Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 37

message: All the articles from the following template.  They are completely unworkable, will never be anywhere near complete, unreferenced, and could be used for POV-pushing.

The previous unsigned comment was placed by (08:10, 31 July 2006 222.153.28.69)
:These don't look encyclopeid, they should be bundled into an Afd. -Sanbeg 14:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The one on the US and Canada is just a list - not an encyclopedia article. It should be jettisoned unless the author actually wants to write an article, using secondary sources, on the subject of socialists in North America.Michael Dorosh 16:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request to delete 

message: on a specific topic, in a specific category, or that have been worked on by a specific editor? ONUnicorn 15:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there a way (other than manually) to search AFD for articles 

message: The project Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting mentioned on the project page seems to be defunct.  Shouldn't the link to it be removed? JulesH 21:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting 

message: ...are not every nomination that you think is a keep. Way too many people shout bad-faith for a nominations, when it is definately not that. A lot of editors genuinely nominate articles that they think violate guidlines, but are shot down by experienced editors. There is no reason to make people feel bad about a nomination...especially when it doesn't do anything except create discussion, and even more especially when other people concur with the nomination. Newnam(talk) 19:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this.  WP:AGF is policy, not a guideline; if someone regularly accuses others of bad faith over an AfD disagreement, they should be asked to tone things down.  If they persist despite this, they could (in the most extreme cases) be blocked for excessive personal attacks. Wild accusations of bad faith have absolutely no place on AfD.  --Aquillion 20:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad-Faith Nominations... 

message: I came across Panis Angelicus, O Salutaris Hostia, and Tantum Ergo. The last of the two hymns are excerpts from other hymns (Verbum Supernum Prodiens and Pange Lingua). These articles consist of 2-3 sentences, followed by the Latin and English text of the hymns. My first impression was that wikipedia is not a primary source, and that these articles probably need to be transwikified. Then I thought that maybe they were notable because Thomas Aquinas wrote them. Then I considered merges. Maybe they could all be merged into one article, and the actual text brought to wikisource or something like that. Then I thought that the last two hymns could possibly be merged with their parent hymn articles. As you can see, I have no idea what to do, if anything should be done. So is there precedent for hymn articles? Would these meet any criteria for deletion? Any suggestions of merge or transwikifing or any other ideas?--Andrew c 23:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about policy - hymn articles 

message: But does it seem to anyone else that we're swinging back to the "keep everything" end of the cycle?  Some sample recomendations from the 28 July page:
* Keep Interesting site. Notable enough.
* Keep [...] The information in this article has the potential to be of use to someone somewhere at some time. [...]
* Keep google shows 391 hits.
* Keep. What's wrong with random collection of facts and trivia? 
* Keep -- there is ample precedent on Wikipedia for keeping articles on insignifigant people.
I routinely disregard a "pure vote" without a rational, be it "delete," "keep," or "bicycle," and I'm often sorely tempted to disregard borderline nonsensical recomendations.  But I see something like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lise Van Susteren and I'm paralysed. brenneman {L} 00:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The example you give does not have a single Keep vote without a reason. So I am missing your point here. The fact that you do not agree with the reasons given (being that she is someone who runs Candidate for senate [and is] host of AM radio show in a large market) is a different thing though. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 07:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hmmm... Ok, I'll be less nice about it and come right to the point.  There are several parts to an XfD, in order of importance: Beginning with facts finding, then policy interpretation, then editor's opinion.  If a discussion comes down to a decision based on "opinon" like this, and those opining keep are mostly known to be highly active XfD contributors who diverge widely from the norm with regards to thier stance on inclusion, what to do?  We're in some way doing sampling to determine "community consensus" and this is a biased sample. - brenneman {L} 08:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreement with brenneman {L}.  The point is that some editors apparently disregard all stated WP policy in their afd considerations and nominations.  I presume we're supposed to be working from WP guidelines and policies for a reason, in this context to give rationality and sense to the afd process with a presumed level-playing field of known and stated policies to follow.  I am therefore aghast when people nominate for delete or keep with rationalizations like, "Not interesting" or "Possibly useful".  My two cents is that afd discussions and considerations should therefore take attention of nominations and issues relating to the relevant policies and guidelines.  We need reason, but not any reason.  Tychocat 11:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I know we're not voting... 

message: If an article has been tagged with a reason which is not supported and backed on the discussion page or anywhere else visable and the user has been contacted without response, can a tag be removed if a reason is included within the edit, on the discussion page and the tagger's talk page? Thanks --JRA WestyQld2 06:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If its an AfD tag, no, it would have to remain listed here at AfD for 5 days to reach consensus. Most other tags can be removed yes, this is a wiki... Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 07:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a notability tag, is that ok? --JRA WestyQld2 12:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean ? This shouldn't be asked here, actually; probably the village pump (policy) it's the better place. My take is that if there no explanation has been provided for the tag, it can be removed (Liberatore, 2006). 12:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but what if the explanation is unsatisfactory in nature? Can the tag still be removed? --Siva1979Talk to me 03:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure.  It's no different from removing a sentence (or adding one) from an article.  It's called editing, and there's nothing wrong with it.  fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 11:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: In such cases, I'd also add an explanation of why the reason was considered unsatisfactory on the talk page. (Liberatore, 2006). 11:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: No Reason

