This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Might someone tell me how to delete a topic I started on an article's discussion page? I don't want the article itself deleted of course, I just want a topic section that I started to be deleted because I think it's wrong and misinformative and I want to take it back. I dropped "subst:prod|..." (with the proper brackets) into the section but was only mocked by Nigelj for doing so. How do I delete an article's discussion topic? Thanks for your help.

Hi again. For clarity, suppose for instance I wanted this very discussion topic section (i.e., "Deleting a topic section on an article's Discussion page") deleted. How would I go about that? Thanks a bunch.

What are you talking about?-- SUIT 05:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I get it. I'll tell you: You select it and press "backspace".-- SUIT 05:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I have a list of several articles that were deleted or speedy deleted when a simple look at the page history, the talk page, the article log, and several other factors, such as "what links here", would have revealed important information that would have made a decision on deletion easier (eg. article turns out to be a recreation of a previous deletion; an old version of the article is salvageable and shouldn't be deleted; the article is an orphan). Is it not possible to change the "preloaded debate" template so that such links are included automatically? That might push the standard of debate up and prevent cases like the one I mention in the previous section. Would this be a good idea? I know people can do this research themselves, but having the links there would remind people that they should do this research before piling on to a vote without even reading the page in question. Carcharoth 01:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The easiest way to do this would be to update Template:Afd2 to include:

:{{la|{{{pg}}}}}

That would then match what Template:Tfd2 does and I don't really see any reason not to do it. -- CBD 11:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

That's absolutely perfect! But the Afd, Afd1, Afd2 thing is confusing me. The AfD page says to use AfD1 template. How will people know to use this Afd2 template, or am I missing something about how these templates relate to each other? Carcharoth 12:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I also found this has been done before. See Template_talk:Afd2#Edit. I agree that the vote parameter is not needed. Carcharoth 12:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

AfD1 goes on the article, AfD2 on the deletion sub-page, and AfD3 on the main articles for deletion page... basically AfD1 & AfD3 link to/transclude AfD2, which is the 'main' template for the deletion discussion itself. The previous discussion of a similar change you cite doesn't seem to have gone far and was marred by also suggesting a built in 'vote' parameter - which as you noted, isn't really needed. I think it is worth trying the extra links for a while unless there are objections. -- CBD 20:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

No objections from me. I also note that this sort of things is used in CSD templates as well. See Template:Db-meta for an example. Maybe a similar wording could be used on the AfD template? Along the lines of "Participants in the discussion, and the closing admin, should remember to check the article talk page, what links to the article, the page history of the article, and the page log for the article." Carcharoth 01:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I've requested this change be made, by adding the request at the template talk page. Carcharoth 14:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I had previously seen articles which I felt were helpful on the Online Playboy offerings. I noticed that they no longer exist. I noticed at Talk:Playboy/Archives/2011#Merge froms recommendations that they have been previously debated and deleted. How can I see these debates and the articles as they looked? TonyTheTiger 22:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

If you remember the article name, you can generally find the deletion debate by looking for [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName]]. Remember that some articles get discussed multiple times. You might also need to look for [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName (second nomination]]. Most admins will cite the controlling deletion decision in their edit summary when carrying out the community decision. You can find that summary by typing the article's name in the Special:Log/delete.

If the article was deleted, the contents generally can't be recovered by non-admins without a good reason. (Remember, if it could be undeleted at will, that would make the original deletion kind of pointless.) You can request an undeletion temporarily by following the "Content review" instructions at Wikipedia:Deletion review. That's also the page where you can request permanent undeletion if you believe that there were procedural errors or facts which were not considered during the original deletion debate. Please take the time to familiarize yourself with the instructions on that page before making your request, though. Frivilous or inappropriate requests tend to get shouted down rather quickly. Rossami (talk) 02:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I thought I looked under Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Playboy Cyber Club, but apparently I made some kind of mistake. Wow! It looks like the moral majority was quite vocal. I think wrong, but I am 1 man and 1 vote. TonyTheTiger 17:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I will pursue the content review. TonyTheTiger 17:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Since the template for AfDs has been changed to include more info about the nominated articles and we now have their names twice in each AfD, wouldn't it be appropriate to link the name in bold to the AfD page (like what happens in RfAs)?-- Hús ö nd 01:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Probably, but the change will also probably prove unpopular, and first you'll have to check with all the AfD bot operators (I'll start by saying Bot523 would be fine with this.) -- ais523 13:44, 10 November 2006 ( U T C)

