RationalWiki talk:Articles for deletion/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 29 December 2021. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Closed Proposals

What do we do with deletion proposals that have closed? We should probably start an archive, right? Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 22:56, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I haven't quite decided. I was considering seeing if Pilbot could handle it, but perhaps I should leave it to the floor? Zero (talk) 01:13, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Move them to the article's talkpage. Or just keep them there in the first place. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 07:05, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Archive subpage(s), with a link to on the main. Also, I really dislike the closing format. If you were going to copy from Wikipedia, why didn't you copy afd top/afd bottom too?--ZooGuard (talk) 08:18, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I didn't think the collapsing argument was the best way for us to go about closing discussions. I can bring it over if it's wanted. Zero (talk) 13:48, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Pibot's useless, I've set up an archive page manually instead. Sophie^Wilder 16:57, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Automagic would be better. WIGOs never get archived to the point it crushed the rss feed. ^talk 17:17, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately a lot of automagic is broken as Trent and David figure out how many virgin sacrifices it takes to make the server play nice. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 17:46, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

selecting for deletion

Is there a way to find pages with no hits older than say 1-2 years ? Hamster (talk) 18:32, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I ran through some of the Wikimedia help manuals but came up dry on searching by view count. I would say no, but I spent some time skimming through this to see if there was anything that sounded like it could be promoted to deletion. Zero (talk) 18:47, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Not through the site or API and it's not remotely practical to do from Apache logs even for short periods, to the extent it's even practical to hold onto such absolutely massive logs for very long. 19:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

We don't even have logs going back two years. And if literally nobody's looked at it, why is it a problem? - David Gerard (talk) 20:00, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Re-opening inconclusive proposals

You can do that, right? \m/ESSIAH 22:54, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Or just go ahead & delete & ride out the shitstorm. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:25, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Hmm… probably not the best idea. I'll just wait 'til something happens. \m/ESSIAH 00:26, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

It is best to prove why it should be reconsidered. If you have a stronger point than just "try again", show it. Zero (talk) 19:01, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Subsubpages

Should we start breaking this up by month? It's getting pretty long. FuzzyCatPotato of the Moribund Necks (talk/stalk) 07:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I think so. But perhaps not subsubpages, just "/Archive December 2014" etc. Bicycle^wheel 10:05, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I volunteer anyone but me to do it FuzzyCatPotato of the Moribund Necks (talk/stalk) 01:09, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I see little reason to bother, unless MediaWiki fails to make the page or something - David Gerard (talk) 12:24, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

The page takes 5+ seconds to load & render, which is rather long ... I don't see a need to seperate it by month, though. We can just creates a page per-year (RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Archive2014 or something); or even simpler, just move 2014 and earlier to RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Archive1 or something, and keep the rest as-is... Carpetsmoker (talk) 12:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Please Use this

Apparently we're slipping back into drive-by deletion with three pages in the past month just slapping the old deletion template on and not bothering with this page. Please get eyes on so deletions can happen instead of being left alone with a big red X. Zero (talk) 19:01, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Only one of those was a drive-by templating; the other cases had deletion-related comments/discussions on the article's talk pages, as per the established deletion process. If you want this page to supersede that process, you're going about it all wrong. As it stands now, this new system isn't easy to use (especially for users new to the site or to wikis in general), doesn't integrate with any related discussions about the merits of an article, stifles discussion into binary voting, is poorly documented with confusing and incomplete instructions, and isn't supported by any of the wiki's help or policy pages. Try fixing some of those problems so that it's a system everyone will be happy to use rather than just riding roughshod over these issues and interfering with people's ability to use the more familiar and intuitive system. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:32, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

By "everyone" you mean "you". It's already worked to catch a pile of drive-by deletions, and worked superlatively. The "community standards" page also says to use the intercom (a site notice on every fucking pageview), which hasn't been used in years and would almost certainly be considered unacceptable in practice. Thus, that section of the standards needs updating.

