Archive 45 ← Archive 50 Archive 51 Archive 52 Archive 53 Archive 54 Archive 55

4 days or 5

The policy is that except for speedy keeps or deletes or the limited reasons for snow keeps or deletes, or withdrawals of the afd, afd run for 5 days. At the moment they are bein gfrequently closed after 4 days + a few hours. This is unfair to people who need time to see and contribute and respond. I wonder if the remedy is for premature closes to be simply reverted. A premature close is one not specifically specified as being one of the above which is closed within less than 120 hours after listing. DGG (talk) 03:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

You know, there's a very good mechanism in the dated prod template which lets you know whether a prod has been around for five days (120 hours) or not. Would it be too much work to do something similar for AfD's? Jclemens (talk) 07:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree, and in fact I wonder if it shouldn't be 7 days. Now I'm hardly a regular here, but I do chip in from time to time, and I've wondered about articles that are nominated on Monday - closed by Friday. I'd think we have a share of editors who don't login much during the week, but do edit on the weekends. Just a passing thought. — Ched ~ (yes?)/© 08:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Redeleted article

  1. Can I get some input on why an article that was restored after a deletion review was continually redeleted? Here is the deletion log for the page. Here is the deletion discussion which resulted in a deletion review. The article was restored but then deleted and restored several times. A sister article, Names of European cities in different languages that was part of the same AfD batch has survived and thrived (as has List of cities in the Americas with alternative names). (See also related deletion log of Names of African cities in different languages.)
  2. I'd like that article restored if possible and if not, I'd like to be able to create an article (with citations on my part) and know it won't be deleted again. Thanks. — AjaxSmack 00:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Eh, that wasn't one of my better closes, and those three AfDs should never have been bundled in the first place. I haven't followed developments since, and the original debates were three years ago. Mackensen (talk) 03:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Experiment proposal

I think that the extension of AfD discussion length is being supported in part because of a perception that fewer articles will be deleted — as in, "If only people would talk about it longer, then we wouldn't delete so many articles", which is slightly but importantly different from "If only people would talk about it longer, then we would reach the correct outcome for a higher proportion of articles."

If we decide to extend the discussion, I'd like to suggest that a couple of "inclusionists" compile the data and see whether it makes any difference at all. Specifically, the stats that we want are:

  1. Are we deleting a higher proportion of articles? (Does extending the default discussion length forward the inclusionist agenda, or just slow down the inevitable?)
  2. Are we reducing the load on WP:DRV? (Are we making the right decisions when we delete?)
  3. What proportion of discussions get new comments on days 6 and 7? What proportion of those comments change the outcome (instead of being "Me too: 27th vote in favor of deleting this unsourceable nonsense")?

Offhand, I think that it might take about six weeks or so to get good data.

If it happens to turn out that it makes no difference (except extending the length of the list), then we could consider reverting to the shorter timeframe. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that a trial period is a good idea, so we can see if it leads to better outcomes, more abuse, or just drawing things out in a bureaucratic way. Randomran (talk) 17:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
While I agree with the majority of your statement, I have to ask why you feel the need to include "inclusionist" multiple times. Your statement could well stand on its own as a reasonable proposal; turning it into an "us vs. them" argument *detracts* from your point. Are so-called "deletionists" incapable of gathering data and forwarding an agenda? – 74  18:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I suggest that group because I want them to be entirely confident that the data has not been skewed by people with the opposite agenda. It appears to me that "inclusionists" feel that the existing approach is materially flawed because it deletes "too many" articles; I don't hear complaints from other editors. Those wanting change are the ones with the biggest stake in the data. In short, because I think that the experiment will show no significant change in actual outcome, I am concerned that having a "known deletionist" editor determine this, even if it were entirely objective in practice, would be more likely to result in charges of bias. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Another point: Once a switch to 7-day deletions has been made, the additional workload will be absorbed by the time the statistics are completed. Thus, if there's an "experimental" switch which makes no difference at all, switching back is just more churn for no benefit--there would have to be a demonstrated decrease in efficiency for the 7-day deletion to make going back to 5-day deletion discussions a compelling change. Jclemens (talk) 18:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
What "additional workload" is being absorbed? Ignoring an AfD for the last four out of seven days should not actually require any more work than ignoring it for the last two out of five days (which is what we seem to do now). If a longer discussion does not change outcomes, then why delay the inevitable? Why leave a "kept" article in limbo for another two days, or an inappropriate one in the encyclopedia for an extra two days? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I have no problem at all with gathering statistics, but I did want to make one point. If there is no difference, it doesn't necessarily mean there is no benefit. The 5 day complaint has come up many times before -- if going to 7 days makes more people feel enfranchised, even if they aren't using that enfranchisement, there's still a net benefit. Unfortunately, it's very hard to quantify feelings and good will. :)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
The key point for me is that 7 days will lead to less-frequent relisting, which means we'll have fewer articles to consider on each given day and more time to look for sources and consider replies. AfD's groaning under the weight of 100+ nominations per day with relatively few people to consider them, and it needs addressing.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 23:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Fabrictramp, I'm not entirely sure that making more people feel enfranchised is one of Wikipedia's goals. I think the goal is to write (and maintain) an encyclopedia, which will occasionally conflict with communal feelings, e.g., when we delete inappropriate articles over the objection of their creators. People are likely to be just as unhappy about having their favorite creations deleted on day 7 as the are when it's deleted on day 5.
S Marshall, I think that would also be an interesting measurement: Will we have fewer articles re-listed for further consideration? Or will it be just as many, since everyone pays more attention to the new listings? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

We don't need to trial this, IMO. My suspicion is that the throughput will remain largely unchanged. Necessarily, the volume of discussions will increase. I neither see this as a great blow for inclusion (Seriously, who is going to check in once every 6 days and not once every 4...and presumably one editor checking in shouldn't determine the consensus on an article). I just see it at a nice move toward standardization. It has the added benefit of increasing the bias toward inclusion, but I can't imagine that a slippery slope argument would work, given some of the opposition we have seen. sure, some critics of AfD will never be satisfied. But in choosing between 5 and 7 days, we are not making some earth shattering decision. Protonk (talk) 01:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

To be honest I tend to equate "common sense" with "Protonk posts". What compels me to post another thought here is that the "earth shattering decisions" don't always play out well (the whole Notability (fiction) thing, the current Date linking/autoformat poll, etc.) I simply believe that there are plenty of editors out there that only edit on weekends. Am I going to do the research to prove this? NO. It's just a thought that perhaps it would get a wider range of input from folks. More drama? Maybe, depending on the individual AfD. More input - I would think so. Does it favor either the inclusionist or the delitionist? .. I don't see how. Sometimes it's the small steps that get us to our destination. Just a thought. — Ched :  Yes?   : ©  05:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree with this assessment- this is an absolutely apolitical move we're making here. This is a simple, evolutionary change to the AFD process, to assuage well-founded concerns that a 5 day listing could be used to exclude certain members of the community from participating in a deletion discussion if appropriately timed. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 09:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
My 2 cents say Yes Good Idea for reasons stated (particularly perceived fairness to weekend editors). Rd232 talk 01:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

help please

Something is screwy with set up for the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brenden Foster (3rd nomination) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 April 1. Could someone help?Inmysolitude (talk) 23:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I risked a non-admin close on this. Since no-one's complained, I guess the problem (whatever it was) has now gone away.--Kotniski (talk) 19:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Re-AfDing DriveSavers

Could someone do it properly (reason:Vanity page for a corporation)? I don't have time to figure out how. Thanks.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 02:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. You needed to follow the commented-out instructions at DriveSavers that said please replace "page=DriveSavers" with "page=DriveSavers (2nd nomination)", and then go through with the rest of the nomination. In the future, you might want to try out something like Twinkle to help speed up nominations. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 02:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
And just an addendum, the discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DriveSavers (2nd nomination). —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 02:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh no, not another "non admin closure" thread

I've been closing AFDs for about 7 months and I've taken some pride in the fact that virtually all of them "stuck". One's gone to DRV (I took it there myself) Two have been reverted, both by non administrators, the most recent one by the nominator. Not all of my closes have strictly adhered to the advice given in WP:NAC but IMHO all of them would most likely have been closed the same way by an administrator.

