Wikipedia talk:Guide to deletion

message: *I've seen the following concerns expressed in various quarters:
** The  tag is too long, and is suffering from instruction creep.
** The VFD notice directs users to WP:VFD, which is slow to load, and mainly comprises raw VFD discussions, with a few notes at the top and nomination instructions at the bottom.  This places a load on the servers that is unnecessary, when in the main people looking at VFD notices will be more interested in each specific article's own discussion and a guide to the jargon and what it all means, and not all of the currently outstanding VFD discussions in toto.
** The explanation of VFD is scattered across the VFD notice, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion phrases, the notes at the top of WP:VFD, and several talk pages.  And there is some good advice and information that is simply VFD "oral tradition", that would benefit from being written down elsewhere than in various specific VFD discussions.
*Therefore, as promised at the end of last week, here's my idea, which I will put in place in the absence of reasonable objections:
** A short VFD notice, containing the bare minima of instructions, and hyperlinks pointing to three places:
*** The article's VFD discussion entry
*** The deletion policy
*** A guide to VFD
** The elimination of much of the explanatory text from the top of WP:VFD, leaving just the navigational items.  WP:VFD becomes "the page that you visit only if you want to see all of the outstanding discussions at once, navigate to a particular day's VFD log, or perform a nomination", and not "the page that you visit for anything to do with Votes for Deletion" nor "the page that novices first see when they try to find out more about a VFD notice applied to their article".
** The aforementioned Wikipedia:Guide to Votes for Deletion (WP:GVFD), comprising a merger of the (secondary) instructions from the VFD notice, the instructions and warnings at the top of WP:VFD, various comments on various talk pages, and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion phrases.
*Uncle G 18:06, 2005 Feb 23 (UTC)
*The guide is in place, and has received attention.  The top of WP:VFD has been shortened.  A redirect is now in place at the old Wikipedia:Votes for deletion phrases page, and links to that have been modified to point directly to the guide instead where appropriate.  The only remaining part of the original task left is to modify  as per the above.  That template is (or at least was, the last time that I checked) protected because of repeated vandalism.  There's a suggested replacement, as per the above, on Template talk:vfd#Easing_server_load.2C_shortening_the_notice.2C_and_consolidating_the_guides. Uncle G 03:30, 2005 Mar 8 (UTC)
===Some thoughts===
Wow!  You have done some incredible work.  I think this consolidation of our rules and traditions makes a great deal of sense.  Thank you.  I do have a couple of thoughts that I'd like to get a reaction on before I am bold.  Rossami (talk) 05:31, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Easing server load, shortening the notice, and consolidating the guides 

message: Wow!  You have done some incredible work.  I think this consolidation of our rules and traditions makes a great deal of sense.  Thank you.  I do have a couple of thoughts that I'd like to get a reaction on before I am bold.  Rossami (talk) 05:31, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Some thoughts

message: The following text has a problem:
:Anyone can make a nomination including anonymous users. The nomination, however, must be in good faith. Nominations that are clearly vandalism may be discarded.
Now that anons can't create a page, they can't complete a nomination.  Either we should:
*a) Tell anons they can't make a nomination (my preferred choice)
*b) Explain how they can, which means telling them to put a tag, and have User:Crypticbot do it for them, or suggest some other approach, I might not be aware of.
Currently, the wording implies that anon nominations are no different from others, but this is clearly not the case.  Regardless of how it should be reworded, it clearly does need rewording. --Rob 19:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The policy is that anons can't make new articles, right?  Why not just see if developers are willing to implement this more precisely?  A project-space page is not, after all, an article.  Friday (talk) 19:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or they can put their nomination on the article's talk page.  (I have moved many such to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ subpages.)  The restriction on anon page creation was to prevent low-quality material from being added to the encyclopedia, not from being removed. —Cryptic (talk) 20:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anons making nomination 

message: Your opinion please in Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#"Redirect" option. Mukadderat 23:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Redirect" option

message: OK look I made a page within my user space that needs to be deleted. It's "User talk:Nerd42/talk", which was replaced by Talk:User:Nerd42. So I have looked at, like, seven different pages and none of them seem to have a simple way to tell admins to delete the page. They're all about "the deletion process" and full of irrelevent links to "be nice to newbies" policy pages and all have more templates for dofferent reasons for deletion than a swiss army knife has blades. I just want to get a page deleted quick - and the "speedy deletion process" looks like it takes longer than the regular one. It's like, way too many lawyers hang out on Wikipedia, you know? A simple task like this has to become so complicated! :( --Nerd42 (talk) 04:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Add the text "" at the very top of the page and an admin will hopefully delete it within a day or so.  --Rob 05:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rob, it's nice that you told Nerd42 that. BUT the point remains -  I came here for the same reason and I found the answer in a talk page, which is subject to being archived. There should be a better place to go to for advice on how to remove pages from user space (specifically, your own user space). I know -  I can ignore the page for ever... but really it would be nice to be able to find the answer to how to get your own user subpages / talk subpages deleted!Garrie 23:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: It is covered in the deletion policy through reference to speedy deletion criteria.  See: WP:CSD#U1 by "". Seems straight forward enough to me. JERRY talk contribs 00:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why does this have to be so complicated? 

