Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 36

message: If someone has some spare time, they may fix some of the incomplete AfD nominations listed at User:Paolo Liberatore/IncompleteAfD (I fixed some myself: these listed are the remaining ones.) - Liberatore(T) 00:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is another one which is not listed where it should be: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pixel_image_editor 84.63.26.3 17:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incomplete nominations 

message: Apparently I closed an AfD improperly. It was a withdrawal by nom, but since I was involved, I wasn't supposed to close it per proper deletion process. It shouldn't be a big deal, but I figured I'd leave a note here in case it required attention. --Kchase02 (T) 03:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  accidental improper closure 

message: I found a nearly month old AfD that was never closed, Ott Jud. I thumbed through the log of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 April 15 around the timestamp of 1:40, and never found an entry. Perhaps it is not closed because it was never listed properly. Any admins care to remove the tag, re-list, or close it? DVD+ R/W 04:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It wasn't listed, so I've put it now on today's AFD list. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 05:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  An unclosed AfD 

message: The excellent and extremely well-sourced article on Gregory Lauder-Frost has been nominated by User:HOTR. He has demonstrated over the past 6 months that he is opposed to Lauder-Frost, and all those individuals and groups associated with him, at least two of which he has also proposed for deletion. I have not yet checked but I would not be surprised if it was he who nominated this article for deletion before. His lever on this occasion are the ravings of a new User:Edchilvers, who is also opposed to right-wingers. 
The question is, why must right-wingers be any less represented on Wikipedia than left-wingers? They have all played their part. If one pages through the thousands of articles on Wikipedia most of them appear to be little sourced and many have no sources at all. Yet here is an attack upon a quite well sourced article deliberately demanding citations to every tiny little statement, may of which are common knowledge.
My last comment is that every article on Wikipedia must contain an element of original resarch unless it has been lifted wholesale from another book.
This nomination is jaundiced and an entirely unfair nomination by someone who has openly displayed in the past that he is anything but neutral. Sussexman 07:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Upon closer inspection, and as a Canadian with no predisposition on this issue, I dont find this article to be biased at all. It is VERY well cited for a wikipedia article, and does seem to portray GLF in a fair manner. The only thing I would suggest be changed is perhaps the addition of a criticisms section. The section could even be added by his detractors so long as it is done in NPOV. Easter rising 13:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Gregory Lauder-Frost

message: I oppose this unfair nomination. Sussexman 20:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: stating it here is the wrong place though. You should registar your opposition at the articles deletion page here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stuart Millson Ydam 22:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stuart Millson

message: I oppose this unfair nomination. Sussexman 20:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As above you'll have to say so here Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Michael_Keith_Smith Ydam 22:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Michael Keith Smith

message: Text reads;(If you used template  subst:afdx  instead of  subst:afd1 , use "PageName (2nd nomination)" instead of "PageName" for a second nomination, etc.).
Should read ... use "PageName (second nomination)" ... otherwise the page points off to nowhere? Alex 19:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am confused by your question.  Are you saying that we should spell out the "second" in the discussion pagename?  That makes no difference.  The whole purpose is to point to a redlink so you can create a new page.  (If you see that it's not pointing to a redlink, you need to iterate to the next number - "PageName (3rd nomination)".  Rossami (talk) 03:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: If there is no conflict, just use the new name.  The only reason to add the "2nd nomination" to the header is so that we can preserve the full history of both discussions.  Note:  You should always provide a link to the prior deletion discussion(s) in your new nomination. Rossami (talk) 03:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Instructions incorrect for 2nd nomination 

message: Hi.  Someone in a conversation has asked me for examples of cases where vote-stacking has occurred and managed to disrupt the proper functioning of AfD.  I know I've seen it happen repeatedly, but there might be some AfD regulars watching this page who could point out better examples than I, just rummaging around in my own fairly limited AfD contributions.  Most generally, what I'm asking for is evidence addressing the question: Is "vote stacking" (i.e. rallying groups of people to "vote" at an article's AfD) a bad thing?  If you think it's a good thing, and have evidence of that, I'd be interested to see it, too. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for examples 

