Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Note that I had trouble making my first submission of an AfD, begging pardon of more experienced editors.
Jujutacular (talk | contribs)
19,031 edits
Line 224: Line 224:


I've tried to read the documentation, but I must still be making some subtle mistake as I try to nominate [[Civiq Society]] for deletion. Somehow the process, even with the slick templates, isn't as automatically doing what's expected as I had expected. I beg the pardon of administrators and other Wikipedians looking at my first attempt to post here. I'll have to think about how to do usability testing of the process of submitting articles for administrative deletion. -- [[User:WeijiBaikeBianji|WeijiBaikeBianji]] ([[User talk:WeijiBaikeBianji|talk]]) 19:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I've tried to read the documentation, but I must still be making some subtle mistake as I try to nominate [[Civiq Society]] for deletion. Somehow the process, even with the slick templates, isn't as automatically doing what's expected as I had expected. I beg the pardon of administrators and other Wikipedians looking at my first attempt to post here. I'll have to think about how to do usability testing of the process of submitting articles for administrative deletion. -- [[User:WeijiBaikeBianji|WeijiBaikeBianji]] ([[User talk:WeijiBaikeBianji|talk]]) 19:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
:The only thing you did wrong was step 2, the creation of the nomination page. I have [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FCiviq_Society&action=historysubmit&diff=375784222&oldid=375749285 fixed] the formatting using this template: {{TL|afd2}}. '''[[User:Jujutacular|<span style="color:#006400;">Jujutacular</span>]]'''&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Jujutacular|T]]&nbsp;·&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Jujutacular|C]]</sup> 19:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:35, 27 July 2010

Do AfD's need overhauling?

maybe overhaul was a little too ambitious, perhaps tweak?

Ok now unless i've missed something Wikipedia is against the use of voting unless it is an absolute must. But im confused as to why voting seems to be the only deciding factor in AfD. Comments made by individual users do not seem to be taken into account if anything the number of votes seems to count more than the supporting policies used and arguments put forward in each of the opposing points of view. Additionally although anyone can close an AfD there doesn't appear to be guidance of when its appropriate to do so (please point out politely if i'm wrong). I just think that somewhere within the AfD there is probably cause and reason to streamline the process (make it easier to open/close debates) as well as make them more efficient and meaningful. My comments come on the back of several recent AfDs i've been involved in recently and/or reserved. What do others think? Regards, Lil-unique1 (talk) 21:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Mostly I've seen AFDs go smoothly, with discussions taking place to decide consensus about the fate of articles. Can you list specific instances where you feel this was not the case? If you feel a specific AFD was closed incorrectly, the place to discuss it is WP:DRV. The discussions are closed 7 days after they are opened. If the admin evaluating the AFD feels that consensus has not been reached, they may relist it for further discussion. Hope this helps. Jujutacular T · C 22:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ok for example this Afd i understand that i nominated the article for deletion and that only my opinions were the only one's supporting the article's deletion but it kinda seemed like the fact that i had applied relevant wikipedia policies WP:GNG, WP:NSONGS etc my comments meant nothing simply for the fact the two people voted in favour of keeping the article. Its happened a couple of times. This is not me winging at AfD for it being unfair, at the end of the day i always except WP:consensus. I am bringing this up as part of my work reviewing how things work on wikipedia. I'm not part of a taskforce or anything i guess im a one-man mission occassionally bringing up discussion about policies and and processes. I just wondered if the community also felt that maybe the process of AfD should be reviewed? one concern that i have with AfD is that consensus appears to be given more relevance that policy and guideline. Regards, Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your thoughts, but I don't think it's any fault of the AFD process. Jujutacular T · C 00:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bring at DRV if you have problems with an AfD closure. I can assure you that voting is not the only deciding factor at AfDs, but the amount of opinions has some weight, of course. --Cyclopiatalk 00:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Outdent) I'm the "non admin snout counter" who closed the AFD given as an example. I sympathize with the nominator. Two !votes is barely enough comments to make a consensus and one of the !votes was pretty weak but I usually don't relist non-blp articles a second time without a good reason and in this case I didn't see one. On hindsite I probably should have closed it the way I close most of these low participation album/song AFDs like this one and this one.