message: The deletion template points specifically here to give me advice on deciding the fate of articles.  Add to that the fact that a whole lot of people use google hits as their sole decision whether to vote delete or keep, and that signals me that a google section is absolutely necessary here.  People are not adhering to this advice.  Since the template points here, it should be here.
The arguments against the google section are all flawed.  The only real argument that has been made is that google hits already has it's own article. But so does sockpuppets.  So does assume good faith.  Yet you are not deleting those sections.  So, my question is, why is google hits less deserving of a section in this article?  --MateoP 02:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: While Google section is absolutely necessary

message: I understand the position we're in now resulted from the above 2005 discussion about instruction creep.  As a new Admin and a user since 2004, I have found it massively unclear how to navigate the AfD process.  A new user above mentions the same thing, visiting three or more pages about about about AfD but not really explaining what to do.  I have been editing the instructions at WP:AFD for brevity and I have found an enormous amount of duplication here.  I am trying to cut that down, hopefully making the whole process much more transparent and easy for the new user to understand.  Kaisershatner 16:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Consistency and clarity

message: Can someone point me to the policy and proper action for an author removing the AFD notice? TIA. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 17:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The proper action is to revert the removal and add a notice to the user's Talk page.  The escalating templates , , ,  and  can be helpful.  They can be found at Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace along with an equivalent series for the inappropriate removal of speedy-deletion templates.  I don't know of anyplace where the practice is formally documented.  Wikipedia works as much through tradition and social controls as through formally documented procedures.  Rossami (talk) 19:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AFD notice removal 

message: Why is it that any fool can create an new article in 30 seconds, but to delete an article takes a week of discussion? I understand that erasing an article and it's entire edit history should be hard. But why isn't there a simpler delete process that would leave the edit history in place? For example, why don't we simply blank inappropriate articles, or replace them with a template that would say something like 'Wikipedia does not currently have any such article. Click here to add content."? The closet we currently have (So far as I can tell, the closest current procedure would be to replace the page with a redirect, but that's only useful for redundant pages. 
I rant because I keep running into pointless, obscure pages, and the entire AfD process is a pain. (Add this template here, then that template there, create this page, add that text, wait a week...) Nonsuch 22:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Proposed deletion, Wikipedia:Transparent_deletion, Wikipedia:Pure wiki deletion system, and related discussions.  There are many who wholeheartedly agree. ∴ here…♠ 20:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is deleting articles so hard? 

message: I have added a bullet to the nomination section requesting people pleasee strongly consider if speedy or prod would be a better option.  This is based on discussions raised on the AfD talk page about the ever increasing number of AfD that could/should have been done through one of the other processes.  There are, on a regular basis, over 200 AfDs per day.--Gay Cdn  (talk) (email) (Contr.) 12:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bullet re considerationof speed and prod before AfD nomination 

message: On Wikipedia talk:Help, my article got nominated for deletion! there is a discussion about merging that page into this one. // Habj 08:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge [[Wikipedia:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!]] here? 

message: This was crossposted and has little to do with the specific workings of this page. Please discuss at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#Informing the creators is being ignored. The comments have already been moved.  Please do not spam such complaints across multiple pages.  Rossami (talk) 18:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Informing the creators is being ignored 

message: I put in this edit per the discussion at WT:AFD and WT:BLP - in short, deletion discussions now get media attention, and despite robots.txt they seem to show up in searches anyway. Please rephrase less clunkily - David Gerard 11:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don't use the word "vanity" 

message: Too many long pages to read when one simply wants to propose a deletion. Can't some expert rewrite this mess? Gbnogkfs 19 January 2007, 1:56 (UTC)
:This guide isn't specifically focused on the process of starting an AfD, more on the general policy and process behind deletion. Instructions for starting an AfD can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TOO COMPLICATED 

message: This is absurd:
<BLOCKQUOTE>You may edit the article during the discussion
You and others are welcome to continue editing the article during the discussion period. Indeed, if you can address the points raised during the discussion by improving the article, you are encouraged to edit a nominated article (noting in the discussion that you have done so if your edits are significant ones).</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE>There are, however, a few restrictions upon how you may edit an article:</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE>You must not blank the article (unless it is a copyright infringement). </BLOCKQUOTE>
This is being interpreted to mean that any sort of crap that might wind up in a Wikipedia article, must remain if the article is proposed for deletion.  If it's not proposed for deletion, apparently I can blank anything that isn't appropriate for Wikipedia, but any sort of worthless garbage, calling other users name, posting a personal address on Wikipedia, posting my resume for a few days, as long as it is proposed for deletion, it cannot be blanked.  Only copyright violations must be blanked.  This is just crying out for WP:POINT.  KP Botany 01:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it would be helpful if you gave some specific examples where you think this clause is being misused but I'll tell you that it was added to stop abusive edits.  Let me also clarify that pageblanking anything in Wikipedia other than a copyright violation or personal attack is almost always considered a form of vandalism.  This clause does not prevent you from cleaning up the article.  In fact, that's what the first section is intended to encourage.  But complete pageblanking is almost never in good faith and is prohibited regardless of whether the page is under an active deletion discussion or not.  The clause was specifically added because pageblanking is a frequent problem for nominated pages.  Rossami (talk) 14:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Absurdity is often complicated and ridiculous 

message: An inexperienced user tried to nominate an article for deletion. He/she managed to make its AfD page, but not properly. It lacks the general structure of a typical afD page and is not transcluded, although the nominated article has an AfD template. I don't know how to deal with this case. Should the AfD page be deleted or should someone finalise the nomination? The nominator's argument are hardly met anymore, since I did edit the article and is now in much better shape than before the AfD template was was placed on it. Julius Sahara 18:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A bot fixed it, so this is not an issue anymore. Julius Sahara 08:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned AfD page 

message: There should be an easier way to remove Articles for Deletion notices if a "Keep" consensus quickly develops. What's to stop vandals or annoying curmudgeons from nominating numerous articles for deletion and forcing everyone to view the notices for the long discussion periods? All these unhelpful and unsightly banners in Wikipedia seem like a way for power trippers for complain -- instead of fixing the articles. The "stub" notice at the bottom of short articles is nice because it is discrete and useful for categorizing: imagine if all short articles had an ugly banner at the top saying, "This article needs to be longer".
Anthony717 21:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We should keep a good faith and focus on expanding any newly written stub articles first, unless the newly written article is bluntly about advertisement. Chongkian (talk) 03:47, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivial Articles for Deletion Nominations 

