Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion Information & Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion Links at HealthHaven.com

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Articles for deletion page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~).
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.

Shortcut: WT:AFD

This page is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details.

WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron

This page is within the scope of the Article Rescue Squadron WikiProject, a collaborative effort to rescue items from deletion when they can be improved through regular editing. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can help rescue items tagged for deletion and rescue.

WikiProject WikiProject Deletion

This page is within the scope of the WikiProject Deletion, a collaborative effort dedicated to improving Wikipedia in toto in the area of deletion. We advocate the responsible use of deletion policy, not the deletion of articles. If you would like to help, consider participating at WikiProject Deletion.

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

	• Noam Cohen (8 October 2006). "Wikipedia Wars: Giving the Heave-Ho in an Online Who's Who". New York Times. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CE3DF1330F93BA35753C1A9609C8B63.
	• David Segal (3 December 2006). "Look Me Up Under 'Missing Link': On Wikipedia, Oblivion Looms for the Non-Notable". Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/02/AR2006120201111.html.
	• Daniel Terdiman (11 January 2007). "To delete Wikipedia entry or not to delete?". CNET News. http://news.cnet.com/To-delete-Wikipedia-entry-or-not-to-delete/2100-1025_3-6149264.html.
	• Matthew Moore (1 October 2009). "Wikipedia: 20 articles earmarked for deletion". Daily Telegraph. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/wikipedia/6250515/Wikipedia-20-articles-earmarked-for-deletion.html.

[edit] Merging during live AfD

WP:Guide to deletion#You may edit the article during the discussion advises against merging content from an article at AfD, suggesting that editor wait until the AfD is closed. Since Guide to deletion has low activity, I'm starting a discussion here to see if current consensus affirms this guidance. Moving articles at AfD comes up occasionally (WT:Articles for deletion/Archive 53#Policy on moving a page when it's in AfD? and the next section Moving articles during a live discussion), but I'm not sure if any considerations are shared. Flatscan (talk) 05:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I would say it's OK if no one objects. If there are objections, then wait for the AfD to finish. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd really prefer we didn't, because it can preempt the deletion decision. If I merge content from an article which is likely to be deleted into an article which is likely to not be deleted, it can force the deleting admin to either delete the merged revisions (something not likely to happen because it is both a pain in the ass and akin to cutting off your nose to spite your face) or leave the merged article as a redirect. In the cases where merger is suggested at the deletion discussion (either by the nom or by a few editors) and would obviate the reasons for deletion, I have less of a problem, but I still would prefer the AfD come to a close first. Protonk (talk) 05:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

This leads me to believe that in such cases, nomination for deletion should never have occurred, and is indeed a waste of resources. If content is suitable for merging, I think keeping valuable content superseeds the deletion process, and would make things run smoother. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 05:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

That discussion is beyond the scope. I don't want to get into it. In practice almost every fiction afd has a likely merge target (the parent work) and options other than deletion are often entertained. Whether that is right or wrong isn't really the issue. Protonk (talk) 05:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Then leaving that aside, it probably isn't a good idea most of the time, and it probably won't stop me some of the time. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 05:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree that it's often not a good idea, unless there's already a nearly universal consensus to do so--a SNOW merge non-admin close, if you will. The complications raised by Protonk are a very good reason why BOLDly doing so otherwise might be an inappropriate use of IAR. Jclemens (talk) 05:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I did one of those merges and it's very circumstantial. Usually those articles are spin-out ones tagged for clean-up and/or merge. The Afd nomination just put this or those articles on the top of a project clean-up/merge list. The Afd nominator could have contacted the concerned project instead of starting an Afd which i agree would save everyone a lot of time. --KrebMarkt 06:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Topic specific wikiprojects should be given the heads up before a nomination, but there are other avenues that seem to be working. I've noticed an increase in new articles added over at WP:Proposed mergers, and I think this theme is starting to catch on. Its a good noticeboard for complicated merges. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 06:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Reaching consensus on a merge is the lesser half of the job, making the merge effective is the bigger half. Here the merge back-log of the anime/manga project: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga/Cleanup_task_force#Articles_needing_to_be_merged Scary and i'm not even sure it's up to date. So when an Afd bring back articles on the top of the to do list, you rather want it to be fixed asap before other things happen delaying even more the clean-up. More use of WP:Proposed mergers is a really good thing, i just hope the merges are done afterward. --KrebMarkt 07:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we should be able to merge during AfDs per WP:BOLD, WP:BEFORE, WP:PRESERVE, and WP:IAR. An Afd should NOT prevent us from improving Wikipedia. We are here to build an encyclopedia, i.e. content, not to be mired in technicalities. If we find a solution in the course of a discussion for content's use that does not require an admin to have to use the delete function, we go with that rather than play games waiting for the verdict in some snap shot in time five to seven day discussion. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I do agree there in principle; but we do have to be mindful that not everybody necessarily agrees if a consensus forms quickly. In general, I think some latitude should be given to allow speedy closes if most participants in a debate come up with a compromise before the end of the scheduled time, but effort should be taken to respect all views already posted. I'm thinking of a theoretical AfD where five people !vote to delete, then someone else comes along with a reasonable merge proposal, and two of the five "deleters" agree with it. The other three don't immediately respond, a compromise is declared, and the article's merged. There's great potential for some or all of the other delete proponents to come back the next day to discover that a decision they disagree with has been unexpectedly made without their input. Early merges should be encouraged, but only where consensus is sufficiently clear that an early closure would normally be warranted. ~ mazca ^talk 18:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a dodge to me - merge the cruft and claim that the AFD no longer needs to be run and then unmerge it a little while later and hope that nobody notices. The AFD should be concluded first. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

- The nonsense non-word "cruft" is never a valid reason for deleting or merging anything on Wikipedia. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  - I sense a conversation degeration approaching. Anyways, I would think the situation Cameron suggests suspects bad faith, and very rarely have I seen a well completed merge get reverted. I would suggest that those cases are extremely rare, or non-existent. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 20:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
    - They are relatively rare, but by no means non-existent. Protonk (talk) 20:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
      - Well, I'll take your work for it, unless you feel like providing an example. Even still, I don't think a few renegades trying to outrun concensus should trump good sense. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 21:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
        
        Usually we merge the relevant information and leave the Afd nominated article untouched. Whatever the Afd ends quickly or until the 7 days doesn't enter into consideration. There may be some persons gaming the system by doing a merge then undoing it to dodge an Afd. However it could happen with merge during live AfD as much with merge after Afd precess. I can't see why an Afd closing after a full 7 days with a merge result would offer any guaranty that the article won't be merged just for appearance purpose than un-merged back when things die down. --KrebMarkt 21:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
        
        You can email me if you would like some more problematic examples. I don't work 'in the trenches' anymore, so requests for obvious examples of reverted redirects and undone mergers should be directed to someone who does. Protonk (talk) 21:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
        
        I can't remember which article, but I redirected it during an AfD, and everyone thought it was a fine solution at the time. This kinda seems like a solution in search of a problem. If someone is trying to hide behind the GFDL or CC3.0 or whatever while behaving badly, they'll quickly be disabused of it, I imagine. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses.

Some history: There was an outright prohibition of merging in the original February 2005 version. Aside from the removal of "considered to be vandalism", the wording stayed mostly unchanged until Rossami's full rewrite in September 2005 (rewrite discussion), which relaxed the prohibition to the "extreme caution" warning. The wording "unless there is a strong case for merge under the deletion policy" was added within a day of that rewrite. There have been a short-lived removal based on visible deleted revisions (revert), a suggested workaround by fully rewriting the content, and a minor licensing update, but the core wording has remained stable since September 2005.^{messy diff} The guidance is not new, but consensus could have shifted away.
As mentioned above, there are cases where a merger is a foregone/SNOW conclusion. To avoid confusion and to lessen the appearance of unilateral action, the editor should SNOW close the AfD, then perform the merger. The "strong case for merge" wording invokes arguments based on WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD; their strength should be evaluated by consensus at the AfD.
This discussion was mentioned in this week's Signpost. WP:Articles for deletion/A Place With No Name (2nd nomination) was covered in an adjacent section. Despite a split consensus, the nominator performed a merger and requested a speedy close; objections necessitated another AfD.

Flatscan (talk) 04:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

A point that I forgot to highlight: as Protonk mentioned, a merger can be performed by any editor, but can only be reversed – with difficulty – by an admin. Flatscan (talk) 03:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Merging during an AfD is a highly disruptive tactic used with the aim of precluding a delete outcome. It is a bad faith, battleground approach. Sure, there will be some cases where it's uncontroversial (and what harm is there in awaiting a close?). In the cases we've all seen, it's not been uncontroversial. Those regularly employing the technique in controversial circumstances should be blocked and/or banned for their disruption. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 05:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
a current example:
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jimmy Patterson
Sincerely, Jack Merridew 06:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Jack, is an AFD ever disruptive? If an editor puts an article up for deletion which could easily have been merged in the first place, is this disruptive? Ikip (talk) 04:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I suspect Jack may give a different answer, but let me interject. Both of your questions are topical and important, but the two are not intrinsically related to each other. I can answer the first in the affirmative. Even a good faith AfD can be disruptive (interestingly enough, for some of the same reasons that an out of process merger can be disruptive). And sometimes sending something to AfD where AfD is clearly the wrong venue can be disruptive, but that does not mean that all or most things which may be merged (or moved, or fixed, or whatever) should be handled without AfD. As I've said before, most fiction articles necessarily have a parent article, making merger an obvious choice. But it does not behoove us to foreclose an entire avenue of possibilities for an entire class of articles simply because another option technically exists. Now on that point we are probably in opposition. But there is room for discussion there. Whether or not that discussion is relevant to current practice (i.e. if you and I come to some interesting compromise about this, the rest of the AfD going world will probably neither notice nor care) is up in the air. Protonk (talk) 05:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

~~I agree with KrebMarkt, an AFD should not hold material hostage.~~ If this material should not be in the article which the material is merged to, it will be removed, if the merged material is valid, and referenced, it will stay. Often merging is simply cleaning up articles which editors who put an article up for deletion didn't do in the first place.

