Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 41

message: For some reason Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Best 2 seems to be showing up 9 times on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 January 23 page, even though it only seems to be transcluded onto there once. Is anyone else seeing this, and why is it happening? --Metropolitan90 07:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  January 23 log; same entry appears multiple times 

message: The process for reinstating a deleted article is being circumvented.  The article for one "Allen Greenfield" was deleted as it was deemed that the subject was a "non-noteworthy person."  Apparently, some of Mr. Greenfield's associates are attempting to recreate the article under the heading "T. Allen Greenfield."  If I am to understand correctly, if they had admin permission to do this, the original article would be unlocked and they could introduce the subject under its old heading.  Please, look into this as I feel that this is an abuse of Wikipedia's policy. Eyes down, human. 00:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Speedily deleted per WP:CSD#G4. ~ trialsanderrors 01:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Process for reinstating an entry is being circumvented... 

message: Is there an existing shortcut towards the current daily log of AFD nominations? I think that this would be a good idea, since some people prefer to skip to the daily log of noms, but have to go to WP:AFD and click on the current links.--Ed ¿Cómo estás?Reviews? 03:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure if there is, but if you'd like to place an easily accessible permanent link somewhere on your user or talk page that will always point to the current day's log, you can use this code: AfD--Fuhghettaboutit 03:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:AFD/T. —Cryptic 04:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shortcut to current log 

message: I've now come across a number of AfD discussions where the nominator did not notify the article' originator and contributors and I also forgot it myself. Fortunately, there is a bot. However, I think the current layout of the AfD interactions does not help to remind editors, since the suggestion is some place below the highlighted colored 3-step instruction. Since many users will not read beyond step 3, and since this step is actually about notification, I would suggest to include already there a hint to also notify other interested parties (with a link to the more detailed section). Tikiwont 13:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD instructions (Notifications) 

message: I've looked through the last 8 or so archives and didn't see anything on this, so I'll venture out for an opinion.  
I've been adding the delsort templates in chronological order - but find that in long discussions they tend to get lost in the discussion.  As they're not technically part of the discussion, is there any problem in putting them at the top, just under the nominator's rationale, no matter when they're added?  I've noticed this a couple of times, and it seems to be a bit more logical place to put these templates, rather than breaking up the "flow" of the article.  SkierRMH 02:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't see a problem with that. Trebor 14:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delsort placement preference 

message: If a Wikipedian deliberately disrupts a AfD nomination through bad faith remarks similar to trolling, what can one do？ Mandel 21:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow strong accusation, who are you referring to ? Aarontay 15:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No one in particular, but if that happens, what does one do？Mandel 16:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does one do 

message: I see a number of AfD's, especially on webcomics (that in the AfD become well-sourced and get a keep),  that are being put up for AfD as a replacement for a source tag. It's a waste of a lot of people's time really, and a waste of the Wikistress it causes to some people in some cases. Is there something we can do to prevent such AfD's? JackSparrow Ninja 22:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, unfortunately. We can tell people "please search for sources before nominating", but if they choose to ignore that, we really can't do anything about it. Because for some articles, no sources exist, and those should be deleted.. -Amarkov moo! 22:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the unreferenced tag wasn't motivating the editors, and the AfD did, I wouldn't see it as bad necessarily. I think this has to be on a case by case basis, because the description you are giving is vague and general. Is it a particular editor making all these AfDs? Is it a particular editor responsible for creating the unsourced articles in question? If not, I don't think there's anything that "can be done" per se. Leebo86 22:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's one thing to send it through AfD after some time with an unsourced tag, but I think his issue was people who just skip straight to AfD, without making any attempt to get sources. -Amarkov moo! 22:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the skipping indeed. If people ignore the tags, I stand behind an AfD, but this regards skipping straight to AfD. JackSparrow Ninja 22:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I understand now. I read that as "they're replacing unreferenced tags with AfDs", or that they were tagging as unreferenced and then after no one responded, they were replacing the unreferenced tag with AfD. Leebo86 22:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  It depends. If the article is a month or two old, and has only a few edits, then yes, it needs some tags. If it's from 2004, and has a hundred edits, and no one has bothered to add any sources, there likely aren't any reliable sources. Tag it anyway, but be expected for the tag to sit there and generate nothing. Regardless, if tagged, people should have a month or so , maybe two, to find at least a couple of good sources. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 00:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Update: perhaps you refer to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The noob (Second nomination). The outcome is still unclear and it is an ugly AfD, but even if this would be the one mistake that triggered your post, I still would like to see your "number of AfD's, especially on webcomics". Fram 12:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for the wait. I overlooked your post. Anyway, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The noob (Second nomination) is one and though the AfD is not closed yet indeed, it is clear that there are plenty references. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starslip Crisis is another one that is well referenced suddenly. Your own Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terinu (second nomination), though said to have no consensus, could also have clearly done with a reference tag. However, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Viper Comics and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superosity (2nd nomination) are very clear cases of AfD before tagging. JackSparrow Ninja 04:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another example JackSparrow Ninja 07:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Putting an article up for AfD as a replacement for a source tag 

message: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boguslawa Cimoszko resulted in delete but article is getting recreated by socks. I think the usuall procedure in such a case is to perm-protect the blanked article and block all the socks?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  05:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Boguslawa Cimoszko]] 

message: There is discussion on its talk page as to whether or not this is a consensually-supported guideline. Comments are welcome. >Radiant< 17:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Places of local interest]] 

message: I uploaded these pics:  and 200px
But the first image is in poor quality, so I uploaded the same logo, but from a different source, and the result was perfect, but then I tried to replace the original upload with the second pic here so that the perfect pic would show in an article, but it didn't work.
So can someone delete both of the above logos please? Hero of legend 02:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  In the future, just tag the pages with  and they will be cleaned up in a few hours.  Rossami (talk) 02:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, this will really help me in the future! Hero of legend 15:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  These pictures needs to be deleted. 

message: I royally screwed up some markup while trying to bundle articles for deletion. I'd be grateful if someone with more experience could go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 February 24#Bopsta and fix my mistake, and maybe leave a note on my talk page so I don't make the same error again.  Thanks. --Djrobgordon 05:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Markup 

message: One of the frustrating things about the AfD pages is how long they are.  After a few days, there are so many closed discussions, that finding the active dicussions becomes difficult.  I suggest using the same approach as is used at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion where closed discussions are moved to a separate section at the end of the page. —Doug Bell talk 06:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or you could use any of the script-tips that will automatically hide the closed discussions for you.  There are several alternatives discussed in the archives.  I use one that you can copy from here.  (Just paste the code onto your own monobook page.)  Rossami (talk) 06:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the suggestion, but that javascript doesn't seem to do anything.  The closed discussions are still visible (and yes, I forced the cache to clear my old monobook). —Doug Bell talk 06:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There should be a tab saying "hide closed discussions" or similar, I believe. Daniel.Bryant 02:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for change to closing procedure 