message: I'm concerned about the presence of the term "cruft" in the Shorthand section.  I think it should either be removed, or modified to note that many people object to the use of the term as biased opinion, or otherwise do not find it acceptable.  FrozenPurpleCube 15:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cruft in Shorthand 

message: I suggest the inverse: that Wikipedia:Help, my article got nominated for deletion! be merged with Deletion.-Marcus 17:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New suggestion:

message: hello guys, my article 2 years old is suddenly about to be deleted i read but i couldnt understand why or what to fix. if anyone could help me, i'll be grateful. my article is Beirut_IRC. thanks. 
stef —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Douaihy (talk • contribs) 11:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, your article has not yet been nominated for deletion.  It's been tagged with a question about whether or not the subject meets our generally accepted inclusion criteria.  In this case, I think the relevant criterion is WP:WEB.  If after reading up on that page you are sure that the subject meets our inclusion criteria, explain why on the article's Talk page (and maybe improve the article to make that clearer to future readers).  If no one objects after a few days, remove the "notability" tag.  If you can't find evidence or if others dispute your evidence (or interpretation of WP:WEB), the article might then be nominated for deletion.  You'll still have a chance to present more evidence during the deletion discussion if it gets that far.  Good luck.  Rossami (talk) 15:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  help 

message: Several of the Max Headroom (TV series) episode articles were deleted.   These are pages that I watch; however, I don't recall ever seeing a debate take place before the were deleted.  Can articles be deleted without debate?   How can I find if a debate occurred so that I can review it?--P Todd 22:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, pages that meet the Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion may be deleted on sight. The deletion reason should be logged, see Wikipedia:Why was my page deleted? on how to find out what happened. Femto 14:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion without discussion? 

message: This document currently has a section entitled: You may edit the article during the discussion.
IMO this section has a serious weakness.  IMO it should warn the wikipedians who actually nominated the article they should keep their hands off, for the duration of the .  
This last year or so I have participated in several  where, after nominating an article for deletion, the nominator then went and made significant editorial changes, reverting my attempts to improve these articles.  
I tried to point out to a few of these wikipedians that their nomination was a signal that they thought the article was beyond fixing, so further attempts to fix it could be perceived as bad-faith attempts to sabotage the efforts of those trying to improve the article.
Those nominators who made extensive edits after making their nominations, who were willing to respond to civil queries, claimed Wikipedia:Guide to deletion didn't proscribe their editing, or even recommend against it.  This is, IMO, a weakness.
I raised this issue on WP:AN/I a couple of months ago.  Most respondents repeated that the policy didn't explicitly prohibit nominators from editing.  Some respondents suggested that I merely provide a link to the version of the article I favored.  There are a couple of problems with this:
#This suggestion is totally unworkable for people who are trying to makes new changes to address the concerns  expressed by those favoring deletion.  
#*To follow this suggestion they would have to revert the article back to the last version they liked, then make their change, then record that diff in the .  This is a lot of extra work.  It would appear to be a violation of the 3RR.  
#*And how would interested readers who were waiting to see how the improvements turned out know which version is the one they should look at?  Far better if those who nominated the article for deletion refrained from making "improvements".
#This suggestion overlooks the extra level of effort this requires of  respondents.  And it overlooks that many  participants don't read most of the other comments.
I am not questioning that nominators are entitled to delete personal attacks, or similar.  But, IMO, they should not be making "improvements" to articles they gave up on.  I have no problem with nominators who change their mind about whether an article they nominated for deletion can be improved.  But, in that case, shouldn't they then withdraw their nomination to delete?
My suggested wording:
:
Cheers!  Geo Swan 19:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Support: I have recently had a similar experience (nominator removing material from article that was added during AfD discussion, and partly on the grounds that it was added during AfD discussion). (I was going to say that I cannot see any reason for someone editing an article if they think it should be deleted, but I can actually see some reason: added content will be visible in the article at least temporarily, and more ideas keep coming top me. Now I think about it, it is more complicated than I first thought - it quite of is with WP!) Anyway, I still support your wording. I see that nothing has happened about it here - at this point in this talk page - for about 5 years. I am wondering if this has been discussed elsewhere. I have never edited a Guide page and I am not sure how much consensus needs to be gathered first, and how? FrankSier (talk) 21:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing during {{tl|afd}} 

message: We haven't found agreement on what to do about the argument "The initial contributor may be new and doesn't know how to watchlist pages; nobody should be blindsided by the disappearance of their contributions." Indeed, since our default for newbies is that both "Add pages I create to my watchlist" and "Add pages I edit to my watchlist" are turned off, we get a lot of such disappointments. Wouldn't it be an easier solution if we changed these defaults, rather than working around the problem with additional policies or bots? — Sebastian 18:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think at the very least flipping the page creation default to the opposite would be helpful, probably also the "pages I edit".  It won't actually matter until they click on the "my watchlist" link, but at least the pages would be on the watchlist when they do.  GRBerry 20:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  By "It won't actually matter", I assume you just mean that they have to be aware that they have a watchlist. This gives me an idea: I know the idea of a welcoming bot was not welcome (excuse the pun), but how about a "page creator notification bot"? This bot could add an unassuming, neutral message along the following lines: "This is an automatic message. You just created article X, and since you seem to be a new user, you may find the following tips helpful ...". This would serve two purposes: It could help newbies by covering such bits of information as a tip to check the watchlist and set the preferences accordingly, and, if the newbie's first creation was some vanispamcruftisement, it would alert other talk page visitors to that fact. (This would e.g. have helped me yesterday when I made a bit of a fool out of myself by first greeting a newbie, then cleaning up after  most recent changes (thus to some extend "legitimizing" the article) before realizing that the whole article was created by that same account, which was only created for that purpose.) — Sebastian 21:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A new idea and a good one. why dont we try it--along with changing the watchlist default. (and without prejudice to other things, because notification is a boon to all occasional users)DGG (talk) 02:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Automated help for newbies is a very big plus, there are simply too many gaps at the moment between real life civility and wiki culture. Anything would be a help, and Sebastian you have a brilliant idea. Penyulap talk 12:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:BITE 