I would like a headcount of everyone's positions thus far, because Flatscan warned an editor a second time, stating that "The support for your view was fairly limited". I respectfully disagree, it appears to me that most people here support some merging of articles.

Opposes: flatscan, Protonk, Cameron Scott, Jack Merridew
Limited: Peregrine Fisher, Jclemens
Supports: NickPenguin, KrebMarkt, A Nobody, Mazca, Ikip

Please keep in mind, whenever their is a headcount some editors always say, I didn't mean that, so my apologies beforehand. Ikip (talk) 04:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Clarification of "The support for your view was fairly limited", referring to A Nobody's view: in contrast to most other editors' opinions, A Nobody made no mention of limitations or merely implementing an obvious consensus. Flatscan (talk) 05:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

AfD shouldn't hold content hostage. Is a merger during an AfD allowed to hold the AfD outcome hostage? Because unless I go through a somewhat laborious deletion and restoration of the target article, a merger during an AfD precludes the possibility of a close other than keep, merge or redirect. Protonk (talk) 05:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

That can't be that simplistic. Merge during Afd should remain an exception. In anime & manga project those article are part of our to clean up and to do list, Afd is just preempting the call. Personally, i won't do merge during Afd if i'm not certain that i can call upon my project for fire support. The bottom line what has precedence project clean up drive or admin by the book handling. I think good sense compromise have to be found case by case. I don't want to think about the wikidrama in case of non compromise. --KrebMarkt 05:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not attempting to reduce it to that. I just want to get across my core complaint about mergers during AfD, a complaint which (hopefully) is neutral vis a vis the notability wars. Once admins get revision delete people can merge to their heart's content during AfD, because it won't allow the person conducting the merger veto power over the outcome. Protonk (talk) 05:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems simple to me, if the material is not worthy of wikipedia when it is merged, it will be reverted out anyway.

The only case I see were:

"it can force the deleting admin to either delete the merged revisions"

...should ever be an issue is if the material merged is copyright or BIO violations, which rarely is in AfD anyway because it is speedied well before.

The page is deleted, the name is deleted, and the article history is deleted, there is a finality. What about userfication? Even though the outcome of the AFD has been decided, editors can userfy the material of nearly any deleted article. In both cases, partial merging and userfication, the AfD outcome is the same.Ikip (talk) 06:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not sure I understand you. My concern is that the GFDL requires attribution history for content. this is satisfied during a merger by pointing to the article and revision where the content was merged from in the edit history of the target page. But if the article is deleted, the attribution chain is broken and either the merged content has to be removed from the history (where currently the only method is to delete the entire page and then selectively restore all edits but the merged edits) or the history of the deleted page added to a talk sub-page of the target. Both are somewhat laborious and non-standard and not all admins know how (or even that you must) to do them. So if I merge content during an AfD I can make undoing that merge difficult and consequently I can make deletion difficult, usually forcing the article to be kept, redirected or merged. That's what I mean by holding AfDs hostage. I'm not particularly interested in grand battles over the finality of AfD. I supported and am active at WP:REFUND and I support userifying content wherever reasonable. Likewise I don't have a problem with undeletions in order to merge. I have a serious problem with the chain of logic that it is ok to force mergers at AfD while simultaneously complaining that mergers at AfD are out of process. Protonk (talk) 06:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

It is actually quite common to have editors delete redirects of old articles, deleting the history, what happens to the attribution chain then? I think I know the answer:

Help:Merging_and_moving_pages#Performing_the_merger. Discussed by Flatscan here: Help_talk:Merging_and_moving_pages#Merge_edit_summaries. The chain is not broken if an editor adds the proper information in the edit summary box when the editor merges. Ikip (talk) 07:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding redirects resulting from mergers, {{R from merge}} is meant to provide a clue that the redirect has meaningful history and should not be deleted. Flatscan (talk) 05:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, to be crude, those admins are fucking up. In some cases they are being set up for failure. It is not required but it is good practice to note in the article history that you are merging content from an article, if only to stop especially diligent admins from accidentally deleting page history that is important. As for your second question, WP:SMERGE notes that is required but it is only sufficient if the article isn't deleted, because then the individual contributions are accessible from the history tab. If the article is deleted, then we cannot determine who wrote what when and we no longer have appropriate GFDL attribution. In reality, this probably happens a lot (mostly not due to delete happy admins but due to cut and paste moves being performed improperly), but we have to make sure that we try to minimize it or fix it wherever possible. Protonk (talk) 07:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay then we can agree that there is no GFDL issue if an editor, during a AfD, added the proper information in the edit summary box when the editor merges. 07:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Um. No, we can't. There is no GFDL issue, so long as the article is not deleted. However, if the article is deleted and the target article not modified as I described above, a GFDL issue develops. Protonk (talk) 07:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

"My concern is that the GFDL requires attribution history for content." A correctly labeled merger edit summary provides that police chain. Can you state the GFDL that you are quoting? Ikip (talk) 19:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Two components are required to provide attribution:

The original article's history, which cannot be deleted as long as the merged content is visible, even in old revisions (best explained by WP:Merge and delete)
A pointer from the merged content to the original article, in edit summary and/or {{Copied}} (directions at Help:Merging#Performing the merger)

If anyone finds specific points to be unclear, please let me know, and I'll start efforts to improve the relevant documentation. Flatscan (talk) 05:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I think this conversation could easily be moved to Help:Merging. But it is important to clarify the rules:

GFDL/CC-BY-SA, talking about external? (more)
Largely ignored (more)
Merge information, parent deleted (more)
History of these merges. (more)
The essay is, and I quote, "not a policy or guideline itself" (template, top of page), so it should not be seen as a rule which editors can be blocked for. [And that is exactly what many editors like User:Jack Merridew below, are espousing]

On the talk page, when one editor asks if this should be policy, the creator of this essay says:

"No, I don't think so (speaking as the original author). Several things in it are deliberately tentative, because it's an interpretation of the GFDL, not a description of the community will (which is what a policy is)."

The essay has been edited by 17 people, over three quarters of those editors have 2 or less edits.[1]

Ikip (talk) 16:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no clarification necessary. Two things are necessary for attribution, and we are required to maintain attribution. You can even ask A Nobody if you like, he loves citing "Merge and Delete" in AfDs. He knows exactly why we can't delete articles after merging their contents elsewhere. Protonk (talk) 17:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

My bias here is that I'm seeing merging used as a tactic during AfDs to skew the outcome, and I'm seeing it defended with GFDL citing reasons, and I think that's wrong. I feel that way because if there ever actually IS an attribution question, where someone is asserting GFDL rights about something, even if it was a deleted thing, admins can go look and see in the deleted history and produce the needed attribution. (Heck, this is true even if something is oversighted, it still can be looked into, although in that case you need an oversighter to see what happened) So merging as a tactic to force at least a redirect to be left behind ought to be deprecated, at the very least. ++Lar: t/c 18:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

If the end result is that the articles from which the content is merged to are improved and these are articles whose existence no one would contest, I cannot imagine any reason why any editor would actually be opposed to such improvements. Per WP:PRESERVE, if we have material that we can use to improve articles, no reason exists why volunteers should not go ahead and use that material to improve the other articles per WP:BOLD as well. Only if the article under discussion is a copy vio or libelous, i.e. really does need to be deleted for legal reasons, is there a pressing need to outright redlink rather than redirect with edit history intact. AfDs should not be used to prevent editors from actually improving other articles not under discussion that can benefit from the content in the article under discussion. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

And what if the end result is that it's not actually an improvement? It happens. More importantly, you haven't actually addressed what I said, you're trying to justify an unacceptably forcing tactic with platitudes. Consider what others are saying, it's not a good thing to do, it is trying to impose your will on everyone else. Until there is a clear consensus in favor of it, you need to stop doing it. ++Lar: t/c 18:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Not in the instances that I do. Clearly the articles at least when I merge are indeed being improved as a result. That is exactly what we actually should be doing here, i.e. improving content and adding to our compendium of knowledge. Not getting bogged down in bureacracy. Not becoming a compedium of deletion discussions. Why would I listen to those who are not helping to improve the articles at all or who in some cases have even admitted that they would never argue to keep in an Afd or are litterally too lazy to look for sources (yes, one of the delete reguglars outright said as much)? Per WP:IAR, if articles can be improved, no editor should be hindered from doing so just because of some snapshot in time discussion with maybe a half dozen or so participants. No good faith editor could possibly prefer that improveable articles not be improved when they can just as no reasonable editor would likely oppose redirects with edit history intact when that edit history does not need to be deleted for legal reasons per User:T-rex/essays/the more redirects the better. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Until there is a clear consensus in favor of it, you need to stop doing it. ++Lar: t/c 19:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Until there is a clear consensus against it, which there is not, based on the above discussion, I see no reason why I nor anyone else should not do what they can to actually improve articles. I whole heartedly agree that I will not do so in instances where what is being discussed is libelous or a copy vio, i.e. I will not try to protect legally damaging content, but seriously now, in the handful of cases when I have added sourced content, the only accounts saying to delete in the discussions are ones who either admittedly are not interested in looking for sources, make false statements about the reality of the article, or reveal a lack of expertise about the subject by declaring say even published magazines not counting as reliable sources. In any event, the only thing close to a proscription against merely cautions to be careful. It does NOT outright assert editors cannot be WP:BOLD and follow WP:PRESERVE. We do not have to abide by rules that do not exist or that do not have any consensus behind them. And again, I cannot imagine any reason why anyone would want in good faith to prevent articles from being improved when they can be. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion, taken in isolation, does not have a clear consensus to allow the practice. Therefore, it is a 'no consensus' outcome, which defaults to no change, to "do as was done before" (which is to not do this). But far more importantly, it is a small and local discussion, and is insufficient to overturn a longstanding practice. Review the history of this page, please, and you will find it's pretty clearly not a practice that is approved. When you do this you impose more work on the closing admin if you happen to be incorrect about the discussion outcome (and who among us is 100% infallible?). So don't do it, please. If you really want this area changed, consider an RfC on the topic, properly mentioned at WP:CENT so it has wide participation. Till then, don't be disruptive, it would be greatly appreciated. ++Lar: t/c 22:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