Lil-unique1, I suggest you BOLDly redirect the article to Before I Self Destruct as I suggested in my closing statement and see if it sticks. If it doesn't then wait a reasonable length of time and nominate it again. For such a weak consensus IMHO a month would be reasonable. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the number of people supporting an article appears to sway a "keep" decision. Some editors vote to retain almost any article while inherently POV articles may actually be saved by editors with POVs. Here is an example of an article that I successfully nominated for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (4th nomination). It was about a Canadian poet/artist about whom not a single article or mention had been made in any Canadian newspaper, including free local newspapers. However it managed to survive three AfDs. TFD (talk) 04:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For once, please don't claim credit where credit isn't due. After several months of a roaring battle at ArbCom between EEML factions, a BLP article about one of the EEML members -- with books and poetry in anthologies and Canadian papers such as The Street -- has been deleted at the 4th nom, but only after other users' canvassing among mutual enemies, coupled with some off-wiki shenanigans. This is a bad example of an error. -- Tatry (talk) 17:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So what do we think about AfD? do we think the process works effectively? Regards, Lil-unique1 (talk) 13:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The error rate is rather high in both directions. I think that about 20 - 25% of the decisions are in error: 10- 15% of the articles deleted should not have been, and 5 - 10% of the keeps likewise. Another person might reverse the proportions, but I think anyone who works there is aware of the errors and inconsistencies. There is a limit to which a process like this can be approved: any procedure depending on a self-appointed jury and a self-appointed judge is going to be subject to bias. I think we could do considerably better--but i don't think we'll ever get the error rate below 10%. the way to get it down to that level is increased participation by people other than those who care most about the article--if all active editors commented on merely one or two a day, we'd do much better.

The people who complain about counting in any given case have a tendency to be the people who are in the minority, whichever side that may be. The people who complain about administrative judgment in a particular decision are, similarly, usually the people the admin decides against. I've learned if I close non-consensus, both sides usually attack me. But in general I do not think it is the business of the closer to decide between two conflicting policies or to make their own interpretation of contested specific details. Their job is to discard arguments not based on any policy, or, sometimes, by SPAs, and then judge consensus. The assumption in closing is that after discarding non-arguments, the consensus view will be the correct one, and that any neutral admin would agree. Thus there is in theory no difference between closing per the majority and closing per the strongest argument. But when there is a real dispute on what argument is relevant, the closer is not to decide between them , but close according to what most people in the discussion say. Not an exact count--it's only a rough consensus. DGG ( talk ) 04:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. There is a fundamental problem with the consensus model and it DOES hold back higher quality product from prevailing within the project (lots of stuff gets created and lots of fun is done in editing and warring and participating...but high quality product is rare here (and ephemeral).

2. I think at a minimum, there could be a set amount of time for AFDs (I suggest a week). this really wouldn't address the major issue of 1, but would be an easy start towards formalizing how to close. Other steps, like having a special power for closing AFDs or haiving admins handle or something would be useful (AFD handling is already a big part of admin process voting). And pre-emptively, if anyone has an issue with 1 week deadline, think about it. Sure an individual, might miss the AFD if on wikibreak, but if the COMMUNITY can't defend (or attack) an article within a week, then it doesn't deserve to live (or die). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.39.78 (talk) 02:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AFD step 2 request

Saul Farber - as usual, deletion rationale can be found on the article talk page. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 17:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done VernoWhitney (talk) 18:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

dumbcountingbot

Hi

Cna anyone explain what is going on with this count ?

AfD = Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Palaeoarchaeology Count = [1]

You can clearly see that as of right now there are 1 for delete and 3 for keep. The toolserver page has 5 votes, instead of 4, and has counted one user twice even though he tried striking out the word "Delete" and then redacted it it still has him in "delete" and in "keep"

Its not the first time this has happened - anyone know why it's doing it or how to fix it ? Chaosdruid (talk) 23:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


It also should note "double votes" as a rule -- turns out that if a nom then !votes, he gets counted as two !votes <g>. Collect (talk) 13:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Help!