Now opinions are split on whether or not non admins should be closing AFDs at all and which ones they should be closing. Those who believe that only administrators should close AFDs have some justification as I have seen some really bad NACs. Usually due to out and out "vote counting" or misapplication of WP:SNOW. Every goober close by a non admin is more ammunition to those who argue that only admins should close AFDs. However, the answer to this problem is to treat these individually and deal with the problem NACers individually. Non administrators in theory should be free to do any kind of close that doesn't require the use of administrator buttons. In practice they should avoid "no consensus" closes due to the drama they tend to generate. (though I have one "no consensus" close of an AFD that had been relisted several times and wasn't going anywhere)

One problem seems to be that some editors seem to view NACS as somehow "not real closes" which one can freely revert if one doesn't agree with. WP:DELPRO says Decisions are subject to review and may be reopened by any administrator but both of my reverted closes were by ordinary editors who simply disagreed with my decision. I think this is wrong. WP:DRV is there for a reason and that's where closes one disagrees with need to be contested. the phrase "non admin closure" in the closing statement is not an invitation to undo a close you simply don't like. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 19:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I say, just keep doing it and make sure you are on solid ground. A disruptive re-opening by an interested party will probably trigger a re-closure, and anyone who does that habitually is probably begging for a block or topic ban. A pointy / soap-boxy re-opening by an administrator is probably best met by chastising them for wasting everyone's time, if it doesn't actually get to the merits of the closure. If it does get to the merits, and the admin is acting in that role without a personal stake in the article, then re-opening is probably the right thing to do. Wikidemon (talk) 19:42, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I went back and took a closer look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Beatty, I don't think the nominator/reopener was trying to be disruptive. Judging by his edit summary, he incorrectly believed that non admins can only do "speedy keeps". He may even have thought that I was an "interested party" because I had previously removed two of his prods.--Ron Ritzman (talk) 20:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, when you admit that "not all my closes have strictly adhered to the advice given in WP:NAC", it's hard then to argue with an editor who simply reverts you. I think that's a reasonable application of WP:BRD. (Key point: What WP:DELPRO says is, "Decisions are subject to review and may be reopened by any administrator". It certainly does not say "Only administrators can reopen a closed discussion".)

I don't mean this as any criticism of you; I've made a non-admin closure that wasn't strictly in accordance with WP:NAC myself. If someone reverted me, I think I'd simply accept it.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 23:52, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Even if you were reverted by the article's nominator? I think that sets a bad precedent (nominate an article for deletion and revert any attempt to close it any way other then "delete", yea that's the ticket). IMHO any AFD closing action, including undoing closes, should at least be done by a neutral third party. "Interested parties" should use DRV, that's what it's there for. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, Ron, I think that personally, I'd accept being reverted even by the article's nominator. I see non-admin closes as only for uncontroversial decisions, and I believe that a reversion indicates that the close is not uncontroversial. To me, that means, leave it to the admins.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 01:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm ambivalent on this issue. I would prefer if those few bad NACs could be reopened easily – particularly the SNOWs, which are generally refused by individual admins and at DRV if they're kind of okay – but encouraging BOLD reopenings would be far worse. Flatscan (talk) 02:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see it as Unanimous or nearly unanimous keep which WP:NAC states is necessary. Sure the consensus likely was headed for Keep, but it wasn't just me who felt the article didn't meet the criteria. Likewise it still doesn't have sources saying he's actually played a regular season game for the CFL, which would be necessary for him to meet WP:ATHLETE. I also felt the closer wasn't an uninterested party, since he was the one that removed the PROD on that article, so I felt a non-admin close wasn't appropriate as well on that ground. I wasn't aware of the whole WP:DRV process or I would of taken it up that way. Also like to state the only person kind enough to inform me of this discussion was SiklTork today, would of been nice to of been informed about discussion pertaining to my actions beforehand?! — raeky (talk | edits) 19:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record, it was User:Sumoeagle179 who removed the prod from Chris Beatty, not me. However, I had removed the prod from two other articles you had prodded because I felt the notability was borderline on both and therefore a discussion was needed before deletion. (the only reason I was in that category was because I was checking on one of my prods and decided to take a look at some of the others) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
My mistake, I didn't revert your close out of malicious intent, if that wasn't obvious by now. Also it would of been nice for you to notify me you was posting a topic here about my actions. ;-\ — raeky (talk | edits) 01:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
I never claimed malicious intent and initially this thread wasn't about "your actions" in particular but general attitudes about NACs. If I had felt that what you did was malicious I would have posted to WP:AN or WP:AN/I. If you notice later in the thread I acknowledged that it probably was a misunderstanding when another editor suggested the re-opening might have been disruptive. However, to be honest I did feel a bit put off so maybe it was the wrong time to address this topic at all. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

policy proposal

On February 18, 2009 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ray Joseph Cormier was closed as "The result was keep." On February 28, 2009, the same article was nominated again for deletion. I am proposing a policy that if an article survives an AfD it cannot be renominated again for at least one year after the AfD closed.

Please join in the discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#the_time_between_AfD_nominations_for_an_article. Kingturtle (talk) 15:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Withdrawing a nomination?

Hello,

What's the procedure for an AfD nominator to withdraw it? Is it just a case of removing the tag and archiving the discussion? Oli Filth(talk|contribs) 20:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, as long as no one else is calling for the article to be deleted. See #1 under Wikipedia:Speedy keep. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 20:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
One thing I've always wondered about is let's say there is an afd only 2 "per nom" "delete" !votes and the nominator withdraws. It could be argued that the rationale for their !votes just went *POOF*. Though technically "incorrect", would there be any problem with closing the nomination as "nomination withdrawn"? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
A nominator could make an argument, then later come to not believe that argument and withdraw it. This does not mean that those who agreed with said argument no longer believe it. I would say in such a case that their argument did not go *POOF*, rather it simply lost one supporter. I would say a speedy keep would be incorrect unless all those in favor of delete changed their mind. Chillum 02:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:V or WP:N in WP:BEFORE

Dude, that's a lot of WPs. I'd like to change (back) the link in WP:BEFORE to WP:N when referring to sources rather than WP:V. My basic argument is that frankly it's generally notability that people are worried about when it comes to sourcing, not reliable sources per se. I did make the change boldly and got (reasonably) reverted, so I thought I'd bring the issue here. Thanks! Hobit (talk) 21:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it should include both. So modified--we'll see if I get reverted too. Jclemens (talk) 22:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Both makes the most sense to me. Randomran (talk) 00:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Having both is reasonable and sensible, I would expect anyone to at least attempt to find sources demonstrating notability before asking others to do the same. Someoneanother 02:39, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Obvious fix (but I didn't think of it...) Thanks Jclemens. Hobit (talk) 02:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Wooster Oilers

