous AfD with minimal participation, and it's gotten weaker since then.  I tried following the steps for nomination (which I have only done once before) but of course, I get the old AfD page discussion archive.  What do I do? Unschool 08:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I appreciate the help.  The point is now moot, as an editor has wisely ended the article's existence through a merge of the microscopic material that was in it into another article.  Thanks anyway! Unschool 03:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2nd Time Nomination 

message: I was about to nominate Plod as a dicdef (in English and Bulgarian(!)) but after I'd inserted the template on Plod, I found that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plod was already an existing page! It seems that the page was deleted once, and someone created it again. The AfD template says I shouldn't change it now, and really I don't know what to do. What should I do? And can someone add instructions to WP:AfD to explain what to do in such situations? Thanks. The Wednesday Island 16:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is still not fixed.  Could an admin compare this article to the previous incarnation to see if it can be speedied as recreation?  Article has had wrong AfD tag for a bit over a week with no reaction.  Also, I am removing the AfD tag, this does not imply that I think the article should be kept, merely that I think it's the wrong tag. Taemyr 04:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The content it used to consist of was "Plod (noun)- A nickname given to an extremely influential and intelligent person", so it can't be speedied as recreation. — MalcolmUse the schwartz! 14:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article I want to delete *already has* an AfD 

message: Please re-instate the article on Social Boston Sports.  If there is something you feel is missing, or would like to see changed, please inform me, and I will update; rather than full out deletion. 
Thank you. 
BDShaw 18:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Social Boston Sports 

message: I've recently browsed the history page of Weasel, and seen at least two occasions when some joker has slapped the  tag on that. :-) I presume that this page is not immune from such shenanigans. Korax1214 13:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On countless occasions, since its inception as Votes for Deletion. It got old fast. :-) Sometimes it was intended as a dumb joke and sometimes as a political statement by people protesting the process or by extreme inclusionists who oppose deletion altogether. Dcoetzee 14:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: VFD actually was deleted once during a discussion about whether it ought to exist.  Supposedly, the server lag from deleting all those linked pages caused Wikipedia to shut down for fifteen minutes. 69.201.182.76 21:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Has the AfD page ever itself been subject to a (presumably joke) AfD? 

message: Hey, the deletion debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Scrubs cast members has been up for nearly 10 days and all discussion has seemingly died down.  I understand if there's a backlog and it's just taking a while, but just in case it fell through the cracks.  Thanks!  --MPD T / C 05:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can someone close? 

message: (Literato 05:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion Suggestion 

message: I'm seeing a lot of redlinks on the AFD log page, apparently a template malfunction.  Can someone investigate? YechielMan 21:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A bug? 

message: The article Puffercookie says its about a new drug that does not have any online links. No sources. -Yancyfry 02:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New nominations 

message: I have an issue. Sometime since June 14 or 15, the article titled "Maximum-Energy Pro Wrestling" was deleted. There is no AfD on this and no reason given for it's sudden disappearance. It did not fulfil any speedy deletion category that I am aware of, and even then there should have been an AfD. Can someone tell me what happened? If someone has circumvented WP procedure with article deletions, this needs to be resolved quickly. Mal Case 05:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the deletion log for the page , the article was deleted two times. The first time through an AFd, and the seconf through speedy deletion. I would suggest you contact the deleting admin to discuss the deletion and for a more thorough reason as to why it was deleted. --Hdt83  Chat 05:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing AfD? 

message: A few times I have started work on a clsoe, only to find that another  clsoer had finished first. in some of these cases, I actually got an edit conflict on the close edit itself. In hopes of reducing the incidence of this, and avoiding the frustrating and wasteful duplication of effort when two editors work on closing the same afd at once, i have created  (based on ). The idea is that a closer will put this at the top of the sub page before starting to assess the discussion. It will probably not be worth using for short and obvious cases -- the chance of conflict is small and the amount of possible waster work even smaller. But fgor large and compelex AfDs, or even for moderate sized ones, I think it may be useful. What do people think of this idea? DES (talk) 07:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Having experienced a closing edit conflict only yesterday, I think it's a great idea! Tyrenius 16:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit conflicts at close 

message: I have seen a few articles on AfD that are really editing disputes, where one side has decided to go directly to the "nuclear option" without using diplomacy first. I think we need to address this here by stating that AfD should not be used to settle editing disputes, and refer to the available options for DR. Dhaluza 10:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One way of dealing with this issue is to make it a subset of Wikipedia:Speedy keep, as a bad faith nomination.  It's best to see how the debate progresses: if the first three commenters say "speedy keep, bad faith nom", you can go with that.  Otherwise, just let the discussion run its course. 13:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using AfD in lieu of dispute resolution 

message: Hi, I just nominated an article for discussion.  But I must have done something wrong, the next AFD is somehow tied into my nomination.  Could somebody take a look at it and figure out what went awry?  I might be able to do it, but I'm at work and can't play around that much.Balloonman 15:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You didn't do anything wrong and the list looks fine now. The problem was due to the previous entry being misspelled which has been corrected meanwhile. --Tikiwont 15:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hiding an AFD 

