[go: nahoru, domu]
Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 134: Line 134:


*I replaced the AfD tag with a new one, pasted the original deletion rationale, and put it on today's listing. I think that was the best way to proceed. [[User:Reyk|<b style="color: Maroon;">Reyk</b>]] <sub>[[User talk:Reyk|<b style="color: Blue;">YO!</b>]]</sub> 10:31, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
*I replaced the AfD tag with a new one, pasted the original deletion rationale, and put it on today's listing. I think that was the best way to proceed. [[User:Reyk|<b style="color: Maroon;">Reyk</b>]] <sub>[[User talk:Reyk|<b style="color: Blue;">YO!</b>]]</sub> 10:31, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

== Please nominate [[Apple Sabine character set]] for deletion. ==

I'm not sure why this was ever added to Wikipedia in the first place. It was just someone's hobby project.

Revision as of 23:44, 30 November 2019

Request to update AFDFORMAT

@HighKing, Northamerica1000, Softlavender, and Floquenbeam: pinging everybody who seemed to be involved in this previously; feel free to add anybody I've missed.

Under WP:AFDFORMAT, we say: Nomination already implies that the nominator recommends deletion (unless indicated otherwise), and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line. I propose we clarify that to make it clear that the bullet per-se, is not the significant thing.

In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdali Medical Center (2nd nomination), my original misclose was based on two things. First, HighKing's bolded Delete (albeit without a bullet) looked like a !vote. Second, User:Makeandtoss, while arguing to keep, did not actually say Keep anywhere. The end result was I took a quick look at this, saw the nomination, two more deletes (apparently in addition to the nomination), and no keeps. This led me to believe it was 3:0 and I didn't bother to read more closely. Had neither of those minor mis-formattings occurred, it would have been obvious that it was 2:1, and I would have invested the time to read it more carefully.