Twinkle has played up and created two nominations to delete No Love (Eminem song) even though I only intended creating one report. How can we put the situation right? Lil-unique1 (talk) 00:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly delete Social networking spam

Hello. I'm not exactly sure of the process for proposing articles for deletion and I decided it would probably be best to ask if someone would please help out and propose it for me (Assuming it warrants deletion.).

Social networking spam is IMO a pretty pointless article that could be merged into a more general Spam article. There doesn't appear to be anyone really taking interest in it and half the content is made up of a Social Engineering Attack that doesn't even appear to be terribly notable.

Thanks. Bios Element (talk) 07:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting when there's a clear consensus for Keep because 'it's a BLP'

I've seen a few discussions relisted recently where the consensus is for keeping, but someone has decided that it needs to be relisted anyway because the article is a BLP. Is this specified anywhere in a policy (I can't find it)? Should admins be relisting in this way or should they simply be closing the discussions as keep as they would for any other article. I'm not asking for a debate on whether we should have unsourced (but demonstrably sourceable) BLPs, so please don't start one. I'd just like to know what the agreed process is. When sources have been identified and notability demonstrated, relisting in this way could be interpreted as trying to force the article to be cleaned up, which isn't the purpose of AFD. Thanks.--Michig (talk) 05:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I admit I've done that a few times. If I see a discussion on the closable log with 2 or 3 weak keep !votes and it's on a Pokemon I might close it but if it's about a living person then I would like to see a few more !votes grounded in policy. Also, BLP AFDs are usually the only ones I'll relist twice. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overlooked AFD?

I've just stumbled back on this old AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Land ownership in the Marshall Islands. I've noticed that it hasn't been edited since 19th June (by me I admit) and is way overdue for closure so can this be adressed? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 09:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

should AfDs be restricted as to frequency for a single article?

At what point, if any, does it appear that AfDs are being used on a single article in excess frequency? After a close as "Keep" for an article, should it be kept from AfD for 2 weeks? 12 weeks" 24 weeks? Where "no consensus" is a result, and several AfDs on the same article are closed as such, should the article be kept from AfD for 2 weeks? 12 weeks? 24 weeks? I note this as several articles now appear to appear on a regular basis here, even after multiple closes on prior AfDs. Collect (talk) 14:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not only should the keep|no_consensus status, but the number of AfDs should enter into it. "Keep" gets, say, twice the grace period of a "No Consensus", and the first (regardless of which it is) is three months, then add three or six months after the second, six or twelve after the third, ... we need to concentrate on making more and better articles, not discarding them. htom (talk) 14:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think we need a bright line. I know I tend to look more skeptically on quick-repeat nominations, and they don't tend to succeed, even if no one speedy closes the subsequent nom and points the nominator to DRV. In this case, I think it would simply be adding another layer of bureaucracy to say "no nominations for X time, unless Y, in which case Z...", but I think a note at WP:OUTCOMES that quickly repeated nominations tend to not succeed without a really good reason might be appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 14:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no set guideline for this, and shouldn't be. We close AFDs as disruptive on a regular basis, but after judging the individual cases. Most of the articles that are perennial AFD candidates really are problematic, and generally should have been deleted on the second pass. There's no reason to afford them any extra protection.—Kww(talk) 14:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Jclemens. It is easy to imagine a situation where a quick renomination is in order. If the article is first kept because the subject is "notable", but it later transpires that everything in the article is an elaborate hoax, then a renomination at AFD at any time is appropriate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Usually when an article is nominated for deletion problems are identified that must be addressed. I have been involved in AfDs where the article was inadequately sourced, but the AfD led to the finding of adequate sources. However if these issues cannot be addressed, for example it is about a person for whom no reliable sources exist, then there is every reason to re-nominate it. Consider this AfD,[2] where an article was deleted by overwhelming consensus on the fourth nomination. The problem I see is that there are numerous editors who will vote to keep an article without actually reading it or looking for sources.— Preceding unsigned comment added by The Four Deuces (talk • contribs)
  • Sjakkalle makes a good point, but I think that in general repeated nominations of an article are disruptive, unless there is (a)a significant change in relevant policies/guidelines since last AfD that puts the article into jeopardy (b)discovery of a new and urgent significant concern (like the "elaborate hoax" Sjakkalle example). This is because repating nominations is akin to forum shopping: it means you try and try and try until even by sheer chance you get the result you want. Consensus can change, but we should avoid polling it continuously until it changes the way we like (This holds not only for AfDs, by the way). In my opinion, if an article passes AfD 3 times in a row, then it should be left alone unless one of the two conditions above is met. --Cyclopiatalk 15:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand your question. Meeting one of the condition should be indicated clearly in the nominating rationale (like "WP:GREENALIENS used to indicate that green aliens required three Martian sources to be considered notable; but now the consensus version of WP:GREENALIENS requires five Martian sources. Since our article on Xyxz Xyxz has only three Martian sources, I renominate for deletion..."). Of course if the nom doesn't do that, the admin should speedily close. --Cyclopiatalk 17:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the current system is ok. Limiting AfDs might be difficult to enforce and more hassle than its worth. Imagine an article is deleted through AfD and then recreated at a later stage (maybe a week or days later). It should be one's right to nominate the article again if even after improvements it still fails to meet notability. However obviously if the the same editor keeps nominating the article then we have an issue as is there a problem if an article is nominated multiple times in a short space of time. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 17:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't need a bright line. Unless we can show that the rule would solve an extant problem and would be the best way to solve that problem, we shouldn't make the rule. People are smart enough to notice rapid fire AfDs and adjust their votes accordingly. Protonk (talk) 17:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak IS Weak