message: So when creating the deletion debate page, we're now supposed to: "Please use an edit summary such as
Creating deletion discussion page for PageName because ... replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion and providing reasons for deletion". 
What would be the point of my wasting my time doing this?  This is basically asking me to take the full text of my edit and put it all into the edit summary.  Perhaps the edit summary itself will then need its own edit summary.  The AfD process is tedious enough without expecting people to post long complex pointless edit summaries.  If I nominate an article for AfD and put "AfD" as an edit summary, that's good enough.  When I create the deletion debate page, everyone knows the first edit is the creation of the page, so I don't even see why any edit summary would be needed, much less one which contains the full text of the first edit. --Xyzzyplugh 13:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That summary is absurd. What else could you possibly be creating? It's not like the title isn't right there... -Amarkov moo! 04:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unnecessarily complicated edit summaries 

message: Some users seem to just go through categories and nominate everything in it for deletion.  I guess there doing it in good faith, since they probably do believe everything they tag should be deleted.  Is this just how we roll, or are they supposed to make it easier to find what they've done by combining the AfDs or listing them somewhere or something? - Peregrine Fisher 07:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The main AfD page gives a bunch of examples of when it is appropriate to bundle AfD's together.  Because a bunch of articles are in the same category doesn't necessarily mean they should be bundled together.  For example, one can generally go through the Website Stubs category and find dozens of articles which ought to be deleted, but it would make no sense to bundle them together.  --Xyzzyplugh 08:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mass AfDs 

message: I see no reason to have to delete the Movie's page, though yes, it does seem fishy that it's about, what, 8 years ahead in planning?
I don't know, I figure that they are probably over 50% telling the truth.
Jus thought it would be a good idea to share, because eventually, they'll  have to say, "Oh, it's 2014, WE'RE NOT FILMING because we have financial problems" to prove they are lying or "Filming's started; here are the pics," for proof. You never really know. I think we should, as an online community, hold on to this page, removing the giant "deletion" template, and wait and watch to see what these authors do to it. Who knows, maybe they might just come right out and say it!
Bobbypirate123 19:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Writing on the Wall 

message: Is it okay if I dump the 150 articles in this category into the AfD discussion? These articles' notability is so-so (questionable), and they have been sitting around for some time now, some earlier than June. I am really trying to clear the CAT:NN category, which is now approaching 7000 articles, and I feel that doing this would really help to clear the category. Diez2 23:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest you prod or speedy as many of them as you can and see how many remain. Then nominate a certain number a day so AFD doesn't get overwhelmed. Koweja 00:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Wikipedia articles with topics of unclear importance from June 2006]] 

message: Hello!  Recently, the article North America (Americas) was created; as it's a clear POV fork of North America, I nominated it for deletion (and am also involved in a editing a number of similar regional articles).  Apparently incensed -- and with an apparent majority as of now to delete or redirect the article -- a couple of the editors (including the author of the article, who has willfully removed information in the parent article regarding this very topic) decided to canvass editors at the Spanish Wikipedia to vote in the AfD to 'keep' it, effectively stacking the deck.  Some of those editors have already voted, and I'm sure a comparison of the wikis will reveal the editors.  Anyhow, for lengthy comment, see the nomination here.
This is rather deplorable -- to ensure an equitable outcome, I ask that some administrative action or oversight occur regarding this AfD and actions stemming from it and that corrective actions be taken.  Thanks! Corticopia 01:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oversight request of ongoing AfD -- [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/North_America_%28Americas%29|North America (Americas)]], canvassing 

message: I have to say I'm rather appalled by the fact that this article was not deleted. An unnannounced video game with not a single reliable source to support it's existance, only speculation on fansites... Do other admins feel that the result of this AfD was no consensus? In my opinion there was not a single good argument for not deleting the article. JACOPLANE • 2007-03-3 16:04
:If you disagree with a decision, deletion review is that way. Trebor 16:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Need for Speed XI]] 

message: I suggest that we create a weekly seperate page that lists all the disputed AfD's of that week (AfD's where the consensus to delete/keep is below 75% after a 24 hour period). Any objections?--TBCΦtalk? 05:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Like User:Dragons flight/AFD summary/Controversial, with different percentages? –Pomte 06:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Just because a deletion discussion has some fraction of "votes" one way or the other does not mean that the decision was controversial or is actually disputed.  Creating such a report reinforces the misperception that this is a vote.  I can't stop you from creating the report in your userspace but I object to posting the results anyplace that would give the impression that the results are an endorsement of process.  Rossami (talk) 13:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with your assumption that the page will give people the impression that AfD is a vote. The purpose of the page is only to give people an idea of which AfD's might be disputed/controversial, not which AfD's are. After all, RfA isn't a vote, yet percentages of consensus for candidates are listed on Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard.--TBCΦtalk? 17:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seperate page for disputed AfD's? 

message: This seems to be malformed inasmuch as it has overwritten an earlier AfD on the same subject. I wonder if someone could take a look and disentangle it. I don't think it's been listed properly as a result. Tyrenius 00:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right enough, looks like someone needs to separate the edit histories. It wasn't transcluded in the AFD logs, so I added it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 March 5. The fact it was mentioned at AN (or ANI) means it has had a fair load of attention without the listing being complete. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 09:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Federal Commonwealth Society]] 

message: In short time the article, House Elestar will be rewrited to a standard form of Wikipedia-Article - Fiction. Patience pelase!
--Elestar 18:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This user's contrib history is practically a roadmap of articles writen 'In Universe' in the form of either fiction, or somehow, an on=going D&D game being played through Wikipedia. Crazy. I'll try and list and tag a number of other articles which should be deleted. ThuranX 00:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  House Elestar 

message: Why was this article deleted? It was supposed to be kept. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Crichton_Leprechaun --Michaelzheng 01:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest that you read Wikipedia:Why was my page deleted? Ah, I see. I apologize for the misunderstanding.--TBCΦtalk? 06:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Michael has a valid point, since the artcile survived an AfD and should hence not be subject to a proposed deletion as it seems to have been done by mistake. You could either ask the responsible admin or here  for restoration. --Tikiwont 09:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. I'm more on the side that feels it should be deleted, but since it was decided to be kept I just wonder who and why it was deleted? There's no record or any information explaining it's deletion. That's what I'm looking for. --Michaelzheng 09:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Hmm, I need to read more carefully. Thanks for the information Tikiwont. I never knew that deleted pages had 'special logs.' --Michaelzheng 09:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest taking this to WP:DRV and citing the AfD; Tikiwont is quite right that an article which survives AfD should not be prodded. To be fair, this was probably an honest mistake on someone's part. Walton Vivat Regina! 16:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, contested prods are a straightforward undeletion at DRV, so I have restored the article already. It can of course be taken to AFD again, and still badly needs sourcing. -- nae'blis 21:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crichton Leprachaun 

message: Is there a process to appeal a concluded AfD on the grounds of impropriety? --Iantresman 15:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:DRV. -Amarkov moo! 15:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD appeal/dispute 