message: Somebody please do something about the waterfall of entries on every single high school in a given location, such as List of high schools in Oregon. These go nowhere in establishing notability - most of these entries list a few facts about each school. I have no problem with adding specific high schools that are indeed notable per Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), but probably 95% of high schools do not fall into that criteria.Tatonka79 23:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh boy, you just hit a minefield... for background, please go read WP:SCHOOL, its talk page, its talk archive, the various rejected proposals on the subject, their talk pages, their talk archives, several RFCs, and probably a bunch of village pump threads. Those lists were created as a compromise, with the previous position being that we would have an article on every single highschool in the world. --tjstrf talk 23:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's funny, because if you use the same criteria that would allow you to include every high school in the world, or in a certain location, then you could go further and list every public building, public park, post office, office building, etc. etc. Tatonka79 23:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not exactly, since schools are required to submit certain reports and the like that mean there will be some information about all of them which is available online, and if you wanted to go digging through newspapers you could probably find historical information about all of them as well. I'm not saying I support the view of every school getting an article though, I'm saying that's what the established rule was for quite a while, and that you probably don't want to go mess with the compromise solution. Also note that pretty much every human community (city, village, etc.) is notable by Wikipedia's standards as well, and we have an article on every census-recognized location as a result. --tjstrf talk 00:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the clarification. So if we did follow the WP:SCHOOL criteria, most high schools would still fail. This should be looked at some more. Tatonka79 00:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lists of every high school in a state? 

message: This was a contructed language made by me (the creator of the page), I have seen many people put their languages on wiki and nothing has been done there. Please tell me specificly what changes I have to make. This is a legitimate language I made up and it does not present and vandalism. When talking about if it is essential or not well I have seen many of these "contructed languages" put up in articles, in wikipedia. Thank you, and please do not delete this page. MosMusy 23:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No one should create a page for their own constructed language. The fact that yours has been deleted while perhaps others have not, is not because yours is worse or anything, but because we didn't spot the other ones. Many thousands of articles get created every day, and some of them get unnoticed (some harmless, some very malicious a well). We should only have pages about things which are notable, as evidenced by reliable independent sources, and articles that don't meet these standards can be nominated for deletion through speedy deletion (in special cases only, see WP:CSD), proposed deletion or articles for deletion. Anyone is free to nominate articles for deletion if they genuinely believe they shouldn't be on Wikipedia. Fram 13:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cantate Deletion Objection 

message: Is there a limit to the number of AfDs? In the past year a particular controversial article has been up for deletion 6 times.  A couple of times within the same month. 68.90.165.237 00:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, but there probably should be. In practice if you repeatedly nominate the same article and there was a consensus against you previously you'll probably end up getting shut down early, but if it's a controversial case it usually means we waste a few hundred perfectly good volunteer manhours bickering in circles. --tjstrf talk 01:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the response, I just found the Daniel Brandt article, which took 14 AfDs before it was deleted. 68.90.165.237 13:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was actually deleted due to a policy change, not the repeated AfDs. --tjstrf talk 05:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Limits on AfDs? 

message: Last year I got into some trouble for adding icons to my deletion !votes (and briefly starting a craze of doing the same). I was wondering if this:    is okay. It's purely HTML, so I don't think it would cause any problems... Morgan Wick 18:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like a yellow rectangle to me. Are you sure that was intended? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree, what does a yellow background symbolise? The Sunshine Man is now Qst 20:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just want to make sure that, if I start putting it down on AfD, it won't lead to complaints that it's screwing things up for some users or something like that. It will appear only in the form you see right now, a rectangle made in the form of two non-breaking spaces; I won't use it on the entirety of my votes opinions or anything like that. Morgan Wick 01:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Addendum: My chief concern is whether coding for a background color appreciably increases the load time for pages. Morgan Wick 10:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It seems to be standard practice to allow such coding in signatures.  Unless done really extensively it probably would not substantially increase load times for pages.  But, the use of colors, even if HTML coding, could still be something that many editors find annoying, depending on why you're doing it.  It could clutter pages with distracting colors, or make already confusing debates even more difficult to follow.  I think that's why people above asked why you want to use yellow boxes on AFD pages.  If you want to highlight all your comments, for example, I think many people would really prefer that you not do that. --JayHenry 16:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quick question 

message: I noticed a number of AFDs in which people have been using "+" or "-" or check icons and templates in their voting.  Although it looks sort of nifty, I find that the AFD pages already load pretty slowly (because of their enormous size) and that if everyone started using meaningless templates, the page would really grind to a halt.  I recently removed the images from an RFA in which somebody had added a 100px checkmark to their vote.  But am I right that plus and minus images should not be used in votes?   I don't want to remove these if it's perfectly acceptable but, as I said, I find this page already loading very slowly. --JayHenry 02:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, please get rid of them, by commenting or escaping (that's my take, anyway).  These icons are used properly in places (mostly other projects like Commons and Wiktionary) where outright voting is an accepted part of the culture.  Since that's not the case on Wikipedia, and certainly not the case on AfD, their use here is inappropriate and frankly inimical to the spirit of dialogue.  -- Visviva 13:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