This page is clearly (db-attack) It states slanderous remarks in regard to the General manager of this organization. please delete asap —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.134.131.89 (talk) 00:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I have deleted the problematic pages from the history, which is what I think you are asking. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Fledgling Jason Steed

This page has just been deleted, despite there being more votes to keep than delete - and despite obvious on-going research to verify the facts. This page had been getting almost a thousand page views a day - was it too much to ask that the AFD run until AFTER the Easter break, when newspapers/magazine staff would have been back in to answer questions? I truely believe this has been closed too soon, and unfairly.-- Myosotis Scorpioides 01:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

AFD closes are appealed at WP:DRV. MBisanz talk 01:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/current

I've just made this change to "current" to reflect the new 7 day cycle. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/old should also be changed but that looks a little more complex. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 21:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Number of comments on AfDs

Per this fledgling discussion, I'd like to open this suggestion up to a wider audience. The proposal is;

Reasoning;

Thoughts? Black Kite 10:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I remember an AfD where totally unexperienced ABF users were involved on both sides and removing material (in this case: large essays) to the talk page led to accusations of censorship and further escalation. The threats of violence in connection with this AfD continued by email long after the incident. Citing a clear policy like this might have helped in this case. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
This should certainly make Afds easier to follow, some of them must be a real headache for the closing admin to unpick. Two practical questions:
  • "Links to such talkpage comments may be included in the editor's original comment" - the talkpage comments are likely to be made after the original comment - how is this going to work? A user would need to add "see talk" and a link to their original post I suppose
  • Yes, I don't see a problem in editing the original comment to add a link. Black Kite 10:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • If an editor, having commented, then edits the article to correct the issues that brought it to Afd they will need to post a second comment to draw attention to the fact so that !voters can reevaluate the article. Similarly !voters need to be able to change their !votes. pablohablo. 10:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • On the first one - editors can just edit their original !vote/comment to add it (for example "Keep - passes WP:BIO due to improvements made during this AfD (diff) (diff)"). On the second one, editors can just edit their !vote as they do now (for example Delete Keep due to improvements made by editor X). Black Kite 10:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I think this is completely wrong. "Discussion" means you discuss, listen to others, answer their concerns, modify your views in response to theirs – not just say your piece and be done. Incivility should not be tolerated of course (whatever page it appears on), and if the argument goes off topic then there should be provision for its being moved elsewhere, but if the argumentation - though long - is civil and pertinent, then it's precisely that that the closing admin should be analysing, instead of counting (!)votes. --Kotniski (talk) 11:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Would be good in an ideal world, but much more common is two editors with entrenchd view becoming madder and madder trying to convince each other and get the last word - a real flashpoint. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
On balance I agree with Kotniski's "discuss, listen to others, answer their concerns, modify your views in response to theirs – not just say your piece and be done" and would not limit discussion.
Casliber's"much more common is two editors with entrenchd view becoming madder and madder trying to convince each other and get the last word" is also true, but if the "gag" proposal were adopted that would happen on the Talk page instead, and editors would add links back into the AfD page - so the advantage would go to the side that made better use of ((anchor)). The most important factor in keeping the discussion reasonable is the chairperson skills of the presiding admin. --Philcha (talk) 11:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes... but do we have such a thing as a presiding admin? I often feel (when witnessing debates of the type Casliber describes) that we should have. Someone who can bring things back under control, for example by making a summary of the opposing positions and asking those involved to do no more than make necessary corrections to that summary. This doesn't apply only to AfD debates, of course.--Kotniski (talk) 11:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I have to pretty vigorously oppose this one. The problem isn't "responding on the AFD page", the problem is editors that don't understand the borderline between debate over a topic and haranguing each other over things that are generally pretty peripheral. They'll disrupt a talk page as quickly as a main discussion page, and this change would take the worst part of our current AFDs and cast it in stone. I just can't support removing discussion from the discussion page.—Kww(talk) 12:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I see no substantive reason for this. The person closing the discussion should be trusted to weigh reasons and not length nor numbers. On the other hand, I would support a guideline limiting added comments to (say) 50 or so words, which would encourage succinct comments. With such a guideline, the example of long essays would be left behind, I hope. Collect (talk) 13:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

No, no, please no. If editors are getting argumentative, deal with the editor. When I comment more than once at an AfD, it's often to ask a question for clarification (and my own education), especially to learn about why an editor thinks a particular source is or isn't reliable. As a closing admin, I often put less weight on the arguments of editors who badger others, so those editors are doing themselves a disservice. But as a closing admin I also like to see a calm, reasoned give and take -- it helps me to see that all sides have been examined in forming a consensus.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Alternatively

...if the above is too radical, how about making it standard procedure for any uninvolved admin to remove comments that don't substantively add to the discussion to the talkpage? This can already be done, but it rarely is. Black Kite 13:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

That makes more sense (and not just uninvolved admins, either), though it would have to be done with a certain amount of calculated judgement.--Kotniski (talk) 13:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
My fear when I see proposals like this is that someone will start gaming the system by removing perfectly valid comments. Then the closing admin has to regularly check the history to see if that's happened. Sure, they could do it now, but if it's a regular practice to remove comments the beanier folks get ideas.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Which is why I suggested "uninvolved admin" rather than "any editor" - any admin who tries to game the system isn't going to retain their bit for long. I'd also point out that I suggested removing comments to the talkpage, not completely. Black Kite 16:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Bilateral Relation AfDs/ Rough Guideline Proposal

Recently, there have been a steady amount of Bilateral Relations AfDs. While most of these are non-contentious, there are some that are extremely contentious, and in general the discussion revolves around whether or not the actions between nations count meet the general notability requirement (ex. Does the presence of a Greek Orthodox Archbishop and community in Zimbabwe meet the notability requirements for a bilateral relations article.) It has reached the point that I believe a guideline would be useful. I propose something resembling the following:

Bilateral relations are notable between two nations if they meet two or more of the following after achieving independence:

  1. They have been engaged in a war.
  2. They engage in significant trade.
  3. They have been/are in an alliance.
  4. They share a border.
  5. They are both members of the same Free Trade Association (ex. NAFTA, the EU).
  6. They were members of the same colonial empire.
  7. They have been engaged in a significant diplomatic conflict.
  8. They have been engaged in a significant trade dispute.
  9. The Head of State or Government of one nation has traveled on an official visit to the other.