There are still plenty of people who make their afd subpages "by hand" instead of using Template:Afd2. For these, it's pretty crucial that there be a link to the actual article. It would be confusing to the point of uselessness if some subpages' headers went to the subpage, and some went to the article. — Cryptic 14:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I've created User:Poccil/quickafd.js (based on User:Howcheng/quickimgdelete.js) for automating the nomination process for Articles for Deletion. Discuss. Peter O. ( Talk) 04:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Try renaming the functions which clash with those in the popups script (getParamValue comes to mind). -- ais523 10:11, 8 November 2006 ( U T C)

Have you tried to run this script? There appear to be a lot of missing semicolons. -- ais523 10:12, 8 November 2006 ( U T C)

Now that the {{ la}} template is being used in AfDs it would help closing admins as they could delete clear consensus articles directly from the page. Thoughts?  Glen  11:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Just use {{ la-admin}} instead. -- ais523 11:48, 8 November 2006 ( U T C)

Thanks, I've been bold enough to add this to {{ Afd2}} - hope that's cool with everyone  Glen  11:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

There is opposition to this at Template talk:Afd2#Adding links to AfD "preloaded debate" template. I agree that a delete button is not that useful, as closing admins must read the article and do their own investigation (eg. of the voting patterns) before deleting. After all that, a preloaded delete button doesn't really save time. They must on no account just scan the votes and click delete without bothering to look in more detail at what is going on with the deletion debate. Also, the "ordinary users will be confused" argument is an even stronger reason for not having a preloaded delete button. Carcharoth 11:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I concur. Please take it back out. Doesn't add save any real time but does create the possibility of accidental error. Rossami (talk) 18:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I saw two more before before the current one. Both of them had the buttons in the random order and not how the buttons are in MediaWiki. I first fixed the general user one. Then they changed it to another in random order but for admins--so I fixed it so buttons are for admins in MediaWiki. Then they changed it again, but at least this third time they defaulted to the right order. I think the buttons are useful for edits and admins alike. As for deleting or protecting stuff accidentally, it's a two-step process and even if an admin's mouse goes haywire, they can reverse it instantly. One thing though that might be faster is a link to view the AFD in a separate window, and not just Click Edit --> Click AFD individual voting page. I sometimes have these things sitting on my computer for quite a while; I often go through AFDs while I'm doing another task on my computer that I have to wait for it to load, so it's helpful to refresh individual ones that catch my attention without having to load them all, or worse I research and AFD and am about to give my answer and poof it's deleted before I answer! Anomo 13:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd just like to take the opportunity to thank all our hard-working AfD closers on behalf of Bot523. The latest 'overdue' AfD output shows a huge shrink [1], and all the results on the list are false positives (mostly relisted debates (which the bot can't detect), there was one that was miscategorised and not caught by the bot, and one which was malformed, both of which I've sorted). In other words, the AfD backlog is currently running at less than 2 days (the limit at which the bot compains); well done! -- ais523 09:46, 15 November 2006 ( U T C)

I find this sorting tool useful [2], but it's not easy to find the link to it on the AFD page:

• 'summaries of ongoing AFDs'

is not very distinctive. (A person wandering around on the AFD page sees many 'summary-like' things). How about changing it to:

• 'Open AFD debates sorted by age (Dragonsflight summary tool)'

or some such? I will make the change if no-one objects. EdJohnston 00:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I researched this article carefully, and typed it all up. It was objective, informative, and had a purpose. But it has been deleted since I di not check it for six days. It has outside links, references, cited sources, sections, and I repeat, a good reason for existing. I specially made articles link to it that were connected. But now its deleted and id like it to be returned to life. Fuzzibloke 15:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

You might want to try here: Wikipedia:Deletion review. James086 ^{Talk | Contribs} 15:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Please let me know the reason for the deletion of the article smackall. codetiger 10:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The AFD discussion for the article lists violations of several Wikipedia policies and guidelines as reasons for article's deletion. -- Allen3  ^talk 10:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

There was an article before, Medo Pucić, but there is no more. I only suspect that it had been deleted, but can't find any reference to it. How do I find a log? -- PaxEquilibrium 18:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, it has been deleted because it was found to be a copy of a text from a copyrighted source. See here for an explanation. CSD G12 refers to 12th general criteria, by which an article can be deleted with no discussion. -- ReyBrujo 18:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks. -- PaxEquilibrium 23:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Why are admins constantly closing AfDs early? I mean, AfDs are supposed to be submitted to a consensus by the users, not the admins. Why can't they wait until 5 days later when the AfD officially closes? There are several articles that have been appealed as a result of this. Diez2 19:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