What is with this "Weak Delete" and "Weak Keep" nonsense? If you're taking the time to investigate an article proposed for deletion, do everyone a favor and be decisive. There's no such thing as a "weak delete." A deleted article is DELETED, not gently erased so a soft after-image can be discerned if one stares long enough at what was once there. And there's no such thing as a 'weak keep.' If an article merits retention, it stays. If you can't figure out what side of the fence to come down on, leave a comment, or better yet, just leave.Mtiffany71 (talk) 20:46, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is not a vote. Expressing one's opinion to be weakly held is part and parcel of consensus-building. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why would that be necessary? When you're in an XfD, you make and weigh the relevant arguments. If you are leaning one direction but are not entirely convinced, or your argument hinges on a presumption, then a "weak" opinion is perfectly appropriate. Indeed, in my experience weak opinions tend to be the most informative on contentious XfDs, as they usually are the ones that attempt to balance the various arguments rather than pre-judging the subject. --erachima talk 22:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, if you've done a thorough analysis of a subject for AFD and can't figure out what side of the fence to come down on, please still voice your opinion. Why waste all that time for nothing? Jujutacular T · C 22:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I often use weak, to indicate that I incline in a certain direction, but am not sure about it & don't want to get into an argument defending my position. I hope people look upon thetwo as different statements. DGG ( talk ) 08:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've found that the comments proffered as "weak" (and sometimes, but not as frequently, as "strong") are often ones where the person making the commentary has put careful thought into the comment, and sees both sides of the issue. I see no problem with noting the strength of your position. If I feel that an article probably ought to be deleted, but I don't feel so strongly, that's worth noting. I've used "weak" modifiers when, for example, I know that I'm not an expert on the subject in question, but have a point that I think is worth considering in the debate.
That an article cannot be "weakly deleted" is a red herring. "Weak" refers to the strength of the opinion, not to the type of action. TJRC (talk) 22:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's actually a four-year-old essay on this topic. Wikipedia:Adjectives in your votes. I think it's poorly named (see the talk page of it), but agree with some of the sentiment. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 16:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

use of voting symbols in AFDs

Per long consensus en does not allow the use of voting symbols to displace discussion but I'm increasingly seeing them in AFDs. Is there a view on whether or not we should remove them? Spartaz Humbug! 07:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should keep them out, but I looked at today's log and yesterday's and didn't see a single one.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 07:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, maybe it was just a flash in the pan from the open afds from the log I just worked through? Spartaz Humbug! 07:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You may as well remove them when you see them, but I haven't noticed any recently. --erachima talk 07:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Step 2 of AFD process needed

I expect a few of these now that User:PSBot/Deprods makes it easier to find articles that have been deprodded with no valid reasoning. As per instructions, deletion rationale can be found on the article's talk page. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 18:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have created the AfD page, as you requested, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Space Cadets (trilogy). If you are going to AfD more than a few articles, I suggest that you register an account. As a registered user, you'll be able to create AfD pages yourself. Nsk92 (talk) 18:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notifying interested people