Probably the best practical method to deal with drive-by deletion and its fans is to catch instances of it and transfer them here. Repeat until the perpetrators realise they can't just kill stuff quietly. Keep an eye on the deletion log for similar reasons - David Gerard (talk) 22:46, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I lolled at "kill stuff quietly". This system alerts those who might be concerned (ie people who edited the article in question) how? ħuman 20:53, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

If it was on their Watchlist, they'd see the AfD note getting added to the article. In this way it's no worse than the previous deletion template into talk page discussion process at alerting people. Nullahnung (talk) 21:11, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

That's over-optimistic. If they check every edit to every item on their watchlist, they'll see it. If the person nominating the article writes "nominated for deletion" or a similar message in the edit summary (something that isn't covered in the [still woefully inadequate] instructions and seldom happens) and no further edits are made to the page before people watching it notice this edit summary in their watchlist, they'll see it. If not, they'll see what looks like a fairly small edit (the effect of adding a template) in their watchlist, and if they don't check the page every time they see a small edit they might remain completely unaware of the deletion discussion. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:04, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Ordering

(brings fresh paint to bike shed) I think that the Delete arguments should go above the keep arguments, as they're the ones that start each AfD off. Bicycle^wheel 20:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, are you a bike commuter too? I just kinda took your name as a name. Anyways, yes, I agree. It just makes sense. I've noticed when I read them, I incorrectly assume that the deletes are responding to the keeps, until I remind myself that it's the other way. Ikanreed (talk) 20:11, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Look at the history of Template:Article for deletion discussion and its talk page - I had an edit war with its author over similar concerns.--ZooGuard (talk) 10:23, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't ride a bike :) My username is from Marcel Duchamp, and I was referring to WP:Parkinson's law of triviality. Bicycle^wheel 10:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Instructions for what to do with archived discussions.

There are none. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 17:35, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

[1] Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 17:45, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Kid. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 17:49, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Rule change

Current text:

Then wait a while and see what the mob thinks, unless there's an actual reason it needs to be taken out and shot quickly (e.g., severely problematic living person bio).

Proposed text:

Wait a week and see what the mob thinks, unless there's an actual reason it needs to be taken out and shot quickly (e.g., severely problematic living person bio), or if the mob overwhelmingly votes for one side.

Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 18:44, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I support this with the exception of the snowball clause. Unless an article is clearly nominated in bad faith (a creationist editor nominating the Evolution article for deletion to make a statement, for example), I cannot see any justification for closing a discussion before it has run its course. It's sacrificing fairness in the name of efficiency. -Shtrominer (talk) 19:13, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

"fairness" -- on the off chance 11 editors would've appeared out of the blue to delete that article?

The clause is there to make sure people don't get bored with AFD. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 19:15, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:SNOW exists for a reason. Sometimes the AfD is so one-sided there's no point carrying on. So yeah. I'm for adding that new bit. Bicycle^wheel 19:17, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

(reply to FuzzyCatPotato) "Fairness" is ensuring that all official processes are conducted according to the same set standard. Poll workers don't stop counting votes even if preliminary results show a landslide toward one candidate. -Shtrominer (talk) 19:26, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Poll workers have to worry about an elected office. RW worries about a wiki page. The different scope matters. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 20:07, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Your nomination lost dude, get over it. I'm for the change. ^{— Unsigned, by: Paravant / talk / contribs} --20:46, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Not me. We don't need to humour every dubious nomination with a week-long vote. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:51, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

A: Hence the overwhelming clause.

B: What's a better length of time? oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 20:53, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

4 days maybe? Taking my inspiration from the recent mod vote. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 20:55, 7 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

3.14 Days?--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 20:59, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Why are you rewriting policies to pacify a sore loser? It's just not needed. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:00, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah, good point. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 21:08, 7 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

Lol, actually I just figured this was a good idea regardless of its source. FuzzyCatPotato of the Raging Embryos (talk/stalk) 00:14, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Because this issue extends beyond myself and what I personally believe to be the failings of this wiki. It's going to come up in the future, so it seems logical to create a policy addressing it to prevent headaches down the line. If the snowball clause is implemented, it needs to be specified what "overwhelmingly votes" means. I'd say like 12 votes one way and one or two the other. Otherwise I think it's opening the door to mods jumping the gun and closing discussions when it's 6-1, as happened yesterday. -Shtrominer (talk) 00:32, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

