Wikipedia talk:Guide to deletion/archive1

message: * Merging, redirecting, and transwiking content during the VFD process are valid processes of handling an article traditionally.  There are a few nominations that get nominated for merging, redirecting, and transwiking when someone can already do that without the VFD process. -- AllyUnion (talk) 11:53, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing restrictions 

message: :From User talk:CesarB:
*Good afternoon.  I saw the addition you made to the Guide about refactoring.  You specifically mentioned tables in addition to refactoring of the list.  Is it your thought that we should preclude, for example, the recap table at the top of Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/La Shawn Barber?  Even though I added that one, I'll admit that I've had second thoughts about whether or not those recap tables are really helpful.  Their big advantage in my mind has been to give the "ambiguous" voters a chance to come in and clarify their position.  On short discussion threads, it's not usually so important but on the really contentious issues, it seemed helpful.  The downside is that the recap table tends to bias people toward vote-counting and away from discussion.  I felt it was acceptable because the really long and argumentative discussion threads have almost always already degenerated into namecalling by the time they're that long so not much would be lost. Should I stop?  Rossami (talk) 22:23, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caution not to "helpfully" refactor as a list of votes 

message: *Your ego is not on the line. -- AllyUnion (talk) 21:40, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most important thing to remember 

message: deferred until the end of the discussion.
* Who decides the end of discussion?  When is the end of discussion?  Tradition (not to vote on VFD/Old) versus policy (not to vote until an administrator has reviewed it and closed it)? -- AllyUnion (talk) 21:42, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The end of the discussion 

message: * Articles' information may be merged with another article during VFD, but the article itself should remain the same.  This follows the be bold policy, where one person can effect a VFD vote process by demonstrating how well an action is. -- AllyUnion (talk) 21:44, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging 

message: A debate may be closed if and only if an article has previously deleted by an administrator for speedy deletion due to the fact that it meets the criteria for speedy deletion.  Should you see an article deleted due to these circumstances, follow these instructions:
Close the discussion by editing the top and bottom of the VfD discussion sub-page. (Together, these two edits will create a shaded box around the discussion thread confirming that it has been closed. See the example below.)
a. at the (very) top with  speedy deletion. ~~~~, above the section of the article.
b. at the bottom with .
* Note  and  are shortcuts.
-- AllyUnion (talk) 21:51, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Closure exceptions 

message: The most common transwiking should have its own section, including links to the templates for them. -- AllyUnion (talk) 21:55, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikisource, transwiki, etc 

message: The article needs to be divided up further.  A specific section should talk about sockpuppetry, new users, etc, so that it can be easily found. -- AllyUnion (talk) 22:01, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refactoring 

message: Doing any of these is automatically considered to be vandalism.
* Nothing is automatic.  Should be reworded as can be considered...  Also, there may be logical reasons of moving the article.  Additionally, it would be best to create a redirect after the move to the old VFD subpage. -- AllyUnion (talk) 22:03, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  3 restrictions 

message: Some summary should include references for notability, what is considered in inclusion -- AllyUnion (talk) 22:07, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability guidelines 

message: There is also an archive of important debates and VFD decisions on notability.  A summary of that would also be useful. -- AllyUnion (talk) 22:07, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prior VFD Consensus 

message: Since when?  People have voted down the line as Delete, Keep, or what not.  Usually a simple vote without a rationale could be a user's an agreement to a prior argument.  Users may be asked, by other voters, to explain their rationale, but does not mean that they won't be counted when the votes are added.  If we had that kind of system, several articles now would have to be re-sent to VFD process with each person specifying why the need for deletion.
Furthermore, considerations should be taken care that no one should vote without a good reason to do so.  A vote for keep after a string of deletes without any explaination or rationale is not logical, however it is considered by some administrators to be a valid vote.  Granted, this might seem as forcing the inclusion of the article, especially in cases of narrow margins, but the general policy is that when you're not sure, don't delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 22:13, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a long tradition.  The wording at the top of the VfD page used to explicitly say "Explain your vote even if you think it is obvious."  (I'm not sure when that comment got lost but it is still in the Deletion Policy pages.)  Now I'm not saying that a vote without explanation is always ignored, but I do always give it less weight than the vote of someone who takes the time to lay out a logical and fact-based argument.  Four unexplained "deletes" can be completely outweighed by a single "keep" argument that is solidly explained based on policy and precedent and is supported by verifiable facts (and vice versa).  Rossami (talk) 23:19, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Votes without rationales may be discounted 