It would be greatly appreciated if accounts do not disruptively use AfDs as a means of preventing us from improving actual content. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 13:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I feel some responsibility for all these bytes spilled on the topic, since I came up with the current wording a few months back, so I wanted to explain a bit of my rationale: I think the current formulation strikes a good balance by discouraging moves during AfD as a matter of etiquette, rather than creating an outright prohibition (of which I am wary, on principle). However, I do agree with the comments above that find a majority (but certainly not all) of moves-during-AfD are disruptive and counterproductive. To those who say "why have etiquette stand in the way of improving WP as quickly as possible," my response is: there is no deadline, and why can't we wait for the few days for the AfD to run its course, build consensus around the move, and then move the article? Hope this helps. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Does your opinion extend to mergers (did you mean mergers)? My mention of moves in the original post may have been confusing. Flatscan (talk) 05:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

We indeed have no deadline and as such there is frequently no urgent need to force editors into a mere week long discussion determining the fate of article. We should be more considerate to our contributors. Once we determine the article has ANY potential value, we need to be discorteous to them by trying to get rid of it, especially if it is cases where any of us just are not interested in helping improve it. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 13:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

While I nearly always disagree with you, your comments at least usually have some degree of internal consistency. That one doesn't. The lack of a deadline means we can't wait? We need to be discourteous? I think you need to reread and rewrite.—Kww(talk) 13:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

We should not be discourteous to those who actually work on articles by making artificial deadlines to get rid of their work or to prevent volunteers from improving their contributions when they have the time to do it. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 13:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Merging whilst an article is afd does force a "merge" outcome and imposes one person's will (the person who merges content) on the discussion. If a merge is warranted, suggest the content you would like to merge and vote for that. If you are reasonable and clear about the particular content you want to save, other people will be encouraged to ask for it to be merged. There is plenty of time for an article to be merged after the discussion has reached consensus. Another point, when taking content from another article, it can be quite easy to reword it into your own original words. This is especially true when you are adding information you have found to the content you wish to merge. Unless the wording is particularly unique and you believe quality would be lessoned by altering it substantially, there is no reason not to re-write it in your own words. This method preserves content but does not force a "keep" result. In an afd, everyone should have an equal opportunity to cast their vote, choosing from all the options that are available and not have their vote forced by another party who ends up controlling a discussion. Seraphim ♥ 09:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The rewriting workaround is a viable alternative to waiting, mentioned in the guide. Flatscan (talk) 03:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, it's an abuse of process and should be stopped. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, using AfDs as an excuse to prevent improvement of actual content is an absue of AfD process. Building articles means far more here than having to satisfy the whims of a handful of accounts in a snapshot in time week long discussion. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 13:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

@Seraphim & Cameron Scott:

I will repeat myself, merge during Afd must stay very circumstantial. The most likely case is if there is a consensus within a project to have some articles in its clean-up/merge list when a such article is sent to Afd, that project will likely and de-facto hijack its outcome. The sole example, i remember is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ra Cailum class battleship. It was the impulse a renewed clean-up drive targeting others articles in the same series & universe. --KrebMarkt 19:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for linking that example. At the time that the article was merged, support was trending towards merge. The AfD was later closed with a reasonable consensus, but an early close would not have been appropriate, and TheFarix's merge jumped the gun a little. Flatscan (talk) 03:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Well that was rather challenging for editors having others opinions because changing that Afd outcome will have required either changing the project consensus or proving that this article is an exception to this consensus. A such feat is clearly difficult to achieve especially for editors who don't know the in & out of the said project.

For TheFarix's merge, it should be viewed in both perspectives. From the Afd perspective his action are somewhat fast but from the project perspective it was a long overdue clean-up. --KrebMarkt 06:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Since the merger did not substantially affect the outcome, this discussion is mostly academic. I may have dropped TheFarix a note if that AfD were more recent. I'll grant that another outcome was unlikely, but not inevitable. Echoing UnitedStatesian above, I don't see an issue with waiting a few days. Flatscan (talk) 04:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

If an article is at AFD then this should not prevent work upon other articles which are not at AFD. AFD are purely to decide whether an article is to be deleted and I gather that there was no consensus to make them a general forum for article debate, i.e. Articles for Discussion rather than Articles for Deletion. Consideration of merger is therefore outside the scope of AFD. What is more urgently needed in the relevant section is some guidance about removing material from the article under discussion, so that editors have difficulty in reading the full article which is under debate. Removing disputed material and then claiming that the article should be deleted because it is now an inconsequential stub seems disruptive - see Graphical methods of finding polynomial roots for a fresh example. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

"Consideration of merger" is by no means "outside the scope or AfD". There are many outcomes from a deletion discussion, and often the consensus is to merge. However, leaving aside the occasional sensible snow outcome, pre-emptive merge or redirect, I feel the discussion should run its course; there is no deadline, after all. pablo_hablo. 19:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

General comment - It comes down to commons sense. Kinda like a snowball merge. If it should obviously be merged, merge it, and the AfD problem is mostly solved. I guess our 7 day rule is a hard rule now, but I think the AfD should just be closed at that point. I believe Protonk that it's a pain in the butt to undue a merge, so they should only be performed in obvious cases. Another thing Protonk mentioned is the fiction wars. I get the feeling this is an extension of that, so there isn't much use in trying to change hardened positions. Everyone should just use common sense, and if there are problems take it to ANI or wherever. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I've been linked here after bringing it up with A Nobody without knowing about this discussion. I'm personally happy to see content merged, preserved and rules ignored, but is it that hard to wait until the end of the AfD? There isn't an editorial deadline and keeping the discussion free from unnecessary distractors is a good idea. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 11:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Revisiting Merging during live AfD

rfctag policy placed 16 October, removed by bot 15 November

When is it appropriate to merge content from an article at AfD? Flatscan (talk) 02:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Since a clear consensus was not reached, I am revisiting this discussion, with possibly an RfC for more input. If you are unfamiliar with the topic, please consider reviewing the substantial discussion above. Original prompt: WP:Guide to deletion#You may edit the article during the discussion advises against merging content from an article at AfD, suggesting that editor wait until the AfD is closed.

Merging content from an article at AfD is appropriate:

if a single editor believes that there is viable content that should be copied to related articles, improving Wikipedia per WP:PRESERVE and WP:IAR
if the AfD has substantial support for merge
if the AfD has overwhelming support for merge that would be a valid close under WP:SNOW or WP:Non-admin closure
almost never, with very limited exceptions
never

Since there was some confusion over where editors stood in the last discussion, I wrote a selection of opinions, numbered for reference. Feel free to work from or ignore them. Flatscan (talk) 01:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I contacted the previous participants, minus those who have already commented below. Flatscan (talk) 02:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I placed a rfctag policy on this section. Flatscan (talk) 02:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

2 or 3. Depends. It's a case by case kinda thing. Protonk (talk) 01:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- 4 is fine too. Protonk (talk) 20:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I tend towards 4. Really, it is almost never so urgent that a merger cannot wait until the AFD is finished, but it clouds the issue substantially if done during a live discussion. Stifle (talk) 15:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Number one. Why create even more bureaucracy and rules? Ikip (talk) 21:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
4, with extremely strong cases of 2 or 3 being those limited exceptions.—Kww(talk) 21:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

4, reasons being:

no - too open to disruption
kinda, but why not let the AfD play out? Articles often change radically during an AfD.
see above - what's the rush?
the best approach. Let the AfD run its course.
never say "never"

pablo_hablo. 22:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Notified all editors who had commented in the previous discussion, minus those who already commented immediately above, 02:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC) Flatscan (talk) 02:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

5 is my first thought (Per Stifle, what's the rush? ) but call it 4.99 as Pablo makes a convincing argument against absolutism. Ikip: it's not about bureaucracy, it's about not making messes that need cleaning. Have some consideration for your fellow editors. ++Lar: t/c 02:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- Lar, you continue to make these assumptions about me personally which have no basis whatsoever, since your intent appears to be to personalize a policy discussion, here is my response back to you: Again, I would like to remind you that you are an admin, and ideally are supposed to be an example to others. This is about a small group of editors creating more rules, per WP:NOMORE and WP:BURO, which everyone is then forced to follow. Note that Flatscan characteristically wrote: this section of an RFC about this issue showing that this new rule has been used, and will continue be used as a tool stop editors who are attempting to retain well sourced, encyclopedic information. We have enough rules already. Ikip (talk) 16:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
  - While I feel that Ikip's points need correction here, this sub-discussion is straying off the main point. If anyone would like to pursue any of these issues, please consider either creating a new subsection below or taking the issue to my talk page.
    1. The relevant paragraph in WP:Guide to deletion dates back to September 2005. One may read my review of the page's history above.
    2. As a point of fact, I had no involvement with the drafting of WP:Requests for comment/A Nobody. At the time that it was filed, I was independently finishing a draft of a separate RfC that covered many of the points in that section, allowing me to certify. I'm not sure what Ikip means by "characteristically"’.
      Flatscan (talk) 03:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
    - Agreed, off topic, struck. Thanks for clarifying. Ikip (talk) 05:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello people from AN's RfC. I think a redirect during a live AfD, when it's an obvious thing to do, should be allowable. I used to do it back in the day before we became so obsessed with seven day AfDs, and it worked pretty good. We'd just cut the AfD short, and call it a day. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

3, but why not go ahead and snow-close it? 2 if there is support for a particular merge by the AFD participants over at least a 24-hour period. WP:PRESERVE should be used for articles that are likely to be deleted soon: If an AFD is failing it's okay to copy material OUT to other articles under WP:PRESERVE. Likewise, if A and B are up for AFD, either together or independently, and B is going down to defeat then by all means merge useful material into A. After all, if A was not in AFD you would be merging the useful material, right? By the way, I do not think licensing issues require material copied from deleted articles to be deleted, despite what WP:C#You may edit the article during the discussion says. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- but why not go ahead and snow-close it? There is no onus on me to do a Non-Admin early SNOW Close. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

4++. Anything less is disruptive. In the case of a '3' situation, do the close and give it 24h to see if it sticks. As a regular tactic at AfD, merge-to-thwart-delete should be viewed as blockable disruption. Even in the case of a '4' the emphasis should be on *limited*. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 03:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