message: I'm having an issue with some of the situations I've ran up against while closing keeps (Wikipedia_talk:Speedy_keep#Unanswered_question.2C_plus -- for details). Its just not clear to me when to close as speedy keep (the implications are leaning toward a fast keep). I bring the topic here because I am getting no comments on the topic, and i'm thinking that noone actually watches the page. Any help will be appreciated. SynergeticMaggot 14:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I really understand the question you're asking. If a nomination clearly meets the speedy keep criteria listed at Wikipedia:Speedy keep#Applicability then the afd discussion can get closed immediately, there's no set time limit. On your comments at Wikipedia talk:Speedy keep you seem to be talking about unanimous keeps after a few days of discussion, which isn't the same as speedy keep, they're just normal keep decisions and Wikipedia:Speedy keep doesn't really have anything to do with them. - Bobet 15:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see, and thanks for the reply. It just wasnt clear to me how fast the speedy keep really is. For instance, how many users saying "keep" would it take? My usual number is above 4-5. And I never close a case as non conensus - resulting in keep. SynergeticMaggot 17:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless the discussion meets the speedy criteria, you shouldn't close it before the five days is up. I've seen AfDs where you get a few dogpiling 'keep per nom' or 'delete, nn' votes, and then someone comes up with an actual argument to the contrary, sometimes on the 3rd day or later, which can turn the discussion the other way. The five day limit is there for a reason. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More on Speedy Keep 

message: It seems like there should be a speedy keep criterion about non-speediable articles that are less than X hours old. Editors are getting bitten when they do progressive saves (I know I haven't started several articles on my to-do list just because I don't have the consecutive hours to do a proper stub that will prevent deletion). I've seen this in more than one place lately, and it bears thinking about. Our instructions for AfD have an entire section on things that can be done before AfD, after all, and has for quite some time. I know New Pages Patrol is flooded with crap, but could we try assuming good faith on our new editors who may not understand the sandbox?  -- nae'blis 17:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For times like these I thought admins just userfied the article for the new users? That and kindly reminding them, or making them away of sandbox. I just had an article I created proded, and is now on AfD. When I started the article out, I had the cat's, sections, main articles, references, expand tag, and a few items with citations. In my opinion, the prod to AfD process gives the creator/editor/contributor enough time to source the article, expand, and make it worth saving. This is somewhere around 10 days if you dont remove the prod tag, and about 5 days as long as the article shows some signs of notability. For these reasons I wouldnt care for a criteria, since in most cases, the contributor is lazy and wont work on the article anymore, or the article really isnt worth saving. I agree in most cases people jump the gun and go striaght for AfD. This is the real issue I think. Not saving worthless articles because they dont qualify for speedy. I mean, everday, about 100 to 150 articles on AfD are not speedy-able. So where would that leave us? SynergeticMaggot 17:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This suggestion would make the job of new pages patrollers massively more difficult, essentially making AfD unavailable to them entirely. It is also a solution searching for a problem; the five days it takes to go through AfD already serves as all the "incubation period" that an article needs. Arguing that we should wait x hours when they're already going to get five days is silly. Also, I'm puzzled by your statement that "I haven't started several articles on my to-do list just because I don't have the consecutive hours to do a proper stub that will prevent deletion."  That is what stub notices are for.  When dealing with topics that are clearly encyclopedic, a few sentences and a stub tag should suffice; for less clear ones, your stub might need a short paragraph or so and an external link or two to help people evaluate the topic... such stubs generally only show up on AfD when the nominator asserts that the topic is unencyclopedic, which is not normally something that can be fixed through expansion. --Aquillion 20:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  article incubation period 

message: When I clicked on it, it took me to a page called "Editing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 <august-gen> 6". User:Zoe|(talk) 02:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've fixed it for today, but we need to find the template that LDBot  uses to update it every day for the new date. There's a system variable that changed. Fan-1967 03:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lightdarkness has made the change in the template, so we should be OK from here. Fan-1967 16:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Coolness.  User:Zoe|(talk) 21:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The "add a new entry" link is broken

message: While checking the nominations to complete, I spotted the use of a Category:BlaBla instead of :Category:BlaBla. My impression is that AfD subpages should not be categorized, so these kinds of problems can be fixed automatically. I added this change to the way DumbBOT completes nominations . Any objection to that? (Liberatore, 2006). 11:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subpage category 

message: Due to a number of AfD's that have been closed as keep or speedy keep by non admins, a WikiProject has been created in an effort to help reduce the number of resubmissions by placing the oldafd tag on article talk pages. For more information, please see Wikipedia:WikiProject AfD closing. SynergeticMaggot 23:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Project 

message: There is a problem with the template when second nominations are listed. It came to my notice when a user was having problems with a second listing. I have given a detailed explanation here. After doing that I came across this discussion on this page. So it seems that other users too have had the same problem. Please comment on this on the template talk page for sake of keeping all comments in one place. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 10:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template Afd footer