message: The discussion has died down, so let me summarize what I gathered from it so far: 
* There is no consensus for a deletion request notification bot; the majority opposes such a bot.
* There is no consensus for mandatory notification; the majority opposed it. 
* The need to help newbies in some way has been stressed by several editors, with no objection.
* A helper bot for newbies that just created a new article has been proposed; one supporter, no opposition. Since this is only indirectly related to the topic of this page, I will try and find a better place for it - how about WT:Wc/WEL? 
* There is no consensus for the current wording; it seems to be the result of a compromise between those who want mandatory notification and those who oppose it. To me, this seems a false compromise since it takes the worst of both extremes, so I would like to find a better solution. — Sebastian 06:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not conclude from the limited discussion here that there is no consensus more generally. DGG (talk) 01:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conclusion 

message: :Posted to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion as well, simply because I'm not sure where this is appropriate.
Hello, I've been looking through :Category:Guantanamo Bay detainees, and I'm fairly concerned about it. Virtually all of these people are allegedly "notable" for a sole event: having been captured by the United States government for alleged terrorism or terror-related activities. Nearly every single article, hundreds of them, is the same. I sent three to AfD yesterday (I could have merged them all into one AfD but I wanted each reviewed independently in case I was mis-reading things):
* Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdullah Gulam Rasoul
* Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fahed Nasser Mohamed
* Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zahid Al-Sheikh
I would venture, from reviewing at least 50 casually today, that 
# WP:BLP1E applies in virtually all cases. The articles are not biographical in any real sense.
# Each is allegedly "notable" for having been captured by the US government.
# All sourcing is functionally primary-only. 
I compared it on the AfDs to, "the article is functionally a reprinting of the US allegations towards this man who may or may not be a terrorist, who may or may not be guilty of something. We can't tell, since there are no 3rd party RS about him, just primary sources from the US government. In essence, this is the equivalent of writing an article about a crime suspect, sourced to nothing at all but official documents about the crime released by the prosecuting state attorney."
I think that per our policies as I've read them, we could conceivably delete hundreds of these BLP violating articles on non-notable people under AfD. However, I'm not sure how best to approach this. Virtually every single article was created by User:Geo Swan, and he already seems somewhat annoyed at me for having processed AfDs on a few of these articles. I'm not sure if launching an AfD with over 600+ articles is the right way to do this, but these articles seem to be inappropriate for us to have.
My questions: what should we do with this? Sending them off to AfD a few at a time each week would be pointlessly slow, repetitive, and just lead to hours of repeated statements (again, each article is the same basically--insert a new name, with a minority having different traits and sources). Speedy deleting out all articles in the category would be bad, as I would venture something like 5%-10% would certainly pass AfD and would require inspection. Should I just review each, make a massive list, and then send them all (easily over 200-400 articles) to one very long-running AfD? Any advice would be appreciated. • Lawrence Cohen 17:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please keep the discussion in one place. This page is the discussion page for our guide to deletion, and your question is not about something in the guide, but about articles you want deleted. Therefore, Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Category:Guantanamo_Bay_detainees is the more appropriate place. — Sebastian 17:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked at the three AfDs that Lawrence mentioned above. They are attracting the same comments from a number of editors. Opinions appear to be split. I think it would be better if you would extract the common concerns, summarize them, then start a Wikipedia:Centralized discussion that would be widely advertised, for example at WP:VPP and WP:AN. Ask people to respond to the concerns in detail and try to converge on a solution. If there is apparent consensus that all similar articles should be deleted, at that point you could ask on WP:AN how best to do it. If there is no consensus that the articles are inappropriate, then give up your plan and allow the articles to exist. EdJohnston 17:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. I'll begin drafting up something along these lines this week. • Lawrence Cohen 15:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Guantanamo Bay detainees]] 

message: You harpies and vultures are in far too big a hurry to tag for deletion, to pounce on every infraction - even while someone is actively editing the story!  In doing so, you create edit conflicts that cost us our efforts. (a flaw in the way Wiki's editing works, to be sure.)  I suggest there be at least a day or two before you folks can even start in with your razors.  This wouldnt' exist at all without our contributions, so back up a bit and give us some room to work, will ya? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Falc (talk • contribs) 00:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I concur with your sentiments, having seen a page nominated after existing only two minutes, there is a way to recover your work in edit conflicts. (It took me a few times to figure this out, and a bunch of lost work too!) On the edit conflict screen, there are two separate text/edit boxes - the first one is the other edit, and the second one has your work. Just go into the second box, and copy your changes, then go back to the main edit page, and paste in your work. Ta-da! THis may be a little more complicated if you made changes in several places, but at least all your work is thee. - BillCJ 00:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  All Too Eager 

message: I'm proposing an additional category in the :Template:Editabuselinks to reduce the number of posts at WP:AN and WP:AN/I, please feel free to comment here User:Mbisanz/TemplateSandbox. MBisanz talk 13:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed template change

message: please, give me an idea wh the article of such impotance gets repeatdlya deletion tag?
thank you87.160.195.139 (talk) 14:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you want Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yekishim.  Rossami (talk) 03:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Probably there were not enough citations to support the notability of the article's topic. Chongkian (talk) 03:48, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  yekishim 

message: In Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Shorthands section describing "Without prejudice," should the article be "a" in place of "an" preceding "particular option"  Newportm (talk) 22:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes.  Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Done.  I wanted to tread respectfully and carefully on this page. Newportm (talk) 22:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor grammar suggestion: "an particular option" > "a particular option" 

message: Delete      	Redirect	Merge                                                                                      	Keep
Page history       	Delete      	Keep    	Keep                                                                                       	Keep
Article state      	Deleted/None	Redirect	RedirectIf necessary, the resulting redirect may be removed per Wikipedia:Merge and delete.	Full article
Stand-alone article	No          	No      	No                                                                                         	Yes
Content            	0%          	0%      	0-100%                                                                                     	100%
                   	            	        	                                                                                           	