Notifying interested people says, "While it is sufficient to list an article for discussion at AfD, nominators and others sometimes want to attract more attention from and participation by informed editors. Keep in mind that all such efforts must comply with Wikipedia's guideline against biased canvassing." In a recent AfD, an editor canvassed other editors who had commented on a previous AfD. It seems to me that contacting these editors would tend to bias the outcome of the new AfD since the results of previous AfDs had been "no consensus" or "keep". I suggest that we add to this section instructions that previous participants of AfDs should not be notified. TFD (talk) 16:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The precise usage was to everyone regardless of position who had opined at the first AfD which was a "no consensus" close. This is now forum shopping at its worst, and since the WP:CANVASS specifically states "everytone" should be notified, then that is that. Note that two separate admins have opined, and this was also deliberately asked at [3]. Asking here when it has already been asked at a proper noticeboard is forum shopping. Collect (talk) 17:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree that the above post by The Four Deuces should be considered forum shopping. The issue is eminently relevant to this page also. Many people do not frequent both pages. I appreciate though you posting the link to the other discussion. __meco (talk) 10:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of those happy occasions where I agree with Meco. No forum shopping here, this is a totally appropriate post for this page. I do not think Collect's actions were proper but I don't see any policy violation. Verbal chat 12:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While I have concerns about the number of users notified (WP:CANVASS says "limited posting", but also says "everyone", as Collect mentions), I would be opposed to strictly not allowing notification of previously involved users. WP:CANVASS specifically mentions that this may be appropriate. Jujutacular T · C 18:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opposed - Notifying everyone involved in a previous AfD with a very neutral message, as Collect did in this case, is not canvasing, per WP:CANVASS, despite the fact that there were a large number of notifications. I do not support limiting the sending of extremely short, neutral, and non-partisan messages to all participants in a previous AfD. However, I think it would be better if there were a mechanism to automatically alert all those that previously participated, such as automatic watchlisting of the new AfD. Part of the general problem with AfD is that the "jury" is a self selected sample of the editor population. Self selection makes for extremely bad statistics and a potentially grotesquely bad jury bias, which can result in skewed decisions that do not reflect the general consensus of the Wikipedia editor community. People participate in deletion discussions for a variety of reasons. Although assuming AGF, I suspect there are more bad reasons than good ones. Anything that increases non-partisan, transparent, thoughtful, and diverse participation in deletion discussions is a good thing, as it moves a bit toward the ideal randomly selected "jury" with a large sample size. [Disclosure: I have bumped into Collect in more than a few AfDs, and respect him.] — Becksguy (talk) 19:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • TFD suggested "that we add to this section instructions that previous participants of AfDs should not be notified". I assume this is what Becksguy opposes. Jujutacular T · C 19:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correct, I oppose changing the process to disallow notifying previous AfD participants. I support notifying everyone, as long as it's neutral and non-partisan. Keep the status quo, in other words. — Becksguy (talk) 02:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find that notifying users of AfDs is a good thing as it gives more accurate results that are less likely to be disputed later on. I do not, however, believe we should require such notifications, per instruction creep concerns, and prefer the notifications to be given in public venues (WikiProjects, Village Pump, etc.) rather than specifically to users, so as to avoid concerns with biased canvassing. --erachima talk 19:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it's a new discussion, then VP or Wikiproject pages are fine. When it's a continuation of a previous discussion--as a new XfD or RfC revisiting a topic--then Collect's actions are eminently correct: Notify everyone equally and neutrally. Jclemens (talk) 19:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My concern is that if any article has failed to be deleted, then contacting persons involved in the previous discussion(s) will likely result in the same decision. People who have voted one way, in this case to "keep", are likely to repeat their votes with the result of either "keep" or "no consensus". (Note that articles are generally kept when a sizeable number of votes are for keeping.) The comparison with a jury is