Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Winged Blades of Godric (talk | contribs) at 08:27, 18 June 2018 (→"AFD is not for redirecting"?: // Edit via Wikiplus/Close). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Give WP:BEFORE some teeth

WP:BEFORE now says: Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects. and goes on to say If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination. Instead, you should consider citing the sources .... However, many nominators apparently do not do such a search, and if asked in the course of an AfD discussion, at least some simply ignore the query. I therefore propose that if an AfD nomination cites notability is the primary reason, or a major reason, for deletion, the nominator must include a description of the search for sources that has been done, and its results. If this is not included, any experienced editor may speedy close the discussion as improperly nominated, although such an editor would have the option of insted doing the WP:BEFORE search and describing it in the discussion. If some editor other than the nominator has done such a search and posted a description to the discussion, then the discussion may not be closed because the nominator omitted to describe such a search.

This should rapidly become a routine part of an AfD nomination. It will not impose any more burden on nominators than WP:BEFORE is now claiming to do, it will merely adress nominations that omit to shoulder that burden. It may keep articles about notable topics, where the article currently lacks citations to sources, from being dragged through an AfD, thereby wasting time and effort. Remember that notability is suposed to be a property of the topic, not of the current state of the article. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:29, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Only if we give it teeth in the other direction. "BEFORE" you start an article, find the references you'll be using for the subject and cite them during your writing, rather than just handwaving that they must be out there somewhere. I understand the frustration of bad nominations, but bad articles are a problem too. Even if the sources are out there somewhere, they should actually get cited, and the writer of the article should have bothered to actually verify they exist, not just guess that they do. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I am sorry, but I must disagree with Seraphimblade on this one. Indeed if we had to enact both my proposal and Seraphimblade's or neither, I would take neither. Let me explain why. I agree that articles should start with sources cited, not assumed. I agree that we must do our best to instruct new editors to do this. But if we delete probably notable but uncited articles, or if we block editors who create such articles in good faith, we will, I think, put off more new users than we educate. I have seen a number of new users start with creating uncited drafts or articles, and by a combination of example and instruction, become editors who are eager to find and add reliable sources, understanding that it is the only way that content will stick over the long term. But I am convinced that had those initial efforts simply been deleted, we would have lost the editors as well as articles on valid topics. This is very much in the spirit of WP:BITE
I must also point out that the verifiablity policy still requires that articles be verifiable, not verified. Strictly speaking, cited sources are only required immediately for direct quotations or close paraphrase, for contentious or negative content about a living person, and for content that has been or is likely to be challenged. Many articles are perfectly policy compliant with zero citations. General references, although not considered best practice, are also still acceptable according to our policies an guidelines. Now maybe some would like to change that policy, but it hsn't happened yet.
Now perhaps I have misunderstood what Seraphimblade is proposing. Is it that articles be summarily deleted for not being created with sufficient source citations? Or that users be warend an perhaps blocked for creating such articles? If neither of those, what are you proposing? Please be clear. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:41, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@DESiegel: I don't think it should be a speedy criterion, nor a reason for a block (unless an editor's doing it disruptively, but then it's the disruption that's the reason for the block). Maybe just expand BLPPROD to all articles. That gives the creator plenty of time to find and cite at least one reference without the article getting deleted, gives them an easy way to get it undeleted even if they can't do it in time, and still gets across to them that references actually are needed without being overly harsh. And of course that would apply only in mainspace; drafts are expected to be unfinished. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:50, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see, Seraphimblade. That is more moderate and more sensible in my view than what I thought you had in mind. I would still be concerned with the WP:BITE implications -- perhaps if such a PROD could not even be placed for a day or two after an article was created? I see many new editors who get scared off by plain PRODs or contestable speedy tags, or even maintenance tags such as {{refimprove}}, especially when they are placed just minutes after an article is created. Frankly I wish it were the advised best practice tha every article start as a draft --- I now start all of mine that way. I can't get an article in good enough shape for mainspace in a single edit, and if i can't, then I suspect few inexperienced editors can either. But I seriously doubt that such an idea would gain consensus. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I fear that this would be used to blanket shut down in a WP:BITE fashion any AFD noms by inexperienced editors, who may be doing a reasonable initial job of detecting the unnotable even if they don't know how to express/test it. I'd be closer to agreeing that a nomination without a sign of BEFORE could be quickly shut down by an experienced editor who lists significant sources not in the article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:36, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That might be sufficient, NatGertler, or perhaps we could limit the "early close" option to noms by more or less experienced editors. Perhaps it would only apply to those with over a thousand edits, and participation in several AfDs, say? And we could encourage doing a subsequent search rather than closing. I agree that we don't want to discourage inexperienced editors from coming to AfD, but we do neet to get more experieced editors not to take the BEFORE search for granted, in my view. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:47, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Has anyone ever considered the possibility of automatically tagging articles and Drafts with 'No sources' as soon as they are created? The special:NewPagesFeed automatically flags them as such in its list entries. The template on the article would automatically send a message send a message to the creator something like: "Thank you for creating xxxxx. This article cannot (will not?) be published or reviewed until you have supplied WP:Reliable sources that assert notability" ?
The onus is (or should be) on the creator to offer Wikipedia compliant content. Our AfC and New Page reviewers aren't obliged to do their work for them. Trying to is one of the resons for the huge backlogs. Of course, this doesn't prevent anyone from wanting to rescue an article who want to. See also WP:BOGOF in a slightly different context. Much are the problems are due to Wikipeia not providing the right information to new users before they start; what we have is the Article Wizard, but nthat links the user to TL;DR guidelines than take anything up to an hour to wade through - that alone is sufficiently offputting.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:21, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that would be a major mistake, for much the same reasons as i objected to Seraphimblade's suggestion above. I cannot agree that the onus must be entirely on article creations, particularly when thgey are novice editors. If we don't assist and guide novice editors, we will never have the next group of high-quality, experienced editors. If anything, we need to do more of that, not less. I will agree that the Article Wizard could and should be improved. And such automated tagging would be positively perverse when applied to drafts. Drafts are supposed to be incomplete, by design. Even when I start a draft, sources may not be added in the first few edits. Such an automated tag would be massively off-putting to novice editors. And if it is ever implemented, I will advise all new editors to start articles in a userspace page, not in draftspace. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 02:08, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, exactly how would "sources" be automatically recognized. Would only ref-style footnotes count? General refernces are still policy compliant, after all. And i have seen new editors try to cite sources by insertign tjhem as external links inline. This is not MOS-compliant, and needs to be corrected, but the sources are in fact there. Would the automated tool recognize such a situation? if not, it is not good enough to use. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 02:12, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And I still find WP:BOGOF a positivly pernicious essay, and anything supported by it is probably not a good idea. See my last year's comments on its talk page. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 02:24, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hugely agree with giving WP:BEFORE some teeth, no earthly idea how to do it. Am I wrong that it would be sort of a tautology? If you find something, you won't nominate; if you don't, you nominate. If you nominate, and nobody finds anything, WP:BEFORE met; if somebody finds something, WP:BEFORE failed, and the teeth bite you. I do think nominations, as well as some !votes, have gotten lazy lately, merely saying "I did WP:BEFORE, not notable" or something to that effect. The more we can encourage folks to give a clear and meaningful rationale, the better. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:32, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • To some extent it would be, or should be, self-enforcing: f you find something, you won't nominate. The major impact would i think be on borderline cases: the nominator finds something, but thinks it isn't enough, others may disagree. Also, the process of looking may help prevent noms that will otherwise result in keeps, or even in incorrect deletes of notable topics poorly drafted if no one does a search. The "teeth" are merely to encourage and prod nominators to do what they should have been doing all along. Deletion should be a last resort, not a first option. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 02:18, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "WP:BEFORE some teeth, no earthly idea how to do it"? WP:TROUT and WP:Speedy keep for inadequate nominations. Specifically, the nominator must comment on a search for new sources, AND, must comment on an evaluation of the potential for WP:Merge by a Wikipedia search for the topic. To encourage consideration of merging, can we implemtn the following suggestion: Template_talk:Find_sources#A_+wikipedia_search_to_assist_with_consideration_of_the_option_to_merge? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:19, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support for Seraphimblade's teeth on both sides. Nominators should make some check to see if the topic is notable. Article writers should source uploaded content. The onus should be on content uploaders to include the source of the content in the page save when they upload the content. If the content is unsourced, it should be WP:TNTed. Tell authors that content must be sourced, and the onus is on the provider of content to source it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:28, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • When creating a new page, the boiler plate text includes five dot pots:
TL;DR
Can that be condensed?
Dot point 1. OK
Dot point 2. OK, maybe could shorten.
Dot point 3. OK
Dot point 4. Too long. Change to Provide reliable references for this information or it will be deleted.
Dot point 5. OK. Long, but this is the optional slow down becuase the above is too hard.
We don't have to tell article writers at this point the technical boundaries of deletion policy and process. If the material remains unsourced, it should be deleted at AfD, and so the statement ("or it will be deleted") is true. BLPPROD and UNCITEPROD are not enforcement but post-decision execution processes; we can't force people to upload the source information, but we can delete unsourced material.
WP:BITE applies to people, not content. We do not do the newcomers any favours by not speaking plainly about unacceptable content.
To pre-emptively avoid the appearance of biting, all new registrants should be auto-{{welcome}}d. That template is nicely newcomer friendly. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:14, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the last point, the vast majority of Wikimedia projects (i.e. other language Wikipedias, Wiktionaries, etc.) already do this. Why do we not? ansh666 03:18, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Use a bot to welcome new users. —Cryptic 03:31, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Three silly reasons:
1. If a bot is used, it is cold and impersonal, and the bot is incapable of mentoring and assisting newcomers.
Cold is never welcoming a newcomer, and then deleting their work for something they have never been informed about.
2. Many vandals are exposed when an edit made by them receives extra scrutiny because their user or talk page shows as a redlink.
Userpage redlink is good enough for this little trick.
3. The bot would make thousands of pointless edits welcoming vandals and accounts that never make an edit.