Input is welcome, also if this would be better placed/made known elsewhere please do so or let me know. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why 5, 6 or 9 should play any role at all. They seem completely irrelevant. On the other hand, 1 alone should be sufficient so long as the relations article isn't essentially a content fork of an article on the war. Similarly the relation between a former colony and the former coloniser should be automatically notable. --Hans Adler (talk) 21:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I compiled this list from some common reasons I saw cited for keep and from several users "standards" (don't ask which ones, I don't remember who specifically) so as to try to come up with a proposal that would attempt to appeal to the broadest possible audience. I agree with you that war should almost always make a relationship notable, but usually if two nations are at war they have also met one of the other criteria. The reasons I included the ones you cited were:
1) Many Free Trade Zones/Deals are Bilateral in nature (such as the proposed U.S.-Colombia accord which Bush promoted.) and even in those that aren't such as NAFTA and the EU, bilateral relations in these countries often improve and become more notable because of the increase in trade.
2) Colonial ties are often strong and lead to notable bilateral relationships that develop into other significant relations (ex. Many Commonwealth Realms afford citizens of the other Realms many of the same protections and rights as citizens.)
3) It is unlikely that a Head of State will make a formal visit to a nation that they do not consider to be a notable relationship.
While each of the three you cited on their own do not establish notability do not on their own establish notability, when combined with the others on the list they may establish it. I will not arguue to vehemently to keep these included, though, as I feel that a discussion is what is most needed to move towards a policy or guideline (which is what I hope this will generate.) TonyBallioni (talk) 23:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Well I'm not particularly opposed to such a new notability guideline, but it does seem a bit overkill, somehow, for a relatively small class of articles. Could we not manage with some general ruminations that a Bilateral X-Y Article needs to demonstrably add value to the existing Foreign Relations of X and Foreign Relations of Y articles? If it fails that test, it's just extra maintenance to no particular effect. "Adding value" can be judged in terms of the reader - is the issue clearer when presenting the material this way than in a subsection elsewhere? - rather than somewhat mechanistically/legalistically. Generally, this "value test" approach would also avoid reinforcing the tendency of some of these discussions to go a bit WP:SYNTHy; it's claimed the relationship X-Y is notable because facts A+B+C add up to an important relationship, which really should be avoided if there are no secondary sources substantially discussing the relationship per se. Rd232 talk 01:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
"Relatively small class of articles" – are you aware that we are talking about roughly 20,000 potential articles? This number is based on roughly 200 independent countries (102 UN member states), and it is not merely theoretical because many thoroughly non-notable articles such as Malta–Uruguay relations have already been created. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree that there could be some sort of guideline initiated. I'd think that the simpler it was, the less fuss you'd have over getting it inserted somewhere. Something along the lines of: "Significant or notable interaction" would likely be a good starting point. — Ched :  ?  02:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
For whatever little this may be worth, I think that (10) a bilateral treaty or agreement would add somewhat to the notability (or retainability) of such an article. Whether it would be (in particular circumstances) more or less significant than an official visit is hard to say. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
This discussion is probably better had at WT:N where there are more experts at guideline creation. MBisanz talk 02:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion, I have posted a notice at the talk page for WP:N and the Village pump. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
While I agree with you that the lack of detail is a major problem, the central discussion at afD almost always revolves around notability in these cases. Establishing a guideline (not necessarily the one I suggested) to deal with bilateral relations would allow for a decision to be reached more easily in cases where the deletion is contested, rather than having a lengthy discussion on whether a relationship is covered by the general notability guideline. As for the two points you bring up, you may be right, at this moment the individual points are not as important to me as the general idea that a guideline should be drafted to simplify the process. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't think special guidelines are needed. Either these meet WP:N through stories that analysis the relationships or fall under WP:NOT#NEWS if they are simply one-time events. --MASEM (t) 14:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Some thoughts on relisting now that AFD is 7 days

Considering that AFDs now run for 7 days, I've been more careful about relists seeing that a relist now keeps a discussion open for almost half a month. Example, I use to often relist some discussions with 3 or 4 comments but now I'm going to leave them open for an admin to close "no consensus". I think that there are many discussions that we used to relist but now should be closed one way or another. Also, it might be a good idea to revisit our relists to see if the relisting generated enough new comments to close so discussions don't remain open any longer then necessary.

I seem to recall that in the original discussion to extend AFD, someone suggested the possibility of relisting some discussions at the 5 day mark. Any further thoughts on this? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, WP:RELIST already discourages relisting AFDs if there are more than one or two comments besides the nominator, and already permits relisted discussions to be closed prior to the end of a full discussion period if a consensus has formed. These should be observed more often.
Relisting at the five-day mark seems a bit dysfunctional; who's to say there won't be more comments come in during the two days before the end? Stifle (talk) 16:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
As for whether a relisted discussion should run another 7 full days: many of them which simply attracted no attention quickly do, because people look at them who wouldn't otherwise, in order to be helpful, & sometimes what amounts to SNOW appears at that point. But I've seen many where I would have contributed otherwise than the first 2 people after relisting, and it's been closed already. If people are just starting to pay attention, there's the same argument for 7 days to allow enough of it.
There's another reason for relisting: when a discussion becomes so contaminated by socks or abuse that beyond a certain point nobody can contribute usefully--when that happens, whether at day 1 or day 7, it's often better to relist aand start over. DGG (talk) 17:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm ambivalent on your first point. To your second, that's not so much relisting as closing the old AFD as a trainwreck and opening a new one (the distinction, perhaps, being that a "traditional" relist carries forward the !votes from the first discussion period). Stifle (talk) 08:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages?

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) says they are "non-article pages, in the article namespace, similar to redirect pages". So since this is "Articles for deletion" would I nominate one here, or at "Redirects for deletion"? This is not just a hypothetical question querying the wording, I do need to nominate one for deletion. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 19:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I've seen more than one disamb page go through AfD without complaints about it being the wrong venue.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
AFD is more appropriate than RFD, I'd say. We don't have a DPfD because they're rare... –xeno talk 19:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I've never seen a need for a discussion over the deletion of a disambiguation page. Not that strangeness counts for much in this wild & wacky project of the definitionally insane. Could you mention the page? And yes, I'm in favor of AfD. --Kizor 21:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
The page is Separatism in the United Kingdom. None of the links are actually to the named pages. With the exception of Irish separatism which existed already, all the other links were redirects created to allow that page to exist. O Fenian (talk) 21:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Just for grins, you can see the current disamb pages at AfD at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Disambiguations and past ones at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Disambiguations/archive.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to change the length of deletion discussions to 7 days

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Conversation conclusion
All AFDs will now run a full 7 days. Early closures will be discouraged unless a valid reason can be given from Speedy keep or Criteria for speedy deletion

Main arguments:

AFDs should be extended to 7 days to gather more opinions and because some people can only access Wikipedia on weekends.