apt. When a case is re-tried the original jury is not invited back, even though they are knowledgeable about the case. Most people who vote in AfDs do not follow the articles they vote on and if they do they are notified by the notice placed on the article. Say for example one sends a "neutral' notice to 10 people who voted to keep and 3 people who voted to delete. In the second AfD, they repeat their votes, but now 10 new editors vote to delete and 3 to keep. While the decision would be "no consensus", it might have gone differently without canvassing. In other words, canvassing can affect the result. Note to Collect - please do not see this as personal criticism of yourself, which was not my intention. I merely wish that the instructions were clear on this point. TFD (talk) 01:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're assuming two things wrong, as far as I can see:
    • 1) Assuming that those who've !voted one way will !vote that way again. People can change their minds, lose interest and not participate, and/or be convinced by new evidence to change their !votes.
    • 2) Assuming that eliminating a hypothetical bias towards keeping an article is a Bad Thing. If it's already been kept once in a full AfD discussion, there should really be an entirely overwhelming consensus to remove it. Consensus CAN change... but artificially eliminating prior interested parties is a recipe for inconsistency in outcomes, not in judging actual consensus change. Jclemens (talk) 02:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Indeed, that is the key point in my opinion. Consensus can change, especially if new arguments are made. I have certainly been invited back to discussions (in a non-partisan fashion), and changed my mind based on new arguments/evidence given. Jujutacular T · C 03:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • In the case at hand, at least one person specifically did weigh all the new material, and had a different opinion than held on the first AfD, proving the point. Collect (talk) 12:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think that making a judicious, impartial decision to notify participants in a past AfD is a bad idea under a few circumstances. If the new AfD was created to expressly deal with errors made in a previous nomination or if the new AfD otherwise relies heavily on arguments from the last AfD (leaning either delete or keep) then notification may be prudent. But in most cases notification is undertaken by an interested party with an aim in mind. Overwhelmingly the notifications themselves aren't canvassing and I don't believe that the notifiers usually intend to canvass, but in many cases the person writing and distributing the notification has some skin in the game. Beyond that many AfDs are either 2nd 3rd or 4th bites at the apple for deletion, with no real interaction between different nomination. Obviously some arguments are made more persuasively in a 2nd afd than in a 3rd (see Talk:Dragon_kill_points for the 2nd and 3rd AfDs as great examples of this), but plenty of AfD are flooded with argumentation and just as many starve without it.
  • I've tried to just enumerate arguments against blanket notification, not against allowing notification at all. We should be cautious about enacting rules against relatively neutral communication without exceptionally good reason to do so. However, the WP community has a nasty habit of allowing practices like notification to grow and entrench themselves until they become rote or worse, automated. I don't want to have AfDs move to an equilibrium where notification is the norm. So we shouldn't strengthen the language, but we should remain cautious about allowing our use of notifications to expand beyond reason. Protonk (talk) 07:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fact very few people change their votes. An example I came across was an article about a Canadian poet/artist who had not been mentioned in any Canadian newspapers.[4] 26 editors voted to delete on the fourth AfD, while 3 voted to keep. Of those 3, two had voted to keep in previous votes. There are far too many articles about non-notable subjects and topics that are not supported by external sources. TFD (talk) 19:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opposed The change should be in the opposite direction. Everyone who has participated in previous AfDs should be automatically notified, as well as anyone making significant contributions to the article or its talk page. There is no reason to assume bias: true, if an article was kept at a prior AfD, there must have been more people supporting than opposing it, but if it warrants a subsequent AfD, there must have been nearly as many people in the other direction also. I agree with Becksguy about the self-selected jury problem, and the way to deal with it is to encourage as much participation as possible. I see non-notification as sometimes a deliberate intention of trying by chance to have a different outcome by repeated nomination. If we make a 20% error in AfDs, 4 nominations has a better than even chance of deleting anything. DGG ( talk ) 08:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AFD Step 2 request