----
I propose adding an Outcomes subsection in Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Deletion process. It would describe the most common AfD !votes/closing outcomes (delete, redirect, merge, and keep). I would also like to include the table at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Outcome table. Flatscan (talk) 04:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: After further consideration, Delete then Redirect is also quite uncommon and could be removed from the table. Flatscan (talk) 23:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outcomes subsection 

message: In the 3 years and 9 months that this article has existed, the definition of "Speedy keep" has been "that the user thinks the nomination was based on an obvious misunderstanding and that the deletion discussion can be closed early" for more than three years, until today. The presumption of bad faith, while in Uncle G's original definition in February 2005, has only been part of the definition for two brief periods (the initial period from 23-Feb to 14-Jun-2005, and again from 16-Sep to 12-Nov-2005. Logically, it is hard to see the benefit of not having a shorthand for "error" or "obvious misunderstanding", nor is it clear why forcing an editor to impugn the motives of the nominator when suggesting a quick close is a helpful step in resolving an AfD. Add this to the current common useage of the term, and the likelihood of misinterpretation as the definition is radically changed, and it seems clear that the previous definition should be restored. Any comments? Bongomatic 18:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I started a more general discussion at WT:Speedy keep#Applicability. Flatscan (talk) 04:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of "Speedy keep" 

message: A few facts:
*WP:Speedy keep enumerates—as examples, not an exhaustive list—five reasons for speedily closing in favor of keep, three of which obviously relate to bad faith nominations, two of which do not.
*For the past three years, the guide to deletion has not suggested bad faith is required for the "Speedy keep" shorthand.
*Actual uses of the "Speedy keep" shorthand in AfD discussions do not generally indicate editors' intentions to impute bad faith to nominators.
*Uncle G insists that despite the longstanding definition of the shorthand, and actual usage, the "meaning" of "Speedy keep" is the one in effect for various periods up to November 2005.
My opinions are:
*"Meaning" is based on consensus usage—what one editor means and other editors understand something to mean—even if that is inconsistent with an officially articulated definition, and that in such cases definitions should be brought in line with meaning (see, for example, current dictionary definitions of "presently", which used to mean "soon" and now, due to usage, means "currently").
*In this case, the usage has in fact been consistent with the officially articulated definition in place for more than three years.
*There is no practical reason to have a shorthand for an ascription of bad faith to nominators; there is a practical reason to have a shorthand for "keep and speedy close", which is what the usage has been and is consistent with the official definition in place for three years until yesterday.
*Thus, the definition of the shorthand should be reverted to match actual and desirable usage, and possibly WP:Speedy keep should be adjusted to clarify that other "speedy close" keep outcomes are consistent with the policy.
Is there a consensus on this either way? Bongomatic 01:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary up to now

message: Is "Speedy keep, per WP:SNOW" a correct closing rationale? WP:Non-admin closure#Appropriate closures lists them as separate bullets and gives a recommended set of relaxed criteria for SNOW. I didn't find any other AfD documentation that mentioned them together after a quick scan. Flatscan (talk) 05:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I started a more general discussion at WT:Speedy keep#Applicability. Flatscan (talk) 04:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  SNOW is SK? 

message: I have started a discussion at WT:Articles for deletion#Merging during live AfD to clarify whether WP:Guide to deletion#You may edit the article during the discussion's guidance to avoid merging during an AfD is supported by consensus. Flatscan (talk) 05:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: RfC closed December 2009, archived to WT:Articles for deletion/Archive 58#Merging during live AfD. Flatscan (talk) 04:03, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging during live AfD 

message: Wikipedia talk:Guide to deletion#You may edit the article during the discussion says "If you are bold but the community ultimately decides to delete the content, all your mergers must be undone. (This is necessary in order to remain compliant with the requirements of Wikipedia's licensing)."
I don't think this is true.
I think the only thing that is true is that the edit history be preserved.  This is easy enough to copy the edit history of the article that is going down in AFD to the talk page of the destination article, preferably as a collapsible section or even a talk sub-page, to preserve licensing compliance.
I would like to use this wording instead:
* You should exercise caution before merging any part of the article. If you are bold but the community ultimately decides to delete the content, care must be used to comply with Wikipedia's licensing.  This may involve re-writing the material, or temporarily un-deleting the page long enough to copy the relevant parts of its edit history to the destination article's talk page or a talk sub-page.  It is usually far better to wait until the discussion period is complete unless there is a strong case for merge under the deletion policy.
Compare with what is there now:
* You should exercise extreme caution before merging any part of the article. If you are bold but the community ultimately decides to delete the content, all your mergers must be undone.  (This is necessary in order to remain compliant with the requirements of Wikipedia's licensing). It is far better to wait until the discussion period is complete unless there is a strong case for merge under the deletion policy.  This is not an issue, however, if the merged content is not merely copied and pasted, but instead completely rewritten so that only uncopyrightable facts are transferred, not copyrightable expression.
davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *For the issue of live merges, see WT:AFD#Review of my close of the WP:RFC on live merges. Since an RfC was opened on 16 October as to the community's current position on live merges, I've prepared a closing summary for that discussion. My plan is to update the language about live merges in the Guide. The new text is included in the linked item over at WT:AFD. I would welcome comments over at WT:AFD as to whether this is a correct summary of the thinking of the RfC participants. EdJohnston (talk) 05:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  You may edit the article during the discussion 