I perceive an incongruity in argument across Wikipedia as regards discussion lengths. At RfA, the opinion is that the discussion lengths should be seven days because it allows participation from all users, who may only edit at weekends/certain times of the week, and are therefore disenfranchised from discussions. For example, imagine I am unable to edit except at weekends, create an article on Sunday. On Monday, it is nominated, my talkpage receives the required notification - by Friday evening/early Saturday morning it has been deleted, with me being unable to participate in the discussion, highlight the sources, etc. My intervention might have changed the course of the discussion. Similar arguments can be used where experts in a topic area are required to perform searches that demonstrate that an article has no merit.
I don't see it as a huge administrative burden to extend this to seven days, to give all parties a fair chance to participate in a discussion about deletion. As a change, it simply implements fairness, doesn't favour any particular philosophy, and gets us closer to the elusive "correct" outcome.
As a bonus, it would also give closing admins two days off when implemented. Thoughts? Fritzpoll (talk) 11:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. --Kotniski (talk) 11:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Ummm ... I agree - (see my post above in 4 days or 5). — Ched ~ (yes?)/© 11:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
No objection: changing 5 to 7 days is no instruction creep, has a good reason for it, will not make it considerably harder to delete those articles that should get deleted (and may prevent a few mistakes, although it won't make a difference in most cases of course), and will avoid some complaints of unfair deletion ("but I didn't have a chance to comment!"). Fram (talk) 11:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I can see the value in it. Could increase participation, could increase debate, could reduce re-listings, sounds good. Hiding T 12:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I propose that if initial discussions go up to seven days, relistings go down to three days, so the total of the first listing and the relisting is ten days. That guarantees at least one weekend. Most activity occurs in the first three days anyhow. Fg2 (talk) 12:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Relisting has no fixed limit, once any admin feels that there are enough good arguments and discussion to make a reasonable close after a relisting, he may do so. This can be 24 hours after the relisting, or after a second relisting, depending on the case. Fram (talk) 12:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Don't understand relisting, as WP:AfD does not mention it. However I support the original proposal that AFD discussions should run for 7 days. --Philcha (talk) 12:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Fram on the subject of relisting, they're typically closed when somneone closes them, as opposed to having any specific time-frame. Hiding T 13:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I'd support this, so that AFDs might run two days rather than nine hours. ;) </snark> In all seriousness, early closing is a problem, but I don't think mandating a wait of seven days would help, as no one even waits five days these days. WilyD 14:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
(EC)Alas part of your issue is real. Might we also require that where there is an actual discussion that quick closes not be used? Collect (talk) 14:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Seven days seems fine, but would it make sense that if after 5 days and there's absolutely no clear opposition (every !vote is the same result), to go ahead and close then? The addition two days helps when there is necessary discussion to be made, but when it's crystal clear which way the wind's blowing, extending it can seem wasteful. --MASEM (t) 14:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
What exactly would be wasted? Time? But noone has to discuss it. Space? But that's nothing to worry about. If it meets WP:SK or WP:CSD, it can still be closed before that period is over, but if it doesn't, current policy is that there is no harm in keeping it for 5 days. As per Fritzpoll's arguments, I would support changing it to 7 days. After all, two more days will not harm us but may allow people with limited edit times to participate. The problem with early closing is something that needs to be discussed with those admins who do that and that will not be affected by such a change; if they decide to ignore the 5 day period, they will ignore a 7 day period. But that's not a reason against a longer period. Regards SoWhy 14:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm not against holding it for seven days (or longer if there is still very active discussion), but I'm also for making the system efficient and removing uncontested options after a minimum amount of time (5 days in this case) has passed helps. And I'm only talking about closures when there is absolutely no question of the consensus. Even one "keep" among several "deletes" should require going out to 7 days to resolve. --MASEM (t) 14:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
That would just muddy the waters. We already have CSD and PROD for uncontroversial deletions. Rd232 talk 14:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I can understand that. Again, I've no issue with 7 days for AFD and agree with the change. --MASEM (t) 17:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
(Reply to Masem above, "Seven days seems fine, but ...") There already is WP:SNOWBALL for those cases. --A. di M. (formerly Army1987) — Deeds, not words. 19:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  1. An open AfD imposes a workload on those who vote in it and may want to respond to further discussion. The longer the period, the more tedious it gets.
  2. The total number of open AfDs at any one time will increase by 40% under this scheme.
  3. If AfDs become more time-consuming, it may increase the temptation (which already exists) for admins to close them prematurely.
  4. A relisted AfD could run for 10-14 days under this plan, which seems tiresome. EdJohnston (talk) 17:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
On the other hand, fewer articles would be relisted if this scheme is implemented. --A. di M. (formerly Army1987) — Deeds, not words. 19:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
If, on the other hand, the only practical change will be replacing complaints about AfDs being closed, with the obviously correct outcome, at 4d14h because of insufficient time for comments with complaints about AfDs being closed at 6d14h because of insufficient time for comments, then I strongly oppose extending the AfD discussions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I see your point about early closings somtimes being justified. However your wording ("when an admin believes that waiting a full seven days is highly unlikely to change the outcome") is subjective and likely to be seen as arbitrary by aggrieved supporters of articles. I suggest 2 provisos for early closes: (a) there must have been at least 2 responses by supporters of the article (can be by same person); (b) if, after responses by supporters of the article, the admin thinks waiting a full seven days is highly unlikely to change the outcome, he /she must give at least 24 hours' notice of intention to close, but may then close the AfD is he / she thinks responses after the notification are very unliekly to change the result. --Philcha (talk) 19:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I think that your proposal is WP:CREEPy. As a practical matter, I would normally expect that not having heard from anyone that was involved in writing the article would be considered a factor that could reasonably be expected to be "highly likely to change the outcome". Some articles simply won't have any 'supporters', even among those that created it. Furthermore, I see absolutely no need to require 24 hours notice for "snowball keeps", which is what you would require. (Please remember that "close" is not synonymous with "delete".) Finally, I really do think that we should allow admins to use their (best) judgement. If they're too stupid to evaluate the quality of responses in an AfD discussion, then they're too stupid to be admins. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Fair point about "snowball keeps". I'm more concerned that AfD discussions seem to have a deletionist bias, contrary to WP:DELETE's statement that improvement is preferable to deletion - for example I had to fight fairly hard for one article that I subsequently improved enough to get into DYK; the actual improvements were not that difficult, the most important sources were already cited, and any of the would-be deleters could have have done what I did. --Philcha (talk) 22:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I would say not to say "speedy delete" unless one thinks the article meets one of the speedy deletion criteria or if it's, as I said above "blatantly unverifiable" sometimes colloquially known as "calling bullshit". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I've always supported "informally by the calender" because it allows a closer to evaluate any AFD for close on the "closable log" without worrying about the exact second it was opened and I don't want to see DRV flooded with editors pissed about AFDs closed contrary to their wishes wikilawyering over a few hours. With a 7 day cycle, "by the calender" makes even more sense because the discussion would still get its "weekend". A strict enforced "168 hour" rule would mean that many closers would not eveluate AFDs for close unless they are on the "8 day ""old"" log and many AFDs would be open a lot longer then they need to be. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
On the other hand "informally by the calender" means a lot of AFDs are closed a lot earlier than they should be. Seven days of discussion to me means "at least 7 days", not "anywhere between 6 and 7 days, depending on what time of day the discussion was opened". And occcasionaly admins get off by one day—I've seen a significant number of AFDs that have been closed by a particular admin after only 3 days and a few hours. DHowell (talk) 09:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Nobody's suggesting that every editor needs to be involved with every decision. But a lot of AFDs are on quite specialist topics where most people don't really know, so excluding weekend editors who may have just that knowledge (perhaps statistically may even be more likely to) can be a problem. So letting them run for 7 days, to ensure weekend editors can have a say, may make a difference for those AFDs. With stronger use of WP:SNOW for self-promotion, I see little problem with this minor extension. Rd232 talk 15:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
It seems to be suggested that every editor need the chance to be potential invovled in every afd. My point is get involved in the onee you can and leave the others to other editors. As i pointed out afds without input are already extended and likely in the rare cases (i very much dispute your assertion that "a lot of AFDs are on quite specialist topics", that's simply uninformed speculation, most afds are on subjects that are very easily researched) that expert knowledge is needed and if no input is forthcoming the default is to keep the article. To suggest that 'weekend' editors are the only hope for articles up for deletion and they alone are the only ones able to interpret DP and research topics is a preposterous claim. I would suggest that, for a part-time editor, taking part in afds isn't the most productive use of time. --neon white talk 18:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, if it's the article creator (and I suspect that these articles are very often the work of one person), then it is worth making some effort to ensure that particular person is involved. Firstly as a simple matter of courtesy (and because we want to retain new editors, not make enemies of them), and secondly because that person may well be able to cite sources that aren't instantly available to the rest of us. Perhaps rather than change the time limit for all discussions, we should make a rule that says that the main author should be given a reasonable time to respond. If he's responded after a couple of days and doesn't provide the requisite arguments, then OK, we can apologise and say that the article isn't really suitable for WP but we hope that he will continue contributing etc. etc. But for a normal person (i.e. not us, who are rarely off WP for longer than it takes to use the bathroom), a reasonable length of time to wait would seem to be at least 7 days. There's really no hurry to delete these articles - the obvious rubbish gets speedied anyway. Commmunity building and saving the occasional baby from the bathwater seem to me to be far more worthy long-term goals.--Kotniski (talk) 19:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
While that is true, the creator does not need to be involved for a decent result and quite often isn't. In the extremely rare cases that elusive sources exist, a deletion review is the existing solution. Your suggest, whilst well meant, has some obvious flaws, what about editors that are no longer active? In my experience a sizable amount of article i have nominated were created by editors that are no longer active and by that i mean they created and edited the article 2 years ago and never edited again for example. What about editors that simply don't want to comment? We are simply suggesting dragging on a discussion that likely had a consensus in the first day. Also let's remember that afds are usually a stage after a prod has been rejected suggesting that at least someone involved with the article is watching and if you want to increase afd time it would be logical to increase prod time too, further dragging out the whole deletion process. --neon white talk 06:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
  • If this passes I plan to re-propose this idea as a way to deal with some of those "dead" nominations. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
  • As I already mentioned, if this passes I would support closing after 5 days if there's a clear consensus to "keep". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Which is current practice, afds are extended is there is no consensus or not enough input. "no valid reason not to" is hardly an appropriate reason for change especially as there are in fact quite a few listed in the debate. --neon white talk 08:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