message: Is there a listing of historical AFDs? I need to reference a couple of successful AFDs and can't find them (can't remember the exact page titles). - SoM 15:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Archived delete debates for AFDs.  MFDs, redirects, categories and image deletion discussions are all archived slightly differently.  See Wikipedia:Deletion process for the overview and links.  Rossami (talk) 17:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Listings 

message: A question for the admins (I'm a new admin). How do we coordinate our actions in closing AfDs? The listed article is one of several that are on the June 5th log but not closed yet. Who's going to close this one? 
Please don't refer me to the policies. I've read the policies. The policies do not explain the mechanics of coordinating this. - Richardcavell 06:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The page you need is Wikipedia:Deletion process.  To answer your immediate question of who will close that particular discussion, the first volunteer who feels sufficiently experienced and impartial enough to do a good job.  Discussions continue for a minimum of 5 days but can sit far longer.  We've had backlogs of several weeks and more at times.  The current backlog of 3 days is not bad at all.  Rossami (talk) 13:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Renate Thyssen-Henne]] 

message: Two articles that were recently deleted (as I recall, I requested it), Decronym and Incronym still have their talk pages there, Talk:Decronym and Talk:Incronym. While these could be good to keep because they consist of the same comment questioning whether these are actually real terms (they are not, which is why they were deleted), at the same time they keep up a two pages that should never have existed and it would be cleaner if they were both deleted... (Note this may have been a prod rather than an AfD) —Centrx→talk 01:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They can both be speedily deleted per WP:CSD G8, in fact I've just done it now Ydam 13:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleting associated Talk pages 

message: Cannot understand why the link has sent me here. I am opposing the deletion of Dr Mark Mayall's article page. He was Chairman of the Conservative Monday Club when it was the leading non-party UK Conservative Pressure Group. He is also a leading paediatrician and child psychiatrist in England as can easily be gleaned from the Medical Register.81.131.24.254 18:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mark Mayall

message: If your answer to this question was wait 6 months, or it can be classed as a valid speedy keep then you'd agree with the guidelines.
If you think that an admin closing off your nomination as a speedy keep because it was kept 4 months ago is generally a bad idea, then I suggest you voice your opinion at Wikipedia:Speedy keep, where it says that if an article was kept in the 6 months prior, it's untouchable.
Since I've been at Wikipedia (roughly 9 months), the general rule was, give it at least a month.  Maybe 6 weeks.  But according to guidelines, we can now close nominations as speedy keeps if it was kept 6 months prior.  This is absolutely ridiculous, anyone who's familiar with AFD and has nominated many articles knows that 6 months is not the period of time quoted between nominations.  I do not want to see Speedy Keep - kept 100 days ago cropping up on AFD discussions, I do not want their Speedy Keeps which have gone against any kind of common sense on Wikipedia being backed up by a guideline.  I tried to remove it, but the 4 editors or so who had decided to add this, have "consensus".
Whereas the 4-6 weeks between nominations is backed up by years of AFD behaviour, the 6 month clause is backed by a couple of editors.  It should not be there, please take some common sense over to Wikipedia:Speedy keep. - Hahnchen 00:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I want to nominate an article, it turns out it has been nominated before, when I can nominate it? 

message: I have to say something:
As recently as 3 years ago, I knew nothing about and had no predictions that I was going to learn about Wikipedia. Now, I know what Wikipedia appears to be. It appears to be a project whose object is to make an encyclopedia that everyone can agree is perfectly useful, which appears to be impossible. There are many articles per day that get put on Afd, and a good encyclopedia would have none. I feel that I should soon go the way 12.144.5.2 went at the dawn of 2006, perhaps a few days from now. Anyone know what the most important part of What Wikipedia is not is?? I definitely say Wikipedia is not, and will never be, perfect. People's points of view just cannot converge to make Wikipedia more NPOV. Georgia guy 02:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Err.. what? --W.marsh 03:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedian's points of view cannot converge. Wikipedia can never be balanced perfectly. Wikipedia has taught me in so many different ways a way to show me how often people's points of view differ, and there is no way they can converge. (This is true especially when it comes to lists.) Georgia guy 03:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh, maybe I'm up past my bed time but none of this is making any sense. If people will compromise and understand the spirit of policies like WP:NPOV and WP:V, we can balance articles out one at a time, if people devote enough time to it. I'm not even sure if this is what you're talking about, but whatever. --W.marsh 03:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