It depends on the AfD. Administrators will often close AfDs with obvious results early per WP:SNOW. For instance, if an AfD has 18 delete arguments from established users in good standing within 12 hours (this has happened before on some hoax articles), it will more than likely be closed early because an administrator will see that there is no point in continuing the discussion any further. Other AfDs get closed late on their fourth or early on their fifth day if there is a clear consensus and no one has posted a new argument in a while (for instance, if someone opened an AfD at 12:00 on November 10 and it gets a keep consensus, an admin could close it at 00:00 November 15, which is not quite 5 days but close). -- Core desat 20:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

This probably isn't the place to bring this up, but I'm having a terrible time trying to list an article for deletion.
To be honest, I'm hesitant to continue trying at all, for fear of making things worse.
What I'm trying to delete is this: Sie_and_hir, and I'm just goobering things up.
Some help would be appreciated.
Here's what I'm trying to add as my reasoning:
Still unsourced. Not widely accepted as part of English language (or, if so, certainly not demonstrated to be so.) Grossly POV. Article lists several other possible alternatives, concretely proving that 'sie' and 'hir' aren't standard.
If somebody could help me with this, I'd be very grateful. (and then, feel free to simply delete this note in this discussion area) Bladestorm 22:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I've updated the nomination for you. Just complete the nomination reason at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sie and hir (second nomination). -- Fan-1967 22:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

What's the difference between a deletion discussion page and a deletion debate page? These instructions are, as is often the case on Wikipedia, written for editors who are wiki-addicted. Can't they be beta-tested on the non-Wikipedia-savvy editor, ever?

• Create the article's deletion discussion page.
• Click that link to open the article's deletion discussion page. Some preloaded text and some instructions will appear.
• OR
• Click the link saying "this article's entry" to open the deletion-debate page.

Are there simple instructions anywhere that aren't a wordsmog?

Anyway, the elementary schools of Albany School District should have been added to the request for deletion of the Albany Middle School page. I tried to do it, got bogged down in the confusing instructions, came back to do it again, and decided to forget it. There's just plain too much text involved in doing it.

KP Botany 19:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Is there a standard policy, process or etiquette for renominating an article which was previously a AfD but didn't reach consensus? I ran into Folio (Company) while Special:Randoming and it was listed as an AfD in April '05. It looks to me like it doesn't meet WP:CORP. Been searching around for guidelines to no avail. RichMac 08:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Renominations_and_recurring_candidates. (Though I think the wording there is a bit absurd in its excessive caution - I love the "Think carefully. Renomination costs additional volunteer time and server resources", given that "Wikipedia is not paper" is used all the time as a keep argument in afd discussions.) I don't think there's a set time for waiting to renom. A few days is definitely unacceptable though. I personally will not renominate an article which has been afd'd in the last 2-3 months. April '05 is fine - long time ago. Also, bear in mind that articles whose last afd concluded in keep may also be renominated with good reasons Bwithh 09:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the existing afd for Folio, this seems to have been a misjudged close (imho) by the admin. Everyone except one voted for delete or merge (with a majority for merge), so the article should not have been kept. Bwithh 17:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. And that wording is hilarious. No mention of additional volunteer time and server resources on fluff articles eh? As far as the Afd, I was also suprised at the outcome. I've renominated the article. RichMac (Talk) 18:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

ARG! Why must wikipedia must be so full of beurocracy, all I wan't is a simple request for to delete an article but for that to happen I have to fill out an essay, write it in the correct form then wait a 5 day waiting period which in that time frame nothing will be done before someone comes to notice the futile request. 74.236.92.108 00:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Note that if the article meets any of the criteria for speedy deletion, you don't have to do this, just add a template as per Wikipedia:Speedy deletions and an admin will delete it right away. If it does not meet any of these criteria, it is plausible or at least conceivable that someone might oppose the deletion, and so it is a very good thing that we all get a chance to discuss it before action is taken. -- Jao 00:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

AfD is probably the single most bureaucratic process that I've encountered on Wikipedia. This isn't necessarily a bad thing. The steps required are almost a safeguard. Do you really feel that an article merits deletion? Then you should spend the time going through the motions. If it's a flippant sort of want to see an article removed you're less likely to attempt it. Though if it's an obvious deletion candidate Speedy deletion is quite quick and painless as Jao pointed out. RichMac (Talk) 09:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

As a newbie editor who may someday go through a AfD process for an article I write, I'm trying to learn the ropes reading WP:AfD and WP:DRV, while also schooling myself on things like WP:WEB. My question: when going through WP:DRV and reading interesting cases, I'm having trouble learning how to find the corresponding debate that occurred on the WP:AfD page. Some I have found by trial and error. But how do I search for the AfD discussion that occurred previously (perhaps a few days earlier, perhaps months) for articles recently added to WP:DRV. My search techniques are striking out... Many thanks. -- Frank Rabinovitch 09:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Now my question seems stupid. I saw the little AfD link on the DRV page, but the ones I had tried came up empty for some reason. Now I'm finding many others which are not empty, and the link works great. Thanks. -- Frank Rabinovitch 09:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