For

1. Ballin'. As when something snowballs here among the regulars its pretty safe. Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 00:35, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
2. Yep. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 03:35, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
3. This would make the policy clearer.--Owlman (talk) 03:37, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
4. In favor with the caveat that "overwhelming mob vote" be further defined through precedent Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 11:59, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Against

1. We don't need to rewrite policies every time somebody throws a tantrum. This is just creating more space for tedious wikilawyering & will do nothing to improve process. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 07:56, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
2. I don't feel the added text is necessary. If nobody's in favor of keeping the article, it'll get deleted whether or not the rules specifically require it. I don't see why it's important how fast a shit article gets deleted, especially since if it breaks any rules it just gets deleted on the spot. Frederick^♠♣♥♦ 03:01, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
3. What Weaseloid said. Fuck our recently LANCB'd whiner.--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 03:53, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
4. Looking at the archives, this does not really seem to be a problem. no need. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 04:03, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Better instructions

If someone wants to make using the AFD process easier, Template:Editnotice can be used to add the appropriate instructions on the respective subpages. (See Template:Editnotice load for instructions.) --ZooGuard (talk) 19:18, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

OH KAY. I would like better instructions. CorruptUser (talk) 01:11, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Archive afd discussions to the talk page of kept articles

I think we should archive afd discussions to the talk page of articles that were ultimately kept in order to reduce the risk of someone nominating the same article for the same reason(s) again. I am not the Ombud's man 17:56, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not keen on adding procedural faff without a really compelling real-life need - David Gerard (talk) 18:45, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

The reason for it is not having to rehash deletion debates that have already been had. I am not the Ombud's man 18:52, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

It might be better to simply transclude the Afd there. We used to debate deletions on the talk pages before this AfD business started so it's a sort-of continuation of that. We could do the same with moves, merges etc. Bicycle^wheel 19:10, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

See, at that point if you wanted to show a need for this you might, say, give an actual example of this having been a problem - David Gerard (talk) 10:05, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Only one article has ever been AfD'd twice, I think we can handle the situation. Bicycle^wheel 17:25, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

More important thang

Merge AfD and RW:DUP. RW:DUP gets fewer views & is far messier; AfD already has a "merge/redirect" section. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 19:07, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Nah, they're different things. "Merge" here is "as opposed to just killing it with fire" - David Gerard (talk) 17:52, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

It seems like a fair idea. The result would be some sort of "Articles requiring work" or something. —Kazitor, ^pending 11:13, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion

'Rationalwiki Limbo space' - the equivalent of Wikipedia's BJAODN for entries and comments that are just humourous enough to keep but not good enough to justify their own articles. 31.49.115.137 (talk) 21:03, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

RationalWiki talk:What is going on at ASK?/Archive7

Why does this appear in the "pages marked for deletion"? It isn't in Category:AFD. Christopher (talk) 15:04, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Not a clue.--JorisEnter (talk) 19:22, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

It seems to include a template that includes the AFD template, but I didn't bother tracking down which one - David Gerard (talk) 22:14, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

It's not appearing in it now, anyone do anything to fix it or did it just happen? Christopher (talk) 19:27, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

m a g i c ! - David Gerard (talk) 12:06, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Random subpages appearing in the list of articles for deletion

RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/All non-English articles and RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Archive 2015 are appearing in the list of articles for deletion, this shouldn't be happening. Christopher (talk) 18:48, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Deleted Wikipedia articles submitted by insane people

It's what it says on the tin. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:28, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I give you The Ansestorial Gods. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 19:43, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I added a substantial chunk of those to the list; my personal favorite (my handiwork) was Kids Raping and Singing, but it's the associated comment that really puts it over the top. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:57, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Proposed Criteria

Because there doesn't seem to be any standard for how we delete these articles, I think we should have a little test. I hereby introduce the Three Criteria for Mainspace Deletion:

1. The article or topic is off-mission.
2. The article is a stub with little to no chance of expansion.
3. The article does not contain any sources, nor can anyone find sources for the claims within.