SNOWing closes

In reading the above, it seems to me that there's more of a concern about snowball closes than the difference between 5 and 7 days for the length of closes (which seems to have no consensus at this time stamp.).

And since, as noted by several, the issue is with non-admin closures, how about we just set a time limit on that?

Let's say a minimum of 3 days for a snow close by a non-admin (or even in general, for that matter)?

For any situation in which snowing sooner than that may be necessary (such as Oversight-related reasons), IAR still applies, though now at least, the closer would need to explain why IAR applied. (Which they should have to anyway for a SNOW close, but I digress.) - jc37 04:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I would venture to say that placing a time limit on an action whose very core is the dismissal of arbitrary limits would be missing the point. Protonk (talk) 04:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
And AfD disappears in a puff of logic! --NickPenguin(contribs) 04:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
If only both the above comments were so : ) - jc37 06:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Why? WP:SNOW is needed to avoid time being wasted, and I've never seen it misused in about two years of monitoring AfDs. Nick-D (talk) 07:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Then consider yourself fortunate. I (and apparently other above) unfortunately have had a different experience. - jc37 07:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I have seen Snow invoked on two opinions and a total of about 2 hours in MfD. Slowing down the process a bit hurts few people, I trust. Collect (talk) 10:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
If there are reasons to close early, they should be in Wikipedia:Speedy keep or Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. SNOW closes are made using a different criteria which appears to be: "An "x" amount of people have quickly said this article should be kept, so I'll close it now as it appears obvious what the intention is." However, we have seen AfDs which have turned when a previously unthought of comment is introduced. We can't assume that we know everything about the matter being discussed. A SNOW close is a narrow minded close as it doesn't account for or accept the notion that AfD is a wideranging discussion which invites opinions and viewpoints that may not be obvious at the start. If the outcome was so obvious then a PROD or SPEEDY DELETE should have been used in the first place. Sensible reasons for early close are given in our early close guidelines. SNOW is not an acceptable close for an AfD. And, as Collect says, a number of us have seen SNOW used in highly inappropriate cases. The temptation to a SNOW close an AFD because you agree with the comments should alert you that a SNOW is not appropriate. Example: Someone suggests deleting an article on Bouncy widgets because it clearly doesn't meet our core policies. However, Bouncy widgets have a large fan base who within one hour have alerted each other so that there are 10 Keep !votes which say nothing more than "Of course this is notable!"; "Widgets are always kept"; "Bouncy are the best widgets." Along comes an editor who also kinda likes Bouncy widgets. It seems so obvious that Bouncy widgets should be kept that the editor does a SNOW close. A clear case of meeting SNOW - 10 keeps in an hour. But the article doesn't meet basic requirements and hasn't been properly considered. SilkTork *YES! 18:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, 10 keeps in an hour can just as much be a sign of friends piling on. One still has to use judgment about what they say and give people a chance to reply if there is any chance of a reasonable reply. But normally SNOW makes a little more sense after a day or so than halfway through. If its gone 3 days out of 5, or 5 days out of 7, it might as well stay the rest. (the exception is of course when really clear new evidence emerges one way or another). the reason snow deletes can be desirable outside of speedy is because speedy deliberately only addresses common cases, and there will still be all sorts of really obvious things. DGG (talk) 04:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Early delete closes outside CSD should be rare. One possible reason is that the article is what I call "blatantly unverifiable". That is, the subject doesn't technically qualify for CSD but nobody can find anything on the subject. This would include hoaxes not blatant enough for G4 and things that are WP:MADEUP. In otherwords, "bullshit". This is a perfect example.

A "verdict"?

Even though there's no "RFC" template on this proposal, might it be time to make a call, "Yup", "No way Jose", "No consensus", "Relist" (we keep yammering about it).? IMHO any of the "riders", or "provisions" (including mine) can be discussed if the verdict is "Yup". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

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.

Policy change not advertised widely - review sought

This policy change discussion and poll was not widely advertised (no WP:AN notice, no Village Pump notice) and a number of people have expressed concerns on the Wikien-L mailing list following a notice about it being posted there.

While on review I believe that this was a reasonable result, there are two issues of concern. One, the lack of wider visibility meant that this discussion and policy change happened effectively in a side room. Two, the closing administrator had voted on the issue prior to closing and was not neutral.

I have posted a notice to WP:AN ( [1] ) letting a wider audience know of the discussion and results. I also suggest that anyone who objects to the decision and wasn't aware previously open a discussion here to review that decision.