There may not be an afd discussion (and likely won't be, if the article in question was speedy-deleted). If there is one, though, you should be able to find it by going to the article page (even if it's currently a redlink) and picking What links here. — Cryptic 09:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

On DRv, the link is blue if there was an AfD and red if there wasn't, so you can tell which articles were discussed here when reviewing a deletion. -- ais523 10:19, 24 November 2006 ( U T C)

Really? Is that automatically done by a template that inserts a link to the AfD? How does that handle second and third, etc. nominations? Carcharoth 10:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, automatic by template. It doesn't always go to the right AfD, but if there's a second nomination there was a first nomination so the colour of the link will be correct. -- ais523 10:28, 24 November 2006 ( U T C)

Also, AfD's are often of the form [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGENAME]], though you may have to try variants on this if it is a second or later nomination. If the article still exists, the talk page should (but doesn't always) have links to previous deletion discussions. For older discussions, replace 'Articles for deletion' with 'Votes for deletion'. Though really, using the "What links here" on the red-links is the most elegant answer, and should find all the AfD, VfD and DRV discussions. Carcharoth 10:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

A major, major problem with nominating articles for deletion is that their creators are too rarely warned that their articles have been nominated at all. Such laxity raises issues of incivility and implicit biting of the newbies by neglecting to welcome them and explain Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines, and after the deletion, makes it damn-near impossible for new or inexperienced users to respond to the nomination -- which inherently limits one perspective on the argument, a form of systemic bias. This is a significant problem, and to illustrate its extent, I took a look at the full list of deletions from 2006-11-25:

The creators of following articles, nominated for AfD on 2006-11-25, were never warned that their articles had been taken to deletion:

1. George Harlamon
2. Marshall Hubbard
3. Dirichlet prime
4. Draconity
5. Daniel Assef
6. What's Under Benjamin's Bed
7. DJ HOWL
8. Alexipharmic
9. David Maranha
10. Corpsewood
11. Albert Bedane
12. Andros Karperos Middle School
13. ClassicKidsTV.co.uk
14. Sexual anorexia
15. Greene Building, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
16. Triumph Brewing Company
17. These Are The Days
18. OpenDocument icons
19. Kingdom Hearts Insider
20. Dean Parker
21. Anders Søvik
22. Adaptive zone
23. VirusBurst
24. Casey Fields
25. Modern Lunisolar Calendar
26. Irvember
27. With Love
28. Electronic article
29. Aiki Bujutsu
30. Madonna at the 2003 MTV Video Music Awards
31. Winter holiday season (nominated twice, only informed the first time)
32. Mayfair High School
33. Moddin.net
34. The Ozarks Herbalist
35. Nutty Blocc Compton Crips
36. Kazakhstan (fictional)
37. Boxed Thoughts
38. Ivan Varbanov/art name Johnny BULGARO and Ivan Varbanov/art Johnny BULGARO (joint nomination)
39. Camp Homewood
40. University of the East Library
41. Anastasis:Resurrection
42. Sumrali(l)
43. Ryan Dollard
44. Tuzanni
45. Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic III
46. Naill Coll
47. Sofia Åkerberg
48. Wembley's egg
49. Mission Accomplished (novel)
50. Dolce far niente
51. Nick Hamann

The following were:

1. The Comedian's Comedian
2. Split Lip Rayfield
3. Mulch, Sweat, and Shears
4. Runa Lucienne
5. Solutioneer
6. All Star PBBFG
7. Jeremy's
8. Louise Lidströmer and STUDIO L2 (joint nomination)
9. Walthamstone and Ulf Sigfusson (joint nomination)
10. List of Pokemon Nice Cards
11. TCM Underground
12. Dennis Raphael
13. Craig Schelske
14. Jargonym
15. Craig Beeso
16. Ghazi Abdul Qayyum
17. Democrats of Clark University (prod warning, but never received an AfD notice)
18. Amadia and Akra (informed, but no link to AfD provided)

And Kurt Benbenek's creator was only notified after I told them, well into the AfD debate; Stripping fetishism's creator has left Wikipedia. Several were deleted before I could find out who their creators were.

Looking at those results, I'm extremely depressed. Fifty-one out of a total of the sixty-nine AfDs (excluding those for articles that had been created by an IP, or were extremely old), or nearly three-quarters, never resulted in the creator being informed that their article was up for AfD. The problem is crystal clear, and needs fixing.