message: Does anyone honestly believe, that a user who's just read a VfD notice on an article and surfed to VfD for the first time, is going to read any of this?! It is far, far too long, and is self-defeating. There's nothing magical or mysterious about VfD. There's the Wikipedia:Deletion policy, and the possible votes. Dan100 16:16, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
*Most people don't read any policies anyway. The purpose of this "guide" is to be the guide in tricky cases; in order not to repeat the very same arguments on each and every VfD page. Mikkalai 00:32, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are you serious?! 

message: What's incompatible about these? 
Why can't the sysop merge histories when deleting the articles as described in Wikipedia:How to fix cut and paste moves? 
And in the frequently encountered case of an article that, prior to VfD nomination, consists solely of a string of edits by a single contributor, why isn't it sufficient to place a note on the merged article's Talk page giving the final version of the text, the identity of the contributor, and the timestamp of the last edit? 
If merge-and-delete is difficult, we should ask the developers for mechanisms to make it easier. 
I looked into this carefully last year and was told by experienced Wikipedians that a marge-and-delete is perfectly acceptable under GFDL as long as the history is merged. At some point, people started saying "merge-and-delete is an invalid vote" in VfD discussions, but as best I've been able to determine, this is an urban legend.  
I think this should be moved out of the "incompatible" section and placed somewhere else, with rephrasing along these lines:
* Avoid "Merge to Example and Delete".  Article merger requires that editing history of the source article be kept, for attribution purposes as required by the GFDL. Doing this properly when the original source of the text is to be deleted requires the acting administrator to "merge histories," which is difficult and laborious. On the other hand, "redirects are cheap"—they are easy to do and consume neglible resources. Please do not vote "Merge and delete" unless you can give a very good reason why the original article, under its original title, should not be left in place as a redirect. 
Dpbsmith (talk) 17:16, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge and delete? What's "incompatible?" 

message: Two more pieces of lingo that come up often and let me a bit puzzled (and probably other people too, so should be explained in the Guide):
*Extreme keep/delete
*Allow for organic growth/decay
--cesarb 22:39, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Extreme" and "organic" 

message: Stevietheman added this caveat to the section on neologisms.  Note that some neologisms fast-track into becoming established and thus deserving of an article, e.g., e-democracy with the explanation "A neologism can have encyclopedic relevance before it's 'established'".  I pulled sentence out.  Maybe I'm splitting hairs but if the concept has encyclopedic relevance in a broad context, I do not believe that the concept would still be considered a neologism.  Am I missing something here?  Rossami (talk) 01:17, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The way neologism is typically used in VfDs is to indicate a new word or phrase used by a very limited group.  However, others use it to mean a word or phrase that is of recent origin, even if widely used; for example, Bling bling. Jayjg (talk) 14:11, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's exactly my point.  Thank you.  Anyway, I wouldn't object to a rewording of what I was attempting to get across.  We shouldn't be saying to Wikipedians that no neologisms can have articles for them. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 20:55, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  re: note on neologism 