text: ... of course, this whole process is inimical to the spirit of dialogue, but the best idea anyone ever had for dealing with *that* problem was soundly rejected by the community.  So we do what we can... -- Visviva 13:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images in voting 

message: AfD closers should add this script to their monobook.js; it makes closing loads easier! Sr13 02:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Announcement 

message: Further to this thread, I notice that many editors are still listing new articles at the bottom. Perhaps the explicit "Add new entries to the TOP" notice could be added to the  box for a short period. As well, I added a hidden note "" to the bottom of today's (July 9) log. Maybe this could be incorporated into all new page logs. -- Flyguy649 talk contribs 15:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New AfDs listed at top, part II 

message: I just realized that the title Articles for Deletion is kind of a lame/funny double entendre. It of course generally refers to a group of articles up for deletion, but it could also carry the meaning as in "articles of impeachment". VanTucky (talk) 04:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiPun 

message: As each day's list gets older it becomes increasingly harder to find the articles that still require closing (I appreciate that when it gets down to a handful then these are separately listed). What would be very useful would be if (closed) could be added to the contents as they are, ermm, closed, as is already done at WP:DRV. TerriersFan 22:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mark when closed 

message: I see lots of good effort going to waste because people are either cloaking their true motives or acting far too capriciously in the very subjective concept of notability.
I propose that for a year we try eliminating Notability as a reason for deleting a page and see if it results in a serious measurable negative impact on wikipedia.Litch 16:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats a very central policy of this website, it will never be abolished. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate place for information. If it was, you'd also see a page "Howard Johnson Junior III" who's a homeless guy 2 blocks away from me. You have to limit the information. Stuff that has a page here, has to be deserving of a page otherwise this website would be an infinitely bigger mess than it is right now. If something is really notable, its never deleted. Were you involved in an AfD? Whatsup with that? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 00:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is an subjective element in notability but it is the best we can do. To make it as objective as possible we determine notablity through verifiability and reliable sources. And if notability was abolished, what do you suggest we replace it with? GizzaDiscuss © 00:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

text: If you want a site where you're free to add whatever you please, you are free to download Mediawiki and create one. Wikipedia never was intended to be such a site, and complaints that there are restrictions to what is allowed on it will thus get nowhere. -Amarkov moo! 03:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abolish [[wp:notability]] 

message: Since most AfDs are about whether there is enough WP:RS material, I think we should add the search template  as part of Template:Ln or revise Template:Ln to include search strings. I added the search template to Michael Bilsborough AfD to give an example of what a revised Template:Ln may look like. We also could revise the search string to look in more or different places. -- Jreferee (Talk) 16:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a good idea. I think it would encourage more people to look for sources during AfDs rather than just say that the article is unsourced without trying. Leebo T/C 16:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldn't it be better if people looked for sources before AfD's, so wo don't waste so much wikiresources on unnecessary BS? Dhaluza 07:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:Search]] (copied from [[Template_talk:Ln#Template:Search|here]]) 

message: The nominator for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aspergum has withdrawn the AfD request. I think it's ready to be closed. I'm DYKing the article, so a AfD close would be appreciated. -- Jreferee (Talk) 00:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aspergum 

message: Are non admins allowed to close afd debates?--SefringleTalk 01:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  See WP:DPR#NAC on guidelines on when such editors may close these debates.  The instructions for closing a debate are also listed higher up on the page. --Sigma 7 02:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non admin closures 

message: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malware Spread Mitigation was closed delete, but the article still exists. JulesH 07:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, never mind, I see there's an article tag that's appropriate for this situation.  Will apply it. JulesH 07:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not sure what happened, but... 

message: I was looking at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cleveland steamer (8th nomination) and thought it would be nice to have a list of articles sorted by number of AfD nominations. I believe those with 8 or more nominations just need some extra research attention to hopefully end the continued AfD nominations. Is there such a list or can someone generate such a list? -- Jreferee (Talk) 22:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not know if there is such a list, nor do i know how to create one, but I think it's a jolly good idea. Lradrama 19:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest someone does a huge trawl through the archives and generates some stats (eg. how many deletion debates there have been). You could also use the special prefix index and look at all the pages starting "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/" - that will theoretically give you all the properly formed AfD debates (you could do the same for VfD as well, if you wanted), plus the normal subpages of this project (which should be categorised separately so they can be eliminated from such lists), plus the redirects. It is theoretically possible to set up an index so people can dip into such a list. There are a lot though. It took ten clicks to get past the 'A' section. Anyway, once you have the list, search for things like "second", "nomination", "first", "1st", "3rd", " 2", "(4)", and so on.  I'm guessing that no-one's done this before because of the sheer tediousness of searching for the different format of multiple nominations. A better method might be to get some program to pick out AfDs that have the same starting string. Good luck! :-) Carcharoth 12:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple AfD nominations 