message: I removed the following text from the Closure section of the page: "A good admin will transparently explain how the decision was reached."
Wolfkeeper reverted with an edit summary that we need transparency.  I removed the text because mandatory closing rationales have been rejected at WT:DELPRO and the language here is intended to be a summary of WP:DGFA where no such language exists.  It implies that an admin who does not explain the decision with a closing rationale is not a "good admin".  I have no objection to the word "transparency".  I strongly object to the suggestion that an explanation is always necessary or one is not a good admin.  The text should be removed.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 00:01, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Closing rationale 

message: See WT:AFD#Review of my close of the WP:RFC on live merges. Per the result, I've updated the paragraph in WP:Guide to deletion about the advisability of live merges. If any further discussion is needed, the thread at WT:AFD might be the best place for it. EdJohnston (talk) 18:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted the change; I think the close is improper, and I see no consensus to change policy, much less on what to change it to. This needs further discussion. Perhaps the best course would be to reopen the rfc and advertise it more widely.    DGG ( talk ) 20:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely you jest. The process of determining consensus was one of the most thorough I have ever seen, with EdJ seeking input from others at every step of the way. The consensus against merging during an AfD was overwhelming. Your reversion of a thoroughly discussed change has been reverted. You need to make a case that there is some issue with some part of the process before you blithely undo the hard work many others did. ++Lar: t/c 21:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I support Lar's revert; I would have done it myself in a day or two after giving DGG the opportunity to justify. In case anyone is considering another revert to the historical version, the rewrite was applied after discussion and does not fall under WP:BOLD. Flatscan (talk) 04:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Closed the RfC on live merges, opened at [[WT:AFD]] on 16 October 

message: It would be helpful  with a: "This page in a nutshell" or maybe a: "This page in a nutshell (for beginners)", at the top of Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. Because many first time article creators will be quite bewildered and feel quite frustrated, when they get hit by a PROD on their head.--Seren-dipper (talk) 16:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  It would be helpful  with a: "This page in a nutshell" on [[Wikipedia:Guide to deletion]] 

message: The article Nicola Scafetta was hit with a AfD on March 25. The votes have been overwhelming to keep the article.  It is now April 10, so this has gone on far more than one week but there is still no resolution.  What can Wikipedia editors do to bring about resolution?  This article could be improved if it addressed this important question. RonCram (talk) 05:09, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Based on my experience, when there is no resolution after a period of time after it was AfD-tagged, the article is will always be kept. Of course editors should always try to address the concerns listed on the cause it was AfD-ed (e.g. add citations etc) Chongkian (talk) 00:48, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  What can be done when time has passed and there is no resolution? 

message: WP:NOT is a policy, not a guideline as this page implies. I think therefore it should be listed in the same paragraph as the other policies, not alongside guidelines.--greenrd (talk) 20:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:NOT]] is a policy 

message: * !Keep means that the user thinks all the articles in a batch nomination deletion should not be deleted. This is a request that a renomination be divided into smaller nominations with an common issue that predominates over all other issues.  He or she may state reasons, citing  WP:TRAINWRECK or other reasons, and should not simply leave it at this statement. Because the deletion process is a discussion and not a vote, simply stating "!Keep" without reasons or further comment is discouraged.
The above paragraph is a vote possibility that I would like to add to the Recommendations and outcomes section of the Project Guide to deletion. Please comment. --DThomsen8 (talk) 17:57, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: "!Keep" – meaning "not Keep" – doesn't make sense. Recommendations like "Procedural keep" and "Renominate individually" are more easily understood. WP:Guide to deletion#Recommendations and outcomes covers the general recommendations: for example, note the absence of both Speedy delete and Speedy keep. Flatscan (talk) 05:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Addition to Recommendations and outcomes

message: * Batch nomination is an nomination of more than a few articles in a single nomination, having a common issue that predominates over all other issues, and an expectation that the predominate issue will lead to consensus on a common outcome (e.g. delete).  
The above paragraph is a term I would like to add to the Shorthands section of the Project Guide to deletion. Please comment. --DThomsen8 (talk) 18:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that WP:Articles for deletion#How to list multiple related pages for deletion should be edited to address any shortcomings. Batching or bundling mostly concerns the nominator, not the participants. Flatscan (talk) 05:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Addition to Shorthands

message: I think the values ​​I've done that Ahad Azam, Niv Antman and Eli Elbaz are normal entries like everyone else and not have to delete them. Take for example the values ​​of Shadi Shaban and Eran Rozenbom that did not erase them and no one has these values ​​discussion. So please do not put the values ​​I presented at the beginning. (talk) 23:54, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure what you mean, but this looks like you might be editing real Wikipedia articles just to demonstrate something. This does not sound like a good idea to me, unless you are doing it in the Wikipedia:Sandbox which is a place designed for experimenting. FrankSier (talk) 21:16, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion unjustified

message: Hello. I edited wikipedia not frequently and anonymously for a while. I learned of page deletions and wanted to nominate a page for deletion, so I created an account and nominated it. Then I was accused of being a different user the person who was the only editor to the page had problems with and was repeatedly harassed by several users. Is there a better way around this? What did I do wrong? Thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 08:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anonymous can't delete 

message: Hi, I need help getting the deletion notice on James Berardinelli to direct to a new page for a second discussion, rather than the locked page for the first discussion. Thanks much. Rpundurs (talk) 15:47, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: . I've placed a boilerplate AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Berardinelli (2nd nomination), using your comment from the article's talk page. If you'd like to expand or clarify that rationale, feel free. UltraExactZZ  Said ~ Did  14:12, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need help initiating 2nd discussion 

message: After much reading, I believe that deletion discussions should generally be closed by uninvolved administrators, rather than mere editors. If this is true, then I suggest that this be stated more clearly; it took me a fair amount of reading before I discovered that closure should not be done by someone involved in the discussion, let alone (usually) by non-admins. -- Dan Griscom (talk) 02:35, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "closing admin" is generally an administrator (or higher), right? If so, this should be made clearer. 