message: There is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Reducing VfD load about ways that the size of VfD might be reduced.  While there is still much discussion about possible new procedures and policies, there is a general consensus that one way to reduce the size would be to encourage editors to use other processes before or instead of nominating a page for deletion.  Some of these other processes are:
#Research the subject. A lot of articles are placed on VfD because of very little/poor content, but then kept because the subject is determined to be encyclopedic, even if the article in its current state is not.  Nominators should put more effort into finding out if the subject of the article is keepable, and make sure it is correctly categorized/stub-tagged/cleanup-tagged.
#Patience.  Two applications of this -
## Give an article at least a little time to develop; It is understood that some RC patrollers feel they need to take action before an article disappears off the RC page, but nominating an article for VfD within minutes of its creation is often inappropriate.  Use the "Watch" button - it won't kill us if a questionable stub is created and sits around for at least a couple of days until the author gets a chance to work on it.
##"A month" isn't exactly a long time either; many VfD's seem to be based on "this article's been around for a month (or 2 or 3) and nobody's worked on it!!!!!"  Nobody knowledgeable about the subject may have found it (especially if it hasn't been categorized/tagged/listed) or had time to work on it.  Not all editors are Wikipedaholics.
#Categorize/Stub-tag/Listing on the appropriate "needs attention" page.  In conjunction with the two points above, an article may not have been "placed" or linked to a place where an editor with knowledge of the subject can find it and fix it.  
#Merge and Redirect. Any editor can do this.  See Wikipedia:Merge, Wikipedia:Redirect and Wikipedia:Duplicate articles.  This would help with sending "cruft" articles/info to a place where the info will get attention from informed sources, and unnecessary/inappropriate stuff can get deleted without clogging VfD and requring admin attention.  Also Move can be used by any logged-in user, when appropriate.
#Use the article's Discussion page to raise questions about an article's appropriateness.  Also, discussions on the talk pages of articles related to the subject can be especially useful in determining if an article should be merged with a larger article.
#So fix it.  While "write about what you know about" is certainly useful, it's definitely not a rule or requirement or anything.  No reason that editors couldn't or shouldn't do some research (even if it's just online research) and make some improvements themselves rather than VFDing it. 
Please note that this is not a suggestion about changing policy or procedure.  This is simply "spreading the word" about some possible ways that we can reduce the size of VfD, and so this will be posted in several places around Wikipedia.  Thanks for listening.  Soundguy99 15:27, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reducing VfD load 

message: Where did this come about, since it seems to be a debate about this at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Comunleng 2. Thanks. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:48, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  3 Month Rule for Relisting 

message: I think an unnecessary ambiguity has been introduced to the description of redirect.  As far as I'm aware, redirect has always been taken by closers to mean "edit the article to insert a redirect".  if historical examples of a redirect close being performed in another way, they should show up in the log, and so I'll look for them.  But as far as I'm aware this is a new idea.   --Tony SidawayTalk 10:30, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirect

message: * Cannonization Jan 1
* Pioneer XLD-S0 Jan 1
* List of famous republicans Jan 2
* Marian Carr Know Jan 3
* Andrei Tjikatilo Jan 5
* Boxes Jan 5
* GMing Jan 5
* DMing Jan 5
* Juvenile Diabetes Jan 7
* Guestbook spamming Jan 7
From this sample of all redirect results I could find for the first week in January, all of them appear to have been performed in the usual way, by editing the article. --Tony SidawayTalk 10:46, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: VfD redirect examples