message: I mentioned this on the Brandt AfD talk page, but I should mention it here, too. If you want a rough count of opinion summaries in long AfDs, you can use Firefox's XPath Checker extension.  You can use XPaths like these
* id('bodyContent')/ul/li/b/text()[contains(.,'eep')]
* id('bodyContent')/ul/li/b/text()[contains(.,'erge')]
* id('bodyContent')/ul/li/b/text()[contains(.,'elete')]
to pull out and count the summaries. It's not perfect, as people use bold for other things, so it shouldn't be used when closing, but it is a quick way to get a sense of the numbers. Oh, and if you can't see all the items found, just make the window bigger until the scroll bar appears. William Pietri 17:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Way to count noses on long AfDs 

message: I have a question about this debate:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Free The Hops
After about 30 minutes the debate was closed and declared a no consensus.  I have no opinion about this nomination whatsoever, but I'm curious what the grounds for "Speedy No Consensus" are, and why an article wouldn't simply be discussed for a couple of days to see if a consensus forms? --JayHenry 17:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't look speedy to me. AfD started at 18:12, March 1, 2007 and closed at 15:23, March 9, 2007.... Could you explain where the 30 mins figure comes from? WjBscribe 17:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, it was listed on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 March 9 so I misinterpreted that and thought it meant that it was nominated on March 9.  I see now that it was nominated on March 1 and was on the March 1 log as well.  I wasn't criticizing at all, simply didn't understand what had happened. --JayHenry 17:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was probably relisted to generate more consensus, but whoever relisted it didn't add a comment to that effect. Another admin then came along and closed it oblvious to the relist... WjBscribe 20:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was trascluded a second time on todays log by the nominator himself . I then added the missing header in the AfD itself and then found it closed soon after. Due to the missing header it was hardly visible and did not attract much interest, with the header, it will have looked on the March 1 log as something overdue.--Tikiwont 21:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speedy no consensus? 

message: I am outstounded this article meaninglessness is being considered for deletion and other articles listed in the brief. It seems wikipedia is no more than a poor mans encyclopedia brittanica. It seem to be aligible for entry in wik you must first be in encyclopedia brittanica -so why not just go to encyclopedia brittanica . So much for open sourcing and internet democarcy Once again mainstream takes control of the net Wik may as well just get payed monkeys typing AUTHORATIVE articles so it can sell them to the highest bidder ie encyclopedia brittanica  It seems all wik is is a watered down version of brittanica with articles which just reproduce briitanica written by amateurs who in effect just paraphrase more authorative sources —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gamahucher (talk • contribs) 16:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean? Someone has proposed that it be deleted. That doesn't mean that it will be deleted. -Amarkov moo! 17:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

text: You're missing my point. This is a wiki, so anyone can propose that an article be deleted. That does not mean that it actually is going to be deleted. Oh, and notability has nothing to do with Brittanica entries. -Amarkov moo! 17:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

text: None of those articles are tagged or deleted. Pages get deleted if they don't have verifiable sources or are non-notable. We have tons of articles that aren't in the BE. Try and find an article on a specific movie in a printed general encyclopedia. Also, Wikipedia is not a democracy - nor has it ever claimed to be. Just because you can edit (almost) any page doesn't mean you can do whatever you want. Koweja 17:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Because the section lacked proper attribution, as the person who removed it explained. If you disagree you can discuss it on the article's talk page. Don't you think that would be more effective than insulting Wikipedia? Koweja 18:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Whatever. Go read Britanica then. Koweja 18:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia poor man's encyclopedia brittanica 

message: Where are old AfDs for prior months archived? I assume they are somewhere, because they can be found for examination during a 2nd AfD. DGG 21:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The link doesn't change even after the debate ends so you can find it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Article title. Koweja 00:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That pattern works for discussions back through August 2005.  Prior to that, the naming convention was Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Article title.  Going further back, debates before late December 2004 were not stored by preserving the sub-page - they were archived by hand to a sub-page of Wikipedia:Archived delete debates.  Debates from 2003 and older were generally moved to the article's Talk page if the decision was "keep" and the discussions lost if the decision was "delete".  Rossami (talk) 01:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When you say "lost", presumably they are still in the page history? Carcharoth 17:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  In theory, sure.  But which page and how do you find it?  Was it an archive of the VfD discussion page, a sub-page, a moved page?  Those old discussions are functionally gone.  And, by the way, those edit histories from before that last database crash (which was in 2002 if I remember correctly) are gone permanently.  Rossami (talk) 18:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  old AfD 

message: I just went through the AfD procedure for the first time. Man! What a workout! I'm still not sure that I did everything according to protocol. This procedure is far too complex - or at least, the instructions are. It seems like the kind of thing that a bot or script could do. I'd like to see something along the lines of

Let the bot figure out the creation of the entries on the log pages, the talk pages, the article pages, etc., as well as the entries in the one-line edit summaries. The way it is now, it is too easy to put the tags in the wrong places, to click on the wrong links, to copy and paste the wrong text ... See what I mean? Cbdorsett 04:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A proposal for a bot that could do this was rejected, although it was linking from an externally-hosted form rather than looking at templates on-wiki. (It might be accepted if this were done entirely on-wiki; I've thought about this myself in the past.) Scripts to do this already exist; see WikiProject user scripts' script repository. --ais523 11:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please improve AfD procedure 

message: I do not think that the Aveda page should be deleted. It is no longer written as an advertisement, I have spent upwords of 3 hours correcting edits that were made by a different salon in an attempt to promote themselves. This company is more than notable as it has established salons and a reputation world wide and is valued in the hundreds of millions of dollars. If somebody could please help me to re-write this so that the advertisement tag can be taken off and the article taken off the list of deletions, I would very much appreciate it. This is a company that helps people world-wide, and it should not be deleted for the simple reason that one salon tried to ruin it. As for the external links on the bottom of the page, I believe that they should be kept; it is important to view the differences between lifestyle/concept/experience centers, and people can either visit the sites to see these differences or, if they are in the area, Aveda asks all salons to offer full tours and information to all clients. Thank you for your time, and again, please help me make this article better. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.246.144.52 (talk) 14:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please comment on individual deletion discussions on the discussion page itself, not here. The discussion pages are named in the form "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/(name of page)", alternatively just go to the article and click the "this article's entry" link on the deletion notice. Thanks – Qxz 17:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aveda Page 

message: I don't want to nominate this directly for deletion, but is Statistics of Aberdeen really the way Wikipedia wants to go? Seems a bit like an indiscriminate collection of information to me. Carcharoth 17:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that an article consisting entirely of statistics isn't a particularly good idea. If you don't want to delete it, I recommend that you bring up the issue on the article's discussion page, apply appropriate tags to the article, and/or contact the article's creator and discuss the matter with them. For future reference, bear in mind that this page is intended for discussion of the page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and its associated process, not individual articles or deletion debates. Thanks – Qxz 17:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I know. I also know that some places get more traffic than the talk page of an article last edited, um, 2 days ago. OK, I eat my hat. I'll think about toddling off to the article talk page or that of the creator. :-) I also see that you responded likewise to the post in the previous section, which is more obviously in the wrong place than my post. Mine was a sort of preamble to starting a deletion discussion. I tend not to do that on the talk pages themselves, because if the article is deleted, then what I write there gets deleted as well. Also, would you have time to consider what I posted a few sections further up? The reply to the old AfD discussions thread. Finally, where do people discuss in general the boundaries of what is suitable for AfDing, if not here? Carcharoth 17:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At the talk page of Wikipedia:Deletion policy perhaps, or (better) at the relevant policies / guidelines (WP:NOT, WP:NOTE, ... This page is more for "how to AfD", not so much "What to AfD". Fram 08:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, thanks. Wikipedia:Deletion policy does look like the right place. Thanks. Carcharoth 16:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strange article 