WP:PERFORMANCE. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:44, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also want to note that given search engine algorithms, nobody's searches will be the same. If someone who regularly visits websites regarding one topic searches something about that topic, they'll easily find what they're looking for; another person who doesn't may have to go a few pages deep to find the same material, if it even shows up at all - especially if there are many things with similar names in topics that the second person frequents. The failure to find sources that seem to be obvious to the first person doesn't necessarily mean that WP:BEFORE wasn't met by the second. Despite the nominal intent of the process, AfD is a great place to find sources to improve articles from people who may be interested in the topic but perhaps weren't aware that a specific article needed more. ansh666 03:24, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The most likely result I see from such a rule would be additional boilerplate in nominations by users focused on deletion and deletion process ("{{subst:yes i did before}}→I didn't find anything good enough in my own searches either."); and nominations by new users and users who usually stay far away from deletion getting shutdown not on their merits, but on their lack of such boilerplate. The reality is that there's no way to distinguish between someone who didn't search at all, someone who didn't but said they did, and someone who did but just has higher standards than you do. —Cryptic 03:28, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would ask for a mandatory comment by the nominator on their searches. Someone who repeatedly fails to find things that other find will find themselves at the receiving end of searching advice. It would be a self-correcting problem. If the nominator is made aware that they should do a search, that is a good step forward, and probably sufficient. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:41, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the time I've seen "I found these sources" invoked in AFDs where BEFORE was also invoked, the sources didn't actually demonstrate notability or suggest any way the articles' problems could be addressed, and in fact indicated either that the users posting "I found these sources" hadn't actually read the sources before linking to them, that they hadn't read the deletion rationale, or both. If anything I would say that editors who repeatedly fail to not claim they found things that others noticed and rejected for various reasons should be TBANned or otherwise sanctioned in some manner to prevent repeated disruption of this kind. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:39, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose- I'm not against retaining WP:BEFORE as advice describing good practice, and I don't really mind modifying that advice. But I am against making any part of WP:BEFORE mandatory. Experience has shown that it's very often used just to heap contempt and abuse on AfD nominators, and to derail quite adequate nominations on a technicality. BEFORE-thumping does more to poison AfD than a few sloppy nominations, and leaves the encyclopedia full of uneverifiable trivia. As for this specific amendment, I cannot support it for the reasons outlined by User:Cryptic just above. Especially the point about people with high sourcing standards getting lambasted for allegedly not searching at all- that describes the majority of "did you even BEFORE?!?!?" complaints in my experience. Reyk YO! 06:36, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as I said in my RfA, I consider BEFORE to be the most important part of the AfD process, but this is ridiculous and would be subject to gaming to the point that virtually every AfD nomination would be speedy kept based on the ambigious wording suggested ("describe their search", what the heck does that even mean? I'm one of the more thorough AfD nominators who goes into detail about the sourcing in the article, and I don't know if I've ever "described my search" beyond saying something like 'Google News and Google Books don't appear to return anything much else.'")
    On top of that, this promotes the non-policy based idea that notability is the most important thing in the AfD process. That's simply false: it is one of 14 reasons for deletion, and too often notability is simply distilled to the GNG, which is not supported in the slightest by WP:N, which makes it clear WP:NOT must be passed in addition to the GNG or an SNG. I don't care if it is worded as when notability is the primary reason, it will only serve to bolster the idea that the GNG is some super-policy above all other policies: an idea that has no consensus, and has been rejected every time WP:N is attempted to be brought from guideline status to policy status.
    BEFORE is very important, but there are plenty of cases that come to AfD where notability is only one of many reasons to consider deleting it. Making it harder to use the rest of the deletion policy serves the interest of no one except those who want to keep Wikipedia's culture in 2003 and forget that we are now the world's default reference work. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:47, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - we need prod to have some teeth - no removal of prod without 2 refs being added. Szzuk (talk) 07:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support WP:BEFORE already has some teeth. Disruptive editors who fail to observe it will eventually get shut down. The poster boy for this is TenPoundHammer. They failed many RfAs for their clueless nominations. More recently, after nominating many notable topics just because they didn't have sources, they were banned from all deletion activity. Note also that WP:BEFORE is not just about searching for sources. It lists 16 separate steps such as checking for previous nominations or considering alternatives to deletion. Andrew D. (talk) 07:42, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By describe I mean somehting like "I searcehd google news and google books with search stings 'X' 'X Teacher" and 'X <town>'". It is often the case that notability is the only significant issue in play at an AfD. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:30, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose as unworkable (certainly as proposed, and as worded). As noted above, editors' searches are tailored to their own browsing, and it will be perfectly possible for one to perform a WP:BEFORE and find nothing, and others to see results immediately. If anything, this may poison the atmosphere at AfD; already, occasionally, a pressure cooker. Andrew Davidson indicates too that BEFORE—with its sixteen other facets—already has sufficient teeth. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 09:00, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm certainly in favor of giving BEFORE teeth! I wonder if it could be accomplished within the status quo simply by 1. Keeping a list of BEFORE-offensive nominations. 2. piling on quickly in the AfDs when a nomination fails BEFORE and 3. Hauling offending editors to ANI quickly. Jacona (talk) 11:07, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As noted above, it is far too easy to game BEFORE. However, BEFORE problems should be considered to just a nominator's behavior. If I nominate 10 articles in separate AFD claiming no sources after a BEFORE search, and and all ten of those, a very obvious google search show clear legitimate sources that can be used, then I'm being disruptive at AFD by ignoring BEFORE, and that might mean some admin action to be taken against me. But a 1-off AFD like that , that's a different story, and I would not expect someone that makes that type of mistake once in a while to be acted upon. --Masem (t) 15:41, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this is likely to just result in pointless bureaucracy. Forcing people to include boilerplate text in AfD nominations won't deliver any tangible improvements. New users, who already find the process of nominating AfDs complicated, would be further frustrated when their nominations are speedily closed because they didn't include the boilerplate. It isn't really possible to determine on the level of a single AfD whether the nominator followed BEFORE, as there are many reasons why the nominator may not have registered a source which someone else found. If there's a pattern of someone failing to find sources which others do then that's different, but that would also be true if someone kept making defective nominations for any other reason. Hut 8.5 18:16, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Hut 8.5. KingAndGod 18:24, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • pile-on oppose per all the above. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:16, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Massive support for requiring nominators to describe the sources they found whilst searching in enough detail (a) to prove that they have conducted an exhaustive search and (b) to prevent those !voting for deletion pretending to be blind (ie insisting that sources don't exist when they obviously do). If we require nominators to say eg "there are X number of sources in GNews/GBooks/GScholar/Highbeam/whatever and they contain Y number of pages/words of coverage" etc, it becomes much easier to identify liars. Nominators should also be required to disclose which search terms they have used (it is usually not enough to stick the name in quotes because of alternative names, OCR problems, background noise, the fact some search engines seem to 'choke' on speech marks and fail to deliver relevant results etc; so we need to know exactly what words the nominator put into the search engine). [As for the comment above about PROD: we need to abolish PROD or at least require a valid rationale for deletion and a BEFORE search for sources.] James500 (talk) 08:18, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • This blatant assumption of bad faith on the part of nominators and AfD participants proves perfectly why WP:BEFORE can never be made mandatory. Calling people liars or wilfully blind for the crime of having higher standards is already enough of a problem at AfD without our policies and guidelines enshrining this misbehaviour. Reyk YO! 12:43, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - What an interesting variety in reasons for opposing and supporting, including some overlap! I just don't see this as something practical, and think it would likely cause more problems than it would help. Also don't agree with Seraphimblade's reciprocal proposal -- at least not as a reciprocal proposal. I might be able to get behind a "unsourced prod" idea, but not as tied to this. The basic reason is that the most directly affected audience of each is quite different -- experienced editors for deletion nominations and newer editors for unsourced article creations. That means it would be the latter that would more likely come up more often and affect more people -- new users -- which is not ideal. Might be a workable idea on its own, but I don't see it as a balance. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:19, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - While it is almost invariably true nominators and supporters understandably will search and explore sources less vigorously than any opposition, and there is currently little consequence if due diligence has not been given to BEFORE, I agree I don't think the result would be a tangible improvement. That said, I can see frustrations above where little effort is required to raise an AfD however significant effort may be required to oppose a nomination over several weeks in an often fruitless attempt to achieve consensus.Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:16, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose These processes are already overly complicated, primarily because of disruptive editors who don't like the processes being used editing the subpages that include the instructions and no one apparently noticing them (!), so making it more difficult is not going to help. Additionally, every time I have seen BEFORE invoked in an AFD discussion as a rationale for keeping, the AFD was not based on notability or sources (the pages were POVFORKs, the articles were FORKs without a particular POV, the articles violated NOT in some other way...) so demanding an explicit statement of having checked for sources in those cases would be entirely counterproductive. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:20, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also should note that of the two support !votes so far, one is completely out there and includes stuff that would be even less likely to pass than this (abolish PROD?), and the other appears to be more of a "support on principle because I like the idea of making AFD more difficult, even though I don't actually agree with the premise of this proposal". (BATTLEGROUND and inappropriate discussion of named editors who are unable to defend themselves aside.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:15, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(1) Andrew's comments are not battleground. Nor can I see how saying he wants additional teeth to the existing teeth constitutes disagreeing with the premise of this proposal. (2) There are more than two supporters here. You seem to have missed Xxanthippe's !vote, with which I agree (there is persistent failure to check the h-indexes of academics before nominating them for deletion, despite the fact that PROF requires this). James500 (talk) 07:14, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thr first sentence of AD's comment indicates a disagreement with the premise of the proposal that BEFORE is currently toothless, and the last part of his comment indicates a disagreement wih the idea that the proposal should only be about source-searching (which is what pretty much everyone else seems to be interpreting it as). The rest is a typically-AD "deletionist-vs-keepionist" attack on an editor who was TBANned for a variety of reasons, a failure to adhere to BEFORE not being one of the primary ones (having hardly been invoked in the discussion, including in AD's own !vote), and who is therefore unable to defend themselves. Furthermore, AD's history of citing BEFORE (explicitly or implicitly) in a BATTLE-ish fashion as though the goal was to rack up as many "wins" for the "keepionist side" as possible[1][2][3][4][5] (one of those diffs is included to show that AD will invoke BEFORE even in completely insane situations where the editor he is addressing has spent hours upon hours going every "source" in the article and waited months after this to allow anyone who wanted to to chime in on the talk page before opening the AFD) makes it difficult to read otherwise. As for Xxanthippe's !vote: you are right, I did miss that. I honestly have no beef with what they said, although I do have to question it's accuracy or general applicability: most of the academic AFDs I have been involved in had the opposite problem, where a proper source check would support deletion or merging of an article for reasons other than notability, but "keepionist" editors who showed up to the AFD just to "win" started invoking GNG and a superficial Googling of scholarly sources they had neither read nor understood. If what is being discussed is AFDs about academics like this one: honestly the proposal would not make a difference in cases like that since AFDs default to keep unless there is a clear consensus (and at least one strong argument not made by a blocked sock) to delete. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:25, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle. WP:BEFORE merely builds on what WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE (both policies) already say, i.e. that material that can be kept should be kept. This includes material about notable subjects where the necessary sources to establish said notability are not yet in the article but can easily be found (arg. ex. WP:IMPERFECT). I don't think requiring nominators to prove their BEFORE search is the right way to go though. Instead, repeated failure to follow BEFORE should be treated like the competence-problem it is and editors who repeatedly nominate articles about notable subjects for deletion should be sanctioned instead, preferably faster than this has been the case so far. After all, new editors who are willing to learn when told about it are not the main problem. Regards SoWhy 09:08, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in princicple, though the specific need some further thought. I don't think it will be particullarly difficult to institute some enforceable requirement for reporting on BEFORE checks, which is something that nominators are expected to do anyway. Boilerplate rationales are an issue even now, and this can be solved by requiring a specific description of the search: Red XN "A thorough search revealed no results", Green tickY "I've checked the first 30 results in a google search for 'Foo bar' and 'Fooish bar', and there was nothing beyond press releases and social media posts.". If in such a specific description the nominator is lying, then they will be easily caught. And it will also save subsequent AFD participants some time by letting them not duplicate the search effort of the nom. And I don't see how this will complicate the AfD process: first of all, it only requires nominators to be a bit more explicit about something they're supposed to do anyway, and second, this won't affect the number of steps that are technically required to create an AfD dsicussion (and most people use TW anyway, which arguably makes nominating too easy). – Uanfala (talk) 11:38, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an example of what I have been grumbling about for years. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:33, 4 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Except the nominator specifically said that they did a BEFORE search, so that would satisfy the requirement proposed here. That's why this proposal is pointless. ansh666 07:56, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I just closed Bridget Stutchbury as speedy keep. The AfD was a classic example of random patrolling by someone who has no knowledge whatsoever about notability guidelines. After closing, I Googled the subject and saw plenty of sources. The original idea behind the creation of The New Page Reviewer user group was supposed to prevent this kind of thing, but the community in its wisdom insisted that inexperienced users and maintenance-hungry newbies should nevertheless continue to be allowed to practice their button mashing with deletion listing tools. The nominator shouold be trouted. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:16, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) ... and this demonstrates the kind of abusive BEFORE-thumping that makes it ineligible to be made mandatory. Reyk YO! 08:24, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose simply on the basis that it's unenforceable. It's a nice idea, but the Stutchbury Afd clearly demonstrates that until the use of tagging tools can be limited to people who can be trusted to know what they are doing, nothing will change. Experienced, qualified reviewers rarely make such blundering errors - they may not win all their nominations at AfD, especially the truly borderline cases where subject experts on notability come to comment, but how thorough is a BEFORE expected to be before even qualified users have to move to the next item in the patrolling queue? Some of those commenting above are possibly unaware of our limited manpower for addressing the huge backlogs. I see two possible solutions which are both needed: 1). those who tag pages for deletion should have demostrated their competency to do so, and 2), vastly improving the way we inform new users about what they can and can't create. In September last year we suddenly went from an Article Wizard that was hopelessly full of TL;DR walls of text to a dramatically over simplified iteration that users just click through without bothering to read anything at all. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:21, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is clearly enforceable as we have fresh examples. Individual nominations can be closed per WP:SK, as Kudpung just did, and we can encourage more of this. Nominators who seem too trigger-happy can be warned and sanctioned if they don't improve and this might be encouraged too. And there's more that might be done to improve our tagging tools. I recall Uncle G explaining that AfD was originally made an onerous process so that it would not be used too lightly. Twinkle then subverted this design by automating the steps required. But the trouble is that Twinkle doesn't also facilitate or encourage the steps listed in WP:BEFORE. Nominating a page for deletion is now much easier than researching the topic, improving it or suggesting merger or discussion on the talk page. AfD then gets used in a casual manner like speedy deletion; as a first step rather than a last resort. Twinkle could be improved with a checklist of steps taken and then it could list these in its nomination format so that it would be clearer what had or hadn't been done by the nominator. Andrew D. (talk) 10:51, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Editors who continue to abuse WP:Before after warning could be banned from making further AfD nominations under WP:Competence is required. Xxanthippe (talk) 12:34, 4 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Both good ideas (improving Twinkle and tbanning bad nominators) but neither is what was proposed here. Regards SoWhy 12:56, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, SoWhy, but as IMO 'Give WP:BEFORE some teeth' is not the best solution to an existing problem, because improving the process software and demanding competence from the patrollers are the underlying causes, it is appropriate mention them here as reasons to oppose the proposal. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:21, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate DESiegel's concerns, and I certainly agree that AfD is too frequently abused, but IMO, his suggestion of giving BEFORE more teeth is not addressing the issue from the best angle. In November 2016 we introduced a user right to limit the use use of the Curation tool to accredited users. However, the community insisted that inexperienced users and newbies could continue to practice their MMORPG skills from the Twinkle platform. No one wants to scold editors for doing what they think is in good faith, and they could be open to being educated, but rather than let them do it in the first place, a filter could limit the use of PROD, CSD, and AfD in Twinkle to qualified 500/90 users (the required qualification for Page Curation).
Anyone can revert a misplaced PROD or CSD, but cancelling an AfD early once it's started is not such an easy matter - except in the case where as Andrew Davidson observes, a couple of users have voted Speedy Keep. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:11, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment One of the problems is editors who rapidly nominate a large number of unconnected articles on the basis of notability and then claim to have performed extensive searches for reliable sources when it is obvious that it would not have been possible in the timeframe. Other editors will then believe that the nominator has extensively searched and so won't bother to do more than a very quick search or none at all and articles that are or might be notable are unfairly deleted. Where the nomination is not about notability but about something else such as WP:PROMO or WP:BLP1E then thats fair enough, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 14:52, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Atlantic306: The guidelines on this page are subordinate to WP:AGF: if you can find evidence that this or that individual editor has repeatedly lied about having done source-searches ("timing" is not adequate evidence -- maybe they did a bunch of searches and then nominated all the ones that failed at the same time) for topics where a basic search would have come up fruitful, then you should report them for abuse of AFD; we can't write the guidelines for AFD based on the assumption that such editors are the rule rather than the exception. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:29, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The guidelines for AfD do not need to assume that such behaviour is the rule. They just need to make it more difficult (which is not the same thing). AGF applies to the actual behaviour of individuals, not the in which guidelines are framed. James500 (talk) 08:09, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like a fairly unique/idiosyncratic interpretation of the policy, and I've never seen it invoked in my 10+ years on Wikipedia. It is, simply put, not acceptable for a guideline or a set of process instructions to assume bad faith on the part of the Wikipedia editors utilizing it, and the only time I've seen such things pass was through sneaky abuse of subpages so that no one noticed for almost a year. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:41, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The existence of the policy Wikipedia:Vandalism suggests your interpretation of AGF is mistaken, as WP:VANDAL is entirely and explicitly concerned with the prevention of bad faith editing, and assumes that bad faith editing has taken place in the past and is likely to take place in the future. Likewise criteria 2 of the guideline Wikipedia:Speedy Keep expressly applies to nominations that are "unquestionably made for the purposes of vandalism or disruption", and assumes that such nominations have taken place in the past and are likely to take place in the future. As far as I am aware AGF does not require us to assume that vandalism by way of bad faith AfD nominations is impossible or even unlikely. In ten years here, I have never seen the argument that we should assume that vandalism by way of malicious AfD nomination is impossible invoked before. What I have seen are endless assertions that AGF is not a suicide pact. James500 (talk) 06:48, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's a massive, very obvious difference between a policy specifically addressing bad-faith behaviour and explaining how to deal with it and a process page assuming bad faith on the part of the Wikipedians utilizing the process. Red herring much? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:53, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the most obvious examples are where a nomination is for notability when there are already prior to nomination multiple reliable sources with significant coverage present in the article. This happens quite often so perhaps there should be an admin looking at all new AFDs and speedily closing those that are obviously notable as they stand and save time at AFD where keep would be the obvious result, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 20:59, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abuse of WP:Before. Here is another scandalous example. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:34, 16 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]
  • Is it just me, or are we focusing on the wrong thing here because of violently "anti-deletion" editors trying to make all deletion about notability and then arguing against a strawman? In the last four months, I have not seen a single instance of BEFORE being invoked when the main concern actually was notability and the problem actually was that a preliminary check for sources should have been performed, but I've seen several instances where the problem was that the article actually should have been speedy-deleted for copyvio reasons but this wasn't noticed until after the AFD was opened for whatever reason. Given the legal ramifications, it seems like plagiarism would be the bigger concern than notability. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:50, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • NPP reviewers are supposed to check for copyvio but not all do, Ive spotted a few at AFD in the past and put a G12 on them, so perhaps someone could volunteer to use the earwig tool on every day's AFD noms as it would save time if they are copyvios, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 21:36, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Removing inappropriate articles created by the lazy, the ignorant or the inexperienced is already almost impossible. Agree with User:Kudpung and User:Hijiri88. Deb (talk) 08:39, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There are several AfD regulars (who should know better) who routinely nominate clearly-notable but badly-written articles, or repeatedly make comments that amount to "delete, just not notable" without even taking the effort to tailor their comments to the claims of notability in the article and why they should be discounted. In some of the more egregious cases I've seen editors make a carefully written nomination that focuses on the single least-notable aspect of the subject, argues that the subject should be deleted because that aspect is not enough to make the subject non-notable, ignores all the other more notable aspects, and hope to attract more like-minded people to chime in with their agreement that that aspect is indeed non-notable. (I could provide examples, but I think it would not help this discussion to do so.) This is not a healthy dynamic and it would be good if something could be done to rein those people in. All that said, I don't think this proposal is likely to do anything to discourage the people who do this, nor to improve the deletion process. Instead, it seems likely to cause good nominations of non-notable subjects to get closed on technicalities, and further inflame feelings between the deletionists (who would see this as another obstacle to cleaning out all the cruft and spam) and the inclusionists (who would be more inclined than before to make bad-faith accusations of nominators for not making that extra effort to see the notability of their targets). —David Eppstein (talk) 05:35, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rolled out here. The previous deletion box was also tweaked to have the same width for prettiness. Further tweaks to what links to include / appearances can be done with normal WP:BRD channels. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:40, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