message: We have for a long time had wording on this guide that says:
: This does not apply if a VFD discussion had no consensus for a simple lack of interest (e.g. two or three votes total); those are sometimes relisted immediately, to draw people's attention to them.
Now I recently found quite a lot of votes that nobody else had gotten around to closing, and that I didn't feel comfortable closing because there had been so few votes and so little discussion.  So I relisted them to give them more attention.
Another sysop objected strongly to this, for reasons that still are not clear to me, and has twice changed the wording to be far more prescriptive:
: This does not apply if a AFD discussion had no consensus for a simple lack of interest (e.g. two or three votes total); those are sometimes relisted immediately, to draw people's attention to them. Of course, that does not mean that any AFD discussion with few votes should be relisted, esepecially if the votes all agree. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and there is no quorum for AFD.
Now I don't know what the "quorum" thing is doing in there--of course there's nothing about relisting a VfD that stops a more bold sysop closing a discussion that's already gone on for a few days.  As for not being a bureaucracy, it seems that the above change makes us more bureaucratic by saying that we've got to leave discussions on the old day log, unseen and undiscussed, until someone eventually comes along and closes them.  We can't use our discretion, in other words.  It seems to me that we'd need a more general agreement that relisting short discussions was a bad thing.
Now I suppose there may be a point if the "votes all agree".  But if the word "all" only encompasses two or three votes plus a nominator it's obviously a different "all" than the one we would normally feel comfortable calling a consensus.
Still I think this should be left to sysop discretion.  The guideline here is out of step with our existing policy, or at the very least seems to be an attempt to make it more rigid by the back door.  I don't think it can ever be wrong to draw attention to a discussion. --Tony SidawayTalk 08:28, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This does not apply if a VFD discussion had no consensus for a simple lack of interest (e.g. two or three votes total); those are sometimes relisted immediately, to draw people's attention to them. Of course, that does not mean that any AFD discussion with few votes must be relisted, especially if the votes all agree. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and there is no quorum for AFD. It's quite acceptable to close a discussion in which there have been few votes.
I think it should be enough, as above, to ensure that nobody feels that they must not close a AfD discussion just because there are few votes.  They can close on the basis of a brief discussion.  In fact it used to be my belief that it was advisable to close a solo nomination without discussion as a delete; I no longer believe that this is consistent with deletion policy. However others may differ with me on this.
Looking back at it, now, Radiant's clauses about bureaucracy and quora seem to make sense in the light of the change from should to must. --Tony SidawayTalk 02:56, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Relisting when no consensus because of few votes

message: I'm pleased with the progress on the main page, and have tightened the wording slightly. - brenneman(t)(c) 03:03, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issues in focus 

message: I've attempted a top-to-bottom rewrite of the Guide.  My goals were, in order, to:
# Reduce the size of the page 
# Remove the references to "voting" and return the tone to one of discussion and consensus-seeking
# Clean up the order and flow 
Since the first draft of this Guide, we've said that it was much longer than desired.  My current draft is just under 3000 words (down from about 6000 words in the "live" version).  Printed, that works out to 7 pages (down from 13).  Still longer than I'd have liked but a significant reduction.  I think that it keeps all the relevant lessons, instructions and good advice. I did sacrifice some of what, in my opinion, were rare or secondary situations.
By more carefully describing the decision-process as discussion and consensus-seeking, I think that some of the lengthy commentary and the recent debates over, for example, the interpretation of a "redirect" vote during vote-counting and the question of a quorum become less relevant.  
I'd like to invite comments at User talk:Rossami/GAFD temp before being bold.  Thanks.  Rossami (talk) 23:00, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite 

message: Under "You may edit the article during the discussion", it says you should not turn the article in a redirect.  I certainly agree that this is generally true, but in some cases, a speedy redirect seems like the right thing to do.  There was one yesterday that I redirected due to there already being a better article on the same topic, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Horse the band.  Are situations like this worth mentioning, or are certain exceptions just assumed?   Or do people feel that speedy redirects are always bad? Friday (talk) 17:15, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In a few cases, that can be an okay solution but they should be the exception, not the rule.  And if anyone feels that the decision was overly bold, don't fight it when they revert it back.  Having said that, I don't think it's worth mentioning.  As long as it's the exception and that we let common sense prevail, I don't think we need to clutter up the instructions.  Rossami (talk) 01:46, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "You should not turn the article into a redirect." 

message: Texture reverted an edit by User:Reinyday which stated correctly:
: "Note: Currently, lack of "notability" is not a criterion for deletion, though it is commonly used as such.
Texture's edit summary read as follows: "rm new note - please discuss on talk page and gain a consensus for change - notability has been established as a CSD"
I have restored the note because:
# As i have noted earlier, it's factually correct.
# It is relevant to the voting shorthands on AfD that, although it is often cited as a reason for deletion, non-notability is not a reason for deletion in Wikipedia:Deletion policy--indeed that policy states explicitly that an article that is "Such a minor branch of a subject that it doesn't deserve an article" is one of the Problems that don't require deletion'.  It is in fact a merge candidate.
I have therefore reverted to restore a version that more correctly describes deletion policy. --Tony SidawayTalk 18:05, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I agree with your revert.  One could argue that lack of notability IS a criterion for deletion, because it's commonly used as such.  IMO, the percieved conflict between the A7 CSD and the deletion policy makes it arguable that the statement is "factually correct".  (Here I'm assuming that "notability" and importance/significance are basically the same thing.) Friday (talk) 18:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