can someone convert Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/List of surviving F-4 Phantom IIs to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of surviving F-4 Phantom IIs ?

76.66.193.119 (talk) 20:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Jujutacular T · C 20:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AFD Step 2 request (Peckhammer TV, July 2010)

Can someone create a deletion discussion for Peckhammer TV, please? A speedy deletion template (G4) was removed, so discussion is needed. The article appears to reproduce the content of another article which was previously deleted pursuant to a deletion discussion. It contains numerous references, but none of the referenced secondary sources actually appear to mention the article subject itself, so the notability problems that were the reason for the original deletion don't seem to be resolved. Further discussion seems warranted. I've flagged the page accordingly and am posting this request per instructions at Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion. Thanks! 67.127.57.254 (talk) 22:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 09:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

an Article that is a sub-page of another Article

I moved it to [White Lies (1967 stage play), but I wanted the redirect article to be removed so I put Deletion template on it's main page.Although Tedder removed it, so now I'm not sure whether it should be removed or not.
Should it be removed? And if it should can anyone remove it?N.samimi island (talk) 15:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

no deletion argument except the nom

"no deletion argument except the nom" is a closing admin's remark explaining why an article was kept that I read recently (I did not participate in it). Is that common/acceptable? It seems to favor closing by vote counting rather than by weighing arguments made in the discussion, which I thought was frowned upon. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 16:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. Do you recall where/roughly when the last discussion was, was it here? Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 16:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the original poster is talking about AFDs where there is participation but everybody's saying "keep" except the nom. While it's true that the closer is supposed to weigh arguments and not just count snouts, he also has to judge consensus and if nobody but the nominator is saying "delete" then, "keep" !votes strong or weak, there's no consensus to delete. For an admin to delete anyway in that situation is called a "supervote" and that's generally discouraged. The only exception would be in cases where there are WP:V or WP:BLP issues or if it's discovered that the article is a copyright violation. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, right, that's the kind of situation I meant. I see what you mean about the supervote, although it seems problematic to close if the deletion argument is well-made and the keep arguments are poor or nonexistent. There can be a good consensus because of good arguments and a poor consensus because of poor arguments, it seems to me. In such a case, possibly relisting the AfD might be appropriate? Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 04:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incubation during an AfD

I was checking through my recent AfD contributions, and noticed that in this one, two admins disagreed about whether or not this was a CSD G4 candidate (an article that was a carbon-copy of the previously deleted version). It troubles me that editors who are deemed by the community to have good judgement could starkly disagree on such a clear-cut CSD criteria, but that's a discussion for another day.

In future cases, would it be possible to temporarily incubate the previously deleted version, where an assertion of failing G4 is made? After all, non-closing admins are normal editors, and this situation leaves non-admins at a disadvantage when trying to reach a judgement. Thanks in advance, --WFC-- 00:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion

I have an article that I think should be deleted. It is South Hills Crossbill and I put my rationale in the talk page for the article. I am unsure whether it should go through AFD or Proposed deletion. When I read the article on proposed deletion it says to use it when it's not a good candidate for speedy deletion or articles for deletion, but it doesn't say when it (affirmatively) should be used. It just then lists the procedure. So I'm unclear as to what I should do. Can anyone help? MDuchek (talk) 16:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My 0.02£: if you're unsure about using PROD, don't use it. PROD is about deletions that should be nearly always uncontested, so if even you have doubts, it means it's not the proper venue. By the way, if you AfD that article, I'd personally argue for keeping it, so PROD is definitely not the way to go (I would contest it with good reasons). You're welcome to seek for community consensus at AfD. --Cyclopiatalk 16:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When you say seek community consensus do you mean ask there or that I should propose it and participate in the discussion? At the very least the article seems like it should be expanded upon. MDuchek (talk) 16:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose it and participate. That said, since you talk about expansion, remember that AfD is not for cleanup: if issues you have with the article can be dealt with editing, our deletion policy asks us not to delete. See also the banner at the top of WP:AFD: For problems that do not require deletion, including duplicate articles, articles needing improvement, pages needing redirects, or POV problems, be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately. - I hope it helps. --Cyclopiatalk 16:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Something about the steps here is puzzling me

I've tried to read the documentation, but I must still be making some subtle mistake as I try to nominate Civiq Society for deletion. Somehow the process, even with the slick templates, isn't as automatically doing what's expected as I had expected. I beg the pardon of administrators and other Wikipedians looking at my first attempt to post here. I'll have to think about how to do usability testing of the process of submitting articles for administrative deletion. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 19:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing you did wrong was step 2, the creation of the nomination page. I have fixed the formatting using this template: {{afd2}}. Jujutacular T · C 19:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion&oldid=375785025"