Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 39

message: Might someone tell me how to delete a topic I started on an article's discussion page?  I don't want the article itself deleted of course, I just want a topic section that I started to be deleted because I think it's wrong and misinformative and I want to take it back.  I dropped "subst:prod|..." (with the proper brackets) into the section but was only mocked by Nigelj for doing so.  How do I delete an article's discussion topic?  Thanks for your help.
Hi again.  For clarity, suppose for instance I wanted this very discussion topic section (i.e., "Deleting a topic section on an article's Discussion page") deleted.  How would I go about that?  Thanks a bunch.
:What are you talking about?--SUIT 05:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I get it. I'll tell you: You select it and press "backspace".--SUIT 05:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleting a topic section on an article's Discussion page 

message: Since the template for AfDs has been changed to include more info about the nominated articles and we now have their names twice in each AfD, wouldn't it be appropriate to link the name in bold to the AfD page (like what happens in RfAs)?--Húsönd 01:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably, but the change will also probably prove unpopular, and first you'll have to check with all the AfD bot operators (I'll start by saying Bot523 would be fine with this.) --ais523 13:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

text: There are still plenty of people who make their afd subpages "by hand" instead of using Template:Afd2.  For these, it's pretty crucial that there be a link to the actual article.  It would be confusing to the point of uselessness if some subpages' headers went to the subpage, and some went to the article. —Cryptic 14:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Template

message: I've created User:Poccil/quickafd.js (based on User:Howcheng/quickimgdelete.js)  for automating the nomination process for Articles for Deletion.  Discuss.  Peter O. (Talk) 04:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Try renaming the functions which clash with those in the popups script (getParamValue comes to mind). --ais523 10:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Have you tried to run this script? There appear to be a lot of missing semicolons. --ais523 10:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New script for nominating articles for deletion 

message: Now that the  template is being used in AfDs it would help closing admins as they could delete clear consensus articles directly from the page. Thoughts?  Glen  11:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just use  instead. --ais523 11:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I've been bold enough to add this to  - hope that's cool with everyone  Glen  11:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is opposition to this at Template talk:Afd2#Adding links to AfD "preloaded debate" template. I agree that a delete button is not that useful, as closing admins must read the article and do their own investigation (eg. of the voting patterns) before deleting. After all that, a preloaded delete button doesn't really save time. They must on no account just scan the votes and click delete without bothering to look in more detail at what is going on with the deletion debate. Also, the "ordinary users will be confused" argument is an even stronger reason for not having a preloaded delete button. Carcharoth 11:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I concur.  Please  take it back out.  Doesn't add save any real time but does create the possibility of accidental error.  Rossami (talk) 18:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thoughts re my/someone adding a "Delete" link to the "{{tl|la}}" template? 

message: I'd just like to take the opportunity to thank all our hard-working AfD closers on behalf of Bot523. The latest 'overdue' AfD output shows a huge shrink , and all the results on the list are false positives (mostly relisted debates (which the bot can't detect), there was one that was miscategorised and not caught by the bot, and one which was malformed, both of which I've sorted). In other words, the AfD backlog is currently running at less than 2 days (the limit at which the bot compains); well done! --ais523 09:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Congratulations 

message: I find this sorting tool useful , but it's not easy to find the link to it on the AFD page:
*'summaries of ongoing AFDs'
is not very distinctive. (A person wandering around on the AFD page sees many 'summary-like' things). How about changing it to:
*'Open AFD debates sorted by age (Dragonsflight summary tool)'
or some such? I will make the change if no-one objects. EdJohnston 00:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Entry on the AFD page for the Dragonsflight summary tool is obscure and hard to find 

message: I researched this article carefully, and typed it all up. It was objective, informative, and had a purpose. But it has been deleted since I di not check it for six days. It has outside links, references, cited sources, sections, and I repeat, a good reason for existing. I specially made articles link to it that were connected. But now its deleted and id like it to be returned to life.Fuzzibloke 15:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You might want to try here: Wikipedia:Deletion review. James086 Talk | Contribs 15:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Martin Randall Travel]] 

message: Please let me know the reason for the deletion of the article smackall. codetiger 10:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The AFD discussion for the article lists violations of several Wikipedia policies and guidelines as reasons for article's deletion. --Allen3 talk 10:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reason for deletion 

message: There was an article before, Medo Pucić, but there is no more. I only suspect that it had been deleted, but can't find any reference to it. How do I find a log? --PaxEquilibrium 18:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, it has been deleted because it was found to be a copy of a text from a copyrighted source. See here for an explanation. CSD G12 refers to 12th general criteria, by which an article can be deleted with no discussion. -- ReyBrujo 18:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

text: OK, thanks. --PaxEquilibrium 23:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medo Pucich - deleted article 

message: Why are admins constantly closing AfDs early? I mean, AfDs are supposed to be submitted to a consensus by the users, not the admins. Why can't they wait until 5 days later when the AfD officially closes? There are several articles that have been appealed as a result of this. Diez2 19:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends on the AfD. Administrators will often close AfDs with obvious results early per WP:SNOW. For instance, if an AfD has 18 delete arguments from established users in good standing within 12 hours (this has happened before on some hoax articles), it will more than likely be closed early because an administrator will see that there is no point in continuing the discussion any further. Other AfDs get closed late on their fourth or early on their fifth day if there is a clear consensus and no one has posted a new argument in a while (for instance, if someone opened an AfD at 12:00 on November 10 and it gets a keep consensus, an admin could close it at 00:00 November 15, which is not quite 5 days but close). --Coredesat 20:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Administrator Intervention 

message: This probably isn't the place to bring this up, but I'm having a terrible time trying to list an article for deletion.
To be honest, I'm hesitant to continue trying at all, for fear of making things worse.
What I'm trying to delete is this: Sie_and_hir, and I'm just goobering things up.
Some help would be appreciated.
Here's what I'm trying to add as my reasoning:
Still unsourced. Not widely accepted as part of English language (or, if so, certainly not demonstrated to be so.) Grossly POV. Article lists several other possible alternatives, concretely proving that 'sie' and 'hir' aren't standard.
If somebody could help me with this, I'd be very grateful. (and then, feel free to simply delete this note in this discussion area) Bladestorm 22:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've updated the nomination for you. Just complete the nomination reason at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sie and hir (second nomination). -- Fan-1967 22:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Argh! 