The proposal

I propose, simply, that a fourth step be added to the process of listing articles for deletion. That fourth step would involve playing the {{ AFDWarning}} template on the creator's talk page, excluding cases where the article had been created more than perhaps 12 months before. This would reduce the systemic bias that is inherent in the AfD process at the moment, and prevent implicitly biting the newbies.

The following is an extension to the original proposal, added later by User:Daveydweeb: Additionally, {{ AfD in 3 steps}} would be deprecated and replaced by {{ AfD in 4 steps}}.

-- Daveydw ee b ( ^chat/ _review!) 05:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea.-- SUIT 05:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Super concur. MAKE IT STEP FOUR NOW! ★TWO YEARS OF MESSED ROCKER★ 05:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll add that the note at the very bottom of the AfD footer has been totally ineffective -- this clearly needs to be made an actual step, not just a dot point at the bottom. Daveydw ee b ( ^chat/ _review!) 05:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support, 4 step process would add only a small amount of time to the nomination procedure while preventing a lot of disputes, making users more likely to stay once their article is removed and it will reduce the load on WP:DRV. James086 ^{Talk | Contribs} 05:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support I couldn't agree more. I've seen way too many AfD's and speedies for that matter that don't attempt to clarify their reasonings to the origional contributor. But for the matter at hand, notice should be required. RichMac (Talk) 09:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support with a suggested change. The proposal is a step forward, but 12 months is way too long. Shouldn't we do it only for articles created in the past four months. Any person on Wikipedia for a longer than four months wouldn't be a newbie. — Ambuj Saxena ( talk) 10:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• I've made this change, but added the note that it may still be polite to warn the creator anyway. Daveydw ee b ( ^chat/ _review!) 11:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you. Its always preferable to notify the creator. — Ambuj Saxena ( talk) 13:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• This has been suggested before but was soundly rejected as a requirement to the process. Remember that no one owns any page. The page's "creator" gets no more (or less) rights than any subsequent editor including the editor who thinks the page should be deleted. Adding more bureaucracy to the process won't change the core problems. Rossami (talk) 14:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• I'm fully aware that nobody owns any page, and I - like everyone else - am reminded that all my contributions are GFDL'd upon submission. However, that doesn't change the simple fact that a vast number of new articles are nominated for either speedy deletion or AfD every day, in such a way that new users are never told what is being done. We may be aware that they don't own their submissions, but they are not. New users have generally never read WP:OWN and, more importantly, are never told about it. As fair as it is to leave more experienced editors to take watchlist the pages they create, the problem of implicit incivility toward new users and the backlash toward Wikipedia that it creates does need to be taken care of, and telling them what the community is doing with their articles is a fairly fundamental step toward that. Daveydw ee b ( ^chat/ _review!) 22:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• By the way, do you have a link to the previous rejection of this proposal handy? Daveydw ee b ( ^chat/ _review!) 23:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose but not for the above reason. There is a place for common courtesy at wikipedia, which is why I think the argument regarding WP:OWN is specious. That being said, an article creator should have the article on his/her watchlist and should not need any sort of notification. -- JJay 21:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • This proposal is for editors who don't know that there is something called watchlist, or don't know how to use it. — Ambuj Saxena ( talk) 21:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Almost all of these editors, in my experience, either watch their articles like hawks, or return to Wikipedia seldom enough that they're unlikely to see the New Messages banner before the point is moot. — Cryptic 21:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
      • How many new users to Wikipedia, do you think, know about the Watchlist? A sound majority of AfD articles are created by new users and are often those users' very first contributions to Wikipedia -- so it's downright unfair to expect them to be aware of a more obscure feature of MediaWiki, and to use it. JJay appears to be ignoring the point of this proposal, which is to avoid biting the newbies. Daveydw ee b ( ^chat/ _review!) 22:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Let me be clear here: newbie biting is a real problem and I hate it and always have. It's something I have fought against for a long time and is a big part of my entire approach to wikipedia. Massive participation - not article deletion- is the only way to improve overall article quality at wikipedia. The fatal side effect of the deletion process is that it drives away enthusaiastic good-faith contributors. Nevertheless, in my experience (probably hundreds if not thousands of AfDs), the newbie whose article is nominated figures out how to get to the discussion pretty fast. The newbie who doesn't show probably isn't coming back to wikipedia anyway and the article was just a one-shot. There is nothing really wrong with notifying the article creator, particularly when it's a newbie - I just don't think it should be mandatory. What should be mandatory is some kind of dialogue prior to nomination. I think nominators should be required to outline their positions on the article talk page before rushing to AfD. The goal is article improvement, and any method that can avoid the full-scale AFD nom and the resulting acrimony and bitterness is a good thing. Too many nominators edit war over an article and then nom for deletion. That is just plain wrong. Obviously I favor the prod process, but there is still a great deal of abuse and unfairness in the AFD system. I just don't see this proposal as addressing the more serious underlying issues. -- JJay 00:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose for the two reasons above. If there are multiple editors there's no "author" to notify. However, WP:OWN is very relevant. Even if there is only one editor, that editor has no "ownership" rights on the article. If there's only one, and the author's active, it's presumably on that person's watchlist. Fan-1967 21:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• You appear not to realise that this proposal is aimed specifically at addressing WP:BITE, in that neglecting to warn new users that the articles they create are up for deletion is discourteous and unfair to them. You're absolutely right in one respect - active users don't need notification, because they don't own their submissions and are responsible for watchlisting them - but your opposition totally ignores that actual problem that I've identified. The vast majority of new articles are deleted because they were created by new users unaware of Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines, and it's a patently obvious fact that new users are generally unaware of WP:OWN, the watchlist, and Wikipedia's notibility guidelines - and never told about them until, at the earliest, after their submissions are deleted or reverted. Neglecting to tell them that "their" articles, as they often see them, have been nominated for deletion, assumes that they possess a similar level of knowledge about Wikipedia as we do and implicitly bites them as a result. Daveydw ee b ( ^chat/ _review!) 22:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• I almost always use Prod before AFD, and hope others are doing the same. I don't see any need to notify someone who already knows what's going on in the article, because they just removed the Prod tag. Besides, what are you going to do if this step is missed? Wait until the AFD concludes and then declare it void and start over? Fan-1967 22:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• Firstly and most obviously, not all AfDs are the result of removed PRODs; your point doesn't make sense in those circumstances. Secondly, removing PROD (and speedy, and AfD...) tags is not and indication that the user really knows what they mean - it's a knee-jerk reaction to seeing one's creation tagged for deletion in the first place. That would be why so many AfD tags are removed by inexperienced article creators, despite the very clear warning that "the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed". Daveydw ee b ( ^chat/ _review!) 23:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• Stongly Oppose the addition of any more steps until someone answers my question about the second step. Wikipedia already thoroughly bites the hades out of the newbies by including so much bureaucracy in the rules that they're impossible for anyone but a devoted addict to follow. KP Botany 22:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• The difference here is that new users are not the ones who take articles to AfD; they're almost universally the users who create the articles being nominated. In what way does it bite the newbies any more to demand that the experienced users taking articles to AfD tell them they're doing so? Daveydw ee b ( ^chat/ _review!) 22:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