text: One of the things about WikiPedia, that other encyclopedia's don't have, is that anyone can edit it. Articles can be created by anyone that has an account, and anyone (in the majority of cases) can create an account. WikiPedia will unlikely to ever be perfect, but there are many people that contribute, either on New Pages patrol, Recent changes patrol, wikifying, cleanup, etc, that might see an article that looks like it has something wrong with it. In some cases these would be speedy deleted, but other cases this is not possible purely because the article doesn't come under one of the critereon that would allow it to be "speedied". In these cases it is usually put on AfD with the reasoning for it being deleted. There is, however, the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team which is working on a release of WikiPedia's best articles. AfD has its uses, and sometimes articles that are listed are actually brought up to a better standard fixing the reasons it was nominated during the process. Neutrality can be achieved in articles where people have differing points of views by collaborative editing, and I have seen this done extensively on articles that are contraversial. By collaboratively balancing both opposing points of views in an article, neutrality can exist. TheJC TalkContributions 03:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree with Georgia guy here. However, the inability to reach perfection does not necessarily means that it is a negative phenomenon. No encyclopedia is perfect. But, I wish to state that the constant improvement of articles towards perfection should be a strong motivational factor. There is only one direction Wikipedia is to aim to. That is the constant improvement of ALL articles in this online encyclopedia. That is a very achievable goal to aim for. --Siva1979Talk to me 03:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Afd problem 

message: I notice that whoever has been creating the daily log pages for AfD (such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 June 25) has not necessarily been inserting the standard headers (with the link to the previous day's AfD log and the centralized discussion template). What is the best way to make sure this is done each day? --Metropolitan90 05:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Daily headers 

message: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 June 16 still has discussions that aren't closed. I replied this to an admin two days ago, but nothing came out of it. ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 05:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've re-added this to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old, so it should only be a matter of time. In the future, that's the best course of action if there are still a lot of open AfDs and a page has been mistakingly archived. --W.marsh 14:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe most of the admins are busy? This could be another reason why Wikiepdia needs more admins. --Siva1979Talk to me 02:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that day was closed when Mathbot wasn't functioning (due to the hosting-servers being down for a period of time). But yeah, I'd really like to see more admins willing to close AfDs down to about 20-30  so I can come in and close the more contentious ones. I have the continuous time to do 20-30 AfDs, not 40-70 like I always see these things get stuck at. --Deathphoenix ʕ 19:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Missed AfDs

message: I realize that when creating an AfD that the entry is created as soon as one presses the red link. Is there some sort of time limit to write a full explanation for requesting a peer review of an article? Maybe there is a way to create the file first with the template, giving the editor the opportunity to provide information making it easier for others to review any particular article. Certainly nobody investigates the same, but it does seem awkward not to point out what research was performed to justify a review. It might actually save people a few steps if the nominator provides the effort in the first place; i.e. links to Google and Alexa, and etc. Why the rush? The rush is only a problem because the article is tagged. Suppose a file was made with a link then after it was saved, it could be moved to the correct spot, followed by the article being tagged, and then the listing. Wouldn't that solve both problems (time limits and exposed listings)? Ste4k 19:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean the time between adding  to a page and typing out the rationale in the subpage that's created? You can always pre-type the rationale in notepad or whatever... I've done that a time or two. You could even create it in your userspace, then move it to the AfD subpage when ready. Sorry if I'm misunderstanding your question. --W.marsh 19:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If that's the scenario, I'm not even sure what time-limits we are talking about.  When I nominate an article, I usually take 30-45 min to research and write out my nomination.  That's never created a problem that I know of.  Rossami (talk) 23:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time Limits 

message: Please provide feedback on a proposed modification of the AfD process which can be found at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Wikipedia jurors. Folajimi 03:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed modification to AfD process. 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Daniel_Rosenthal
VivianDarkbloom 18:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest that you enter  before the items on that talk page and  after them. Then sign it with four tildes ~~~~ having annotated it "Please see here". Please feel free to copy and paste this text. -- Alias Flood 19:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Messed up nomination -- could somebody fix this for me? 