The point of stylized formatting is to make it more obvious what the writer's intent is. Our guidelines on how to format a nomination are clearly not doing the job, so they should be updated to make it more clear. I propose we make the bullet point simply, Nomination already implies that the nominator recommends deletion (unless indicated otherwise), and nominators should refrain from repeating this. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:28, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think nomination statements get overlooked or discounted? Do you have some examples? -- RoySmith (talk) 18:47, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen it from time to time when contributors are "counting" !votes and they'd say something like "there's 5 !votes to Keep and only 2 !votes to Delete to consensus must be to Keep" and of course (excluding the incorrect logic) they would not have counted the nom. In fairness, I can't recall any closing that specifically overlooked or discounted the nomination. HighKing++ 20:25, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems pretty clear that consensus is that the AFD nominator shouldn't be putting a bolded delete in their nomination. Might as well clarify the text to reflect consensus, practice, and common sense, so that it doesn't create unnecessary confusion. Nfitz (talk) 03:58, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Really? That's a bit of a climb-down for you to admit that, in fact, I wasn't in breach of AFDFORMAT. Thank you. As to "consensus", this discussion has hardly gathered any comment, certainly not enough to amend the text. HighKing++ 21:26, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • You were clearly in breach of the spirit of it. I don't think anyone anticipated that anyone would actually do what you'd been doing. I simply think that the text should be beefed up, for the benefit of those, who have difficulty comprehending context - not that there's anything wrong with that, I've been caught on the opposite side of consensus before, despite being literally correct. Nfitz (talk) 03:02, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, no. It doesn't make sense to say there was any breach (even of "spirit") when it is clear that the guidelines were only concerned with the nominator *adding* their own !vote to the discussion (as a bulleted point). There is nothing in the guidelines about placing a bolded "Delete" in the nomination. HighKing++ 14:41, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • I disagree - the intention was clear, let alone the spirit. Nfitz (talk) 17:02, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • You're welcome to your own opinion but when you're wrong and you've been shown to be wrong, maintaining that you're right "in spirit" with no evidence whatsoever is just being petulant and is in breach of the "spirit" of AGF. HighKing++ 17:32, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'm not aware of where I am wrong, or that I have shown to be wrong! The text currently says "Nomination already implies that the nominator recommends deletion (unless indicated otherwise), therefore nominators should refrain from repeating this ...". By using the world delete, let alone bolding that, you are clearly violating the spirit of WP:AFD, if not the words! Simply dropping the bullet doesn't change. It appears that you've been told not to do this on previous occasions, including by Admins. See January 2018, September 2017 and October 2019. I can understand the confusion, if one treats the policies and guidance as rules, rather than following the immutable requirement that principles and spirit matter more than literal wording. You've been made aware that this is not how it's done, but not only continue to do so, but try and pretend that others are wrong. Please stop violating the a clear Wikipedia fundamental principle of taking things too literally. Nfitz (talk) 18:51, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                • I find your picking and choosing which guidelines to follow (e.g. "NCORP is irrelevant") and how to interpret the wording in the guidelines as very odd and petulant when you are clearly wrong on both. You started off saying I was "in clear breach of the guidelines at WP:AFDFORMAT". You've since been shown to be wrong and climbed down from your original incorrect interpretation but rather than maturely accepting your were wrong, now you're ranting about the "spirit" (which is nothing to do with "spirit" and everything to do with your desire to push your preferred interpretation and be "right") and condescendingly saying you can "understand the confusion". There is no confusion. You were wrong and are still wrong. Your selective quoting above omits that part of the sentence which proves you wrong. The full quote ends with "and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line". (my bolding). Please keep reading the bolded piece until comprehension finally sinks in. Then give it a rest. Also, try reading the full discussion on my Talk page from Sept 2017 and you'll see not only was Softlavander being a complete dick, that Northamerica1000 clarified and agreed that "it's all right to have the word "delete" in bold in the nomination header" and that Floquenbeam said "but I also agree that NA1000 knows their stuff regarding AFD, so I defer to their judgement completely". Finally, the purpose of Roy's posting here was to discuss whether we should change AFDFORMAT and not to hijack the discussion to push an opinion/argument down people's throats. HighKing++ 14:32, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                  • No one has mentioned NCORP here - you are using a strawman argument. Elsewhere I (and others) correctly noted that if GNG is met, that NCORP (or any other notability guideline) becomes irrelevant. For example, if particular athlete has extensive in-depth international media coverage, the fact they don't meet NATHLETE doesn't matter. You are in clear breach of the guidelines of AFDFORMAT - I don't know why you think I've backed off this. You are violating WP:5P5 by taking the text about bullets far too literally, and ignoring the bit that says that a delete vote isn't necessary ... not adding a bullet doesn't change that! You've been told this repeatedly by multiple editors, and even some admins. And you continue to demonstrate a lack of competence, by insisting you are correct. Is it time to consider a topic ban? Nfitz (talk) 21:51, 20 October 2019 (UTC)≠[reply]
                    • I note you don't comment on the discussion on my Talk page where NA1000 said I wasn't in breach. The only person who says I'm violating any guideline or policy is you, so with respect, you should take a long hard look at the amount of time you're wasting banging on about being in "breach of spirit" when it is clear (to anybody paying attention any more) that your interpretation involves taking a point about not adding a bulletted !vote and then leaping to the assumption that, not only does the spirit of this tangentially related point apply to the formatting of the nomination itself, but also that every other editor should interpret the guidelines strictly according to your interpretation. It's a pathetic argument that isn't shared by anybody else (once they actually read what is written). So just give it a rest. You've made your point. You are wrong. Live with it. Also, from the the 5 pillars - "sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions" so I wouldn't be in a hurry telling other people that they're in breach of anything because you're now 0/3 for your interpretations of any policies/principles/guidelines you're tried on me. HighKing++ 12:32, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I agree that the example presented looks misleading and RoySmith's evidence demonstrates that it can cause disruptive confusion. We should therefore clarify the wording so that nominations don't appear to contain a separate supporting !vote. The key issue is the bolding rather than the bullet and so we should make this clear. We should also hear from Uncle G who usually avoids giving a bold !vote when he comments at AfD. Presumably his position is that these are supposed be discussions not votes and so we should act accordingly. Andrew D. (talk) 22:11, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • With respect, three of the closing admin's responsibilities are to deal with trivial procedural mistakes, to ignore double votes, and to ignore empty votes. The nomination here was the first, and your close turned into the last two as well. Your blunder does not justify making the already-unconscionable instruction creep here even worse. It's true, though, that it hasn't ever been practice at AFD for the nominator to put their goal in boldface like it is at RFD and CFD, so I suppose I'm not opposed if you can squeeze it in without increasing the wordcount.
    Also, counting bolded words is perhaps helpful in choosing which discussions to close, but not in actually closing them. You owe it to the participants to read what they say. Even skimming, this doesn't look like unanimity to me. —Cryptic 16:14, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes - I have to say that the closing of that AfD makes a mockery of requiring references to support notability. And there's a cabal of editors who !vote to Keep 99% of articles knowing that there are a fair number of closing admins that just do a simply count rather than actually reading the discussion and ensuring that policies/guidelines are being upheld. HighKing++ 14:41, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was curious after reading this User:Cryptic, how much creep there has been - but to my surprise, the length has been pretty static for a couple of years, around 38.5k. If anything it's down a bit from 2 years ago. And other than adding in a section about non-Admin closes, it was stable for years before that. What instruction creep are you seeing in WP:AFD - and how is it unconscionable? Nfitz (talk) 23:11, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You don't think 38.5k is creepy? The WP:AFDFORMAT subsection alone is almost a thousand words - more than five pages on my (admittedly ancient and smart-in-name-only) phone - and at least three quarters of it is either shibboleths or repeating something that's in the previous subsection or following section. It's good that it hasn't gotten much worse recently, but that's not reason to cease vigilance. —Cryptic 00:34, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No I don't. WP:AFD as a whole is quite succinct. Lots of ways to make it simpler though. The bullet in question says Nomination already implies that the nominator recommends deletion (unless indicated otherwise), and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line. Removing the last 5 words should suffice. Also could remove the word and and replace the comma with a semi-colon. Nfitz (talk) 17:02, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think that addresses the formatting of the nomination? I don't. Your suggestion simply says that the nomination "implies" that deletion is recommended. But why should a nomination have to "imply" anything? Are there any actual reasons why the nomination can't bold their recommendation? HighKing++ 17:32, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you aren't supposed to repeat your recommendation, why worry about whether it's bolded. You are reading it too literally, and not focusing on the principles and spirt, which matter more! Nfitz (talk) 18:51, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Saying don't read the guidelines "too literally" makes no sense. We write guidelines so that people understand what to do. Going on about an intangible and undefined "spirit" would make sense if the guidelines mentioned something about the formatting of the nomination (and perhaps an example) but it doesn't. The point you're quoting and referring to spirit has to do with not adding another bulleted !vote. HighKing++ 18:40, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Read WP:5P5. It says don't read things too literally. And it trumps everything. Your complete failure to comprehend and apply the standard practices being applied here is troubling. All you had to do is say "I guess no one else does that, and it can confuse people, so I shouldn't do it either" and move on, rather than choosing this mountain to die on! I fear there are competence issues here. Nfitz (talk) 21:51, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's a real stretch, even for you. But again, you're wrong. You seem to have missed the (very famous) bit that says sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions which is odd given that its the second part of the same sentence you've quoted above. But I suppose why let accurate quotes get in the way of shoving your incorrect interpretations down other editors' throats. Seriously ... give it a rest. HighKing++ 12:32, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please be civil User:HighKing - another pillar. I really don't know what "for you", "give it a rest", and "shoving your incorrect interpretations down other editor's throats" are referring to, as I don't think I've ever encountered you before, anywhere, before participating in the AFD which lead to this discussion. Nor am I aware of what I'm "trying to push", that isn't in the current text at AFDFORMAT. Is there something here I'm missing or forgotten? Have you mistaken me for someone else? Apologies are accepted with no prejudice! Nfitz (talk) 16:27, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone ahead and made the change. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:57, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Response Hi RoySmith, just though I'd check back to see how this discussion was going and I note that you've cheekily decided to go ahead with the change you suggested. Please explain. Are you making the change because you believe there's a consensus or because you are being Bold? HighKing++ 12:35, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • There was clear consensus to accept my change. You were the only person who objected. I think you need to accept that the rest of the community disagrees with you and move on. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:14, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • RoySmith, that is just plain wrong. I didn't object at all. I support making a change to avoid bolding the Delete in the nomination and I made some suggestions on how to make it even clearer - check the top of the discussion. My only "objection" here was one editor in particular following me from another page saying that bolding the Delete was already against the guidelines (which is plainly wrong). So while there is support for a change, I expected a little more discussion on the wording. I don't see how your change makes anything clearer and certainly does not make it clear to avoid bolding the word Delete in the nomination. HighKing++ 20:07, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question about Salisbury Hare AfD / AfD stats