text: If notability is a valid reason for speedy deletion then I don't see how it can't be a valid reason for voting "delete".  - Tεxτurε 18:56, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Since you referenced it I went to Wikipedia:Deletion policy.  It does not "specifically state that it isn't" a valid reason for deletion.  If you would like to exclude notability as a reason for deletion I suggest that you make a proposal to change deletion policy and gain consensus. - Tεxτurε 19:33, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Please do not add new content that you have failed to gain consensus for. - Tεxτurε 19:33, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I see no justification for the continued reverting.  The suggestion to talk about changes on the talk page before putting them in the article seems very reasonable to me.  Friday (talk) 19:28, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I also had concerns about User:Reinyday's comment when I saw it this morning. Many users argue that notability is a valid proxy for "non-encyclopedic" - by which, those people mean the things discussed at, for example, WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Please remember that the list at WP:NOT was not intended to be all-inclusive. It is a set of examples chosen for their clarity and to address problems that were particularly bad at a point in our history. Being "non-encyclopedic" - something that would not normally be found in an encyclopedia - is and always has been a valid reason for deletion. Non-notability under that interpretation is an allowable argument for deletion and is compatible with the Deletion policy. Rossami (talk) 19:37, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I've written a compromise that refers to WP:NOT on deletion and WP:DP on not deleting but merging.  We should have a guide that reflects policy as accurately as is possible. --Tony SidawayTalk 22:01, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Please use the talk page, not edit warring, to resolve this issue.  Friday (talk) 21:51, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Explanation of [[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]'s revert of an edit by [[User:Texture|Texture]]

message: Can we just leave the main page alone until we agree on something here, please? </br>brenneman(t)(c) 00:31, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Explanation of [[User:Aaron Brenneman|brenneman's]] revert of an edit by [[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]

message: Article X is up for deletion. A notice is posted there, but not on article Y. Consensus is to merge X into Y. So this is done, but the regular contributers to article Y did not get a say in the matter. What recourse do they have?
I've seen it happen. The mergers show up at Y, insisting that the vote was legitimate and that article Y is now stuck with whatever gets dumped into it from X.
AlbertCahalan 04:24, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not at all.  Once an article is merged, it is immediately subject to the regular rules of editing and content evaluation.  The presumption is that the people who have interest and expertise in both articles X and Y will now work together to figure out how to write the best possible article.  Such a deletion discussion merely says that the article X's history may be kept in the history file.  It does not create a mandate that all the content or even a specific subset of X's content or "golden prose" must be kept intact.  I suppose someone could claim that "article Y is now stuck with it" but that's simply not true.  Rossami (talk) 21:24, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "merge" is a problem 

message: I think the text "You must not modify or remove the AFD notice."  should be changed, to say you can remove it *if* no AFD sub-page was created after 24 hours.  There seems to be no harm, since somebody can easily re-add it, if that's what they wish.  Once the sub-page is created, than obviously, the notice must stay, until closing. --rob 20:20, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allow removal of "AFD" tag if AFD sub-page never made 

message: Just an explanatory note. I've made several changes to the Guide. The changes do not alter the intent and scope of the various instruments mentioned in the text; they only clarify long-standing policy and practice concerning mainspace deletions. This edit was made at the encouragement of two respected editors following a discussion I had with another editor on VFU. Regards encephalon 20:52, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additions to the Guide. 