message: The instructions say to use:
 ~~~~
This is broken in two ways; first, the four tilde signature comes after the heading and makes it not processed, and second, no one else puts the "Editors recommended actions" subsection in their listings.  Please fix.  Ideogram 16:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't get this: you are supposed to cut&paste the whole text, including the four tildes (which are then processed). The section "Editors recommended actions" is new to me; no such section should exists in the afd subpage. (Liberatore, 2006). 11:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken template in instructions 

message: The article named Stephen Sant Fournier was deleted by means of an AFD and readded under Count Fournier in a different manner. Is this a violation ? As noted, nobility does not imply notability. Maltesedog 15:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Count Fournier is about the royal position and the various people who have held it, not just Stephan Sant Fournier. As such, it may be more notable; you may mention the deletion of Stephan Sant Fournier as additional justification in your nomination, however. I understand how this article could be seen as an end run around the previous deletion, but to disallow such "sorta duplicates" could be a big problem in the long run. Deco 00:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Afd problem 

message: I've just discovered that the following article has still not been deleted. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_February_2#Toolstation (decision was made 8th February)  The deletion template was removed from the page, so maybe that is the reason?  If this is not the right place to report this, can someone please point me in the right direction?  Thanks -Ladybirdintheuk 15:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was deleted by User:Thebainer who closed the AfD. It was then recreated about a month later by User:Golddustmedia, but it has been rewritten a bit and doesn't qualify for speedy deletion as a recreation of deleted material, to me at least. I suggest using WP:PROD if you think the current incarnation should be deleted too. --W.marsh 15:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Missed deletion

message: Hi All.   Just received a warning from User: Dr Zak because, I think, of a complaint he received from User: Em-jay-es.  Looks like I stepped into a hornets nest from a long running debate going on between these two users and User: False Prophet.   Thought I would air what I did here and try to understand more the reason for the rebuke I received.  
I was browsing around and came accross articles on the lost books of the bible.  However, four (that I saw) of the lost books listed--Lost Book of Enoch, Manner of the Kingdom, Lost Book of Jasher, and Lost Book of the Covenant--all had been nominated for deletion.   But, none of these article listed any reason as to why they had been received the nomination on their talk pages.   I found it strange that only certain of the lost books were nominated and (wrongly) assumed that they had received the nomination through vandelism.  So, I removed the AfD tag and added a comment to each of their talk pages that I had removed them because no reason was given as to why they were nomoniated for deletion in the first place.
I then received a response on my talk page from Dr Zak about not removing AfD tags as that itself is an act of vandalism.  He explained that they had been nominated because they were POV Forks; however, nothing in the articles talk page indicated this was the reason.   Had that been indicated, I would have never removed the tags.
I guess a little bit of knowledge is a bad thing and I now understand I shouldn't have removed the tags.   But, I'd like to know opinions on my thinking that some reason should be provided in the talk page of an article as to why the AfD tag was added. 
Am I off base on this?--P Todd 01:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD Question 

message: Can someone please fix the AfD.  It's on the July 5 AfD list, but it's not linked on the article page.  Sandy 14:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[List of genetic and rare diseases]]

message: I don't know why but a AfD I opened on June 29th is still open.  Here it's not even on the list anymore. Also this one as well. 19:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not closed 

message: Sunday 2 July is currently written as Monday 3 July. Is it OK to correct this date, or will it confuse the bot? Oldelpaso 08:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wrong date on old discussions

message: The linked page is a proposed guideline on establishing notability standards for books, currently seeking consensus on content/adoption. Please visit the page and comment on its talk page.--Fuhghettaboutit 19:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia: Notability (books)]]

message: I am just wondering if any stats are, or have been, collected on the success/failure rates of AfD nominations?--Gay Cdn 22:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There aren't any current ones that I'm aware of. There's always WP:AFD100 if you haven't seen that. --W.marsh 22:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  stats on success of AfD listings 