3, but without the need for "overwhelming". "Convincing" is enough. 1 is also good. Note, as per WP:MAD, if material is copied, during or before the AfD, then deletion should not be taken lightly due to our licence, in favour of a redirect. The exception would be when the merge target is similarly dubious. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- - If in doubt, just wait. #2 and #3 both imply that the article is not going to be deleted.
- And you have posted exactly why 1 is badness. In the case of a "delete" outcome, the merge then has to be undone, making more work for everyone else, just so one editor can (selfishly) indulge their belief that the article shouldn't be deleted outright, or impose their will in contravention of consensus. I'm with Jack, 1, if repeated, should be considered disruptive enough to warrant blocking. We don't need that sort of disruption. ++Lar: t/c 04:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
  - Agree. To merge content is to assume that the result will be a version of Keep. If you are right, all is good. If you are repeatedly wrong, you are disruptive. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

5. Any exceptions would be exploited. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- Exploited by whom? To do what? Jclemens (talk) 07:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
  - Potential exceptions would be used to falsely justify more merges than those exceptions are actually intended to allow. I can already see the more passionate inclusionists claiming that there is "overwhelming support" (supposing standard #3 above was adopted) for a merge when, say, only 5 people have !voted for 'merge' while the other 20 who have participated in the AFD are supporting deletion. The purpose of doing this would be the same as the existing reason to merge during a live AFD; to disrupt the process and force retention of material that would otherwise be deleted. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 15:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
3++ if the AfD has overwhelming support for merge & has a prior project consensus for merge that would be a valid close under WP:SNOW or WP:Non-admin closure. Other cases waits 7 days. Afd agenda colliding project clean-up drive & agenda can justify merge during Afd. Some projects have hundreds articles tagged for clean-up/merge they better handle those articles quickly before they end up again at the bottom of their to do list. --KrebMarkt 06:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
4, because merging prematurely precludes a keep. If the article is deleted, and even one editor makes a good case to merge some of the content somewhere, WP:REFUND or any reasonable admin should undelete the article for purposes of merging. Just because something is "deleted" doesn't mean it's gone. Jclemens (talk) 07:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
The fourth option should be the obvious choice; any exceptions will be an IAR sort of thing but should not be encouraged. We ought not be creating messes for others to clean up. Shereth 22:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
4, let the AFD run, someone could show up near the end with information that completely saves the article. It is only 7 days, nothing requires that quick of a merge. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 00:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
4, as many have said above: moves should only happen after closure. If that is a WP:SNOW closure (although I can't imagine a WP:SNOW move, can you?) or non-admin closure, fine, but a closure is needed nonetheless. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
4 (almost never); exceptions being 3 (overwhelming/unambiguous merge support per SNOW or NAC), but prefer closing, then merging in those cases. Editors who would like to copy content may 1) wait or 2) rewrite. Flatscan (talk) 02:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
4.65 - very close to never, but bureaucratic nit-picking should never interfere with building the encyclopedia. If the support is clear enough for 3 to obtain, go ahead and close the debate rather than merge the subject during discussion. 1 and potentially 2 are disruptive, especially given WP:DEADLINE. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I would generally be in favor of not merging during a live AfD, though I would be open to being convinced that in some particular cases there might be exceptional circumstances.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

What if an article has good text that can be used elsewhere, but it's going to be deleted. This happens all the time. We need some way of allowing this material to be used, besides "you must convince people to vote merge or redirect or else you can't have it". - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- That's an argument against deletion I think, not an argument that one has to merge DURING an ongoing discussion. And as to what to do, find an obliging admin (an inclusionist such as myself, for example, but there are lots, see CAT:RESTORE) and ask for a REFUND... ++Lar: t/c 14:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
  - Just a procedural comment -- if the material was deleted via AfD, WP:REFUND can only userfy or email the text, not restore it. If the text is then reused in another article, GFDL issues can get tricky because of attribution problems.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
1 Merger of useful material is best done while the AFD discussion is active following common-sense principles such as strike while the iron is hot and never put off to tomorrow what you can do today. And of course, there is a pressing deadline in that there may be a significant risk that the article is deleted and its useful material is then not available for merger. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll see your common-sense principles and raise you a "fools rush in where angels fear to tread". Isn't there another one about "Merge in haste, repent at leisure"? pablo_hablo. 20:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

- Moot As a further point, it seems improper to suggest that we may forbid the copying of material as this would be contrary to the licence which governs our work. All sorts of people copy the contents of articles which may be deleted and some even make a point of copying them because they may be deleted. It seems impossible to prevent this and so I don't see any practical value to this discussion. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
4. Merger can be used to abuse the AfD process by merging trivial content that could easily have been rewritten and then insisting that the page cannot be deleted for GFDL concerns. The merger should not go forward until the AfD has been closed as keep, no consensus, or perhaps merge. Also per 2/0. Anything less than 4, and perhaps 4 also, is too easily gamed by people. Verbal chat 12:30, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- The "You can't delete this because it will break licensing" argument is bogus. When copying text from an article that will be deleted, all you need to do is copy the edit history of the source article to the talk page of the destination article. This is best done using a collapsible table or by a talk sub-page. By the way, when copying text from any article that might be deleted in the future, this is a good idea. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 13:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
  - This is a valid method, described at WP:Merge and delete#Paste history to talk subpage, but it and its alternatives are rarely used since it is much easier to redirect the source article. Flatscan (talk) 02:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
5, with a side order of 3. I don't have an objection to merging obvious candidates at AfD if there's strong consensus for it, but (a) there needs to be WP:SNOW consensus for a merge, and (b) the debate needs to be snow-closed as "merge" before a merge takes place. Guerrilla merging of live AfDs without enough consensus to actually close the AfD as such is disruptive - get the AfD closed, then undertake the resulting action. ~ mazca ^talk 12:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Comment about an example today: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Falcon Heene got snow-closed as a merge with Colorado balloon incident. At about the same time Falcon Heene got redirected and the AFD closed, Colorado balloon incident went to AFD due to WP:NOTNEWS. I have no clue if the merging started before or after the snow-close, and I have no idea if licensing was complied with. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the links. I'll take a look at the articles once the AfD closes and the dust settles. There's no attribution required if the copied content (into Colorado balloon incident) is deleted. Flatscan (talk) 02:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
  - The merge was done immediately before (1 minute) the AfD was closed, by the same admin, who then noted his action at the new AfD. Considering BLP1E (BLP of minor versus article on event), I'm comfortable with this early close falling under IAR. With respect to attribution, the merge was performed correctly; I added {{Copied}} tags as recommended. Flatscan (talk) 02:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Placed rfctag policy Flatscan (talk) 02:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
4. Ideally, merging should not take place during an AfD but there may some circumstances where it would be appropriate. The betterment of the encyclopedia should always come first and that would suggest saving content if it can be saved but in some cases material that people choose to merge unilaterally is not always agreed upon as being an improvement. Better to let consensus determine whether or not content is worth merging in a debate and wait for the outcome. Seraphim ♥ 12:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
5 to avoid lawyering. And 4 is actually redundant as application of WP:IAR to 5. --M4gnum0n (talk) 13:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
4 per pablo. JohnCD (talk) 16:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
4 -- there will be exceptions, because of duplicate articles. Almost . always it adds complication and confusion. Any necessary reorganization can be dealt with in the close,-- or by the usual processes afterwards. DGG ( talk ) 17:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Noting that I and DGG have agreed on a matter, this would tend to strongly indicate towards the option being the best one. Stifle (talk) 22:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
4, for exactly the reasons DGG stated. If someone wants to show what a proposed merger might look like, a draft can always be made on a user's subpage or a subpage of the article's talk page.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Call the question? That is, what now? Input has died down. Time to evaluate and decide next steps? Or more publicity for more input? I favor the former, because looking at the names participating here I see a pretty good cross section and what looks like a pretty representative sampling (I didn't do statistical analysis, that's just my view). I think conclusions could be drawn and the page updated. Thoughts? ++Lar: t/c 12:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer to wait for now, as there's no pressing need to update the recommendations. I agree that there is a sufficient variety of AfD regulars plus some names I don't recognize, but anyone may list on {{cent}} if desired. Flatscan (talk) 02:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I requested closure by an uninvolved admin at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Request discussion closure. Flatscan (talk) 01:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Since my request was archived without action, I tried again at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive204#Request discussion closure archived Flatscan (talk) 03:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC). Flatscan (talk) 03:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment. I see absolutely nothing wrong with finding appropriate content on any article and moving to another. What likely shouldn't happen while an article is at AfD is disputed mass content removal. Not the trimming of OR content but the mass deletion of content that is being subjectively discussed forcing either an edit war, which we don't want, or the subsequent editors to dig to find the full article, which arguably rarely happens. Instead the baby is tossed with the bathwater. If there is good information that helps our readers then we should go the extra length to find the most appropriate place(s) for it. -- Banjeboi 01:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] A deleted article has useful text, so...?

What does one do? I'm not talking about text added after the AfD has started, which can be used as form or disruption. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it a rule that you can ask an admin for it unless it is a BLP-vio or copy-vio? Abductive (reasoning) 11:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
~~This seems to be related to #Merging during live AfD – any objections to moving this to a subsection there?~~—moved Flatscan (talk) 03:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC) Jclemens mentioned WP:Requests for undeletion (WP:REFUND), which was started/revived several months ago as a centralized alternative to asking the deleting admin or someone from Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles. Flatscan (talk) 02:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- Examples of undelete, merge, and redirect:
  - Black Market Hero, requested by Michig, undeleted by MBisanz (closing admin), I helped with attribution and {{R from merge}}
  - The Final Destination (Original Motion Picture Soundtrack), requested by Contains Mild Peril at WP:REFUND, undeleted by Protonk
- These two examples are related to music (band → related band; soundtrack → movie). Flatscan (talk) 03:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- Another example: List of problems solved by MacGyver, requested and merged by A Nobody, undeleted by TimVickers (closing admin). WP:Articles for deletion/List of problems solved by MacGyver (3rd nomination) was annotated after these actions. (I saw it mentioned in passing on AN/I.) Flatscan (talk) 03:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to be able to do the merge when I have time, and without admin help. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

It's simply not possible to avoid admin assistance if the article has been deleted. You've mentioned redirecting as an alternative to deletion; prioritizing non-delete outcomes could avoid deletion in the first place. Several months ago, Jclemens added something similar to WP:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Deciding whether to delete, but was immediately reverted. The resulting discussion WT:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Deletion is to be a last resort failed to form consensus for the addition. Flatscan (talk) 03:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Alternate attribution

An editor can simply wait until the article has been deleted, then paste the merged material into the new article. I asked ThaddeusB:

"If I were to merge a section of an article, as long as I copy and paste the history to the talk page (say in a collapsible section on the talk page) then this would satisfy this rule?"