message: Have a look at User:Carcharoth/List of AfDs compact index. Click on a few of the links to get the idea. Does anyone think this could be a useful way to access the list of Wikipedia's AfDs that is available at Special:Prefixindex? It doesn't do anything you can't already do at the prefixindex, but it does provide an alternative starting point. If it is useful, I could move it somewhere and link it from Wikipedia:Archived delete debates and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, since as the entire index, it contained links both to old debates and current ones. Carcharoth 13:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dang. I forgot the special characters and numbers. Stuff like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/207 Mafia and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/"Big" Dave Morine and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/$pread. Maybe I should use Special:Allpages instead? You can see the ones after Zz  here. Things like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Çiçek Izgara and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/%EC%8B%B1%ED%95%98%ED%98%95 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/¡Tchkung!. Also, Allpages will pick up combinations like T$ and F% and so on. Carcharoth 13:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative way to browse (mostly) old AfD debates 

message: I'm interested in finding all the deletion debates relevant to articles edited by a WikiProject, and have a list of current articles and an incomplete list of redlinks for deleted articles. Is there a way (other than going through the AfD archives) to use "what links here" to find all the relevant AfDs? And what is the best approach when I get back to the days of VfD and then even further to the days when discussion took place on talk pages (that hopefully still exist)? Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Carcharoth 12:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh wow. Wikipedia:Archived delete debates/2003. Did people not delete stuff back then? What happened back in 2002 and 2001? Also, any advice for the other XfD areas? TfD, RfD, MfD, CfD? Carcharoth 12:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would also be interested in sifting through AfDs from a topic list. Anyone? Lradrama 13:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think your best bet is to gather a list of articles in your topic area, generating a huge combined list of "what links here" for all the articles, and filtering that by Wikipedia namespace, and then manually scanning the list. I think AWB can help you do that sort of thing. Some WikiProjects will have kept records as well. You can also create a page with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGENAME for all the articles on a topic (and similarly for MfD - the other systems operate differently, I believe). I'll demonstrate this for a topic list I have, and link from here. Those methods only work if the article was kept, merged or recreated. For deleted articles, unless you know the page name, there is no option but to go through the AfD archives. There is also the option to go through the entire Wikipedia deletion log - which is immensely big. I once asked how many pages had been deleted. I think there is an answer, but I haven't found it yet. Carcharoth 14:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Finding AfDs from a topic list 

message: Some old VfD archive pages have acquired categories because they transclude talk pages of kept articles that later had WikiProject tags attached. What is the best way to deal with this? Archive the VfD discussion to a subpage and transclude that instead? Some examples:
*Talk:Arona,Tenerife
*Talk:Blender (album)
*Talk:Coopetition
*Talk:Dosage (album)
*Talk:Joe Bonsall
*Talk:Johannes H. Berg Jr.
*Talk:Mark Appleyard
*Talk:Nika Turković
All transcluded on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 January 11. That is just one example, as many of the older log pages at Wikipedia:Archived delete debates have this problem. Someone tried to 'fix' this by removing transclusions from the VfD archive page! I reverted that. In general though, what should be done here? Carcharoth 11:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably, just <noinclude>the categories that are there now, and double check from time to time. -Steve Sanbeg 18:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that works. Where are you suggesting I put the 'noinclude' tags? Carcharoth 00:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old VfD categorisation problems 

message: (as posted to WikiProject:Geography} Over at WP:AFD, specific notability guidelines (WP:BOOK, WP:BIO, etc} are frequently cited in keep and delete votes. Just recently at one article's debate, here, a geographic location was up for debate. I was surprised to find that although geography is one of the largest portals on Wikipedia, currently there does not exist official policy guidelines for keeping/deleting place-related articles. Perhaps this could be rectified if your project banded together and started brainstorming a set of policies? Although I have not contributed significantly in the geography area, I would be more than happy to help. All the best, Eliz81(talk)(contribs) 01:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Cities and shops and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Transportation and geography, and the historical page Wikipedia:Places of local interest.  They describe what we actually do well enough. GRBerry 02:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a list of all the subpages of AfD that are not deletion debates? Carcharoth 02:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: None that I've ever heard of.  Common outcomes is listed in , and the historical page is linked therefrom.  Special:prefix is definitely not much help, even when applied to the Wikipedia talk namespace instead of the Wikipedia namespace.  GRBerry 02:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That presumes all subpages have a talk page. Still, that list is at least a magnitude of order smaller than the other one. It is only about 600 talk pages. Carcharoth 14:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geography guidelines for deletion? 