message: What does anyone think of the new template Template:Deletetop? I think it makes it simpler for a notice at the top of daily pages, as all previous pages had the full boilerplate text. Any other thoughts? Alex43223 T | C | E  06:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it. Substitution is always easier, and better. Bigman17 01:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whhops, I meant inclusion. Bigman17 04:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New template 

message: I know a lot of people use the term cruft to say they think a page should be deleted, but I think this is poor form, as it's a slang term, without a real defined meaning.  Would it be acceptable to folks to add an admonishment of some kind against using that term in the etiquette section?  I also think the guide to deletion should advise against using the term as well.  FrozenPurpleCube 15:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions does mention it under WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but it couldn't hurt to mention it elsewhere. The biggest problems I have with it the increasingly widespread misuse of it and the use of it as an insult. Koweja 18:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of Cruft 

message: There is a template on U.S. demographics.  It has a link to the article, Ethnicity (United States Census), which offers a few quotes, completely without context, from the 2000 Census.  The template also links to the article, Race (United States Census), which includes a section on ethnicity with some of the same quotes (this time in some context).  I understand that "ethnicity" is a different concept than "race," but the ethnicity article really doesn't say much.  I'm tempted to nominate the former article for merger into the latter, but before I do I was hoping to get a reality check.  Any opinions?--Vbd (talk) 21:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Merging doesn't require an AFD -- you can just propose it. —Celithemis 22:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Better still, you can just do it. >Radiant< 13:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I favor the merge concept. This gives other users the chance to voice their opinions which should form the basis for consensus. Ronbo76 13:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not sure whether to Afd this 

message: I have proposed a change in an AfD template.  Please comment at Template talk:REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD. —dgiestc 17:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed AfD template change 

message: this section seems to show how to vote delete, but doesn't say how to vote keep. McKay 22:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At first glance, I'm not sure if I see what you mean. Could you be more specific? – Luna Santin (talk) 22:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: example: "Arguments commonly used to recommend deletion are:" and a list of common arguments for deletion. But it says nothing about commonly used recommendations are for keeping. McKay 22:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's 'cause there aren't any.  Common arguments to keep are "here's the evidence rebutting the argument(s) for deletion".  Trying to list all possible "keep" arguments would be pointless.  On the other hand, listing a few of the more common "delete" arguments helps readers understand what is not a valid argument for deletion.  Rossami (talk) 01:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict) I'm not sure what section you were looking at but the section you tagged doesn't show either one. #How to discuss an AfD/Wikietiquette says don't vote, don't cheat and follow the standard bulleted format.  Now, personally I'd like to see the entire section obsoleted in favor of the much richer discussion at WP:GAFD because this page has again grown out of control. But that's a separate discussion. Rossami (talk) 22:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree. This page has NPOV problems as it does not present a balanced view of deletion, i.e. when to delete, and when not to delete. The bias, if any, should be to use deletion only as a last resort when all other options (e.g. improve, merge, etc.) have been exhausted. But this page makes only a brief mention of the alternatives, then goes on at great length about the deletion process. I would prefer to see a little more balance. Dhaluza 01:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The page you are looking for, then, is Wikipedia:Deletion policy.  That page is where you should be walking through when to delete and when not to.  But once you've worked through the policy and come to the conclusion that deletion may be appropriate, you go to the AFD page where, yes, we go on a great length about the deletion process.  We have to tell people about the procedure somewhere.  Rossami (talk)
*The section "alternatives to deletion" lists a bunch of problems that have other solutions (like editing, merging or tagging). It follows that these are not arguments for deletion. At any rate, we do not have a limited list of possible arguments either way; if you think something is a good argument, make it in the discussion. >Radiant< 07:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: *I did, but you systematically removed my contributions:  . My point is that both of these pages lack a balanced treatment of the issues surrounding deletion. Dhaluza 12:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: **No, I said make it in the discussion, meaning individual AFD debates. The deletion policy is not intended to give an exhaustive list of possible reasons either way (nor, for that matter, to enumerate all cleanup templates). >Radiant< 12:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: True, he does have a rather skewed view of the whole matter. However, he does raise a point that newbies pointed to WP:AFD are given no hints as to what to say, which may in part be why so many new voters say things like "it's useful" or "I worked hard on that!" It certainly can't hurt anything to append a sentence or two on explaining how to give a reasoned keep vote. --tjstrf talk 21:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Be that as it may, it still remains that the POV of the description is not a problem - it isn't right to say that it favours deletion in some way.  It could stand to some improvement, but nothing to justify a POV dispute tag.  Chris cheese whine 22:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When it comes to that, POV dispute tags aren't meant for policy pages anyway. I just figure that if there's an obvious way of quieting a complaint, then dealing with the edit war now makes sense. Explaining the finer points of AfD culture and dispute template usage to him can be saved for a later time. --tjstrf talk 22:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: our  good  and  featured  articles. You are in effect suggesting that these articles be used as precedent. I do not recall seeing this mooted specifically before, and in any case I do not accept it. They may represent long-ago decisions, they may contain major flaws--many articles have been promoted over opposition. As a practical matter, this would require those trying to maintain standards to monitor not just AfD, which is certainly difficult enough, but every Good and FA discussion. I understand the need to say that existing WP articles' mere existence is not enough precedent. . I do not think anybody doubts that.  Also, I cannot remember hearing this G & FA comparison argument used in AfD or Deletion Review in the last few months. So to extend this further would I think require a major discussion--or did I miss it somewhere above. ?DGG 03:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Consensus is that our featured articles are among our best articles quality-wise, regardless of their subject matter, and they tend to use proper citation formats with the  family.  I don't see a problem with this, however, I'm not sure the relatively unreviewed WP:GA process is a good example to use.  Chris cheese whine 11:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POVDelete 