ThaddeusB's response:

"Yes. Both the GFDL and CC-BY-SA require that all "non-trivial" contributors be created in some form. Normally this is done by linking back to the Wikipedia article which has the history for attribution. However, the rule can be satisfied by listing the names as well. Thus, a copy & paste of the history will suffice (plus a sentence saying it came from Wikipedia originally to be safe)."

So, unless I am missing something, an editor can simply wait until the article is deleted, and then paste a collapsed edit history on the talk page of the article the editor merges the sourced information too. Since the underlying reason for this new proposed rule has been "frequently ignored"[2] GFDL and CC-BY-SA concerns,[3][4] and merging during deletion discussions, this clarification makes this entire discussion moot, except for the time period in which the merge cannot take place (during deletion discussions). Editors can simply wait until after the article is deleted (By copying the information off wiki and wait), to merge the information. Ikip (talk) 19:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't we do that during the AfD, and then it's cool whether it's kept or deleted? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

This is fundamentally about reliable sources, correct? An article is put up for deletion because it doesn't have reliable sources. If a section is reliably sourced, it could rationally be merged to a larger article. Waiting until after the AFD, to avoid any confusion and out of respect for the AFD process, would be ideal. Ikip (talk) 20:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, history pasting does not preclude deletion and is allowable under that criterion. On top of the general drawbacks to this method (covered below), converting to the common method (not strictly necessary, but cleaner) after a keep close would require removing/deleting the pasted history. Flatscan (talk) 03:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Davidwr mentioned this method in this discussion over a week ago; I referred to WP:Merge and delete#Paste history to talk subpage in my reply. The biggest weakness of this method is an imperfect copy – most likely at initial copy/paste, but also possible through subsequent editing. The pasted history takes up space when editing the talk page header or lives as a transcluded subpage that might be separated from its parent by moves. Any objections to giving this discussion its own subsection Alternate attribution? subsection created Flatscan (talk) 03:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC) Flatscan (talk) 03:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] And now for something completely different

Disable article creation for one month - for everyone. Call it "improvement drive". NVO (talk) 19:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

LOL... and disable AfD for one month, call it ~~"Armageddon"~~ "Rescue work"... - Adolphus79 (talk) 19:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

That would violate Wikipedia's most cherished principle of allowing "anyone to edit". We should let editors who don't have accounts the opportunity to create articles. Robert9673 (talk) 19:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The rationale here is to stimulate editing of existing texts, at the expense of a temporary ban on new bulbasaurs. "Anyone" will be able to edit just as they did before. If you want to start something new - you're welcome to do it in your user space, just don't release it to mainspace until such-and-such-date. NVO (talk) 19:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm as serious as Chris Walken demanding More cowbell although now less is better than more ... no, I'm really serious. and I did not mean shutting down XFD, not at all. Let all the housekeeping go on. There are heaps of things to do. Bring it to GA, check FU rationales, find the sources ... Time to take a deep breath and look around. NVO (talk) 19:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I read your original statement as "disable AfC"... I thought it was a sarcastic comment... I like that idea, but I'm not sure how much it would change current article conditions... there are not a lot of editors that spend all their time here creating new articles. I don't think we would see current article improvement change any with the lack of creations, we would only see the lack of new articles... On the other hand, I would love to see an empty NP backlog, if even just for one day... I think a slightly more effective approach would be a "cleaning ~~out~~ up the attic" drive... I have been surprised a few times to click on special:random and find an article that hasn't been edited in 2 years, and see how lax citation policy was 2 years ago, some of these article have zero references, no infobox, very few wikilinks, etc., and haven't been touched since they were created... I'd love to see a list of the articles that were created more than 2 years ago, and have had a dozen or less edits since... - Adolphus79 (talk) 20:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

If you want to see an empty WP:NPP backlog, review before creation is the solution. If we all did this, it would lead to an empty WP:NPP backlog. Robert9673 (talk) 20:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I suggest shutting down everything except article space as it is my impression that too many veteran editors spend most of their time on policy and discussion pages like this rather than working upon articles. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:57, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Best thread I've seen all week.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Relisting uncontested AfDs

I'm noticing nominations often get relisted for "lack of consensus" when either no-one has expressed an opinion other then the nominator, or only one person has voted delete. See eg [5]. There's something strange about this, because if the nominator had prodded the article, it would have been deleted after 5 days, since no-one has objected to the deletion.

I wonder whether we'd do better to ask closers to close AfDs where there are no keep votes as "delete on prod terms". That is that we delete since no one is objecting, but we understand that since no consensus has been formed, the article should be undeleted if there is a later objection, and then subjected to a fresh discussion if necessary.

In short, I'm asking that we treat all "uncontested nomination" whether made at afd or at prod, in the same manner.--Scott Mac (Doc) 23:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

For reference: Last time it was discussed was Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 53#Proposal, treat AFDs with little or no discussion as "uncontested prods". Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you've hit upon an inconsistency that I've been wondering about myself. I agree that consistency would be better. But I'm inclined to believe that it should run the other way. In other words, if we are to make matters consistent, since "no consensus" defaults to keep, "no response" should default to keep. My reasoning is this -- the percentage of band articles presented in the past weeks in which the nom has not done WP:BEFORE research and seen articles and books that satisfy WP:BAND has struck me as being markedly higher than I would have expected. A number of them have actually been kept because of the good work that you have done in finding the sources (Michig as well; and he IMHO quite appropriately complains often about noms' failure to do google searches first). But it seems clear to me that many noms don't hit the search button. Given that, I'm not comfortable granting them the power on their own to delete just by nominating.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I suppose we might simply encourage the nominators to use "prod" instead. But that will still leave non-researched stuff deleted if no-one intervenes.--Scott Mac (Doc) 00:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
- Some things are AfD'ed because they are not technically eligible for PROD--e.g., someone removed a PROD years ago. If there's a nominator, and one other person to agree with that outcome, then I see no reason why such an AfD should be relisted. Some things just don't attract attention, and relisting is for things where consensus is likely to change. Jclemens (talk) 04:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

This dif shows how I spent the morning and evening of my day off yesterday. Had the AfD not been relisted I would never have noticed it. Perhaps it's foolish to put effort into such contributions, but an editor who values them might see this as a sign that AfD relisting serves some useful purpose. --Paularblaster (talk) 11:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

This is partly a seasonal or holiday issue -- there are times when people who would ordinarily see the XfD will miss it, and relisting does not violate any deadlines that I know of. Collect (talk) 00:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Broken (obsolete) AfD tag in use, who can fix the situation?

Could someone more knowledgeable about the AfD templates look at Denialism? Apparently it's been substituted from the afdx template ("origtag=afdx"), and there is currently an otherwise almost unused AfDM template. Its parameter "page=Denialism (2nd nomination)" doesn't seem to be doing anything. Instead it's pointing to the old discussion, which doesn't have a pointer to the new one.

I have no idea how this mess can be fixed. Hans Adler 06:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Since there was no response I have simply changed the relevant line based on another AfD. I don't understand how these substituted templates work and hope this doesn't mess anything up or causes confusion. Hans Adler 23:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

This template, like many others, has little to no documentation/instructions. But most people do what you did, and just look at the way a template is used elsewhere to figure out how to get it working. It seems like you fixed it - looks ok now. stmrlbs|talk 05:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Whoops, just came across this now, thanks for cleaning up after me :). Unomi (talk) 02:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it was Hans who fixed that template. I fixed the rescue template. Wikipedia is not the most user friendly place. I've often wondered if that has some filtering effect selecting the type of person that stays (stubborn? masochistic? geeky?) :) stmrlbs|talk 02:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] New category

Maybe this isn't the right place, but if you look at the category Category:AfD debates (Indiscernible or unclassifiable topic) (I'm not sure how to link it. Well, I know, I just forgot the template thingy), there are an awful lot of disambiguations. Does anyone think there should be an other category for those? Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 19:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm? Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 09:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Magibon

Sorry, I'm trying to nominate Magibon and have never done this before. I created the nomination banner, and am stuck at step two. I clicked on "this article's entry", then tried to edit the page and saw this:

Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, 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). When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination.

I got stuck trying to do this. I couldn't find where to edit those links! Now my wife is calling me to dinner, so my apologies for palming this off onto you, reader. Pisomojado (talk) 02:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I created the page for you; it is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magibon (4th nomination) because this is actually the 4th time this article has been nominated. However, you will need to go to that page and give your reasons why it should be deleted, or the nomination will not get very far. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, doesn't have legs.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Anyone want to nominate

Entrepreneurial mindset? Just start reading the text... .froth. (talk) 05:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It's a valid subject but from our point of view a bad article. See the talk page - it's basically written by one author who is supposedly an expert in the subject. Dougweller (talk) 06:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Hm, maybe OR is the wrong word if it's basically paraphrasing hiw own published research? Dougweller (talk) 06:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

This is possibly a copyvio issue as doing a Google search on the first paragraph comes up with a bunch of hits on the exact text. ArcAngel (talk) 08:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I created the page for you; it is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Entrepreneurial mindset. However, you will need to go to that page and give your reasons why it should be deleted, or the nomination will not get very far. Xqe (talk) 16:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see copyvio here - the dates say it all. Tim Song (talk) 04:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Nor I.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Confirming that an article has been previously deleted.