Hello everyone. I have a pretty random question about Wikipedia:AfD stats. The following AfD was closed as a deletion, but on my AfD stats, it is marked as a keep. I had voted for deletion, but given that it is marked as keep in the AfD stats, it says that my comments do not match up to the final result. I was wondering if there was any way to correct this so that my AfD stats are more accurate? Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 21:53, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would guess it's being mislabelled because the closing statement contains the word "keep" in bold: "The result was Delete. It's not gonna be any less of a hoax if we >>>keep<<< discussing it for several more days." Reyk YO! 21:57, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Enterprisey: and @Σ: to make them aware of this. Reyk YO! 21:58, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the explanation. It is not a huge deal, but I was just curious about fixing so the information could be more accurately represented in the stats. Aoba47 (talk) 22:52, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting case here. I suppose I could make it only count the first "vote-ish" word (e.g. Keep or Delete) that it sees. I can't think of any cases that would make that strategy give the wrong result - any thoughts? Enterprisey (talk!) 06:07, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think that makes the most sense. I also cannot think of any way that this would give out the wrong result. Thank you for the prompt response and for correcting it! Aoba47 (talk) 21:45, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can't think of a way for this to give a surprising result either, except possibly for closes saying something like "The result was not to delete. Opinions are split between keep and merge, which should be discussed on the talk page". I don't know of any like that and it seems a bit contrived. Reyk YO! 22:00, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Funky Valley