message: Since McKaysalisbury indicated that it would address his complaint, I have gone ahead and made the addition (with minor rewording) that I suggested above.
The new bullet reads "If you wish for an article to be kept the best thing you can do is improve the article to address the complaints given in the deletion nomination and debate. You can search out references showing the notability of the subject, and refute the deletion arguments given using policy, guidelines, and examples from our good and featured articles." I do not believe this should be a controversial change, since it simply advises people on existing practice (if you fix the page, we will not delete it) and recommends adding citations to articles. Given that lack of citations is the primary reason for nominations based in both notability and verifiability, this is about the best piece of advice you could possibly give to a newbie wanting their article kept.
I also simultaneously made a minor change to the preceding bullet point, which may have been erroneous. (It made sense at the time, but I'm having nagging doubts now.) This was removing "unencyclopedic" along with a paranthetical comment which appeared to be saying not to call pages unencyclopedic. Since the sentence mentioned three terms rather than two, it is possible that I misinterpreted it and would appreciate being corrected if that is the case. Never mind, I figured out what the sentence was trying to say and clarified it. --tjstrf talk 22:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: our  good  and  featured  articles. You are in effect suggesting that these articles be used as precedent. I do not recall seeing this mooted specifically before, and in any case I do not accept it. They may represent long-ago decisions, they may contain major flaws--many articles have been promoted over opposition. As a practical matter, this would require those trying to maintain standards to monitor not just AfD, which is certainly difficult enough, but every Good and FA discussion. I understand the need to say that existing WP articles' mere existence is not enough precedent. . I do not think anybody doubts that.  Also, I cannot remember hearing this G & FA comparison argument used in AfD or Deletion Review in the last few months. So to extend this further would I think require a major discussion--or did I miss it somewhere above. ?DGG 03:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Consensus is that our featured articles are among our best articles quality-wise, regardless of their subject matter, and they tend to use proper citation formats with the  family.  I don't see a problem with this, however, I'm not sure the relatively unreviewed WP:GA process is a good example to use.  Chris cheese whine 11:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New bullet point to address complaint

message: I don't think that it's a good idea to include a bullet point saying to make sure systemic bias is not exacerbated, because it's far too easy to misapply. For instance, deleting a completely unsourced article on some Pakistani activist would be interpreted by quite a few as increasing systemic bias. The problem is, it's still unsourced, and sourcing can't get overruled by cries of "systemic bias!". -Amarkov moo!
:Agreed, easily abusable and we shouldn't be expecting people to read every single anicillary policy page before they nominate things anyway. --tjstrf talk 02:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree, WP:V and/or WP:ATT are policy, and are not trumped by WP:BIAS. Anything can be abused (including AfD) but that is not reason for not mentioning it. Biases are a real problem, and AfD reveals them. It is relevant to this discussion. Dhaluza 09:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Disagree. There are far, far, far too many AfDs for notable people, events, locations, and items which are simply unknown among tech-savvy white male United States residents. There are also too many AfDs for notable people, events, and items that the average tech-savvy white male United States resident thinks "frivolous" or "useless" (read "popular with women"). Notable means notable, not cool or guy-related or American-themed or Googleable. --Charlene 08:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I fully agree that something needs to be done about that. But this is not the solution, because it's quite often misused to say "You can't delete my unsourced article on a Persian dude, because that would be systemic bias. Maybe a sentence saying "Remember, Wikipedia's definition of notability is different than you might think.", but not this. -Amarkov moo! 04:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to [[WP:BIAS]] 

message: Where could I go to discuss an AfD after it has already been closed? I am not trying to nominate a page for AfD, I want to discuss the AfD itself.
Specifically, I want to contest the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lindner Ethics Complaint of the 83rd Minnesota Legislative Session. The result was to "rename", but this I think was done hastily, and did not consider that they are renaming an article about a scandal to an article about a person, making the article a HUGE NPOV violation.
Can a closed AfD be re-opened? If not, where should I bring my concerns? :: ZJH (T C E) 21:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see Wikipedia:Deletion review.--Fuhghettaboutit 21:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, Deletion Review won't touch that one since the result was "redirect" which is a variant of "keep".  The decisions about redirects and renaming are solved on the respective Talk pages.  In this respect, AFD decisions are not definitive - they can be changed by any consensus of future editors to a different destination or even to an independent article.  Future editors would only be expected to give some acknowledgment to the research that went into the AFD discussion and not to overturn that consensus without clear evidence that consensus has changed.  Make your case at Talk:Arlon Lindner.  Rossami (talk) 20:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-open AfD, or further discussion of a closed AfD 

message: In Scalgon's 14 minutes of Wikipedia existence , he has nominated 10 random pages for deletion.  We know it is random because of the "Nominating 10 random pages for deletion" that he thoughtfully provided for each one.  I'd say it is obvious that a speedy keep is the call for all of these AfD's, but should the user's actions be brought up anywhere?  Vandalism notice board?  I have no idea where this sort of thing should go. Tarc 14:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:AN/I.⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 22:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What to do with unquestionable bad-faith nominators? 

message: Some time ago, on this very page (look above for # 11 Battlemaster game page) I asked for the clear rules for articles about the games. Everybody agreed that such CLEAR rules are needed and the other articles like Anarchy Online are the crap currently and should be deleted as well like BattleMaster. BUT only this one article of BattleMaster is deleted while others live.
I asked for the clear rules but nobody replied, so I tried to rebuild this article from the scratch to keep all WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:N required (BattleMaster had the links to independent Reviewers articles - it's quite rare for the article about a game) and what? Someone keeps deleting my work without even checking it! I protest against the vandals among the administrators! Merewyn 17:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protest! 

message: Happened to run across this little gem of a "conspiracy", someone may want to comment to these guys:  Dreadlocke  ☥  21:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gem 

message: There are two article present about Hilal-i_jurat ( A Pakistani Medal)
#Hilal-E-Jurrat
#Hilal-i-Jurat
The first one should be deleted as 2nd one is more elaborated.
§Sulaimandaud 14:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rather than delete the first one, I redirected the first to the second, see the latter's talk page for more information. McKay 15:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  One topic two articles 

message: I think they should, unless they are explicitly a bad-faith nomination or a frivolous one, or they are about someone who does not meet notability standards or WP:CORP, WP:WEB et.al at all (I think I've seen one that was speedily closed as CSD A7, and another as CSD G11).
There is a good reason for this. I feel, by leaving all AFD's open for the 5 day period in full, it opens them up to the wider Wikipedia community. Longer period - hopefully more views.
Comment is welcomed. --sunstar nettalk 23:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In general, certainly. However, if every single person for 3 days has agreed that an article is, for instance, a terrible POV fork, there is really no point in allowing it to stand for another two days. -Amarkov moo! 23:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Bad faith noms are pretty apparent, though occasionally while the nom itself is lacking and openly recognized as such, some such noms end in a delete consensus. Unless the nom is completely fruitless and frivolous, or contains personal attacks, it should stand and let the community review it. As far as meeting the guidelines, they are just guidelines and not binding policy. It is the purpose of AfD to determine community consensus on those matters in relation to inclusion/exclusion. WP:SNOW already allows overwhelming obvious cases to be closed. Just some thoughts. Vassyana 04:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I concur with one exception.  If the article unambiguously meets a criterion for speedy deletion, that criterion may be applied immediately and the debate closed.  Vandalism or copyright violations should not be allowed to remain for 5 days just because the nominator was unfamiliar with the CSD process and used the AFD process instead.  Speedy-closes based on CSD cases A7 and G11 are allowed but if there's any room for doubt at all, the AFD discussion should remain open.  Rossami (talk) 14:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Unless there is a clear result the 5 days must be given. Even then if an article goes to deletion review, and has not had 5 days, it will be instantly reinstated. The rules are 5 days and should be followed unless absolutely sure (10+ delete votes etc).--Dacium 09:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Deletion discussions are not governed by number of votes, but by weight of opinion backed by policy and consensus. —Doug Bell 10:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Are the votes even considered at all? If that is the case, why are the opinions in any given discussion preceded by a YEA or NAY response? Aarktica 20:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AFDs - should they run for the full 5 day period??..... 