In the first edit at [6], the article creator refers to a previous deletion of an article on the same subject. I've been unable to find it by searching afd. Is this something only admins can see? Or are there ways to search that I'm unaware of?--Peter cohen (talk) 01:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Cumberland spaceman was deleted via PROD in August 2008 as being non-notable. Small-town hero (talk) 01:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

So what has happened sicne then to make it notable?--Peter cohen (talk) 01:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Why should anything have happened? Someone apparently thought it was non-notable, prodded the article, and when no-one objected it was deleted. It may have been that the article was poorly written or poorly sourced -- I don't know because I never saw it, but regardless, it doesn't mean anything. If you're concerned about notability, then make your case based on the current article and the currently available sources. Small-town hero (talk) 01:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Peter, you can look at the deletion log here: Special:Log/delete and search for your article. Also, if you can't find a discussion in the AFD section, try this search: User:Stmrlbs/SearchDeletionDiscussions stmrlbs|talk 02:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.--Peter cohen (talk) 02:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] How Wikipedia regularly treats new editor's new article contributions

From: Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-11-09/New_pages_experiment

On September 4...[a blogger]...challenged any new editor to start an article and see if it would last seven days, stating that it was "guaranteed, your article will be marked for 'speedy deletion' within about two minutes of its creation."

...[In response] User:Casliber [created] request comment on interactions with new editors...User:WereSpielChequers accept[ed] McKenna's challenge by proposing "that we all create a new account and use it to write an article".

Started on October 5, Wikipedia:Newbie treatment at CSD has seen twenty articles created by eleven editors, all posing as new users by creating a new account for each article. Of the twenty articles so far included in the trial, only three have been deleted. Of those three articles, however, Grainger Games was deleted within just two minutes. Just over half the articles — eleven in total — were tagged for speedy deletion, while just under half the "new editors" received welcome messages at their talk pages. Three of those welcome messages were added as part of an automatic deletion tagging process.

...of the twenty articles created to date "only [the article] Haig Sare...had no deletion tags, no deletion and a welcome...

Ikip (talk) 05:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Fascinating. And troubling.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Not one of those articles has been though AfD, so I don't see the relevance to this talk page. This is not a soapbox for general discussion of deletion policy. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Making the rash assumption that many people active in AfD do read this page, it appears that Ikip has, indeed, hit on a weak spot on WP. I have found AfDs where people asserted "no hits on Google" where the person (in one case) had a major obit in the New York Times, and so on. I firmly bel;ieve there are many articles which have no real rationale for existence, but the use of "instant delete" is a real problem for valid articles. Note further that I do not always agree with Ikip. The problem, by the way, is magnified for userspace pages at MfD. Collect (talk) 19:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

thanks for bringing this RFC up, Ikip. And I think bringing it up on this talk page is totally appropriate, as it is a consideration in the overall deletion process. stmrlbs|talk 20:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] "Strong Keep"?

There really isn't such a thing, is there? Is there any point to its usage? Шизомби (talk) 02:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

No. Every now and then somebody will point out that saying strong or weak keep or delete is meaningless. Abductive (reasoning) 07:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
If there were no such thing, you wouldn't be asking about it. Plainly, if somebody putting "strong delete" provides no arguments to back up their opinion, and somebody putting "weak keep" does provide arguments, it's the arguments behind the conviction, rather than the strength with which it is held, that should prevail. But there's absolutely no reason why an editor should be expected to refrain from giving some indication of the strength with which they hold the view they are expressing. --Paularblaster (talk) 08:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Not a Strong Agree? ;-) Yes, clearly it exists in the sense that it shows up on AfD persistently. Yet for whatever reason its usage is not addressed in policy anywhere. Had it been at one time, and the usage is a holdover from that? There also seems to be a tendency for "strong keep" or "strong delete" to have weaker evidence or arguments or lack them entirely, when one would expect them to be stronger, as though there is an impression that strong convictions alone are strong evidence or a strong argument, or that they will be weighted the strongest. Should it be addressed in policy, or is there some reason why it shouldn't? Шизомби (talk) 15:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I think there is no need to address this in policy. Adding the word "strong" has basically the same function as putting your !vote in capital letters. It means that you feel strongly about it and announces that you are unlikely to change your opinion and willing to fight. Or something like that. Hans Adler 20:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Strong keep counts as two keep votes. And Über Ultra Omgz Strong Keep counts as 4. –xeno^talk 20:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Strong neutral counts as an infinity of neutral !votes, but this does not extend to strong keeps or strong deletes for some reason. Perhaps this is a glitch in the MediaWiki software. pablo_hablo. 21:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Fun digression -- I suggest that "strong keep" means the person feels they have given a particularly cogent reason for Keep which should be heavily examined by anyone closing the discussion. Similarly "Strong Delete" means thay have a particularly cogent reason for deletion. "Weak" means that it was a close enough call either way. Where a person uses "strong" and fails to give such a strong reason, I suggest that the "strong" part is basically meaningless, the issue ought only be that whoever closes the discussion should not count !votes, but fully examine reasoning. If the closer has any internal biases at all, he ought not do the closing. "Trochenbeerenauslese Keep" does not add anything to how the discussion ought to be closed. Collect (talk) 21:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

There was some knock-down, drag out fight about this over at WT:RFA (Though I'm not sure that page produces any other kind of fight). I'm inclined to give little to no added consideration to "strong" <keep/delete>. Some editors write "strong" <blërg> almost all the time, but even where an editor is pickier about emphasis, it doesn't really matter. I'm more interested in "weak" <blërg>, because it is a signal that the follow-on non-bolded remark will contain nuance. Protonk (talk) 21:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have noticed that as well. It's the "weak" !votes that really attract my attention. I half expect that making this observation explicit will lead to many "ultraWEAKest possible delete/keep ever!!! style comments. Hans Adler 11:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Soon Thoughtful, reasoned & reasonable keep/delete --KrebMarkt 11:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Topposting or bottomposting in AfDs?

It has seemed to me that bottomposting is the standard, but one comes across the occasional topposter. Should topposts be moved or left where they are? Should Wikipedia:Articles for deletion mention this under AfD Wikietiquette or How to discuss an AfD (or is it already mentioned somewhere that I'm overlooking)? Should there possibly be a comment that automatically appears in the edit window so that newcomers know what to do? Шизомби (talk) 02:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The post's are timestamped, so I personally don't see a problem. I do think you have a good suggestion for a "Bottom-post is proper wiketiquette, except when responding directly to a previous post, where an indent would be appropriate" inclusion, wherever you feel it could be included. Hamster Sandwich (talk) 03:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be good to add somewhere. Should I be bold or wait for some additional comments? Шизомби (talk) 06:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Technical_and_format_standards and Wikipedia:Talk page layout recommend "Start new topics at the bottom of the page: If you put a post at the top of the page, it is confusing and can easily be overlooked. The latest topic should be the one at the bottom of the page. Then the next post will go underneath yours and so on. This makes it easy to see the chronological order of posts." I continue to think something along these lines would make sense. The worst case of topposting in an AfD can occur when somebody does so above even the nominator's original post. Шизомби (talk) 03:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] AfD comment process

At the moment, articles listed on AfD have the text:

"This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy.

Please share your thoughts on the matter at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page.

Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed. For more information, particularly on merging or moving the article during the discussion, read the guide to deletion."

I wonder if there's any way of knowing how newcomers respond to that, or people who have visited WP before but have not seen an AfD before, or who have not elected to participate in one before. Do they perhaps just click on "share your thoughts" and go directly to that article's AfD? I would guess that might happen a lot.

I wonder if it would be possible to add more text/links on articles' AfD entries? It might be helpful if things such as Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#AfD_Wikietiquette, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_discuss_an_AfD and Wikipedia:Before commenting in a deletion discussion could be found there, either up at top just below:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sample

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

or somewhere in:

Sample

(Find sources: "Sample" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

People might still ignore it, but it would increase the chance they might read it, which could lead to better discussions.

And/or it might be helpful to have some note or notes within the opened edit window. Шизомби (talk) 06:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

It's two years ago now that I first ran into an AfD, so the memory has faded rather, but I suspect that the suggestion of a requirement to do homework before commenting (as opposed to a more inviting "tell us what you think") would have put me off joining in the discussion. --Paularblaster (talk) 08:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

It might be reasonable to require people to do homework before commenting, but that's not at all what I wrote above. I'm noting that it's rather easy to go straight to an AfD without ready access to information that would enable people to contribute more valuable comments if they wished. The links could be provided with a comment noting that it's not necessary but why it would be useful. Шизомби (talk) 16:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I find in conversations with many new editors that they interpret the AfD tag as a sign that they may not edit the article despite the fact that the tag quite explicitly says "Feel free to edit the article". An interesting outcome, I think. Protonk (talk) 21:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

That's kind of a different issue, but if they fail to read "Feel free to edit the article" or fail to try clicking on Edit and find that an edit window will open, then WP may be better off not having such people editing the article! Шизомби (talk) 22:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm actually not sure that's true. You make the common assumption of transitivity with respect to skillsets. There are a number of famous/talented (and famous+talented) individuals who have refused to edit wikipedia in the past because they weren't sure of the protocol or weren't interested in pushback (Donald Knuth comes immediately to mind). I'm telling you that a huge proportion of the population grew up with a production model which differs wildly from wikipedia. They assume that some central process or person controls output/norms and that 'permission' is required to edit. My father, a relatively smart and technically inclined person, didn't know that you could edit a page without making a username. I can think of a dozen other examples off the top of my head. Please try to consider that our readership base is much more heterogenous than our editorship base. Protonk (talk) 22:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Help with November 11 listing

I nominated Pink Cross Foundation yesterday, but the script errored out. I manually redid everything, but for some reason the AFD header isn't showing up in the listings. The Argument is however. I tried deleting, resaving the notice, but still no change.

Can somebody fix this, I don't know what else to do.Horrorshowj (talk) 00:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Kashi and Kellogg's

I am a new editor and I do not know how to nominate a page. But the Kellogg's business unit Kashi Company should not have its own page. It should redirect to Kellogg's. Farmerpete (talk) 09:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)Farmerpete

I'd recommend Help:Merging_and_moving_pages#Proposing_a_merger rather than AfD. 169.226.85.157 (talk) 16:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] AfD Wikietiquette comment removal

Regarding "Do not make unsourced negative comments about living people. These may be removed by any editor." How is that supposed to be put into practice? Шизомби (talk) 04:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it self-explanatory? Which bit don't you understand? 86.136.194.122 (talk) 20:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC).