Someone, please make a discussion page there, with my following delete argument: that show doesn't look notable and the page only interests a certain audience - it's only talking about characters. Nothing but characters. No episodes, sources, and coverage. 77.125.107.43 (talk) 00:24, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TimTheTatman, Tfue and especially Scump

Hi, we all know wikipedia is not for promoting non notable streamer, can someone pls create an AfD discussion on timthetatman, tfue (which someones nomonated it also) with my following arguement: the topic has only few reliable sources and many of them are unreliable sources which is not notable and the notability template was already placed for a long time and no improvements yet, thank you. While on scump is the same reason that ive placed on prod. You can remove the prod on articles once done creating afd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.148.2.133 (talk) 12:31, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. See:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Pangborn

For anyone interested, please review Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Pangborn and its discussion and close, and then please see the recent edits to Castle Rock (TV series) and the discussion at Talk:Castle Rock (TV series)#Alan Pangborn concerning an editor changing the location of the merge as described in the AFD's closing. Thank you. -- /Alex/21 13:19, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting assistance nominating this article for deletion: Where-to-be-born_Index

I do not have an account and am therefore unable to carry out parts II and III of the deletion nomination process described here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_nominate_a_single_page_for_deletion. I'm requesting that someone else carry out the remaining steps. 216.160.67.169 (talk) 00:32, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on it. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:38, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. You'll need to fill in your own nomination argument at WP:Articles for deletion/Where-to-be-born Index. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:43, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request for AfD Nomination

As an anon without an account, I'm posting a request for support to complete the subsequent actions in the AfD nomination process for the following page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_Richardson Preliminary justification for request has already been added to the talk page on the article. 14.207.5.104 (talk) 02:22, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taylor Richardson. --Finngall talk 04:26, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AfD seems to have gone to the dogs

Folks please take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dudheshwar Mahadev. It seems that the quality of participation on AfD has been deteriorating very fast.DBigXrayᗙ 18:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As long as we have good admins, there is still hope for Wikipedia. Kudos to User:Jo-Jo Eumerus for ending the misery of this prolonged AfD after a month. --DBigXrayᗙ 19:02, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved

Categorisation of AfDs

Currently, when an AfD is closed, it becomes categoryless. Would it be of benefit if all AfDs were categorised by the month they were first listed in? Obviously a big job, but nothing a bot couldn't handle. Mjroots (talk) 13:16, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

6 days old AfD seems never to have been properly listed?

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JaiHind TV, from 23 November, seems not to have been posted to the daily list. Anyone knows how best to proceed? Posting it now to the listing for the 23rd seems unfair (could then be closed tomorrow, even if it only appeared for only one day). Fram (talk) 10:13, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please nominate Apple Sabine character set for deletion.

I'm not sure why this was ever added to Wikipedia in the first place. It was just someone's hobby project.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion&oldid=928681503"