In the same exact way it did before you answered, it adds another layer of bureaucracy while the other ones are so discombobulating as to be unusable. Clean up the other ones, so new editors can follow them, or answer my question, so I can post some perfectly useless article for deletion, then I'll support this, because I do see newbies complain their articles were deleted without them knowing. Until then, strongly oppose. KP Botany 22:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• Query Is it possible to code something attached to an existing step which would automate notification of creator? Bwithh 23:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Note I'm not sure if its really much of an issue, but just wanted to note that if there is a problem with biting newbies here, it's far worse with speedy deletion tagging of new pages Bwithh 23:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Absolutely, but that seems to be a different proposal entirely. Daveydw ee b ( ^chat/ _review!) 23:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• Neutral I generally believe that the policy you imply is good practice. Bringing an article to AfD without the editor being aware does sort of imply biting newbies. However as stated above, adding it as official extra step in the process would overconfuse things. I would however have no problem if the policy page/footer were edited to include a strong and big-enough-to-see recommendation, to inform an editor of their AfD article and its recent deletion nomination. Also, Bwithh had an interesting idea, is that possible? ¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 23:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose as instruction creep. Although I'm impressed by the research that went into the two lists above (51 creators not notified, and only 18 notified) I think it's fair to look more closely at a few of the 'not notified' cases. I examined only the first three. The point of this rule change would be that more creators would join in the AfD debates, and this would be good. None of the first three I looked at would have changed as a result of the rule change, because all three of the creators were aware of the imminent deletion. Here are specifics:

1. George Harlamon: boston2bronx (the article creator) was the first contributor in the AfD debate, regardless of how he found out.
2. Marshall Hubbard: Whpq prodded the article on 24 November, and notified the creator, Maddux31holytrinity, on his Talk page. An anon then de-prodded the article and the creator removed the prod notice from his own Talk page! After this happened Whpq took it to AfD, without further discussion.
3. Dirichlet prime: Leaving out some details, the creator (Giftlite) was well aware of the article deletion, and in fact supported it. The AfD page shows a very robust discussion, including several math experts. EdJohnston 23:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Ignoring the fourth on that list (it's well over a year old, and hence would not fall under the revised proposal), Daniel Assef's creator was warned roughly eighteen hours after the page was deleted (how useful!); the next one in that list, What's Under Benjamin's Bed, provides a very effective example of how unhelpful and confusing the PROD tag can be:

"This was prodded as "Book synopsis, no encyclopaedic content, little context". A user placed a {{ hangon}} tag on the article. I take that to mean the user doesn't want the article deleted but didn't know that they were supposed to take off the prod to contest it"

The creator of the above article never participated in the AfD discussion, either. The creator of the next article, DJ HOWL, was warned not to remove the {{ notability}} tag, before the article was taken to AfD without first being PRODded. They were never informed either.