message: How many times can the same editor reasonably propose the same article for deletion on the same grounds, before they're basically just deemed to be acting in bad faith? Does wanting an article to be deleted because you don't like its content run counter to WP:NEUTRAL--feline1 (talk) 12:00, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally I think it depends on the amount of time that has elapsed. Some articles have been nominated 5 times and finally gets deleted on the sixth attempt, but each nomination may have been a year apart, by a different editor each time, and it may genuinely have been a borderline case. If someone nominates an AfD right after a closed discussion, then they usually get shut out right away. CorporateM (Talk) 23:14, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  If at first you don't succeed... 

message: Can we get something like WP:BURDEN section added to specifically state the burden is on those who want to keep the article, and not those who want to delete it? I recently had encounters with some editors who, over and over, insisted the article had sources necessary to meet WP:GNG, yet refused to link them; they argued "all if you have to do is search" or posted links to generic search results (eg "here are the references") as evidence of notability. Editor insisted that WP:BURDEN did not apply to AfD but only to content within an article, and that the pro-deleters were the ones with the burden of proving subject was not notable. It seems the section in the AfD guide that says "merely claiming sources exist is not a good tactic" is not specific enough for some people. —МандичкаYO 😜 08:17, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello!  Hm, doesn't WP:BURDEN pretty much extend to WP:GNG?  I mean, if there are no sources to cover the article content, the unreferenced content can be deleted, and having an empty article makes no sense. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 10:52, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: , you would think that is obvious but no, someone has claimed it doesn't cover AfD. His argument is that the topic of the article is not the same as the content; therefore they don't have to supply sources because WP:BURDEN doesn't apply....  —МандичкаYO 😜 12:25, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion there is far to many comments with "keep" !votes that there are sources "out there" "somewhere in the universe" so the article MUST be kept. You can start a RFC or another relevant place, but a reply to that after a search has not produced sources on an article good enough, not primary, trivial, or passing mention would be something like:
*Comments (or Reply: My search did not produce reliable independant sources to verify notability. If you are comfortable with the inadequate sources on the article and no other editor wishes to add any here or on the article then consensus can determine the out-come. Good luck, (signed)  --- Otr500 (talk) 06:00, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Burden of verifiability for notability 

message: I am trying to nominate an article for its deletion to be discussed, and as I go round and round in circles trying to figure out how to do it, this page comes up frequently. It starts reasonably:
: Deletion of a Wikipedia page removes the complete page (and all previous versions) from public view. 
Well, duh.
: Deletion happens when a page is unsuitable, unhelpful, or does not meet the required criteria. 
Ok.
: Two further deletion processes exist 
This is remarkably unhelpful. I know that there are three (or according to some pages, four) possible processes. They include
# Speedy Deletion
# Proposed Deletion
# Deletion Discussion
and this page says that there are "two others". But it does not say which of the three (or four) this page is about. I think it is about the process that involves discussion, but it would be very helpful if it actually said so in the first paragraph. (I note that the second paragraph contradicts the first, and says it is about "the processes".) Maproom (talk) 09:11, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing lead 

message: I noticed some closers have a habit of simply typing "speedied" when closing: ,  and  just for example. The bot tracking AfD results is understandably confused by this, as it can't determine whether it was a speedy keep or a speedy delete. Such a result is listed as UNDETERMINED.
It might be thus necessary to clearly and in strong words instruct closers to define which kind of speedy, if they are closing as some sort of speedy. Mr. Magoo (talk) 17:20, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with "Speedy" closes 

message: Based on my experience, I find that this guideline does not sufficiently discourage the misrepresentation of policies and guidelines in deletion discussions; editors often assert that WP:GNG and other guidelines say things that they simply do not say. We allow a wide range of arguments in these discussions—this essay documents some of the less effective ones—but arguments that misstate policy or guidelines are uniquely disruptive, and this guideline should do more to discourage them. I propose adding the following text to the "Discussion" section:
:If, in a deletion discussion, you refer to Wikipedia policies or guidelines, you are responsible for making a good faith effort to represent those policies or guidelines accurately. Policies and guidelines reflect widespread community consensus. If you disagree with a guideline, you should raise your concern on the guideline's talk page; contradicting or misrepresenting policies and guidelines in deletion discussions is disruptive of the discussion process.
—swpbT 18:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: After nine days without comment, I am adding this text to the guide under WP:BOLD. —swpbT 17:49, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misrepresentation of policy and guidelines; proposal to strengthen language 

message: The actress meets the criteria of notoriety. I've added reliable sources of newspapers and magazines, So I do not consider it fair to delete the page.
I ask you to remove the AFD requests on the page.
Mitofire (talk) 15:26, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  AFD notice removal on Kendra Timmins 

message: Do we have any policy on page renames during AfD?  The page tag box "For more information, particularly on merging or moving the article during the discussion, read the guide to deletion." suggests that we do, but I can't find anything on that page.
Should page renames be avoided during AfD?  I've only seen this a few times, but it was almost always disruptive simply to the process of getting through AfD. An innocuous page rename (typo fixing) is bad enough, as it breaks links, but it's also a way to change the implied purpose and scope of a page, which could be highly POV. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page renames during AfD? 

message: Greetings, all. After a reasonable search I could not find in this guide an explicit reference to the ever persent closing statement not to modify any content after the AfD's closing. Shouldn't there be one somewhere? Am I looking at the wrong place? Thanks for any input. -The Gnome (talk) 14:39, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Please do not modify it." 