message: There have this week been the nomination of a great many articles of the type ABC in popular culture, and related lists. It is so much easier to repeat the same argument for deletion than to give an adequate defense, that one might be excused for thinking that there is an effort to overwhelm the defenders of such lists. As I assume GF, I urge the noms to not encourage such a mistaken impression, and to proceed in a more reasonable way, as I am sure they want a good discussion on each one of them.
:I note that the same exact arguments are in general being given by the same people, and that some of them have admitted a desire to delete all of the ones of that type as rapidly as possible. I have been defending some of them. I have only been defending some, because I do not consider a stereotyped response suitable for AfD, and am writing out with a different emphasis each time and with attention to the actual contents of the article. There has been a useful discussion about some of them in response, but the process ought to go slow enough that there can be a useful discussion about all. 
:In some cases I have !voted for delete--I do not support every such article, and some are trivial or indiscriminate, or too small to worth keeping. But I look at each one that I comment about, whether to support or oppose. 
:It might perhaps be argued by those opposing the lists that there is no need to really have a custom argument, because the policy against them is clear. This however has been challenged, for WP:NOT talks about trivia sections in articles, not lists devoted to cultural references; the pillars have then been mentioned, which certainly say that WP should not be predominantly Trivia, but never say that a discussion of trivia is necessarily  wrong. the latest argument has been IAR.  But this is not the appropriate page for a general discussion of the issue, which should probably be visible more widely. If the community consensus is actually against these articles, then a guideline can be adopted. 
:I am not suggesting a rule about how to handle these, for I cannot think of one sufficiently flexible. I am just calling it to attention in the hope that common sense will prevail so we can have better discussions at AfD. The point of AfD, after all, is to improve when possible. DGG (talk) 17:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well said. Bearian 18:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I've been troubled with them myself, though I've not participated in any, I do think there may be a touch of overzealousness involved.  However, in terms of things to fret over, I don't consider it especially bothersome.  I do think it'd be best to have more discussions with people, on the overall subject, rather than a piecemeal approach, but I don't know that their is a serious problem going on.  Oh well.  FrozenPurpleCube 21:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Closely spaced nomination of large numbers of similar pages 

message: I'm not sure (I can't see the deleted pages), but from the look of the redlinks at Wikipedia:Archived delete debates/2003, some old deletion debates have been deleted because people think they are orphaned talk pages (well, they are, but they should be kept if they contain deletion debate). Can someone check this and politely tell the deleting admins if they were wrong to delete. Carcharoth 13:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Part of the problem is the lack of information in the edit summaries. Compare "G8 content was: '#REDIRECT Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pelastration' (and the only contributor was 'Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh')" with "Admins: help remove more orphaned talk pages at User:R3m0t/Reports". The former makes clear that the page was deletion of a redirect, while the latter only says how the orphaned talk page was found, not why it was deleted. Carcharoth 13:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, have a look at what links here for that redirect. The redirect got deleted but that has created redlinks that were never fixed. If I recreate the redirect though, it will pop up again as a blue link in that project for orphaned talk pages (User:R3m0t/Reports/1_15). This is the sort of thing that happens when someone deletes without checking this sort of thing. My next question would be - have the admins who did this learnt not to do it yet? Carcharoth 13:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have dropped notes on all the deleting admins talk pages. 4 pages have been restored thus far between two admins, and I restored 8 for an admin who has left the project and another for one who hasn't edited in over two months. Multiple requests are pending (two for admins that edit relatively rarely). I also found about five pages where the page existed but the link was bad because of a move and the redirect had been deleted; I fixed the links. This was no small task. I vetted all of the red links in all the archives prior to introduction of the current system of log pages. There are still about ten pages that I just can't figure out. The deletion log shows a redirection, but then the redirect page deletion entry shows a link back to the original page and has no history—a dead end loop.--Fuhghettaboutit 04:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for all this! I did noticed that one of the pages you fixed the link for has links pointing towards the redlink: here (one reason why just recreating a redirect can sometimes be easier). I would fix those, but wanted to leave it visible on that list first so you can see what I mean. The other were only linking to User:R3m0t/Reports/pages. Could you list the ten pages you can't fix? Carcharoth 10:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Regarding your post (to my talk page) about categorization, templating the header message I made, and moving these to more standardized names, there are not very many of these talk page vfd pages and there will never be any in the future, so I'm not sure that a special category is necessary; the listing in the archives seems enough. The same goes for making the header message into a template. I will tag all of them tomorrow and then making a template will be superfluous because there will never be any further use. Finally, I really like the fact that these early deletion debates show the evolution of process from informal on talk pages, to votes for deletion pages, to AfD; a piece of Wikipedia history. Moving them would seem to me to be like removing the old shellac and refinishing antique furniture. It looks nicer but any antique dealer will tell you the value goes way down. Not an issue I would go to great lengths over, but that;'s the way I see it.--Fuhghettaboutit 03:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, thanks a lot for all that. I didn't think anyone else cared! :-) Carcharoth 16:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: -) I think preserving the archives is important. In 30 years people will be looking back at this early stuff with a lot more interest I think.--Fuhghettaboutit 12:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old deletion debates being deleted? 