This way we have a codified rule for deletion, and the Burden of proof is on the people who wish to delete the article in question, not those who wish to keep it. RoninMacbeth (talk) 15:26, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Furthermore, an article would have to meet two of these criteria to be deleted. RoninMacbeth (talk) 15:31, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

This standard is clearly satanic. Christopher (talk) 15:32, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

RoninMacbeth (talk) 15:35, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Sure.-DiamondDisc1(talk) 21:08, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

How about if the consensus is for it to go, it goes. We're not yet big enough to need rules governing this. Christopher (talk) 21:11, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Alright, I'll put it up.-DiamondDisc1(talk) 21:17, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Two out of three people supporting something like this is not consensus. Christopher (talk) 21:21, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Idk if it's worth taking it down. Do you have any doubts?-DiamondDisc1(talk) 21:22, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

It's not exactly hard to take it down and it's only been up a few minutes, as my post on 21:11 made clear, I think it's an absurd idea. Christopher (talk) 21:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I'll rollback the edit for now.-DiamondDisc1(talk) 21:26, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

For a fairly big change (and it would be, if it wasn't ignored) such as this, a post in the saloon is probably needed. Christopher (talk) 21:31, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ For posterity, the result was a resounding "no". —Kazitor, ^pending 11:20, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Looking back

AFD system has been here for abit over four years now. Would we ever want to go back? Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 22:32, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

New Topic

Recently, we have had to deal with individuals claiming to be the subjects of articles or unattached talkpages, either claiming to repent or wishing to end a feud with RW as a whole. Under what circumstances should these requests be considered? RoninMacbeth (talk) 17:36, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

@RoninMacbeth Forgive me for answering a question with a question, but are you asking if we should accept their claims at face value and delete their articles? Or are you asking under what conditions we should believe their claims? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 18:17, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

The deletion request should be handled the same way any other one is; it should be reviewed based on the reasons given and debated in the AfD pages. If the rationale is ridiculous, it'll invariably be rejected whether or not the requester claims to be the subject of the article or not. One of the only times I can see where one of these types of requests is rejected outright without discussion is where the article has previously been the subject of an AfD, as was the case with the recent Viharo case. In most cases there's no need to open up a discussion that's already been debated and closed. Also, if the AfD includes any kind of threat (legal, harassment, etc.) towards RW or any of its editors, the request should be vaporized on sight. Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 18:21, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie: The latter question is what I mean. @Cosmikdebris: So should I restore the Ben Steigmann talkpage? IIRC, we didn't go through the proper channels for its deletion. RoninMacbeth (talk) 18:32, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

@RoninMacbeth If the individuals in question can prove that they are indeed who they claim to be (posts on their sites/blogs/social media accounts, confirmation via a verified email account, etc), and that they have indeed turned their act around (news articles, apologies via their site/blogs/social media accounts, etc), then their articles should be amended to reflect their change in status. We should not, however, delete the articles in their entirety, as that would fall under whitewashing the reputations in question. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 18:46, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

@RoninMacbeth Well, the Steigmann case was not a repeat AfD like the Rome Vhiaro one was, and there was some debate. It was removed rather quickly, though, and there were anons involved in the discussion, so your point is valid. I didn't see a solid justification for removal of the Steigmann article because I saw the request as either the subject or his sock puppets whining about non-notability and poor sourcing, neither of which is a valid reason for removal. Cosmikdebris (talk) 18:53, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

What to do with second-take afd?

I'm attempting an AfD for Category:Bullshit but it seems like there is one that exists already. Do I move the old one to make way for the new one or...? I'm sorry, there's no instructions on those kinds of AfD and I'm not really willing to parse through archives to see what they've done to those entries. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 02:23, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

@LeftyGreenMario I would suggest a modifier in the title of a new AfD article to clarify that it is a new AfD vote, perhaps the current year or alternatively something along the lines of "second version" or some such. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 02:27, 12 May 2018 (UTC)