[edit] Request

Hi, I left a tag at List of Solar System probes by country indicating a request for deletion, along with an explanation on the talk page.

Per the instruction: "Unregistered users placing this tag on an article cannot complete the deletion nomination and should leave detailed reasons for deletion on Talk:List of Solar System probes by country. If the nomination is not completed and no message is left on the talkpage, this tag may be removed."

I understood from this that an administrator will come along and do the remainder of the procedural work, but now I'm not sure. Will that automatically happen in due course? If not, would someone who understands the process be kind enough to do the necessary? 86.136.194.122 (talk) 20:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC).

I've completed the nomination (this can be done by any user with an account, not just by administrators). snigbrook (talk) 20:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Finding deleted articles

I am looking for an article that has been deleted (Tele extender). Where can I find the list of articles that were deleted? (I know it was deleted sometime in November.) --The High Fin Sperm Whale (talk) 06:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

It hasn't been deleted, it was just redirected. See here: [7]. Kind regards, Nancy ^talk 06:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

But all of the text from Tele extender is not on the Teleconverter article. And were are the deletion logs? --The High Fin Sperm Whale (talk) 21:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Deleted means to have the article and its history removed from the site. That hasn't happened so there are no logs. You can look in the article's history for previous editions (such as here). ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

But the text from Tele extender is not on the teleconverter article. And where can I find the deletion logs? --The High Fin Sperm Whale (talk) 22:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are asking. The first and only Tele extender article was created at 22:03, 3 July 2009. It was edited several times, with the last edit before being redirected at 06:33, 12 November 2009. At 08:33, 14 November 2009 it was turned into a redirect to Teleconverter. That's all there is. There is nothing more. Feel free to merge any text from the pre-redirect versions of Tele extender into Teleconverter if you think it makes sense to do so. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion period

The discussion period is five days as far back as I can remember. When was it bumped in this page to seven days? I've restored the long-established period of five days pending discussion of this change. --TS 14:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Reverted. It has been seven days since April, per Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 52#Proposal to change the length of deletion discussions to 7 days. The Hero of This Nation (talk) 14:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the discussion you linked there, I'm unimpressed. The proposal was to extend every afd debate from 5-7 says, because too few people got to comment in the shorter time, and yet this important policy debate itself was hastily closed after only 11 days (very short for a policy change) and with fairly low level of participation. It was also closed by somoeone who had participated in the debate - and clearly had a view. A large number of editors complained afterwards, and questioned that the debate had been badly advertised. I'm afraid this really is not good evidence of a consensus.--Scott Mac (Doc) 15:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

There was a serious effort to make this more widely known: The discussion was added to WP:CENT. Later a lot of people reacted like you, and this was the reason why a lot of people made efforts to advertise WP:CENT more widely. (E.g. by transcluding it at the top of ANI. It's still at the top of AN.) All of this made a huge splash. A lot of people were annoyed that they had missed this discussion (not exactly a short one, and with a huge number of !votes, though) but nobody felt like reopening the debate: Even most of the annoyed people didn't actually mind the outcome. Those who really disagreed realised that another discussion would be pointless, since it would likely result in the same winterly result. Initially there was a high rate of accidentally premature closures by admins, but I believe the rate is extremely low now. I think all the other XfDs have also changed to 7 days in the meantime. Of course WP:DELETION#Deletion discussion etc. were also updated.

Under these conditions I think it's clear that 7 days is the new status quo. Of course you are welcome to start a new discussion if you want to change it back to 5 days. Hans Adler 15:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure it is clear at all. Given the high number of people who use afd, the level of participation here is not at all high, and the fact CENT was changed afterwards, tends to show that the advertsing of this was poor (whatever the intention). And to say that I'd need to start a discussion to "change it back" rather assumes that there was a consensus to change it in the first place - which is in fact the point at issue. I'm not sure there's a solid consensus here at all. Having said that, I'm not that bothered by things being left for seven days either, as long as this disputed consensus isn't used to punch anyone who might wish to close a debate after five days. If most people are content to leave things for seven days, fair enough. That becomes the "usual" - and may not be a bad guideline.--Scott Mac (Doc) 15:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

It has become standard, I've not seen any real dissent before now. By all means open a new discussion to change it back to 5 days, but I support seven days. Fences&Windows 22:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

As I've said, I've no problem with 7 days being the guideline. If most closers go for 7 days, then mostly that will be the standard. That's fine, but there discussion itself isn't clear enough to compel.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

As a test, I looked at today's AfD log. Only 16 of the 81 discussions had comments added after the 5-day period, and a number of them were single comments long after the main discussion had taken place, and which didn't make a difference. Only on a very few contentious AfDs is discussion still pretty active after five days. This was predicted in the original discussion (as a rebuttal of the clearly spurious "what about people who only edit at weekends?" argument), but in the end does it really matter? I don't think so. Black Kite 00:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Seven days is better. How many people comment on the weekend, compared to the week days? Do you get more response on those days? When the final two days of the AFD were on Saturday and Sunday, did it get more responses than when the last two days were on a weekday? Dream Focus 16:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- What I find interesting is that Saturday's and Sunday's always see the most relistings and debates opened at the weekend receive the fewest participants. Given that we now have a seven day cycle, that implies something about weekends, doesn't it? It also seems to imply something about people looking at old afd's in order to add comments. It would also suggest that the best afd period is anything but seven or eight days, in order to avoid continually relisting debates at the graveyard weekend shift. It's anecdotal evidence, granted, but I've been covering deletion for the signpost for a couple of months now and I'd like to see someone work up a bot to create some stats so we could test this. Hiding T 14:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I originally suggested 10 days. The 7 days was proposed as a compromise. 6 days would not avoid the weekend problem, and 5 days was clearly rejected by community consensus. The discussion was well advertised. Since that date, a similar period was placed on PRODs, again by consensus, so that would appear to ratify it.

I suggest as the mechanism for the phenomenon your idea that people preferentially look at the AfD's opened that day & the day before, for which there is no solution by adjusting the time period. The only quick fix I can think of is to prevent afds from being listed on from Friday through Sunday, which I would not support, for it would cause incredible bunching of the work. But the phenomenon should have existed before: having it at 5 days would make it even worse, because these articles would have only 3 days of debate. Possibly we are seeing only the side effect of a strong campaign to get people to relist, rather than close with a marginal number of votes. A partial solution to the problem is to get better notification of afds to all interested people. The real solution is to have fewer afds--I do not propose this as an inclusionist, because the mechanism I suggest for that is to make greater use of prod to get articles deleted more easily in unambiguous cases. DGG ( talk ) 18:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

"A partial solution to the problem is to get better notification of afds to all interested people." WHACK! DGG hits the nail on the head. More deletion sorting is one solution, and making sure WikiProjects are aware of deletion debates in their areas. Fences&Windows 03:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Better participation is always a good idea. Ten days is also an idea. I don't take the prod thing on board, because prod was moved to equal afd as much to do with "standardisation" as anything else. I certainly agree that there are issues with relisting, and there was discussion recently in which the consensus was that one relisting was enough. I'm certainly concerned enough by the relisting of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of socialist countries (3rd nomination). Hiding T 18:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I discussed this with the relister. My impression is that they were simply inexperienced and perhaps unfamiliar with the general relisting practices. Tim Song (talk) 19:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Members of the WP:Article Rescue Squadron solicited to have a bot contact all article creators who are not contacted by the deletion nominator. Also if an editor has more than five edits on the article, the bot will notify them. Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Erwin85Bot_8Erwin was gratious enough to create it, and it is active now.

I have often wondered if a bot notifying participants for past AFDs would be a good idea also. And a bot to notify editors if the AFD they !voted on, went to DRV. Ikip (talk) 19:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Earth Centre, Doncaster - apparently badly nominated article - please fix?

Hi, could someone familiar with AfD have a look at Earth Centre, Doncaster? There's an AfD template in the article, but it doesn't appear on the AfD list for the date, 26 Nov, and the page you reach when you follow the link to "this article's entry" doesn't seem correctly formatted (eg no link to the article). I could try to patch it up myself but am wary of treading in deep waters and making an even worse mess of it all! Thanks, PamD (talk) 16:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Done - it's gone in today's list, though. JohnCD (talk) 18:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Finish a nom for me?

Can somebody finish nominating People's Pioneer Mountain Bank of Utah for me? It was prodded before. Basically it's not notable, with only some charity work (very common among banks) claimed. 208.59.120.194 (talk) 07:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Done, created page with above as rationale. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 12:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 1 nomination for AfD still open since October

Resolved.

As used some auto thing to nominate that article for deletion, I just have discovered that the nom is still open as it failed to register the nomination, not to mention that there is 3 delete to 1 keep since 18 October, when the nomination was open which still is. The nomination can be seen here. Donnie Park (talk) 01:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Procedurally re-listing since the AFD notice was never put on the article nor was it ever properly listed in the log pages. I closed the old debate, listed it in the October 18th log where it should be, opened a 2nd nomination, notified all participates who are still active, and notified the article author. I also logged notifications to the talk page of the original nomination. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] make deletion log searches more user friendly

I have submitted a bug report to make searching the deletion logs more user friendly and consistent with search engine usage on the internet. At the present time, you have to enter the exact title, with the exact punctuation of the article deleted, in order to find information on deletion log about that article. The log search should work like other searches, and should be able to find information on a deleted article based on a keyword from the article title. This would cut down on confusion by people using the log search like they use all other searches in Wikipedia and not being able to find information on an article. If you agree with this enhancement/bug, please vote for this report on bugzilla: Bug#21555: search on keyword - rather than requiring exact title including punctuation. Thanks. stmrlbs|talk 01:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Live merging RfC about to be closed

I responded to a request at WP:AN for an uninvolved admin to close the WP:RFC about live merges that was opened on this talk page on 16 October. My draft closure is being offered for review here on my talk page. Please comment there, if you have an opinion on whether the discussion is correctly summarized. The draft result is that the existing language at WP:Guide to deletion that advises against merging content from an article while an AfD is still running is affirmed. Participants support the view that an editor should wait until the AfD is closed before doing the merge. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 06:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Nominate own article?