AFD can be a pretty brutal/confusing process, especially for newcomers. Yes we have some links on WP:AFD and on the deletion banners, but often people join the discussion without reading much of those links. I've been thinking about the issue for a while, and I think I have a solution that could help with that. I've created {{AFD Help}}, which could be included via {{Afd2}} onto every deletion page from now on. It would add the links that you see in the box on the right.

Opinions? Yay, nay? Could be tweaked? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I saw this on the central discussion feed and although I don't have an opinion on the issue here. I would really like there to be some better instructions on how to take part in AfD discussions, more as a general "how to" guide that people could easily digest. The existing guides are long and complicated, and look like hours worth of reading. JLJ001 (talk) 09:26, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but get rid of ATA ATA is an essay, and a poor one at that. We don't need to be confusing newbies with that particular set of highly subjective opinions. cinco de L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 11:36, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@L3X1: I'm fine getting rid of that one. It was the only one that made me pause when adding it. I updated the template. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:51, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. TB, would you mind if this were collapsed intiailly, so it would take up less space on the AFD page? I do know that some editors view collapsed items as "user-unfriendly" due to mobile usage or something. cinco de L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:09, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do AfD notices even show on mobile? wumbolo ^^^ 18:11, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As of now, I believe they don't, but TemplateStyles may change that in the future. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:09, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
TB or HB? Either way, doesn't really matter much to me, collapsing is easy to implement, although I prefer uncollapsed. It could certainly be noincluded so it doesn't clutter the AFD log though. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:57, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It was originally aimed at Tony as I recieved the impression below he didn't want it on the main discussion page itself, but I will resort to Thing One and Thing Two in the future to prevent confusion. :) Now that you mention it, I think a noinclude would be better, and wouldn't mind it just being on the talk page. At my first AFD when I was new, I didn't know where the discussion was to take place, so I did check the AFD TP. cinco de L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 19:31, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've removed this from CENT because it seems like a minor discussion about formatting and not something that really needs community consensus. In terms of the template: oppose having it at every AfD. I'd be no problem including it at WP:AFD or on the daily logs. Also find including it in the Twinkle talk page notification. People can figure out what policies, etc. should be on it, I don't have a strong opinion there. Like I said, I see this as a minor formatting change that can be done with a rough talk page consensus here. Let's not overcomplicate it. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:22, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restored on WP:CENT because yes, this is something subject to community consensus. Additionally, newcomers don't see the AFD or daily logs, things that mostly are seen by veterans. Putting help links there rather than in AFDs would defeat the purpose of having help links in the first place. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:23, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, because formatting changes that the majority of people won't care about aren't really things we need to have 50 !votes with 54 different opinions on. I won't edit war over it, but this is the most pointless thing I've seen on CENT in a while. You also didn't read my comment about putting it in the talk page message, where it would be more useful and wouldn't clutter the actual AfD. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:26, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This goes beyond a "formatting change". WP:CENT is for "Discussions on existing policies, guidelines and procedures" and "Discussions on matters that have a wide impact". This is exactly what this is. As for talk page messages, I'd support having those links there as well, but you forget that not everyone nominates or notifies via Twinkle.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:29, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it's not. It's a minor change to a template. You could have made the change boldly and posted here and it would have been fine. Heck, I oppose adding it to the AfD template and I wouldn't have reverted you. Also, I'd be willing to bet that 90%+ AfD nominations use twinkle, and Twinkle just gives whatever the suggested notification is on the AfD banner. Just add this to that and your problem is solved. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:33, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this doesn't really have a "wide impact", nor do the vast majority of people care; a proposal here is perfectly well enough, if not enough people are commenting, then posting this to WP:VPR is the most to do, not on CENT Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:38, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, but since I seem to be a minority here, I posted a notice at WP:VPR instead. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:05, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
AfD upsets a lot of people - new and established - because of Wikipedia's failure to communicate how it works. If I were to say, "Wikipedia keeps articles which pass notability guidelines, and deletes articles which fail to meet those standards", would that be controversial? Continually people perceive the AfD process as an unstructured debate where they might propose any rationale, when actually, Wikipedia has a standard and disregards comments which fail to meet that standard. There is a major problem with AfD with users !voting delete on articles which meet wp:GNG while those users do not expect that there are guidelines, and !vote keep on non-notable topics because they have no knowledge of the concept of notability. Users are feeling confused and disappointed by the perception of AfD being a process without rules, when in fact we have rules. Making the rules more accessible is a good thing. I do not expect this template or any other to be perfect, but we need to communicate the briefest most understandable AfD explanation that anyone has. Any attempt at explanation is better than no directions, which is the current practice. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. AfD can be many people's first introduction to the behind-the-scenes part of Wikipedia and a little guidance would help. I'd prefer something more basic — stuff like starting your comment with a boldface keep or delete, backing it up with an argument based on policies and guidelines, only !voting once, not canvassing your friends, and not feeling like you have to reply to everyone else in the discussion. But I'm not sure that essay exists and these links are much better than no guidance at all. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:22, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having it in the twinkle notification seems best; I don't see a point in having it at WP:AFD or the logs as most people don't see the logs, they just go straight to the AfD page - maybe instead have a collapsed version on each AfD page? (I don't see where exactly you'd put the entire version it in AfD2.. ) Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:29, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Having four primers is obviously wrong – a primer is the one thing that you should read first. If you list lots of links and put a big box around around them, then banner blindness will tend to cause none of them to be read. Please keep it simple. Andrew D. (talk) 07:40, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suppport I had to learn AfD the hard way and made mistakes. It's brutal for some people and knowing more about the process will lessen people's anxiety. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:54, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support would be very helpful to new editors, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 13:40, 26 May 2018 (UTC) 13:39, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support giving clearer instructions to new editors. Need to emphasize to them that when an article is tagged for AFD, it's not the end of the world. They have 7 days to rescue it from deletion at least. How to rescue must also be emphasized, just putting a Strongest Ever Oppose will not work. However, since they even don't bother to read the long list of wording above the AFD daily pages, putting long TLDR articles won't help. We just need to assure them that stay calm, find reliable sources and the article will be kept if meet WP:N and WP:NOT. --Quek157 (talk) 18:45, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed deletion of Giants Challenge