message: I am writing to help keep the SRB page up.  I see no reason it should be deleted at all.  Gary was in the band so it makes sense he'd edit the page.  He sites Vendetta as the reason for one mans desire to delete it, and giving our governments long standing fascist stance on all things, especially the conservatives I am inclined to believe him69.85.166.29 13:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leave the SRB article in and leave it be 

message: In the event that the subject of an AFD discussion meets the criteria for speedy deletion (a la G12), can such discussion be closed without consensus? --Aarktica 12:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An administrator can speedy delete the article under almost any of the CSD.  After that happens, the AFD discussion should then be closed, preferrably by the administrator or alternatively by any other user as "speedy deleted under WP:CSD#XX by deleting admin's username".  One exception is that speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A7 should not occur if there are good faith keep opinions in the AFD.  The AFD close should reflect the fact that speedy deletion already occured, as admins can decline speedy tags.  I know I've done so, but gone on to opine delete in the existing AFD, and it would be a waste to restart an AFD.  GRBerry 13:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I only mentioned this because Articles for deletion/Music City Mystique‎ was recently relisted for additional discussion, after I provided a rationale for speedy deletion. I suspect that the relister (I know, I know, that is not a word) glossed over the remarks about the COPYVIO present in the subject of the AFD... --Aarktica 13:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you suspect that an article is a copyvio you should tag it for speedy yourself. That way an admin will come by shortly after and look into it. Articles are rarely speedy kept or deleted after 1 comment on the AfD, usually because obvious candidates for speedy deletion should be tagged as speedy deletion candidates and not taken to AfD to begin with. When you AfD an article for reasons otherwise covered by WP:SPEEDY it is supposed that you do so because they aren't obvious candidates for deletion. In such cases consensus and a chance for others to salvage the article is needed. One exception to this is hoaxes which cannot currently be speedy deleted unless they are patent nonsense. Articles that obviously fail A7 can and should be speedy deleted, especially when the AfD turns into a puppet theatre. If not then the fact that they were brought to AfD rather than being tagged for speedy implies that consensus is needed, in other words they aren't obvious candidates for A7 deletion. MartinDK 14:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Despite the appearance of piling on, applying  to an article which already sports the  tag is permissible. Correct? --Aarktica 14:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  True but rarely successful since most admins will decide to let the AfD run its full course. Copyright violations should always be tagged as such even if there is an AfD tag. An admin will then come by, look into it, speedy delete the article unless it can be otherwise salvaged and then speedy close the AfD. MartinDK 14:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for all the feedback. --Aarktica 14:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

text: articles have been speedy deleted from a number of AFDs in the past week as not meeting A7, even though similar articles were being controverted. I think that is in general an abuse. Short of BLP and copyvio and obvious vandalism,  once something is at AfD there is no reason it should not stay the course until the end in case someone does find something to say. Not all of us can monitor everything the first few hours it appears. I propose a rule change to that effect, that speedy delete during afd be limited to those three situations.  DGG (talk) 04:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for information. 

message: Can whoever knows where the daily log page code "lives" please put a noinclude around the header/lead code so that when included, as at Wikipedia:Deletion today, nothing appears but the days listings, and not all the page-top navigation stuff?  WP:DELT does this:

so you can see how the lack of a no-include around the non-entry material is problematic over at WP:DELT. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 21:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone, anyone? Beuler? Beuler? — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 01:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:DELT]] compatibility fix 

message: Any thoughts to these, or should they be discouraged.  I do not see any point in a deletion rationale of "Neutral, procedural nomination only".   Thoughts? Navou  banter  00:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another reason for a procedual nom would be if the article was deleted but was sucessfully challenged on Deletion Review. For example an article may be deleted but it was determined that there was not enough imput in the AFD. In that case someone may nominate it again procedually to get a better consensus. --67.68.152.104 03:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Procedural nominations 

message: Bold textAzamgarh: Mr Mohd. Farooq Betab Azmi born in a village: Khandwari in a simple and gentle family. He received his primary education in his village based religious school. He obtained secondry certificate from a Town area school: Middle Schoo, Saraimeer Azamgarh.
His father left for Berma (Menmar) in his early stage. He was having one brother (Mr. Mohd Juned) and one sister who passed away immediately after her marriage.
After completion his education he started working as Mathmetic Teacher in Madaiya High School, Khanpur, Azamgarh. in 1965 He joined Muslim Majlis party and presided over the party. There his fellows were: Molvim Masood Sahab, MP Alam Badi, MP Iliyas Azmi etc.
Beside of the above he was running a urdu academy: Idara Adabistan, Saraimeer, Azamgarh. He died in 2000 after a fortnigh suffering from minor illness.
His younger son M. Athar Azmi has a master degree from Jamia Millia Islam and presently working≠213.166.128.39 09:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And what is all that about? :-S Lradrama 09:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Instead of writing an article that would have ended up here, they just took the direct route? Tizio 09:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite possibly! ;-)  Lradrama 09:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Or is this a way of asking for approval of the content as ok for inclusion? Odd. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  " A Poet, A Teacher, A Politician Late: Mohd. Farooq Betab Azmi 