I've been working a bit on Rachel Uchitel, and I'm pretty sure someones going to nominate it at some point. I don't really want to waste my time working on it if the result will be delete. Do we have any rules or norms on nominating just to get it over with, either way? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anything on the AfD project page which lists any such limitations. ArcAngel (talk) 02:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

You could just merge it to some omnibus TW article. It's a likely search term and would make a good redirect. Protonk (talk) 03:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Voting icons

I've noticed that in the last week or so we've had a sudden rush of editors putting and symbols with their recommendations in AfD discussions. I know that we have a couple of discussions about this over the last year or two with the consensus being against using these icons as they make AfD look like even more of a vote than it already is, and they are visually distracting (sorry, but I don't have the time to search the discussions out from the archives right now). Should we put a note into Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to discuss an AfD explaining that these should not be used? I also suspect, because of the sudden coincidence of several editors doing this, that there is a template or script being used that adds these icons. Can anyone confirm whether this is the case? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me I've seen some variation on those before and they were deleted. The images should be deleted, and they should not be used. Not just because of WP:NOTAVOTE but Wikipedia:Accessibility as well (do the images read as "keep" and "delete" with Wikipedia:Alternative text for images?). I suppose previous discussions on this matter should be found and something written into the appropriate section(s) of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and other pages. Шизомби (talk) 21:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Archive_38#stupid_bloody_icons, Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Archive_42#Images_in_voting, Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/April-May_2006#Influx_of_Icons are a few. KILL THEM WITH FIRE. Шизомби (talk) 21:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I personally don't care, but it does get peoples' hackles up. they tend to get deleted or otherwise pruned. Protonk (talk) 22:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I've recently seen an editor going around using WP:SIMPLEVOTE to make votes. This automatically adds the problematic images. Them From Space 23:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] AfDs without replies

Hi: I've noticed an increasing number of AfDs which get closed (after multiple relistings) with nonexistent or very little participation. I'm wondering if there's anything we could do about this - perhaps somebody with a bot could whip up a list of discussions due to be closed with little participation? Ray^Talk 22:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Delete as PROD?

For discussions with Less than a certain minimum number of people saying "Delete" and nobody saying "keep" after 2 weeks, I think we should allow a "Prod-like delete without prejudice to restoration/re-creation" to happen, even if the article was previous PRODded. An article with a nomination but insufficient discussion doesn't warrant the protection against re-creation that an AFD provides, but it doesn't warrant a no-consensus/default keep either.

The minimum should be the same as the minimum to close in 1 week without re-listing.

Scenarios:

At least a the minimum participation after week 1: Close per consensus or no consensus.
Less than the minimum after week 1: Re-list.

At the minimum after 2 weeks: Close per consensus or no consensus.
Less than the minimum after ~~few~~2 weeks: If unanimous, close as delete without prejudice to restoration, otherwise close as keep or no consensus/default keep.

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC) changed few to 2 davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

This sounds like something we could try. I think sometimes, a single delete is sufficient (particularly if it comes in addition to the nominator), so we needn't set any fast-and-hard rules, but I think giving admins the option to close as a "PROD-like delete w/o prejudice against recreation" is probably a good idea in cases like these. Anybody else want to chime in? Ray^Talk 19:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Frankly just the nom is effectively a prod and I would support treating such cases as defacto prods. The closing admin should obviously note this in their closing statement. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

No the last time; no this time. –Whitehorse1 20:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The full previous discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 53#Proposal, treat AFDs with little or no discussion as "uncontested_prods". It was heavily opposed. A key difference between that proposal and this one is that this one kicks in after 2 weeks, not one. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I know, I'd wikilinked the 2nd word of my 7 word comment to it. My original argument, and I daresay many others in the earlier discussion, apply as much to 2 weeks as one. –Whitehorse1 23:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes. There is both no reason to keep articles that no one has defended in 7 days, let alone two weeks, and likewise there is no reason to NOT restore the article per request vs. a recreation being G4-able. Jclemens (talk) 21:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The intent is to do something with articles that have 1 or 2 or some other very small number of "deletes" but no "keeps" after a relisting. Right now, it's either relist over and over until you get enough discussion, close as delete with prejudice against re-creation, which is unfair if there isn't enough community input, or close as "no consensus to delete" which, while technically accurate, tends to leave low-quality articles nobody cares to improve lying around. To prevent the case of a contested prod turning into a prod-by-AFD in a short period of time, I would be find adding a requirement that there be no contested prod or heavy editing in, say, the last 6 months, without the consent of the editors who obviously care about the article. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) My problem with the proposal as described is that it includes the words "even if the article was previous PRODded". This goes beyond what can be deleted with WP:PROD, which can't be used if deletion has previously been contested by any means, so the title of this section does not accurately describe what is being proposed here, and I get the impression (correct me if I'm wrong) that the respondents above have replied to what they thought was meant by "Delete as PROD?" rather than the actual wording, which goes beyong PROD. If these words were removed, and we had the safeguard that substantial contributors to the article must have been informed about the deletion discussion, and after deletion must be informed about how to contest it, I would support this proposal. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I would think that if a previous PROD was contested, either before or after, and an AfD fails to draw any support for the article over an entire week of public listing, it is not an unreasonable result to again delete the article, while still allowing future challenges to restore the article without discussion, just as if was a "second" prod. Jclemens (talk) 23:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Delete as PROD - revised

I've read through the above and through the old discussions and I think this meets most objections other than those who objected to the idea at all.

Problem: AFD is a busy place and some articles don't get sufficient discussion to determine consensus even after two weeks. Some of these articles have good deletion rationales.

Proposal: Allow but not require an admin-initiated PROD immediately after an AFD on the following conditions:

The AFD has been up for at least two weeks with no suggestions other than DELETE but an insufficient number of DELETEs to close with a consensus to delete. Suggest "sufficient number" be 3, including the nomination.

3 is a straw-man number, 2 or 4 is okay with me.
There has been no good-faith AFD or PROD in the last 12 months, OR all objecting to deletion are now in favor of deletion or were more than 3 years ago.

12 months is a strawman number. 6, 9, 18, or 24 months are fine with me, but it shouldn't be forever.

3 years is a strawman number, 1, 2, 4 or 5 years is okay by me, but it shouldn't be forever.
The AFD would be closed with language saying "closed to go to PROD, insufficient discussion to determine consensus."
Administrators would have the option of continuing to re-list or !voting "keep," likely forcing a no-consensus/default keep closure by the next admin who sees it.

Administrators would be expected to use WP:Common sense and not let AFDs of encyclopedic material with a weak or WP:IDONTLIKEIT nominations go to PROD, but close them as "no consensus," in much the same way they should be declining PRODs of encyclopedic articles with an unsound PROD concern.

Proposed modifications:

Allow non-admin relistings
Allow non-admin closing as no consensus.
Allow non-admin close-to-prod
Allow bot close-to-prod.

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Delete as PROD - revised - discussion

Support as initial proponent. I like this, and I like non-admin relistings. I'm not sure about non-admin closing as no consensus, a !vote to keep would be better. We might try allowing non-admin close-to-prod at a later time. Likewise, I wouldn't want a bot to close-to-prod unless the bot was acting on an "admin approved to go to prod" tag placed on the AFD shortly before the 14th day was up. I want a human to decide if it goes to PROD or not, the bot can do the mechanical work after the 14-day AFD+relisting timer expires. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

A non-admin can do anything except delete an article. There are no other restrictions.--Scott Mac (Doc) 01:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

By convention, non-admins are not supposed to close AFDs unless it's a clear keep, "no consensus" closures are supposed to be left to admins, even though no tools other than a brain and good judgment are required. As I see it, this is for 3 reasons: 1) admins are supposed to be more experienced and better judges than non-admins - yes, many non-admins are more than qualified, but see #2; 2) admins have been through a community process that says "we trust your judgment," and 3) because of #2, people are less likely to argue with an admin no-consensus closure than the same closure by a non-admin. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Addendum I might allow a close-to-prod by a bot if there were no previous AFDs or PRODs, as long as it was clear to the closing admin of a PROD that he might be the first human to lay eyes on it in 3 weeks. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I've been on this project 4 years now, and I've never heard of this. A good close is a good close, a bad close is a bad close - who does it is not relevant. Adminship is not a "levelling up" it is just some tools. I'm no longer an admin, but would not hesitate to close an afd in anything other than delete circumstance (I did so before I was an admin too, no one ever objected.) See WP:CREEP--Scott Mac (Doc) 01:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion

One way round this, which would not require any change in major policy, or new delete default, would be to set a bot to close all AfDs where only the nominator has commented. They would be closed as "no consensus". However, if there has been no prior prod, the bot would put a prod tag on the article giving the reason used for the AfD. Then if there are no further objections in 5 days, the article goes on prod terms (undelete on request).

As a first step, someone might want to see how many of these afds that get relisted because of zero comments have never been prodded, and thus should have been prodded rather than afd'd.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I like this, but we would have to change the "no 2nd PROD" rule and decide if we want to handle cases where the last prod was recent vs. ages ago. I think if there was no PROD in recent history this will work well, if there was it could cause problems if the last de-prodder is on a wikibreak. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

We'd need to change the "no prod if it has been afd'd" rule to allow a prod where there had been an afd with no keeps. I think that's still in the spirit of it, as the point of is "no prod if anyone has previously objected to deletion". I think there's more chance of getting this approved if it is only for articles which have not previously been deprodded.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm in quite serious danger here of agreeing with Scott about an issue of deletion policy - I must be going soft in my old age. The only thing that I would like to add is that the "no prod if it has been afd'd" rule should be changed only for the situation where a prod tag is placed on the article immediately after the uncontested AfD. If there is a time lag then the subject may have gained additional notability or consensus may have changed. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

If a bot were to send this to PROD it would have to be for articles that had never been to AFD or PROD before, ever, OR for articles which all previous opponents of deletion explicitly conceded to deletion. Also, I would recommend that a human give the nomination a once-over for soundness before allowing a bot to do the AFD->PROD conversion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Contents