message: I propose to replace the "Add new entries below this line" hidden comment in the daily AfD logs with "Add new entries to the bottom of this page", and then as the last line of the log, add the hidden comment "Add new entries right above this line". It would help AfD closers because the nominations would be sorted in chronological order - which is mostly the convention now, except that some people see the hidden comment and do blindly as instructed. Any objections? And where's the template for the logs located? Kimchi.sg 10:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This has caused a lot of confusion. The last few days I've seen new AFDs added randomly at the top (generally by newer editors) and the bottom (by those accustomed to doing so in the past). For those looking at the bottom for new nominations, new ones added at the top get missed. I'd endorse the suggestion to make it as unambiguous as possible. Fan-1967 17:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Add new entries below this line" comment in AfD logs 

message: Okay, took a stab at it.  Could interested parties please review User:Aguerriero/AfD.  I stress again, the purpose of this is to place a notice at the top of WP:AFD that heads off deletion requests that are best handled elsewhere.  There are too many listings here that don't belong here, and too few people to address them. --Aguerriero (talk) 20:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest mentioning that redirects and merges do not require AFD, either. We seem to be getting a lot more lately with these results... -- nae'blis (talk) 21:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Nice idea in theory; I'm not sure it will help any, though.  Also, your notice that "vanity articles" should be speedy deleted will definitely do more harm than good — vanity articles are kept on AfD all the time, and are certainly not speediable merely because someone shouted "vanity".  fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 23:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: How about making it even simpler - REQUIRE that prod be tried first before listing an article at AFD.  Let the lack of prodding be a cause for a speedy keep.  I know it's instruction creep, but it would keep a lot of the non-controversial deletions off of AFD.  BigDT 21:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that is a sound idea in principle, but it's a little outside what I am trying to do here.  I am simply trying to educate editors about their options. --Aguerriero (talk) 22:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: No.  If we're going to have more rules and regulations (particularly rules and regulations that will be misquoted then used to beat up people who were doing the Right Thing to begin with, as is often the case with the deletion process these days), then we need a Bloody Good Reason™ for taking them on.  I don't think this is a Bloody Good Reason™.  fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 23:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: And no, since it wouldn't work. You'd save extra work in some cases, but create extra work in other cases, since there are instances when you KNOW that a prod would be contested, but would have to jump through the hoop just to satisfy a silly requirement. A suggestion to do it in non-controversial cases is the way it should be kept. And to the original post, adding visibility to prod probably won't hurt. - Bobet 23:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to make an itty bitty nudge back to the original question - do you folks have any opinion on the proposed notice?  No new policies, just a notice educating and informing editors. --Aguerriero (talk) 03:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  "For nonsense articles and vanity pages..." as per above, CSD doesn't have a vanity criteria and nonsense in CSD terms has a very specific definition, I think this will confuse more than help. --pgk(talk) 06:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: CSD A7 reads "Unremarkable people or groups/vanity pages."  I realize the criteria are not thoroughly defined here, but that is not the point.  The point is to get them to consider it, and then go see the CSD page and make a decision. --Aguerriero (talk) 13:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  We have enough people playing Chinese Whispers with policy, especially deletion policy; I don't want to see more people rudely insisting that such-and-such good article needs to be deleted because of something their mate Geoff's kid sister's dogwalker's drug dealer's girlfriend's hairdresser thinks he might have read on some template somewhere while drunk.  fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 13:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mark, I am trying to get a handle on what your objection is, exactly.  I'm not sure what you mean to infer with the Chinese Whispers remark but no misinformation is being passed here, and no policy is being interpreted or introduced.  Quite simply, there is a crapload of nominations in AfD every day.  There are more than what anyone has time to discuss.  Even if that's all I did with my wiki-time, I'd never get through the list every day, giving each its due attention.  So what we have is sparse commentary, and many re-listings. Many of these noms can and should be elsewhere - they are either speedy candidates, or they can be prodded.  I am interested in making Wikipedia as lean and mean as possible, so I can get on with actual article editing. This notice reminds people that other options are available. --Aguerriero (talk) 22:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Chinese whispers.  It's a very popular game on Wikipedia, where a simplification of policy is misread by someone, who then passes it on in garbled form to someone else, who makes their own modifications, and so on and so forth, until some newbie somewhere is beaten up for their lunch money because policy says he was supposed to be standing on one leg when creating his third article if a CVU member happens to read it on a Monday, or else that article must be speedied.  If we're going to have a template which re-states policy, it must be remotely correct.  The word "vanity" is thrown around far too often, usually incorrectly; we do not want more incorrect speedy nominations.  fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 08:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (<--- Yonder)