message: This article has been nominated for deletion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aspects of Mars on the same day it survived its previous nomination, bundled with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aspects of Pluto. There is no new evidence put forward to support this AFD, no discussion has occurred on any of the talk pages, and further a mess has been made of the nomination so it is not realy clear exactly which articles are being nominated and for what reason, also because the title article has changed it is not clear that this is a second nomination, which is unfair considoring the very short gap between nominations. Having discussed the issue with the sysop who closed the first AFD (no consensus) I have decided to post here and ask that the current AFD be speedy deleted, kind regards sbandrews (t) 20:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Aspects of Mars]] 

message: If you don't like the result, nominate it again! If there's no consensus, delete it anyway! Fantastic. Js farrar 07:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have a problem with a closure, bring it up at WP:DRV. -Amarkov moo! 20:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:DRV won't help with a repeat nomination will it? sbandrews (t) 20:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends. If the repeat nomination was like two weeks after the previous one, and no new information has come to light, then it will help. Otherwise, it won't, but it shouldn't anyway. Remember, consensus can change, it just doesn't do so after only two weeks. -Amarkov moo! 20:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

text: then did I put my above post for Aspect of Mars in the wrong place? nominated the same day as closure!.. sbandrews (t) 20:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it isn't closed yet, than DRV won't help. But in this case, it doesn't matter, because that is obviously too soon.  -Amarkov moo! 20:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

text: ok, thanks for the advice :) regards sbandrews (t) 20:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AFD is dead 

message: Hi there, I started an AfD for Parras Middle School and then found out it had just been AfD'd a few days ago. I realize I should have checked the Hx but I didn't and now think I should wait awhile to nominate it. How can I remove it from the list? I was going to go ahead and list it a second time, just so I would know how to do that but the directions for that are not clear to me. Yes, maybe I am a moron, but the process is not well explained.
'...you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGENAME (2nd nomination).'
Does this mean I just create a new page, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parras Middle School (2nd nomination) and then put on that page something like...
...reason I think this article should be deleted. This is a second nomination, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parras Middle School?
Then on the AfD log do I just use  ?
I'll take my lashes for not checking the history but would like to know if this is the procedure.
Thanks, killing sparrows 03:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the directions. I followed them, or thought I did, and the discussion page is created but when I try to add it to the log its at the bottom of the previous entry, not as it's own entry. This has happened to me before. I really wish I knew what I was doing wrong here! Help! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Killing sparrows (talk • contribs) 04:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to remove an AfD 

message: As described at WP:ANI#User:Wikipedian.2C_Historian.2C_and_Friend.3F_-_AFD_disruption I have indef blocked User:Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? as a bad hand sockpuppet of User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles.  Also be alert for possible edits from sockpuppet IP164.107.223.217 which basically can't be blocked long term because it originates from Ohio State University.  This vandal strives to keep all articles regardless of policy or precedent and behaves with florid courtesy.  In November 2006 I blocked the sockmaster account for 6 weeks for attempted AFD vote fixing and gross violations of WP:POINT. DurovaCharge! 16:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heads up about another long term [[WP:AFD|AFD]] vandal 

message: I'm struggling to get a consensus on whether to delete/keep Amit Avner and BWitty. They've already been re-listed once and it would be nice to have the matter settled either way. Is there anywhere you can request examination from more users? TreveXtalk 15:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The debate was listed twice, meaning that it's received as much discussion at it's probably going to get.  If anyone disagrees, they can post a message to WP:DRV - although this will be unlikely to have an effect as there was only one vote to keep (from an anonymous account that made no other edits.) --Sigma 7 19:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Difficulty in achieving consensus 

message: :The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the proposal was no consensus to move, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 08:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Proposed rename Wikipedia:Articles for deletion -> Wikipedia:Articles for discussion
I think such a rename would promote "discussions" rather than "votes". After all the intention in a nomination is creating a discussion over the "usefulness" of an article. The proposed change is indeed mostly symbolic but I feel the end results might be worth it. They are both AFDs so the shortcut wouldn't change. -- Cat chi? 22:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Um... why does including the word "discussion" rather than "deletion" change anything? It makes sense for CfD, because CfD also includes merge and rename decisions. AfD does not, and renaming it might encourage people to start bringing their rename and merge discussions here. -Amarkov moore cowbell! 22:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree. It isn't uncommon for an AfD to end up with a merge, keep or even move. -- Cat chi? 23:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, but it isn't binding either. A redirect is arguably binding, since that can be seen as equivalent to "Delete but I'm going to make something useful with the title". A merge outcome is widely considered not to be binding, move outcomes are definitely not binding, because that is an editorial decision that should be made by people familiar with the topic, and a keep decision is just a decision not to delete it. -Amarkov moore cowbell! 23:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
It's a pity that I didn't see this discussion...I would have chimed in with a "support" statement because I think such a change could prove beneficial. It wouldn't affect AfD's primary mission--to remove inappropriate articles from the encyclopedia--but expand the forum to greater community input on matters that aren't as simple and that are (often clumsily, IMO) handled by other pathways. I personally have no problem with editors bringing an article to AfD to seek a consensus on a non-deletion activity (merge, move, redirect, etc.) as it can be nigh impossible to garner enough external input on edit wars in the darker corners of the encyclopedia. Wikipedia:Resolving disputes is great, but AfD generally provides succinct, enforceable conclusion in a timely manner by involving outside parties. Of course, a name change alone wouldn't be enough to enact my (likely overly ambitious) vision...but I like the idea. — Scientizzle 21:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: First, I had trouble listing two pages for deletion because the "preloaded debate" produced Wikipedia:Articles+for+deletion/Foo instead of the correct syntax without addition marks.  I had to fix those manually.  I noticed that User:DGG had the same problem with one of his/her nominations around the same time, and I fixed that too.  I tried it again by creating a test page and nominating it, and it worked fine.  If the problem persists, please look into it.
Second, the link to "today's afd log" is broken on the "preloaded debate" page.  Instead, we see a non-hyperlinked full-length URL, and possibly an incorrect one (I didn't check).  I couldn't figure out how to access the source code of that page.  It may require admin access.  Thanks for making things work so well. YechielMan 06:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A change to  broke AfD for about 6 hours, but it was fixed. The 'view log' link is working now too; the problems that you saw were due to changes to the AfD templates that have now been fixed, so there should be nothing to worry about. --ais523 15:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two technical problems 

message: Could someone check out In_the_Woods_%282007_film%29? The page is a pretty blatant promotion for an unreleased film that is pretty much unheard of outside of Wikipedia. I'm not usually someone who edits or tries to have articles deleted, but this person is spamming this movie at various message boards using wikipedia as his primary source.
:If someone is spamming it or simply using Wikipedia as a source of promotion, then it probably does need to be deleted. Jmlk17 02:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  In The Woods (2007 film) 