message: What's the difference between a deletion discussion page and a deletion debate page?  These instructions are, as is often the case on Wikipedia, written for editors who are wiki-addicted.  Can't they be beta-tested on the non-Wikipedia-savvy editor, ever?
*Create the article's deletion discussion page.
*Click that link to open the article's deletion discussion page. Some preloaded text and some instructions will appear. 
*OR
*Click the link saying "this article's entry" to open the deletion-debate page. 
Are there simple instructions anywhere that aren't a wordsmog?
Anyway, the elementary schools of Albany School District should have been added to the request for deletion of the Albany Middle School page.  I tried to do it, got bogged down in the confusing instructions, came back to do it again, and decided to forget it.  There's just plain too much text involved in doing it.
KP Botany 19:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:   What's the difference between a debate and a discussion?  Why does Wikipedia require both for deletion? 

message: Is there a standard policy, process or etiquette for renominating an article which was previously a AfD but didn't reach consensus? I ran into Folio (Company) while Special:Randoming and it was listed as an AfD in April '05. It looks to me like it doesn't meet WP:CORP. Been searching around for guidelines to no avail. RichMac 08:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Renominations_and_recurring_candidates. (Though I think the wording there is a bit absurd in its excessive caution - I love the "Think carefully. Renomination costs additional volunteer time and server resources", given that "Wikipedia is not paper" is used all the time as a keep argument in afd discussions.) I don't think there's a set time for waiting to renom. A few days is definitely unacceptable though. I personally will not renominate an article which has been afd'd in the last 2-3 months. April '05 is fine - long time ago. Also, bear in mind that articles whose last afd concluded in keep may also be renominated with good reasons Bwithh 09:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at the existing afd for Folio, this seems to have been a misjudged close (imho) by the admin. Everyone except one voted for delete or merge (with a majority for merge), so the article should not have been kept. Bwithh 17:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the reply. And that wording is hilarious. No mention of additional volunteer time and server resources on fluff articles eh? As far as the Afd, I was also suprised at the outcome. I've renominated the article. RichMac (Talk) 18:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renomination of articles 

message: ARG! Why must wikipedia must be so full of beurocracy, all I wan't is a simple request for to delete an article but for that to happen I have to fill out an essay, write it in the correct form then wait a 5 day waiting period which in that time frame nothing will be done before someone comes to notice the futile request.74.236.92.108 00:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that if the article meets any of the criteria for speedy deletion, you don't have to do this, just add a template as per Wikipedia:Speedy deletions and an admin will delete it right away. If it does not meet any of these criteria, it is plausible or at least conceivable that someone might oppose the deletion, and so it is a very good thing that we all get a chance to discuss it before action is taken. -- Jao 00:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: AfD is probably the single most bureaucratic process that I've encountered on Wikipedia. This isn't necessarily a bad thing. The steps required are almost a safeguard. Do you really feel that an article merits deletion? Then you should spend the time going through the motions. If it's a flippant sort of want to see an article removed you're less likely to attempt it. Though if it's an obvious deletion candidate Speedy deletion is quite quick and painless as Jao pointed out. RichMac (Talk) 09:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Please fill out these 200 page applications...=

message: As a newbie editor who may someday go through a AfD process for an article I write, I'm trying to learn the ropes reading WP:AfD and WP:DRV, while also schooling myself on things like WP:WEB.  My question:  when going through WP:DRV and reading interesting cases, I'm having trouble learning how to find the corresponding debate that occurred on the WP:AfD page. Some I have found by trial and error.  But how do I search for the AfD discussion that occurred previously (perhaps a few days earlier, perhaps months) for articles recently added to WP:DRV.  My search techniques are striking out... Many thanks. --Frank Rabinovitch 09:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There may not be an afd discussion (and likely won't be, if the article in question was speedy-deleted).  If there is one, though, you should be able to find it by going to the article page (even if it's currently a redlink) and picking What links here. —Cryptic 09:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On DRv, the link is blue if there was an AfD and red if there wasn't, so you can tell which articles were discussed here when reviewing a deletion. --ais523 10:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Really? Is that automatically done by a template that inserts a link to the AfD? How does that handle second and third, etc. nominations? Carcharoth 10:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, automatic by template. It doesn't always go to the right AfD, but if there's a second nomination there was a first nomination so the colour of the link will be correct. --ais523 10:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, AfD's are often of the form Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGENAME, though you may have to try variants on this if it is a second or later nomination. If the article still exists, the talk page should (but doesn't always) have links to previous deletion discussions. For older discussions, replace 'Articles for deletion' with 'Votes for deletion'. Though really, using the "What links here" on the red-links is the most elegant answer, and should find all the AfD, VfD and DRV discussions. Carcharoth 10:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  searching through AfD