Notice

The article Giants Challenge has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This "article" (if one can even call it that) is nothing short of ridiculous. It cites zero sources (which was first pointed out almost 12 years ago yet no one has taken action), it is an orphan, it doesn't follow basic punctuation, capitalization, or grammar rules in any way, and it is not written in "encyclopedic tone" AT ALL. Not to mention that the "official website" the creator put at the bottom of this page does not exist (404). Plus, searches on Google, Yahoo, DuckDuckGo, & several other search engines turned up absolutely nothing about any "Giants Challenge" biking competitions, let alone one in S. Africa., besides this Wiki page; quite frankly, it's sort of embarrassing and slightly worrying (in my opinion) that a bogus "article" like this has lasted so long without being spotted. Feel free to discuss and please possibly consider for SPEEDY DELETION!

68.5.231.50 says- If this does end up being deleted, lol, then I guess I've just accidentally become an unofficial novice "hoax hunter"-- w/o even using my account!
2605:E000:3545:5C00:E8C0:BAAD:C991:18EF~ "YES PLEASE DELETE THIS ARTICLE ASAP!" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:3545:5C00:E8C0:BAAD:C991:18EF (talk) 00:34, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. 68.5.231.50 (talk) 05:49, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This definitely is a real event; the latest info I could find for it is 2015, so it may have gotten folded into one of their other events. But it is not a hoax. [6] [7]
NotARabbit (talk) 03:59, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. While I wouldn't say "definitely" just yet, I get what youre saying. -- 68.5.231.50
Just please consider the notability (or possible lack thereof) of Giants Challenge-- does it really deserve its own article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.231.50 (talk) 22:37, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Premiere Speakers Bureau

I started an AFD for Premiere Speakers Bureau but the page was already deleted in 2006. It was re-created in 2017 by User:Shankstn, whose contributions were mostly about this page. Could an admin please delete it? I don't think we need a second AFD. Or if we do, how do I AFD it given the fact that this is not working (it links to the 2006 deletion). Please ping me when you reply. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:38, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Atlantic306 replaced it with a speedy deletion tag. This is probably the best way out of this.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:48, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Second AFD

Sorry I can't find the info on this page. How do I create a second AFD please? I don't remember. Specifically I'd like to AFD Griffin Technology. Please ping me when you reply. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:46, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Zigzig20s: I've launched the second AFD using Twinkle for you; please put in the deletion reason. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:01, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:04, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved

AFD: Sportswear

Can you please nominate Sportswear for deletion? Rationale: There are only two topics on Sportswear, so there is no need for a disambiguation page per WP:ONEOTHER. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:183:101:58D0:B5CD:42EE:E561:79B2 (talk) 13:36, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given the recently started RM at Talk:Sportswear (activewear), I suggest you wait for it to end: if that article is moved to the primary title, then the disambiguation page would become unambiguously redundant and it will be possible to delete it without the need for an AfD. – Uanfala (talk) 10:23, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to the indentation for today AFD

After the first AFD the indent seems odd [8]. Thanks --Quek157 (talk) 18:48, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see it. Maybe the problem was with one of the transcluded AFDs and has been fixed by now. Regards SoWhy 18:57, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
SoWhy yupp, it was transcluded Afd which is fixed. Thanks for the attention --Quek157 (talk) 19:07, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zara Kitson