message: What do you do when the discussion is closed and the decision is delete, but the article isn't deleted? I think there is a template for it, but I can't find it anywhere. Me5000 22:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Posting it at WP:AN or WP:ANI is probably best, an admin can quickly get to it. I was about to delete it but looks like it was taken care of. Wizardman 23:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

text: There is a template, , that can be used to mark a page for speedy deletion if an admin has closed a discussion in favor of deletion, but hasn't deleted the relevant page. — TKD::Talk 19:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion closed, decision delete 

message: I have had an idea for a bot that would help out a lot on AfD's, esepecially those regarding notability, by providing references and information for new articles. See my ideas etc at User:TheFearow/RefBot. Please direct comments/criticisms/ideas to that pages talk page. Thanks! Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 22:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot Idea 

message: I was in the process of conducting an edit where I wanted to reference the AFD discussion page in the edit summary and I found that the deletion log for the article List of tongue-twisters only goes back to May 2006, but according to what-links-here for the article, the AFD was closed and article deleted in April 2006.  Is there a date horizon for individual articles and the logs that can be retrieved for them?  Thanks for your comments. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The deletion log goes back to late December 2004, and AFAIK there aren't any breaks in the log. What happened at list of tongue-twisters is that the discussion was closed as transwiki in late April 2006, but the actual transwiki wasn't completed until a month later. The CSD A5 in the first deletion refers to criteria for speedy deletion A5 which refers to the speedy deletion of pages that have been transwikied. Graham87 12:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose I'm still wondering where the history for the page prior to May 2006 might be found (apologies if the answer is obvious, it's not coming to me right now). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The page edit history is still at that page.  There are no missing deletion log entries.  There is a delay between a transwiki close and the first deletion.  The time length of the delay, being dependent on voluntary labor, is variable.  GRBerry 00:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm, I'm going to slap a big "D'oh!" on my user page for the next day or two as penance. Thank you. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

text: sheepish well, the image was properly removed as being a violation of fair use ... I'm glad at least that the editor who did this good service left a link in place.  --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not all deletion log entries visible for [[List of tongue-twisters]] 

message: FYI, I've just withdrawn the AfD nom for Lender's Bagels, which I mistakenly thought was created by the sockpuppet of a banned user. I was mistaken about the IP that created the article. I've removed the tag from the article and noted my witdrawal in the nom page. I discovered my error before there was any discussion, so maybe AfD page can just be speedily deleted or blanked?--Mantanmoreland 19:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no need to delete it. It will be closed and archived so it can be accessed by other users. --Boricuaeddie 21:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomination withdrawn 

message: I am rather surprised by the entries in this category. It has films that claims they will be released even as far out as 2010. The films have not been released and mostly have not generated any press coverage.  If the information comes from a source, it seems to come from the studio making the picture. Usually, the information seems to come from a fan or from IMDB, which does not seem to be in a position to verify upcoming film information. What I find disturbing is that if a director or actor is falsely claimed to be attached to an upcoming film project, others may pass them over for their own film project so that this person loses a business opportunity. Many of these articles seem to violate Wikipedia is not a crystal ball which states, "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented." Merely because a film project is started, it is not almost certain that the film will be released. Because there is no press coverage, many of these articles violate Wikipedia:Verifiability and rely on original research for content. Also, because of their potential impact on the livelihood of people, these articles raise serious BLP concerns.  Some of the upcoming films are legit. For example, Toy Story 3, to be released in 2010, is referenced. There are a lot of these upcoming films posted on Wikipedia. Anybody have an idea as to how to address this through AfD? The only thing I can think of is to list each film individually at AfD that does not meet policy. -- Jreferee (Talk) 15:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PROD is also available, and discussion with creators may help.  GRBerry 15:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi GR. If there is not enough WP:RS material available to support an article, no amount of discussion or PRODding is going to produce that WP:RS material. -- Jreferee (Talk) 15:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: right, and then it will be deleted, which is exactly the point of Prod or AfD. If upon fair notice and the interested people working on it, no support for notability can be found, then deletion might well be appropriate. when we support notification, we're not trying to preserve the articles that are not capable of being justified, just trying everything reasonable to save the ones that can. DGG (talk) 07:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Upcoming films]] 

message: Not sure what to do here:
A short time ago, an article named List of Minor Students/Celebrities from My Gym Partner's a Monkey was created. Not long after creation, it was redirected to the "main characters" page for this show. A second article List of minor characters in My Gym Partner's A Monkley was then thusly created. Notice the spelling. This second one went thru AfD and was redir'ed to the "main characters" page. Today, List of Minor Characters from My Gym Partner's a Monkey appears again.
These are not the exact same articles, simply because of the title differences, but near as I can tell, the content between them was the same (I can't see the text of the one which was successfully AfD'ed). I've posted a note on the (new) talk page, but the editor who created this was unresponsive to my previous note on his talk page. 
So, does this go back into AfD, or a new AfD? What policy applies here, if it's a (double) recreation of previously deleted articles. Possible useful information:
* The first article I mention: 
* The second article goes thru AfD, and is redir'ed:  
* The third article: 
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yngvarr (talk • contribs).
:If the original article has been sent to discussion and it was determined that it should become a redirect, then you should, for the time being, convert new articles into redirects, informing the creators about the original discussion and why you are converting them into redirects. If the AFD deleted the article, you can use  to speedy delete it. -- ReyBrujo 04:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-creation of a previously deleted article... 