To my mind, looking at the next three provides a very different view than looking at the first three. Daveydw ee b ( ^chat/ _review!) 23:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

In the case of What's Under Benjamin's Bed the creator edited the article when it already had the AfD banner on it. So this suggests he had the information. (As a newbie, of course he may have not known the most reasonable thing to do about the situation, but he did have notification).

In the case of Daniel Assef here is the message I found in the deletion log:

18:56, 25 November 2006 Quarl (Talk | contribs) deleted "Daniel Assef" (Pure vandalism; this includes redirects created during cleanup of page move vandalism. (CSD G3) [created by Hbegg on 2006-10-25, tagged by Jesse Viviano on 2006-11-25])

Neither of these observations makes a decisive difference, but so far, I have not seen many clearcut examples of AfD debates where a bona fide creator of a real article which deserved a chance to live simply had no idea that deletion was going on. EdJohnston 00:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The fact that the creator of What's Under Benjamin's Bed edited it after the AfD tag was added does not indicate that they were aware or comfortable with any of Wikipedia's policies or processes; indeed, the content of that edit itself is pretty compelling evidence that they were fundamentally confused about the matter. As for the creator of Daniel Assef and your request for an example of a deserving article being nuked without the creator having a chance to respond, that is not the issue I'm seeking to address; the issue is to do entirely with biting by neglecting to ensure that new users have an adequate opportunity to include themselves in process. Each of the oppose !votes so far, including this one, presumes that the users in question:

1. Are made aware of the deletion process;
2. Understand that process;
3. Know how to respond to it.

Clearly, none of the above are supported by the facts, as I've explained both here and in my responses to the above criticisms. This proposal is aimed specifically at reducing the incidence of biting by demanding that experienced users offer a basic level of common courtesy toward newbies, nothing else. Daveydw ee b ( ^chat/ _review!) 00:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, so now it's no longer just notifying them. We should also follow up and make sure they understand the process? Fan-1967 00:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