message: Hi everyone, I have never nominated a page for deletion before but I think this is a candidate. Ali Shokri does not appear to be a notable photographer to me. I wanted to ask here if I'm mistaken before I nominate. In addition, it appears that the photographer himself was responsible for almost the entire article. I tried to clean it up and remove the promotional material, but there's not much left. What do you think? Nominate for deletion or no? Dennis Osmosis (talk) 18:10, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like someone moved it to Draft:Ali Shokri so I guess that means the point is moot. Dennis Osmosis (talk) 12:25, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should [[Ali Shokri]] be deleted? 

message: Okay, so many of us are programmers, I understand, but seriously, we can't use jargon like "non vote" in an official guide like this.
CapnZapp (talk) 21:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Your !vote should be made in bold" 

message: We have a section named
If you disagree with the consensus
and that's good and all... but we also need a section for the cases when you don't object to the consensus but to the conclusions drawn by the closing admin. The text says:
"review the article, carefully read the discussion, weigh all the facts, evidence and arguments presented and determine if consensus was reached"
It is entirely possible that you drew a completely different conclusion than the closing admin. In a few cases, you're the one that's actually right!
CapnZapp (talk) 21:26, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  If you disagree with the consensus... but if I disagree with the closing admin's summary? 

message: Hi everyone! The first mention of "close" occurs in the sentence: "Following seven days of discussion, an experienced Wikipedian will determine if a consensus was reached and will "close" the discussion accordingly." Throughout the rest of the article the term "closing admin" is used and it seems in practice (as I found recently!) an administrator is required to close the discussion. I think the quoted sentence should be updated to reflect this both for consistency and to prevent future misunderstandings. Kinerd518 (talk) 20:37, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Experienced User vs. Closing Admin 

message: I've been around for years, but I've just done my first ever AfD close on :Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FC Dinamo Sukhum, just wanted someone to confirm I've done it all okay and haven't missed anything! Govvy (talk) 09:21, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  My first ever AfD close!  

message: I tried to ad an afd to the list here: but it doesn't show up in the log, what am I doing wrong? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:14, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Afd attempt 

message: Editors often "decide" AfD closes two, three, or even four a minute, usually caused by having access to tools and a one-size-fits-all summary. Have seen this way too many times over the years by many different closers, so will not name anyone or provide links. From the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion page, emphasis mine: "A volunteer (the "closing admin") will review the article, carefully read the discussion, weigh all the facts, evidence and arguments presented...." Even the Wikipedia:Closing discussions page says: "The closing editor or administrator will determine if consensus exists, and if so, what it is. To do this, the closer must read the arguments presented." Must read the arguments presented. Often detailed back-and-forth well thought out and argued discussions. Most editors probably assume that a closer has carefully studied the discussion and read and weighed the arguments, and never look at the timing of edits on the closers contributions page. I often have, and wish I hadn't. Randy Kryn (talk) 06:01, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have seen and not brought this up, then it is a mistake on your part, that will cost the community. There must be consequences at ANI for such users misusing the tools. Venkat TL (talk) 06:45, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd hope that I'm not the only one who has ever checked contribution times in relationship to closings. No, there is no need for an ANI for anybody, it has been too widespread. Just asking that the closing community actually carefully read discussions. Randy Kryn (talk) 06:57, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The only reason I can think of, for doing such speedy closes is to inflate their edit count/ Afd close count. There are clear benefits associated with increased count and there is no cost for doing it. This is a win win situation for the offending user and sad situation for the community and Wikipedia, I see no incentive for such users to stop this bad practice. It will continue like that, until someone who noticed the behavior, brings it to notice on user talk, ANI, this page or wherever appropriate. If you see a problem raise it, dont wait for others. This is how a small mess becomes large mess (like this, an unrelated huge CopyVio Mess example) Venkat TL (talk) 07:16, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Has been brought to this page to ask that closers be more considerate of discussion, and not to ANI, so please don't put too much of an emphasis on past actions. Volunteers move forward, and too many use ANI as a way of changing the equation (thinking of the recent focus on the rescue squad) towards "punishment" instead of assuring a level field. Randy Kryn (talk) 07:32, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I admit, I have no knowledge of past discussions on this page. I am concerned as such inappropriate closures will affect my AfD nominations. Your second sentence is too convoluted for me to understand. Venkat TL (talk) 07:40, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe improve the pages you find and not AfD them, unless the page is almost 100% afd-worthy (you can tell I'm not a fan of close calls at AfD, if a page falls even within the shadow of Keep then it probably should be kept). Aside from that, my comment about ANI stands, as this long-time and common practice could be improved by just asking all closers to really study each nom that has even a nominal argument, especially those which have undergone improvement during the discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:08, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Drive by AfD closes

message: Why are politicians allowed to delete their Wikipedia pages?  This should not be allowed. 
I am looking for C.A. Skip Smyser. A former politician, a current politician, and Idaho’s most powerful lobbyist. 69.9.57.193 (talk) 02:58, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page deletion 

message: I just semi-boldly revised this page's "Closure" section to put in explicit guidance.  The text replaced was:
If the consensus is to merge the article and the merger would be non-trivial, it is acceptable for the admin to only begin the article merger process by tagging the article.
and the new text is:If the consensus is to merge the article and the merger would be non-trivial, it is acceptable for the admin to only begin the proposed article merger process by use of appropriate templates (if consensus is not clear on merger target, use ; if merger target is clear, use both  on source page and  on destination talk page).
Note the link labeled "article merger process" is replaced by a different link labeled "proposed article merger process".
I believe explicit instructions to use the templates this way are needed, and I don't see where, if anywhere, these are currently provided.  It looks good to me to provide the instructions here. --Doncram (talk) 16:30, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explicit instructions for merge closure, when implementation to be left for others