As per: WP:N

This article reads like a CV. There isn't anything particularly notable about this political candidate. Similar to this article deletion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Toni_Giugliano — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.116.24 (talk) 16:09, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Already done at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zara Kitson by User:Kuyabribri. Iffy★Chat -- 13:06, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"AFD is not for redirecting"?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is a checkY clear numerical and policy-weighed(For one, the arguments about utilizing RFD is flat-out improper.)consensus that AfD is a right venue to seek for redirect(s), which have been challenged.The first attempt at redirection ought be directly attempted per our principles of being bold.Thankfully,∯WBGconverse 08:27, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a direct quotation from anywhere to the best of my knowledge, but I've seen it invoked from time to time (here for example). The FAQ at the top of this talk page specifies that AFD is for deletion and not merging (even if the latter is a frequent result), but what about cases where the desired outcome is a simple redirect, not a content merge? This came up recently here. Merger proposals seem to take forever, and so seems like unnecessary red tape for a simple redirect, and redirecting seems much more "akin" to deletion given that involves removing the content from the live version of the encyclopedia and leaving only the title as a redirect. Is AFD actually the correct forum for proposing "community" redirects (that can't be unilaterally reverted), and Andrew was just wrong to call it an alternative to deletion back in February? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:05, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirects for discussion is for pages which are redirects, not for suggestions to convert pages into redirects. Hut 8.5 09:09, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you nominated an article at WP:RFD, the nomination would get procedurally closed and you would be advised to use AfD. Similarly, if you nominated for deletion a redirect that had until recently been an article, then the most likely outcome would be "Restore article and send to AfD". – Uanfala (talk) 10:28, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for cases where the suggested outcome is a redirect but not any sort of merge then AfD is a reasonable venue. This situation is functionally equivalent to deleting the article and creating a redirect afterwards. The alternative is that somebody unilaterally redirects the article, which isn't likely to get any outside input or review and which can be reverted by anybody, unlike an AfD. (AfDed articles are usually very obscure and a discussion on the article talk page isn't likely to get much input.) Hut 8.5 09:09, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support WP:SKCRIT#1 already suggests AFD nominations for redirection are not liable to speedy closing. Since a redirect can be created by unilateral editing I don't see any reason why they shouldn't alternatively be discussed at AFD. However, sometimes (often?) talk page discussion will remain preferable. History deletion should not become regarded as a normal consequence following an AFD "redirect" close – there should be a positive reason for deleting the history. Edit-warring may better be prevented by protecting the redirect. Thincat (talk) 09:34, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per common practice, the fact that AfD is the precise venue for discussing the fate of articles, and the absence of other discussion venues that do that. – Uanfala (talk) 10:28, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. AfD already suffers from lack of participation, and anything that dilutes the existing level of participation isn't helping that. We already have a great place to discuss potential redirects: the article's talk page. A Traintalk 16:57, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support AfD has long been the community's preferred venue for discussing bold redirects that have been challenged. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:59, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Tony Ballioni, with emphasis on his word "challenged". Editors should boldly redirect articles about elementary schools to school district articles, and articles about unelected candidates to political campaign articles, and so on. Only if reverted should such matters come to AfD, with a recommendation to redirect. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:11, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not that my silver tongue appears to have managed to convince anyone of my position here, but I'm willing to go with Cullen on this — with that same emphasis on "challenged". The last thing AfD needs is further participation dilution from a flood of uncontroversial redirect decisions. A Traintalk 17:31, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this has already be discussed at length in this discussion. There was a rough consensus that AfD is - and has pretty much always been - the proper venue to suggest that an article be redirected. ansh666 18:16, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for challenged redirects Atlantic306 (talk) 21:25, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The previous discussion on this was, in my opinion, incorrectly closed, inasmuch as the closer mistakenly asserted the existence of an alleged status quo that never actually existed at any time (except in his own mind), and which was the exact opposite of what the guideline had always said. There was, in my opinion, no consensus whatsoever that AfD is for redirecting. For the reasons why using AfD for redirect proposals is bad idea, see what I said in the last discussion. James500 (talk) 05:56, 3 June 2018 (UTC) I should also point out that saying that "speedy keep is not allowed as a response to X", is not the same thing as saying "X is allowed". So there is no way that the previous discussion could have decided that redirect proposals are allowed at AfD, because that is not what the discussion was about. James500 (talk) 06:07, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support w/ caveat as mentioned above AfD should be the venue to discuss redirects which have been challenged. There is no need to start an AfD simply to propose a redirect. If one thinks an article should be redirected it should be boldly done if someone disagrees AfD should be the proper dispute resolution forum. Jbh Talk 06:04, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • We’ve gotten along this far by having such discussions on article talk pages. Does that not work anymore? Beeblebrox (talk) 00:55, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • AfD is for Wikipedia:Pseudo-deletion by redirection, where a BOLD redirect pseudo-deletion is reverted or objected to, but is not for merge discussions. The difference is where the material is to be entirely removed from mainspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:32, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with the caveat that a redirect is a normal edit and can therefore be resolved by any one of a number of content dispute methods, including WP:AFD, but also a simple WP:RFC or even just talk page discussion if the consensus is clear (although unless it's completely clear, someone is almost certainly going to start a more formal process of some sort.) Local consensus on a page is sufficient to turn it into a redirect, regardless of how that consensus is assessed or reached; going through a particular formal process is an option when editors want clarity and a degree of finality, but is not a requirement. --Aquillion (talk) 06:10, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, redirection is not deletion, and this is articles for deletion. There's already a way to challenge edits, which is what a redirect is: dispute resolution. AfD is for when deletion, meaning only an administrator hitting the delete button, is proposed. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:15, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This is already covered by policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Redirection supplemented by WP:BLAR. Local consensus on WT:SK doesn't override that and I agree that it was a poor close based on a faulty assumption. Redirecting is not deleting and it doesn't do anything that any other editor can't undo. If there is a need to draw more attention to a redirect discussion on a talk page there are tonnes of options: RfC, DR, noticeboards, WikiProjects, etc. – Joe (talk) 09:42, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    On a more general note, picking up on one of Andrew D.'s comments from the 2014 discussion, I suspect that people want to use AfD to create redirects because it's easier than the alternatives. All the nominator has to do is click a few Twinkle buttons and there will be a definitive answer in 7–21 days. There's no pressing need to engage beyond that because AfD is more like a poll than those of us who regularly close them would care to admit. In contrast, the alternatives all involve some degree of genuine discussion and consensus-building. This takes time and sustained engagement, something that people like new page patrollers, who are trying to chew through dozens of articles a day, are understandably reluctant to commit. But I really think we need to discourage the use of "procedure" as a shortcut around consensus. Formalised processes like AfD should remain a last resort. – Joe (talk) 10:18, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Umm... I've never used Twinkle, and honestly that AFD (and the lead in to it, which involved me spending hours drafting off-wiki more than 30kB of detailed source analysis,[9] and the fallout, neither of which involved Andrew at all) was one of the more trying experiences of my Wikipedia career, so it wasn't exactly "easy". I opened the AFD because I respect consensus and knew that if I unilaterally blanked and redirected (something I had proposed on the talk page months earlier and received no opposition) I would be reverted by the same sock accounts that did revert me after the AFD was closed. And as I told you here, the distinction in that non-admins can revert redirects is not exactly true, since sometimes AFDs result in articles being deleted and new redirects being created in their place, or the pages being redirected and protected to allow access to the history while preventing unilateral re-creation. Are all three (these two, plus simple blanking and redirecting of the kind that can technically be undone by non-admins) just "redirects"? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:29, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wait ... what 2014 discussion? I assumed you were talking about a particular one that I have brought up a few places in the last few days, but I don't appear to have mentioned it here. The reference to Andrew related to an AFD from February 2018. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:34, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see: this discussion that was linked further up but I didn't read it took place in 2014. Never mind then. That said, all that proves is that Andrew held an opinion back in 2014 that was unpopular enough to be formally overruled by consensus, and yet has continued attempting to enforce it on the project as late as February of this year. But that's not really relevant. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:23, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My comment wasn't directed at you. I haven't even read the AfD you linked to. I mentioned AD purely because his comment got me thinking about the above. Like that said, I don't think that 2014 discussion reflects a project-wide consensus in any way, shape, or form. – Joe (talk) 12:52, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you must admit that "Speedy keep The nom admits they think the title should exist as a redirect for navigational convenience while saying nothing in the article is worth merging; AFD is not the forum for this kind of request" is disruptive, especially when !votes for redirecting from people other than the nom are never disregarded by closers for that reason alone; lacking any clearer statement of community consensus than the linked 2014 discussion, all we have to go by is common practice at AFDs themselves. Forcing nominators to pretend they are in favour of making the encyclopedia less navigable by deleting content forks and not leaving redirects in their stead is ... well, it's not so much disingenuous as it encourages disingenuity on the part of others. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:00, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are crystal-clear statements of community consensus at WP:ATD#Redirection (a policy) and WP:BLAR. I've argued for a speedy keep on that basis many times and no I don't think it's disruptive. If the nominator thinks it ought to be redirected and nobody has objected, they should just do it and save us all the bureaucracy. If someone has objected (usually the creator), they should make an effort to engage in a discussion with them, not immediately throw it to a project-wide not-vote. I also disagree with the contention that nominating redirects is common practice at AfD. In my experience putting the word "redirect" in the nomination is a very efficient way to end the discussion before it starts. – Joe (talk) 13:11, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What about when the blank-and-redirect is reverted on the grounds that de facto deletion is a matter for AFD, making talk page discussion impossible? Clearly there are a lot of editors who also believe that. Anyway, In these cases, deletion is not required; any user can boldly blank the page and redirect it to another article. (emphasis added) is not a "crystal clear" statement of community consensus in favour of your view by any stretch of the imagination: if it states anything clear on this matter at all, it is that there is no requirement to bring such proposals to AFD for community input but that it is acceptable. If the change is disputed, an attempt should be made on the talk page to reach a consensus before restoring the redirect. clearly only comes into play if a bold change has been reverted, but as explained this process couldn't work when some editors think the page should be redirected, some think this amounts to deletion and is a matter for AFD (and would oppose it at AFD), and some would oppose an AFD on principal for bueaucratic reasons; and the input here indicates that even DR methods like opening an RFC to get more input would only lead "this is a matter for AFD". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:53, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I can't think of any possible content fork (WP:DEL5) where redirecting would not be appropriate; the only exception would be where talk page consensus is clear that a page should be redirected but one editor keeps defying that consensus, and so an admin is required to full-protect the page, delete and create a new redirect (which is definitely page deletion), or block the editor, but this situation seems far too niche to justify creating a special unstated exception to the deletion policy. So if redirecting is not a matter for AFD, then DEL5 should be removed as content forks should be redirected, not deleted, as a general rule. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:30, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just because one wants to leave the title as a redirect - which in general isn't of much importance - doesn't mean that that discussion should be held elsewhere. Your suggestion of "genuine" discussion would involve discussing the notability and other factors, the same way as in wanting deletion - there is no substantive difference in the discussion here that would require that it should be done on a talk page instead. Indeed then, if AfD is really a "shortcut around consensus", why not then abolish AfD and discuss on the talk page the deletion of an article (allowing an admin to delete if there is consensus)? Of course, one should likely try to boldly redirect, per WP:ATD-R, but that shouldn't preclude having an AfD on it if that is reverted. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:05, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That was my thinking, and why I ended up replying to myself. As it stands policy quite clearly states that redirects shouldn't be proposed at AfD, but discussion is discussion and consensus is consensus, right, so why does it matter where the discussion happens? Well, I think, if we're honest with ourselves, we can admit that AfD (XfD in general) is quite distinct from our usual discussion formats, e.g. content disputes on talk pages. It does result in a form of consensus, but it's more bureaucratic and less based on compromise than is ideal. So all other things being equal, we should avoid using the XfD format unless we need to. In the case of AfD it's a necessary evil because of a) the volume of deletions and b) the need for admin intervention in most of them. But I don't think either is the case for blank-and-redirects.
Anyway this is a rather rambling and philosophical addendum. Mostly my opinion is that not using AfD for redirects is long-standing policy and works fine, so why change it? – Joe (talk) 13:02, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As long as it is insisted that the "D" is for "deletion" and not "discussion" (a PEREN proposal), a simple redirect request should not be brought to AFD; that's a matter for article talk pages since it does not require an admin action (perhaps an admit to close and determine consensus). This does not apply to the rare form of "delete and redirect" where we have an article so bad on a searchable term that WP:TNT applies, but there, that requires an admin action. --Masem (t) 13:45, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Masem: this is about contested redirects and mainly affects new pages where the suggested alternatives you described just aren't practical and would be a waste of community time. Regardless of the outcome here, I will continue to bring contested redirects to AfD and tell others to do so: it's what we've always done and is the only thing that makes sense to do.
      A talk page discussion on a newly created article about a local chapter of national NGO is going to attract no attention beyond the talk page, and an RfC is a waste of time that would likely gain not additional participants. Also, the community might decide that deletion is the better option to redirecting, so giving the community that choice is also important. What this is more likely to do is simply have people actually propose deletion instead of suggesting redirecting as an alternative. No one is going to start a talk page discussion with an SPA to come to consensus about their pet project. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:04, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • But we have WP:RFD for the purposes of that that doesn't require the weight of AFD. (Side note: I am a huge proponent of making AFD "Articles for Discussion" to cover deletion, merge, and redirects, but again, that's a PEREN). If we're talking a contested redirect for a new article, I agree the talk page won't see much so the next step would be to find the most appropriate wikiproject that supports that topic area to get better discussion, and if that doesn't work, RFD. --Masem (t) 22:17, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • RfD is for existing redirects: articles can't go there, and what we are talking about is articles where someone has contested a redirect, normally the creator. I also think the WikiProject idea won't work: most WikiProjects are dead these days. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:26, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @TonyBallioni: Okay, I think it's time the community decides what proposal it wants to make and makes it in the appropriate forum (either WT:DEL or VPP), because basically nothing that has been written since Ansh linked to that 2014 speedy keep discussion has related to my original procedural question -- which was not a proposal -- at all. As for No one is going to start a talk page discussion with an SPA to come to consensus about their pet project: if only you'd been there to tell me that in 2012 ... or 2014 ... I really need to stop treating AGF as a suicide pact ...— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hijiri88 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're getting somewhere here, and as Ansh mentioned, BLAR already mentions this as a possibility, so it is the guidelines as it stands. We'd need consensus to remove it, not to make it effective. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:27, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it already is effective, but we've got at least two editors (Andrew in the diff I linked up top, and Joe in the comment stamped 13:11, 5 June) who have stated they actively oppose AFDs where the nominator admits that turning the page into a redlink is not their "goal". And the wording of DEL5 is currently on their side. Making it a point of policy that AFD is an acceptable forum for discussion of redirecting pages would prevent further confusion going forward -- I just didn't realize that was what I was suggesting when I opened this thread. (Either way, though, the wording of DEL5 will need to be changed, as they only content fork titles that would not necessarily make useful redirects are defamatory or offensive ones, and those are covered under DEL3 and DEL9.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:50, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why would WP:DEL5 have anything to do with AfD? WP:Deletion policy only covers the grounds for actually pushing the delete button, not the conditions under which deletion can be discussed. ansh666 04:54, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was under the impression (perhaps a false impression resulting from conditioning by the same crowd who label me a "deletionist") that opening an AFD was requesting deletion, and so needed to be based on one of the reasons for deletion. Not being an admin I didn't even know there was a delete "button" until yesterday. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:08, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is, and it does; the reason is usually WP:DEL8 (doesn't meet notability guidelines). But meeting one of the WP:DEL-REASONs doesn't mean that an article must be deleted, it just means that 1) the content shouldn't have its own article and 2) if it does, it can, but does not have to be, be deleted. So if an article meets one of the WP:DEL-REASONs, it can be discussed at AfD. It's perfectly fine to suggest WP:ATDs in the nomination, just as it's obviously fine to suggest one as a participant. Also, the delete button thing is a euphemism. It does exist, but few deletions nowadays actually go through the interface because of Twinkle and XfDCloser. ansh666 05:21, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, for the record. There's no evidence that this is an issue; redirect discussions aren't overwhelming AfD. Generally people who nominate an article suggesting a redirect are perfectly fine with the article being deleted anyways; there's no restriction on mentioning a possible WP:ATD in the nomination. And if we're going to go the "because it says so - or doesn't say so - in X policy" route, WP:BLAR has explicitly suggested AfD as a possible venue for years. Removing redirect proposals from AfD seems like a solution searching for a problem. ansh666 22:13, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ansh666: As far as I can tell, WP:BLAR was edited to include that less than a year ago, and it appears to have been added without any prior discussion (in good faith, I'm sure, but I doubt WP:BLAR is a widely-watched page so I don't think it can be said to reflect consensus). Clearly this discussion has exposed differences of opinion on this issue, so regardless of whether AfD is currently "overwhelmed", I think it's worth resolving. – Joe (talk) 07:30, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It was removed in this diff by Unscintillating (since wholesale banned from deletion, by the way) in November 2016, then replaced in the diff you found. Before that, it'd been in the page more or less since its addition in 2013, about six months or so after the addition of the WP:BLAR section in December 2012. ansh666 07:49, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Don't think the ping worked, so let's try again: Joe Roe. ansh666 07:50, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support allowing AfD nominations to propose "redirect, no merge" as the intended outcome. It's effectively a deletion, so we should treat it as one. I do think that proposing an actual merge in the AfD nomination is wrong (and that when a merge is proposed later in an AfD the merge target's talk page should be notified), but that's a different issue. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This has popped up from time to time with inconsistent closes. As long as we are limiting this to contested redirects I think it seems like a sensible proposal. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:01, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Time to close?