message: Is there an established protocol for these? --- Charles Stewart 19:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Speedy keep

message: If someone cannot support a claim that an article is frivolous, especially if it refers to something that they do not know, then it is unjustified to place a deletion notice.
M3Plus 01:52, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles that are not frivolous 

message: The reason given in the original revert was...
:(Wikipedia:Google test is already well cited in the Deletion Policy. While we can cite that page here, attempting to boil the whole page down to a simplistic sentence does justice to neither.)
This is false.  Google hits is not mentioned in the Wikipedia:Deletion Policy at all.  Since this section in not meant to cover the issue in depth, it's simply part of "general advice" and the link to the more in depth article is given.  Users are more likely to see this page and will not know that Google hits are not a be-all, end-all method of determining whether an article should be deleted (from experience many users do act this way).  There is no reason given why it shouldn't be included here.  This helps users know about the issue. -- MateoP
:It shouldn't be included, in my opinion, because I don't think it would be that helpful to include it. Refer users who think that Google hits is the be-all, end-all to Wikipedia:Google test. I don't think there are that many users who are careful enough to read this Guide to Deletion but not careful enough to realize that there is a link saying there are some issues with using Google tests, or realize that by themselves. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 21:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "People who only read this article" know about the issue because it is mentioned in the "See also" section. The issue is one of balance. I think one sentence in the "See also" section is enough. What other sections do you want to make more concise? -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

text: You've failed to convince me.  Your "small" addition is the proverbial camel's nose.  It encourages the next person to add another "small" paragraph about their own pet peeve.  In very short order, we get back to the 15 page version that everyone complained about.  The Google Test is no more (or less) relevant than every other policy or guideline page we have.  We don't and can't have a paragraph on each of them.  I want the paragraph back out and still think that a "See Also" link is sufficient.  Rossami (talk) 20:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you don't think it's less relevant then delete one of the other current sections and leave the google one in.  --MateoP 21:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The other policy pages (for example, WP:NOT, WP:BIO, WWP:MUSIC and WP:CORP) are mentioned in single bullets - the maximum that is appropriate for Wikipedia:Google test.  Rossami (talk) 01:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  google section 

message: To Jitse Niesen, I am a user who is careful enough to read Guide to deletion but was not aware of the Google test article.  No reason it shouldn't be here to let people who only read this article know about the issue.  To Rossami, your reason for the revert is simply not true.  Google hits is not even mentioned in the Deletion Policy.  Furthermore, if your worry is about the page not being concise, my google hits section was very concise and contained a link to the more in-depth article.  There are many other sections which are not concise.  Perhaps you should break them down.
Anyways, I'm willing to compromise.  I would be willing to allow 1 short sentence that does nothing but direct people to the Wikipedia:Google test article, but only if it remains in a header and only if the other sections are reduced also.  --MateoP 21:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "People who only read this article" know about the issue because it is mentioned in the "See also" section. The issue is one of balance. I think one sentence in the "See also" section is enough. What other sections do you want to make more concise? -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

text: You've failed to convince me.  Your "small" addition is the proverbial camel's nose.  It encourages the next person to add another "small" paragraph about their own pet peeve.  In very short order, we get back to the 15 page version that everyone complained about.  The Google Test is no more (or less) relevant than every other policy or guideline page we have.  We don't and can't have a paragraph on each of them.  I want the paragraph back out and still think that a "See Also" link is sufficient.  Rossami (talk) 20:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you don't think it's less relevant then delete one of the other current sections and leave the google one in.  --MateoP 21:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The other policy pages (for example, WP:NOT, WP:BIO, WWP:MUSIC and WP:CORP) are mentioned in single bullets - the maximum that is appropriate for Wikipedia:Google test.  Rossami (talk) 01:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Response to user Jitse Niesen and user Rossami arguments

message: I agree that external users are very unlikely to read the whole guide to deletion. I've written a quick FAQ here which attempts to specifically address the questions an external user is going to have when he comes on Wikipedia and sees his or his friend's article up for deletion. I thought something like this would be good to link to from the  template. It was written somewhat stream-of-consciousness style as a response to some of the meatpuppet contributions I've seen recently, so naturally there are gaps - I'm wondering at this point what other editors think of the general idea. --Last Malthusian 19:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Short guide to deletion for meatpuppets