My personal opinion is that the results were reasonable. However, we need to strive to avoid cutting corners on policy change process. The wider audience needs to be notified and heard from, and if there are objections then the issue needs to be reopened. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

It was listed on WP:CENT, which is at the top of every AfD daily log, so its hard for me to believe that anyone interested in AfD process would have missed it. If this were posted on WP:AN and the Village Pump but not WP:CENT, I probably would have missed it. I barely have time to keep up with AfD—following those forums would take up far too much of my time. DHowell (talk) 03:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Still participating in poll I would support a wording that said "5 to 7 days", no need to have a bright line. Chillum 05:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
One of the primary arguments for going to 7 days is that many editors only edit on the weekends. Therefore to say "5 to 7 days" would still mean that if an article is nominated for deletion, it still may get deleted before such an editor has a chance to add his two cents to the discussion. That's why I have been arguing that a discussion can be closed as "keep" in 5 days (if a consensus to keep is clear at that point) but must run for 7 days for a "delete". I'm not concerned about a discussion being closed as "keep" before a "weekend deletionist" has a chance to chime in. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
The problem with that idea is that it create 2 days when an article can only be kept, and not deleted. This creates a bias towards keeping not in line with consensus and policy, but rather in line with a rule that encourages one type of result and discourages another. Chillum 16:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Would a slight bias toward keeping be a bad thing? I'm only suggesting that debates with a clear consensus to "keep" be closable after 5 days. That is, debates where an 11th hour "delete" argument is unlikely to to change the outcome. Anything close should still run 7 days. An 11th hour "keep" argument from a weekend editor in an AFD with a clear consensus to "delete" likely won't change the outcome either but at least he still had his say. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, a bias in either direction will move us away from the correct answer. Leaving a debate open for 2 days with one answer being allowed and the other not is no way to find the correct answer. Chillum 22:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to see the poll re-opened, it's clear that there is some concern that it wasn't advertised widely enough. I'd support 5 to 7 as I think that with some AfDs there has been disruption (canvassing, etc) that would only be extended by extending the time. I also am a bit surprised that the closing administrator had voted, and had thought that something that shouldn't happen. Dougweller (talk) 06:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to "reopen the poll" per se, but I think that new comments (and here's as good a place as any) should be allowable per WP:CCC. The fact that no one has reverted it and no one is yet coming here to argue the outcome, as opposed to the process, is telling. If opening the poll wider just ends up with the same result, then reverting the change pending more comments would just be pointless bureaucracy. Jclemens (talk) 06:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The decision was completely wrong. We never make decisons based on numbers, this is not a democracy, we use consensus and there wasn't one, so i think it would be a good idea to revert the decision and reopen the discussion which clearly was not completed. There were still many outstanding concerning that had not been addressed and there was no conclusion. This just seems like the typical wikipedia attempt (it seems to happen with all major changes these days) to force through a change quickly without support by ignoring any objections, closing the discussions, effectively censoring objections, and going ahead anyway. These kinda of false consensus decisions are disruptive and damaging the project. It's a collaboration and all voices are equally important not just those who think they are right. --neon white talk 19:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but a lot of things work very democratically about consensus. The change was not forced through quickly, but only after wide consideration and canvassing. These sorts of objections hold back the project from forward progress and adapation to change, by holding it hostage to vocal minorities. The fact was that the consensus was clear, and not just by a nose count. Jclemens (talk) 23:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
You made my point about forcing things through based on nothing but numbers ignoring valid objections. It's very much misprocess. --neon white talk 20:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
So numbers are unimportant in consensus? Your position is that as long as one person is dissatisfied, no change can be made? Good luck giving every single inmate veto power over running the assylum. I'd rather Wikipedia be a bit more functional than that, and I really don't care if you disagree. :-) Jclemens (talk) 21:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, go read Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus is not in numbers, "Wikipedia does not base its decisions on the number of people who show up and vote; we work on a system of good reasons". If the one person is making a valid point it needs to be addressed with discussion not ignored. This is supposed to be one of the five pillars. --neon white talk 12:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Your reason for strongly opposing the proposal was discussed and dismissed. You can't block consensus with an argument that only convinces yourself. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
None of the valid points against the proposal made by anyone were discussed in the slighest. They were ignored as they are in most railroaded processes. Consensus is an agreement and compromise. I suggest reading up on it. THere was no consensus here. --neon white talk 19:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Who keeps closing this? Just because a decision is made does not mean people cannot still discuss things. Chillum 03:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
5 days was always just a guideline, so I think that 7 days should be too. While I agree 7 days should be the standard I don't think early closures should be "discouraged". We can use common sense and not get bogged down in firm rules. Chillum 03:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
In case this gets reopened, please add me to the Support column. I thought it was 7 days already, 5 days is too short.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 16:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with many things that have been said above: The discussion was advertised wide enough for a change of this type, the result is fine but anything like a 5–7 days solution would be bad (careful discussion closers are already disadvantaged relative to premature knee-jerk closers), we are not (or rather, should not be) a bureaucracy. However, there seems to be nothing wrong with deferring implementation for a few days, advertising the change even more widely, and keeping a discussion open in order to see if there are any new arguments and a chance of a landslide. If so, we can still open another poll. --Hans Adler (talk) 17:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Someone in this discussion said that there could be "plot twists" changing an almost sure deletion to a keep, but not vice versa. This is not the case: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unhexseptium for a counter-example. --A. di M. (formerly Army1987) — Deeds, not words. 23:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Non-admin closings of AfDs

The result of the discussion was Withdrawn by proposer. Concensus is obvious. I would like to see some discussion on administrators closing AfDs simply using the line "the result was keep" or "the result was delete" with no further comment. Sebwite (talk) 20:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

((RFCpolicy)) Here is a proposal for a fixed guideline on non-admin closings of AfDs:

Sebwite (talk) 01:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Eh, seems like WP:CREEP to me, and abusive NACs can be reverted by absolutely anyone, so any problem whould be self-limiting and of minimal lasting disruption. Jclemens (talk) 02:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Is there a problem that goes with this solution? Chillum 02:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I'd completely oppose this. NAEs should not be closing any AfD that is a delete nor should they be closing any that has a single valid delete comment (already a growing problem). Giving "more" leeway is not a good idea at all. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
NACs in any case should only be done when it is absolutely procedural. There is a reason AfD closures are limited to admins and that's because they have necessary experience and tools to provide appropriate judgment. The instruction creep above is confusing, befuddling and would only help create more disputes and revert wars at the AfD. LeaveSleaves 04:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't like that there's an objective restriction on which non-admins can close. Any closure which requires admin intervention might as well require admin closure, and anything else which has clear consensus can be classified as a case of WP:ignore all rules. Is there some sort of actual software restriction against non-admin closures? If not, then either they will do it anyway when it's wrong and it will be reverted, or they will do it anyway if it's right and it shouldn't matter if they're an established user or an anon IP. --Raijinili (talk) 05:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't see a reason to create a policy this strict. Protonk (talk) 05:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I think it should be based on the individual history of the editor and experience with AfD. Now that makes sense. If a non admin has a lot of experience with AFDs, then it shouldn't be a problem if he closes a few that aren't 100% slam dunk "keeps". That being said, it should be noted that NACing is not an easy avenue to adminship. Just the opposite may be true. I just saw 2 RFAs crash and burn with the big issue on both being "non admin closures". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
  • No "involved" editor, admin or not, should close an AFD. The only exception would be a withdrawing nominator closing his own AFD in the absence of other good faith delete !votes. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I absolutely agree, Ron, but I'm referring to the current reality of AfD, where involved non-admins do close AfDs where the decision wasn't blatantly obvious. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 03:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Yep, that's the one;) I think it's fairly clear in that case that it was the nominator being disruptive rather than the closers, but of course in other situations it might be a closer being unreasonable - we can't generalize. (Although we can make specific guidelines - for example, in this case it would have helped if there'd been a minimum time to wait before a repeat nomination, as was proposed somewhere not long ago.)--Kotniski (talk) 16:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
That appears to be a poster child for NOT being an NAC candidate. Having done a few NACs before I got the bit, I don't oppose them per se, but there are really only a very few AfDs that are good candidates, and this was in no way one of them. Jclemens (talk) 16:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Why?--Kotniski (talk) 16:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Because of the repetitive, SPA, disruptive nom. Regardless of which non-admin did the SNOW closure, admin closures are not subject to random users reopening them--they go to DRV in case of disagreement, which is where that whole repeat nom belonged in the first place. NACs are for issues where there's no disagreement--when a bunch of keep !votes and sourcing additions prompt a nominator to withdraw his nomination, no reason in the world a NAC should be challenged. Anyone can fix vandalism or other minor silliness, admins are "hired" by the community to clean up moderately complicated disruptive messes, and Arbcom gets the truly complicated messes. (Oh, and if I ever run for Arbcom? It's a definite sign my account has been compromised!) Jclemens (talk) 17:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Are you saying you think NACs should be restricted to situations where the nomination has been withdrawn?--Kotniski (talk) 17:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
To quote myself: "NACs are for issues where there's no disagreement". A withdrawn nomination is an example of one such situation, not the totality thereof. Jclemens (talk) 18:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, if the nomination hasn't been withdrawn, on what basis do we conclude that there's no disagreement? (Presumably the nominator at least still disagrees.) --Kotniski (talk) 08:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but I don't feel like endlessly splitting hairs. "IAR and use common sense in doing so!" shalt be the whole of the law. Seriously, if you can't judge when things are completely going one way or the other, you have no business doing NACs, because that's what they're all about. Jclemens (talk) 15:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
A pedant writes - "The nominator can close a discussion as withdrawn, which is therefore a "keep." That's not necessarily the case - if an AfD has got Delete !votes from other editors, it should be left open (although clearly that's subject to common sense - an AfD with 30 Keeps and 2 Deletes that gets withdrawn obviously isn't contentious). Black Kite 21:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion for #How to list pages for deletion section