There's only so much that can be done to ensure that new users understand what is being done, and warning them about the deletion using {{ AFDWarning}} is a very basic way to do just that. The fact of the matter is that most deletions are nominated without even trying to let the creator know the problem; it's a reasonable demand that nominators tell new users that their articles have been nominated for deletion, and to point them to the nomination itself to explain why. Any more is unreasonable to the nominators, any less is patently unfair to the newbies. Daveydw ee b ( ^chat/ _review!) 01:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose - three steps is bad enough. And yes, I have had a page I created go through AFD without my realising it, so it does happen even to experienced users. In a big watch list, things get missed. It happens. In the case I'm thinking of, the right result was reached. And if the reasons for keeping a page are so obscure that only the original author knows them, well, there's always DRV. But maybe creating that 4th notification might be an appropriate task for a bot. If you're prepared to create a bot (or persuade someone else to do so) and if you are prepared to run it at regular intervals (say every day or two) and prepared to make sure it behaves itself, then that would be a way to give people the friendly warning you want them to have, without making every nominator go to more work than they already have to. Regards, Ben Aveling
  • I'll be taking this request to the page you suggest, but I'm staggered that a minor piece of extra work on the part of AfD nominators would be placed at a higher priority than avoiding WP:BITE. AfD, like CSD, is not whack-a-mole, and should not be treated as such; the extra time required to warn the creator is, frankly, neglible. Daveydw ee b ( ^chat/ _review!) 00:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Done. Daveydw ee b ( ^chat/ _review!) 01:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral - I am a newbie and seem to be surviving the existing process well enough. I've co-created a stub for a new article small intestinal submucosa, added some additional meanings for acronyms, performed some redirects, etc. (Readers of this note are undoubtedly savvy enough to see all I've edited here.) I've also participated in some of the AfD discussions. For one, it seems I may have helped educate another relatively new user a bit Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tamaskan_Dog. For another, I may have made some contributions that will allow for the article to be kept Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_November_25#Sexual_anorexia. What has worked for me is to read and follow the lead and welcome of the senior user who added a welcome to my talk page shortly after I created it. If I cannot find something or don't understand something or want help with something, I ask ... and about 7 out of 10 times, I've been helped. I expect for the remaining 3 out of 10 times, my query is either an unnecessary one or is one that simply will take a bit more time to tickle someone's fancy. If newbies are 1) willing to invest some time getting to know the existing system, 2) willing to communicate patiently with more senior, helpful users along the way, and 3) not just here to see if they can get "published," I think I'm a good example of how the current process as it stands is more than adequate. Just my 1 cent ... since I am a newbie! :-) Probably not your average one, though ;-) Keesiewonder 12:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Mu. Why exactly are we voting on this? It would be more constructive to discuss the pros and cons. ( Radiant) 14:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Nu. I could see a definite need to rework the AFD instructions to emphasize the possibility of notifying major contributors, but adding a fourth step seems overkill. In cases where an article has a single editor so far, my FIRST preference would be to provoke a dialogue with the editor before sending their page off for AFD, my second would be to notify them of AFD. But making it required in some cases is not feasible. -- nae' blis 15:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't really understand the functional difference between this suggestion, and the original proposal. How is an additional step requiring that users notify the creator/contributors of an article any different to including that same requirement in an existing step? Or have I misunderstood you? Daveydw ee b ( ^chat/ _review!) 22:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
    • It's the difference between a suggestion (that we already have) and a requirement, as you propose. Fan-1967 23:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. I always inform people of Prod's, I never inform them of speedy or AfD. A speedy is an uncontroversial deletion, agreed upon by an editor (me) and an administrator (the closer). If people want to edit Wikipedia, they should know what's it about and what is and isn't expected. If you make articles that so clearly are not what we need, then why bother informing them? Some effort has to come from both sides, and with a speedy, it appears like no effort has come from the contributing side to understand what is and isn't acceptable and wanted on Wikipedia. For a prod, things aren't that clear cut, and since after 5 days, it is a semi-automatic delete, this would mean that no one except me would decide on the deletion of saidf article, which isn't enough. So I notify the original contributor, always. Now, to the proposal: in an AfD, all editors are free to join the discussion, most discussions get a fair number of participants, many discussions get mentioned on relevant project noticeboards, ... Many people do their best to show that an article is noteworthy and shouldn't be deleted, thereby doing the work the creator should probably have done in the first place. Very few AfD's are unclear, and most of those get kept anyway (as a no consensus). So it is only in those cases where an article does not assert notability or verifiability, no one looking at the AfD can find any, but the creator, if notified and if reading his userpage, would be able to show that there is notability anyway, that this extra step would be useful for the result of the AfD. This doesn't happen very often in my experience. On the other hand, it is yet another step in an already quite bureaucratic process, thereby probably making more people ignore the many dubious articles on Wikipedia instead of submitting them for AfD. The spirit of WP:BITE would be much better served by being less unfriendly in AfD's about non notable subjects (hoaxes, attack pages, ... are less deserving of friendliness of course). And while we're at it, let me make a counterproposal: always warn the creator of a Prod or AfD when the deletion discussion is put on DRV, since there is now no way of knowing this except actively scanning DRV. No message on userpages, no message in the watchlist... Fram 22:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Xi. I second Radiant!'s statement, why are we voting on this already? Wouldn't it be better to discuss first and see where it goes? The fact that people have been "voting" and not attempting to "reach consensus" has meant that good ideas that people have tossed out, such as getting a bot to do the fourth step of the process, have been largely ignored, which is a shame. JYolkowski // talk 23:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The always is a bit of a problem. Suppose I prod an article and warn the creator, they deprod it, and then I take it to AfD. Then suppose the deprod happens before the warning. Should there be a warning in either or both of these cases? Suppose they blank the AfD tag before I manage to give the warning, and I restore it and give them a {{ subst:drmafd}} for their trouble. Should I warn them about the AfD at the same time? Suppose I AfD one of Rambot's articles. Should I warn it? Suppose the user has no contribs outside the article (this one happens a lot). If they edit the AfD, they're going to be tagged {{ spa}} anyway; would the 'you are invited to comment' bit make sense in this situation? There seem to be too many exceptions here to make a good requirement. -- ais523 13:07, 28 November 2006 ( U T C)
• Comment One issue I've always had with this sort of thing, is it assumes that we have a good definition of a creator, and that it's easy to figure out who that is (i.e. by a bot). Of course, if the article had only one editor, then it's fairly simple. Otherwise, who--the first editor, the one who added the most content..? If it's required to notify the creator, we need to know which creator(s) to notify, which may not always be trivial; assigning it arbitrarily would seem to violate WP:OWN. - Steve Sanbeg 16:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)