message: Leave it on. Someone worked hard on it. They deserve to show their work to the world. Why be like the Corporations that people end up hating? I vote to leave it on let the man's work be seen.   -Mykal Lakim —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mykal lakim (talk • contribs).
:Please discuss it in the article's deletion page, not here. -- ReyBrujo 11:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Titus Books 

message: I've recently seen more than three AfD's (I only remember one; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neon King Kong) where the subject's number of friends and page hits at Myspace are being used to prove notability, or lack thereof. Is this permitted? Because, last time I checked, Myspace was not a reliable, third-party source. --Boricuaeddie 01:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, in theory it's permitted, you could use the fact that you like someone's hairdo to argue to keep (or the fact that it sucks to argue delete). Of course, if I were closing the AfD, I would discount any such, and I certainly discount any "It's popular, so it's notable!" arguments. Notability is source coverage, not popularity or lack thereof. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I would think the more pertinent question is "has anyone successfully argued an article keep/delete based on MySpace 'friends' data?"  Editors can argue any number of reasons why something should be kept or deleted, but as Seraphimblade said, I'd put zero weight behind any argument based on numbers of MySpace friends, song downloads, etc when closing AFD.--Isotope23 talk 20:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Myspace 

message: Is the bot that runs WP:AFDSUM suspended while Dragon's Flight is on WikiBreak? 70.55.87.43 06:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:AFDSUM 

message: Once an article is deleted, is there any way to look at its history? In case you're wondering, I'd like to follow-up Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mig Greengard, but it's hard to comment on it until I can see what was there and who/where it came from. Peter Ballard 07:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think administrators are able to view article histories.  Your best bet is to contact someone in :Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles. Giggy\Talk 08:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --Richard 08:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted article history 

message: One of the reference used by the authors is Claude Bélanger, teacher in a College . The problem is that Bélanger is using the word Québec for the nation.   Québécois is the name for an individual.
"[...] the unifying component of the Quebec nation was the French language, a language eventually understood by about 94% of the population of the province. "  
The social-democratic nationalism: 1945 to today , Department of History, Marianopolis College, Montréal, 2000 [website] []
I guess that we should write it the same way as the Scotland Article :
"Scotland (Scottish Gaelic: Alba) is a nation in northwest Europe and one of the four constituent countries[3] of the United Kingdom. It occupies the northern third of the island of Great Britain [...]"
T Y Pgsylv 03:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Québécois]] 

message: In nominating a page for deletion, when adding the discussion to the deletion log, there's a list to which the template () is supposed to be added. It is made very clear, multiple times, that the template is supposed to be added at the top of the page. Yet it seems that every day at least a small handful of articles are added at the bottom of the list. Now this is more of a nuisance than a serious problem, but is there anything that can be done about it? I mean, can it be changed so that it will be listed in the apropriate (chronological) spot? Or is it just something about which nothing can be done? Calgary 06:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: sure we can. We can write a smarter template that places these things automatically. There are some tools available for some browser, but not everyone does or even can use them. We need a way to make it automatic for people to start an afd with a single entry in a single place. (personally, I suspect there are people placing speedies because they can't figure out afd. I saw one of those today, in fact, which admitted it.) I've been asking since I came here but so far the people satisfied with the existing workarounds don't seem interested, and they're the ones who would know how to do it. DGG (talk) 04:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

text: BTW, I suppose it's worth noting that the old way used to be to put things at the bottom instead.  FrozenPurpleCube 02:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: why dont we finally automate this once and for all? DGG (talk) 07:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Listing pages for deletion 

message: Specifically the part that says "Open the  articles for deletion log page. At the top of the list on the log page (there's a comment indicating the spot), insert: 
" I don't think that is used anymore, I noticed everyone is adding the articles for deletion as  - Pocopocopocopoco 04:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, the old template's used. In fact, I'm pretty sure that's all that's used. When you add  to the deletion log, then save it, if you look back it appears as  (at, that's my experience). I've seen from time to time people either not reading the instructions, or not following the instructions, and adding  directly to the deletion log, and it comes up as a red link. As far as I know, the current step 3 is the only way to list a page for deletion (then again, there's a chance I'm completely wrong (but I'm pretty sure I'm right)). Calgary 12:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Every time I've seen a redlink, they had a typo in what they put in.  I've never had a failure just copy/pasting the heading of the AFD page and surounding it by curly brackets.  Actually, either way can be done by typing (with risk of typo) or by copying and pasting.  I just find it smoother to copy only one thing than (the page header of the AFD page) than to copy the template call from one source and the PageName from a second.  GRBerry 03:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should step 3 be updated?