WP:AFD#How to list pages for deletion currently transcludes Template:AfD footer, which is some text, followed by the multi-colored table at Template:AfD in 3 steps, followed by this text:

Once listed, deletion discussions can, optionally, also be transcluded into an appropriate deletion sorting category, such as the ones for actors, music, academics, or for specific countries; which helps attract people familiar with a particular topic area. Please see the list of categories.

What follows at the end of the section is a list of other ways to attract attention to the AfD discussion by notifying people that have worked on the article.

The "following" text, particularly the paragraph quoted above, sort of disappears in the shadow of the table. I think it would be better to remove this text from the template and then use it to create a subsection immediately after the table, titled something like ===Attracting attention to the discussion=== or ===Notifying interested people===. The subsection would contain the two major ways of alerting participants to the AfD (deletion sorting or leaving a note at specific WikiProject's talk pages to attract the attention of people generally interested in the subject, and individual notices to contributors to the specific article).

The entire section should clearly be labeled as an optional step, but I'd like to see it appear in the page's table of contents because I think some nominators do look for this information, and because greater subject-specific advertising might reduce the number of discussions that end with no consensus or relisting. (And here's a plug for categorizing discussions under WP:DELSORT whenever you participate in a discussion. It's quick, it's easy, and it really does attract people that know where to find sources to support viable articles.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). Stifle (talk) 13:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your 'vote of support', but
  1. ((sofixit)) is specific to the mainspace because we don't actually want to encourage people to re-write major pages like this one without at least checking in to see whether there's any significant opposition, and
  2. this involves changing a template that is transcluded on three pages (I see that I didn't make that clear), which might have complications that I'm unaware of (although it looks fine to me).
If there's no opposition in a day or two, I will make the changes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I think editing the process part of a page can be done without a great deal of prior notification so long as you are responsible about it. thanks for attempting to fix this up. I've long looked at it as awkwardly worded but didn't know how best to fix it. Protonk (talk) 00:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 Done. Feel free to expand with anything else that might be appropriate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Any change in AfD process?

I wonder if there will be any discussion about the current AfD process in the light of the recent User:JamesBurns case. This case showed that it is possible to manipulate AfDs over a period of at least four years with up to eight socks per discussion (like here) without being noticed. I wonder if the project is interested in changing the AfD process in a way that massive manipulation like this will become more difficult in the future. Sorry, if I missed a currently ongoing discussion. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 15:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm beginning to wonder if this whole JamesBurns mess might not be some kind of long POINTy campaign to demonstrate that our deletion system is "gameable". If true then the only thing he has demonstrated is that any system is "gameable" if someone has enough time and persistence. This is especially true if the ordinary "good faith" editors who participate in AFDs have lives and jobs and therefore don't have time to scrutinize every AFD !voter for "fishyness". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Who would mass-manipulate AfD discussions over a period of several years to proof a point? Combined with the other socks' edits this looks more like too much time on one hand and a serious amount of mental illness on the other. But this doesn't help to improve AfDs in general. Of couse it always will be gameable, but shouldn't we try to make it a bit more difficult? --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 16:34, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
The best way to make it more difficult is for closing admins to take the time to weigh all the arguments, taking policy into account. That way anyone trying to game the system would have to at least make sound arguments for their position.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:38, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
That was one of the problems. Some of the JB and sock delete arguments were "sound arguments" (at least as sound as many of the arguments from "good faith deletionists") that were slightly changed and paraphrased by different socks. It's not surprising that some experienced and AFD savvy admins were fooled. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
That's the counter side of one line !votes only naming polices or other !voters, but no indication of own research or original arguments. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 17:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Here's one of the AFDs in question. Sound deletion rationale, one sound delete !vote and one "so so" delete !vote. All spaced a day or so apart and all with a different writing style but all the same person. If Paul Eric didn't come by and blow the whistle on this puppet show, I wouldn't have touched it and the article most likely would have been deleted and you couldn't have blamed the admin who did it. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 17:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, you're right of course, but it still can be used as an example for my argument: While one sock !votes with the statement that there's no sources at Google or Google books, one could verify that very easy. The second !vote says nothing at all. Where did he look? Or did the !vote just repeat the above !vote? Of course it did. Also the nomination is quite good on this AfD. It is longer than most other nominations and actually shows the nominator did some research. Compare to lets say this one or even this one. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 17:38, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Looking at Hexachord's example above, I can't say I argee with the close, socks or no socks. While the delete arguments seem policy-based, they pick and choose a small part of the guideline and ignore the refs in the article. Reopening that AfD was the right thing to do. (Of course, I may just be hyper-sensitive to this right now because an article I put quite a bit of work into rescuing was deleted because the closing admin was swayed by the drive-by delete !votes that happened before the refs were added. *grin*) In Ron's example, I spent a couple of minutes trying to find notability for the band, and came up empty. Of course, I always get leary of basing notability solely on sources available on teh intertoobs for people and bands who had their day pre-intertoobs. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
I think the question is, what can we change to prevent this? We will always have problems with sock puppets, we just have to do our best. Chillum 17:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't suppose this problem will ever be solved to our full satisfaction, but it might be worth putting a notice at the top of AfDs (and all discussions where numbers are likely to influence the outcome), asking people who are not regular editors to briefly introduce themselves and explain by what route they came upon the discussion. Then we could have a bot picking out those commenting editors without much history and reporting them for possible discounting (perhaps on an admins-only page). Of course a really clever bot would keep records of voting patterns and identify sets of accounts with similar patterns... --Kotniski (talk) 17:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, it would be nice to be able to put a XfD into a category that caused a bot to come along and make a report about the involved users on a sub page or the talk page. Not automatically, but upon request. Chillum 18:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Manuipulation like that is happening all the time on AfDs at the moment. The only difference with the James Burns example is that they were all the same person. Black Kite 23:38, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to point out this comment by Uncle G. Flatscan (talk) 05:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
More