This discussion seems to have petered out. I think it would be useful to have a formal close so that Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Redirection, WP:BLAR, and WP:SK, can be updated accordingly. As it stands they have conflicting advice on this issue. – Joe (talk) 07:15, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@Joe Roe: The above comment is bordering on disruptive. You well know, as I explained to you several times, that the above was not a formal proposal or anything of the sort, so requesting a "formal close" in order to update the policy accordingly is ... well, it would look like a good-faith mistake if I hadn't already painstakingly clarified for you. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:19, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. Your intention may not have been to make a formal proposal, but it kind of did turn into one. ansh666 08:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Climate of Dubai

Can you nominate Climate of Dubai for deletion? It is redundant to Dubai#Climate section and United_Arab_Emirates#Climate. --192.107.120.90 (talk) 17:32, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done -- see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climate of Dubai. --Finngall talk 18:01, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AfD: Desirée Dawson

Appears to not have enough significant coverage from reliable sources to satisfy WP:NMUSIC; current coverage is insufficient and the remaining sources only discuss the subject in mere mentions. 2601:589:8000:2ED0:4405:EFCC:6A6D:494F (talk) 22:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Ryan (recovery advocate)

Hi, can someone please fix the AFD for this page, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 20:05, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. ansh666 22:57, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Toffael Rashid

This page Toffael Rashid seems to be a resume. I have added a tag for deletion but not sure what else needs to happen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.33.124.252 (talk) 02:58, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You need to supply a reason why you think this article should be deleted. Is "seems to be a resume" a full statement of your reason? Thincat (talk) 09:28, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of national capitals in alphabetical order

Can you nominate List of national capitals in alphabetical order for deletion? My reason for deletion is in List of countries by national capital, largest and second-largest cities, there is a table with capitals in it and can be sorted in alphabetical order. --2601:183:101:58D0:9C15:8D0B:3367:7B21 (talk) 16:43, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of national capitals in alphabetical order. Thanks, ansh666 18:24, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Completion of AFD process for an unregistered contributor needed.

I wish to nominate the article Private sector involvement for deletion. Per the instructions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to contribute, I have completed stage 1, and now need someone else to complete the remaining parts of the process. Per instructions, I have posted the reasons for nomination on Talk:Private sector involvement. Thanks in advance, 21:18, 12 June 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.197.65 (talk)

 Done, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Private sector involvement. Thanks, ansh666 21:29, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again. 86.147.197.65 (talk) 23:44, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Self-sustainability and Self-sufficiency

I proposed that Self-sustainability and Self-sufficiency be merged 2 months ago. There was no response within those 2 months. Should I nominate one of them for deletion and have one redirect to the other? --2601:183:101:58D0:1119:4FFF:1508:1FCA (talk) 16:48, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion&oldid=846363449"