message: Right now it's kind of a pain to nominate something for a 2nd or xth time. You need to use a seperate template, figure out what nomination it's on, figure out what the pagename should be ("third nomination", "3rd nomination") and all in all it's kind of murky. This is how FAC used to work, but now when a FAC is over a bot moves it to WP:FAC/article/1st nomination, and at WP:FAC/article there's a note explaining where the old FACs are and inviting someone to add the new nomination below. The advantages are standardized numbering and a much easier process, that's also a lot harder to screw up. It also keeps old AFDs very organized... sometimes you have to do some real detective work to figure out where all the old nominations of an article are (such as checking "what links here", which can contain a ton of links). The disadvantages is that this requires someone to run a bot and is probably not very backwards compatible with the old system. 
So uh, thoughts? I've invited the operator of the FAC bot mentioned to comment. --W.marsh 15:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We could use a tweaked version of  to produce the next nomination, instead, which I thing would be easier. -Amarkov moo! 23:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Isn't that what Amarkov and I said? Gimmetrow 19:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If so, it wasn't made very clear. — CharlotteWebb 03:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  afdx - could we make it seemless? 

message: An article I created was recently nominated for deletion, and a discussion is occuring right now. Am I allowed to vote Keep, even though I created the article? I notice the person who put up the VfD didn't vote Delete.Ye Olde Luke 23:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you can. However, it isn't actually a vote, so if you feel uncomfortable doing so, it shouldn't matter, so long as you do voice your opinion. -Amarkov moo! 23:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it isn't actually a vote, isn't that a conflict of interest in a way? Jmlk17 02:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you mention that you're the article's creator, it helps avoid any problems with that. An explanation by the article's creator is often helpful at AfD. --ais523 12:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can you vote '''Keep''' for your own article? 

message: The result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BattleMaster discussion was To Keep it. WHY then this page Battlemaster is removed??? I request restoring it or a good explanation why it was removed against the strong keep vote from users.  Merewyn 01:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BattleMaster (second nomination) ~ trialsanderrors 02:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's see, 5 votes of Delete with 2 votes for Keep in Second Nomination versus 7 votes of Strong keep and 5 votes for Keep with 0 (null) votes for Delete in First Nomination. Altogether: 5 votes for Delete, 14 to Keep and the page is deleted. Now, who would dare to call it a fair decision?? Merewyn 02:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Votes" don't accumulate between discussions. The result of a previous discussion can be used as precedent in a new discussion by those participating, but it is not used by the closing admins, as discussions are meant to be independent. -- ReyBrujo 05:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  So, please explain to me why ever the second discussion occurred while the first one unanimously decided to KEEP? Do you organize the Nominations as long as the decision happens to be congruent with your expectations?? I would like to call the third nomination and you will see that the decision will be To Keep again. Merewyn 11:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  First of all , they were MONTHS apart. Secondly, in the first discussion none of the keep votes used any sort of coherent policy. Finally, the only reasons EVER given for keeping were basically "well it exists I played it lol". If you think the discussion was improper you can take it to Wikipedia:Deletion Review or have someone do it for you, but please remember that AfD is not a vote, it is a discussion, and that all articles must conform to WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:N -- and this one didn't conform to any of them. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 11:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

text: By providing independent sources which have mentioned this game in a non-trivial manner. I could set up a website with a game, but it wouldn't automatically deserve an article. If we can only source something directly from the subject in question, there is no way to know whether what they are saying is accurate. And the existence of other articles does not mean this one should also exist; Wikipedia is (by its nature) not consistent. Trebor 15:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Aha, I see your point. Now please show me the example of independent source for other MMOG games. For example Anarchy Online has links only to its own webpage, nothing more (if not counting those "citation needed" brackets).  Merewyn 19:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent find. Let's send that to AfD too. ~ trialsanderrors 20:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good god, I can't agree more. Anarchy Online is a complete piece of crap as far as sources go. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 23:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

text: That's a very insightful comment. I'm all with you. ~ trialsanderrors 10:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Battlemaster]] game page 

message: Recently, I closed an AfD with decision as "keep by majority consensus." Some of those who voted keep apparently had robust contribution histories, so there was no reason to think that they were shills with week-old accounts. How can I make sure that vote-stacking does not occur? --Aarktica 21:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For on-wiki stacking, feel free to use the "What link's here" special page on the AFD itself.  Unless I see large numbers of IPs, SPAs, and low contribution editors, I usually don't worry about off-wiki stacking, and if I see them I don't worry about proving it, I instead worry about what the consensus of wikipedians.  Sometimes I use the smell test for IRC vote-stacking of experienced wikipedians - a bunch of people expressing the same opinion without significant evidence of looking at the evidence themselves in a short amount of time is the warning sign here.  GRBerry 21:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for replying. How does one handle the last scenario? --Aarktica 22:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go to strength of arguments, and ignore the numbers.  GRBerry 02:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Screening for vote-stacking. 

message: I am not that versed on the AFD process so and don't feel qualified to write it, but would someone who is knowledgable please include a section in this article about how an editor can go about withdrawing an Afd once this editor has initiated one.  There does not appear to be any method that can stop the process once there are comments - Is that correct?  I've searched WP and could not find anything written about this, although there is one prior question about this topic on the WP helpdesk (and my question is posted there also).  Thanks!  pgillman 20:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are the nominator, it is probably enough to close the discussion early and drop the issue. If not, you can work to improve the content of the article, so that it nullifies the argument for deletion. I hope that helps. --Aarktica 21:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, but proceduraly what does an editor do to close the discussion early?  It would be a useful section in WP:AFD that outlines the steps the nominator can take to close the discussion and withdraw the AFD.  Is the only option to leave a comment in the discussion that a consensus is reached NOT to remove the article?  A real life example is Guided speech IVR which I nominated for an AFD, but after discussion with another editor, it seemed best simply to redirect it to another article, which was done during the AFD process.  The other editor recommended withdrawing the AFD, but no one knew how.  A simple procedure (or even a note that it cannot be done) would be worthwhile here in WP:AFD, don't you think? Thanks again! pgillman 23:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are the nominator, it is probably sufficient to leave a note under your initial remarks for deletion. When the discussion is closed, it will should then be closed as nomination withdrawn. Of course, you probably should avoid closing the discussion in any event, as this might be considered a conflict of interest (generally speaking, of course.) --Aarktica 11:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the article in question has been redirected to another article, it looks like the nomination is null and void. The AfD will simply be closed without any further actions, as it would have been more appropriate to send it to WP:RFD (). --Aarktica 12:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section on withdrawing an AFD 

message: I'm new at this administration stuff, and ajudicated some articles for deletion and retention in archived discussions, which I guess I wasn't supposed to do.  So, what should I do now? fishhead64 06:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't worry you closed the right ones- that's the "Old discussions" section. The bit about archived discussions is a link, not a description of the pages. Maybe the archived discussions bit should be below those pages not above them- it may also be putting people off expressing opinions in those discussions, which they can still do until they're actually closed. WjBscribe 06:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oops! 