(--->) I edited the first bullet per my discussion with Mark.  I am going to post the notice now since it seems like concerns have been addressed. --Aguerriero (talk) 15:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Agree with your edits, except for removing the graphic.  It could be resized, but I think it's necessary.  I write user documentation for a living, and that is essentially what AFD is.  In my experience, readers need a visual cue to direct their attention to important information.  I don't think a simple table is going to do the job. --Aguerriero (talk) 13:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point - there was enough space beside the sentences that the image could be added without stretching the table. I've re-added the image - though now I think that that particular image - a red exclamation mark - is a bit harsh. How about using a blue 'i' sign or something like that? (I've got a particular one in my head but can't remember where I've seen it now...) --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about using the red triangle with the ! mark in it that we use in the current  template? Whispering 13:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That probably produces the same effect.  I changed it to the circle-I - how does everyone like it now? --Aguerriero (talk) 22:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very nice very soothing now we just need some Enya playing and we'll be all set. Anyway it looks good to me. Whispering 23:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Enya? No, no, a thousand times no! Jane Olivor, please. As for the other "i", eBay has one; it's not nearly as good as this one, which looks great! Thank you, Aguerriero; may we incorporate it into more templates? I also found an "i" [here], but like yours better.—Chidom talk  03:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just got it out of the commons, can't take any credit. :) --Aguerriero (talk) 15:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Template's looking good. Well done guys. - Mailer Diablo 17:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed AfD notice 

message: Hey guys, to finish something I first noticed some seven months ago, I made this change to Template:Afd2. Basically, this means you can call afd2 without having to use the "pg" and "text" attributes, but the legacy usage is still there if we have bots or scripts. You can create an AfD using  in addition to using 
If you guys agree that this is a good change, I'd also like to update the AfD steps section and the template usage notes so we don't use "pg=" and "text=". --Deathphoenix ʕ 00:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind, my code hack doesn't work because it leaves residual code behind (take a look at the first section here). I'm going to self-revert my edits because I don't know enough about Wikicode to do this. --Deathphoenix ʕ 03:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  afd2 template 

message: Could the Llama Love Society just be changed to a redirect to The Adventures of Jimmy Neutron: Boy Genius? It was the first article I created, so I wasn't very sure on how to write one. --Llama man 15:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just suggest it on the AfD page. Whispering 15:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding [[Llama Love Society]] 

message: I added Canada Day, 2017 to todays afd list, for some reason the template did not format properly and while the article is in the list it is not in the table of contents. TIA --Paul E. Ester 19:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed it, when nominating, you should subst the template , it formats the page correctly. In your case the header wasn't formatted properly. - Bobet 19:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Canada Day, 2017

message: Okay, guys.  You find an article whose subject, you believe, is not notable enough for a separate article, so you merge it into a parent topic.  Good stuff so far!  Then you wander over to AfD and say, "It's okay, I've merged now, it's safe to delete."  Um, bzzzt.  It is not safe to delete.  Even if we were to assume, for the sake of argument, that Joe Bloggs is so odiously non-notable that you want to remove all trace of his article's individual existence ... you can't.  It is a violation of the GFDL.  Sure, there's complicated technomancy that can achieve history merges and the like, to retain authorship information, but we do not do that sort of thing unless it's necessary.  Please do not argue for deletion if you want the content kept merged into another article, and do not insist that administrators perform the tricky job of merging page histories just so you can giggle at another article name deleted.  You aren't making sense!  fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 23:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't you just turn the article in to a redirect to the article it's been merged in to. I thought that was the usual procedure Ydam 15:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Got it in one, Ydam. Redirects also happen to be about 4.999 days faster than AfD. ;) -- nae'blis 15:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A reminder 

message: I have come across a ton of stubs and short articles relating to various roads and highways ... most of them are not notable in any way.  Given WP:NOT, I would like to propose that these get reviewed and deleted unless they are truely notable in some way. Blueboar 16:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would discuss first in WikiProject Highways.  They have likely discussed inclusion criteria for roads and could likely be of assistance. --Aguerriero (talk) 16:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Road articles - delete? 

message: I've nominated army.ca for deletion due to non-notability but fear I may not have followed the rules correctly. The article reads fine and I could probably improve on it, but it seems to me the site itself is non-notable and may well be a wasted effort since the article appears to be suitable for deletion. Would an admin be able to look at the article and see if the notability criteria are met? Based on what has been posted on the Talk page, it doesn't appear that it has been.Michael Dorosh 03:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request admin guidance 

message: Because of the backlog generated by AFDs, I'd like to propose an addition to Wikipedia:Deletion process: Non-admins can close non-controversial AFDs as "delete" as well as "keep" and its equivalents. Then, they would tag the article with  and blank it (so that an admin could just rely on the auto-summary content was: ''). Since closing AFDs requires experience, and closing a "delete" is not quite the same as "keep", this could provide opportunities for admin hopefuls. Also, it lessens the work of admins. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd prefer to keep this as it is. The admin has to check / do the deletion anyway, so I don't think this will save work. If we need more admins, why not nominate some good editors. Stephen B Streater 18:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I'd love to close more AfD's, I think letting other non admins like myself close them might bring more problems than it needs (such as early closes and closing those they participate in, not following instructions, and the possibility of revert wars on closing, not to mention newer users getting confused as to what constitutes non-controversial). This would bring more pain to AfD, and require more time of admins to figure out just what happened, let alone deleting the case. Of course its just my opinion. SynergeticMaggot 09:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with SynergeticMaggot; he makes excellent points as to non-administrators deciding what is controversial or not, and actually determining the "keep" or "delete" outcome. I wonder if it would help to leave the decision to keep or delete in the administrator's hands but have an "assistant administrator" do the "clerk werk" once the decision has been made. One way this might work is that once the decision is made to keep or delete the article, the administrator would edit the Talk page and add an appropriate special tag indicating the decision. An assistant adminstrator who is watching the page would review the edit, see that a decision had been reached, and proceed with the remaining tasks of deleting or keeping the page, archiving the discussion, etc. I may be over-simplifying here, as I'm ignorant as to the actual  process, but I think this might help; dividing tasks usually makes them lighter for everyone involved.—Chidom talk  21:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've closed 9 AfD's as SpK and one as delete because an admin deleted an article at the same time it was nominated. I'm not sure if there is a need for assistant admins, as we already have a few or so regular editors who are willing (such as myself) to do such tasks as are open to non admins and we are supposed to post to the talk page the outcome. When I close an AfD, I dont decide its outcome, but close based on the conensus (or if nom withdraws). So far, I only close those that there are not delete decisions and I wont close an AfD if there is one person who says delete, as that would call for a decision. Any experienced user/editor who can grasp the general guidelines of such a task may do it, thus alleviating the need for assistant admins. SynergeticMaggot 21:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What about closing AfDs that are clearly speedy material?  Could I simply speedy-tag the article, and once its deleted, close the AfD myself without being an admin? <FONT COLOR="#0000FF">Da</FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000CC">rk</FONT> <FONT COLOR="#000099">Sh</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000066">ik</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000033">ar</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000">i</FONT> 14:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you can tag them for speedies and people do this all the time. And yes, you can close an afd on any article that's been speedied, since there's nothing left to discuss, at least at afd. Admins are supposed to close the afds on any articles they speedy but this doesn't always happen. - Bobet 15:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal: Non-admins closing AFDs amendment