message: User:Messedrocker/Unreferenced BLPs - go through, give a severe sourcing critique, remove from list (or from Wikipedia - is what's left after sourcing or removal of unverified info worth keeping?). Apply your harshest WP:BLP - these articles are trouble - David Gerard 17:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Living bios in need of attention or removal 

message: A modification to the deletion policy regarding biographies of living persons has been proposed. The proposal seeks to reverse the default retention of biographical articles that attain "no consensus" results at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. That is, it seeks to make deletion the default action for AfD discussions of biographical articles that do not reach consensus. Comments regarding the proposal are welcome and may be made here. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 19:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed policy change at [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons]] 

message: I relisted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mazen Kawar and Petra Tours on today's afd page. I can't figure out what the hell's going on, but it's not formatting properly. The afd tag in the article itself had been messed with, but I reverted that.--Fuhghettaboutit 00:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. Thanks Cryptic (it didn't appear to be on the same line when i viewed it in edit mode, will remember that one).--Fuhghettaboutit 01:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Okay, I'm stumped 

message: I can't find "Cocoa High School" (Florida) an admittedly lame article about the school but it was coming along. Notability: the comedian, Carrot Top, graduated from there. All links were repaired. There just seems to be a "hole" in wikipedia, which I somehow missed. No listing of "recently deleted articles" anyplace. Student7 12:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Special:Log/delete. --ais523 12:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: These comments seem confusing to me, since as far as I can tell Cocoa High School is not deleted and never has been. Dcoetzee 13:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps the query was for "Cocoa High School" i.e. a possible typo? --Aarktica 13:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoops. <blush>. It is definitely there. I don't know why my search failed. Thanks. Student7 13:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article disappeared? 

message: Why can't I see this Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Steve_Van_Dyck on the May 1 page? I thought I'd followed all the stages, and my addition is in the History looking like the others, but no sign of the article.  Johnbod 03:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks fien to me: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_May_1#Steve_Van_Dyck. --Tikiwont 11:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it's up now - thanks to Celithimis I think Johnbod 12:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing from May 1st log 

message: Let's say that an AFD request is met with overwhelming and reasonable Delete arguments, can any average user close the discussion? If yes, how do they do it? Cheers.--Kylohk 22:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Regular users can only close keep discussions. --TeckWiz is now R ParlateContribs@(Let's go Yankees!) 22:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Can you please rephrase the form of the question? I don't like the sound of "generally, AfD's with a delete result should only be closed by abnormal users." :) Newyorkbrad 22:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can normal users end AFD discussions? 

message: This short article had a rather derogatory POV. This should be deleted and any information about the police could be included in the main Sandpoint, Idaho article. --Robbie Giles 13:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sandpoint Police Department 

message: Hey, I was just wondering why the article is being nominated for deletion, I've been told that it looks like advertising, so I changed it. I look at other people's wikipedia profiles and they look exactly the same, so I was just wondering what is wrong with it now, because I don't believe it should be deleted.TSchabbs 16:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AFD Marc Dagenais 

message: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/State Route 1002 (Lehigh County, Pennsylvania) was created as the nominator's first edit, but the nominator did have previous edits as an IP, including putting the tag on the article. The AFD has also not been added to the main list. --NE2 22:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can this AFD be speedy closed? 

message: There seems to be a "stray" comment at the bottom of this section: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_May_10#Sovereign_State_of_Aeterna_Lucina. I can't find it in the subpage, the logpage, or the subpage of the debate listed after it. Can somebody else have a look please? --kingboyk 19:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Found it. It's in the next one: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rapture (film) --Kimontalk 19:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor formatting problem - please help 

message: I am unclear if this is where i state arguments for deletion of articles. however, i wanted to point out an article "Cory Williams" Mr. Safety is currently violating TOS.
the basic outline for the argument and dispute follows:
A. the article is an autobiography and blatant advertisement of "self-promotion" / ie: (see User_talk:Viralmediaman and/ or contributions)[]
B. the aritcle completely bias, and lacks notability
C. the article inaccurate and reads like spam
going on further what is notable is that Cory aka Mr. Safety is a just a random guy that uploads youtube clips
and openly admits to cheating. this where safety admits to cheating as well as on his channel it says "Watched: 418,88" videos. somehow i doubt he was able to legitimately watch that maybe videos. it's really sad that he blames "his friend". 
the following is Cory Williams admitting to cheating, "HERE'S HOW I "CHEATED....
This all started while I was on a music tour back in March 2006. A good friend of mine offered to help promote me while I was away, so I left my account in his hands and offered him compensation for his help. At the time, I didn't feel the need to question his methods. Back then, I only used YouTube as a host to put my videos on myspace and that was about it. When I got home, started making videos again and noticed a few things were different on my YouTube account. I was still fairly new to YouTube because I only uploaded to it... but my number of "watched" videos was at 400,000 and I knew there was no way he could have possibly watched that many videos. So I asked him where that number came from and he told me how he did it. After that, I took back my account because I knew his method of promoting was wrong and a URL refresher was never used on my account again.
Even though I made this video confession, many people still don't believe my situation, but I can understand why. Although, I will not let this mistake or the people who don't believe me, effect the way I do videos. I am not a cheater and I will never be a cheater and I would never risk the consequences of cheating. I have worked very hard at what I do and I will not go down because of one petty mistake such as this. If YouTube thought I was a cheater, then they would have banned my account a long time ago.
Cheating did not get me ANY new subscribers and even if it did, then it was because THEY chose to subscribe because THEY enjoyed my videos. When this all happened, I only had around 400 subscribers. The refresher that was used only got my old videos a bunch of views. Many of the videos that were refreshed didn't even show up on the most viewed list because they were over 48 hours old. My total number of video views as of April 27th 2007 is 7 million views, so if 400,000 of them are fake from the incedent, then 6.6 million of those views are legit.
Here's another roomer I'd like to clear up... I have never created fake accounts for more subscriptions nor do I add fake comments or ratings. As of early 2006, all my stats are legit (minus the 400,000 fake views/watches from the incedent). Many of my subscribers came from Myspace once I became more active in the YouTube community. (I have over 20,000 friends on myspace)
Some people said I should have deleted my account and started over again after the incedent, but what good would that have done? Hiding what happened to me would have been worse than coming out and talking about it in public. No matter what I do, this will always be a part of my story... so why not tell it like it is.
For those who refuse to believe me, I forgive you. For those who do, thank you.
-Cory "Mr. Safety" "
In conclusion, its clear he is now cheating the terms of service for wikipedia. Thank you for time and consider on this issue of bias, neutrality, and advertising spam TomSkillingJr.
:Wikipedia is not YouTube. You're confused. Dcoetzee 17:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This sounds like a complaint about what is happening on YouTube, rather than about the Wikipedia article itself. This is not the appropriate place to air such complaints. Vassyana 22:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I further understand it as admission that cheating had taken place, but that it would not happen again--personaly, i think it shows an unusual degree of frankness.DGG 18:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  regarding an article that is an autobiography, un-noteworthy, and bias