On 09/03/2008, Judson Dunn <cohesion(a)sleepyhead.org> wrote: And remember: it appears most AFD nominators are quite unable to tell disagreement from a personal attack. See my talk page. So always include "Not to at all question the nominator's sincerity or good faith, but ..." when someone's done something so stupid you can hardly believe it. - d.

Generally, well referenced articles don't get deleted at AfD. So, it isn't like we're losing our best content here. The WQA on David is a bit ridiculous, though, and the criticism from an admin that "you've been an editor since 2004, you should know better!" doesn't seem calculated to actually do any good. Etiquette police... When was the last MfD for WP:WQA? On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 1:52 PM, David Goodman <dgoodmanny(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 09/03/2008, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote: Usually "I disagree with the nominator for reasons X Y Z". -- geni

Perhaps it would be best not to try and deal with that on individual AFDs. If someone routinely makes bad nominations, start a single discussion about it rather than complaining on every AFD - RFC would probably be a good place to start.

On 09/03/2008, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote: Not seeing a lack of good judgment. Just seeing people using a different set of auxiliary assumptions. But it isn't really a problem. If you wish to have a certain set of axioms used in AFD debate you have to justify them. -- geni

On 3/9/08, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote: Frequently used axioms tend to be added to the notorious [[Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions]] page, so that a well-read deletionist can rebut each principle by linking to its corresponding shortcut. *'''Keep''', a comprehensive well-referenced article. ~~~~ **To closing admin: please disregard per [[WP:ITSGOTREFS]]. --Dipshit1 17:04 10 March 2008 —C.W.

Of course, it's not just participation in AfD discussions that is required. We will always need experienced Wikipedians of good judgement and commonsense willing to close and correctly summarise deletion discussions in the light of consensus and established policy.

On 09/03/2008, Nathan <nawrich(a)gmail.com> wrote: Esperanza got removed for the same sort of behaviour. - d.

Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote: Sure, The number of articles to be dealt with is overwhelming, and one vote on one article can be barely noticeable. It is also hard for some of us who believe in a fair-minded approach to look at a nominated article without giving some thought to what we are doing. Anything else, and we would be engaging in the same ignorant processes as the nominators? Ec

On 10/03/2008, Chris Howie <cdhowie(a)gmail.com> wrote: The problem with AFD is that it's entirely too inbred, and overtly hostile to perceived outsiders. For it to claim to represent community opinion, it needs not to actively repel the community. This requires more people participating. This is why I ask people here to participate. Particularly if you don't agree with me. - d.

Why not just post them here, Kurt? On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 4:59 PM, Kurt Maxwell Weber <kmw(a)armory.com> wrote:

On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 9:59 PM, Kurt Maxwell Weber <kmw(a)armory.com> wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Klondike_Kalam… Used to be Klondike Kalamity is an old-fashioned comedy melodrama written by Gary Peterson and David Byrne. It was published in 1978 by The Dramatic Publishing Co. of Woodstock, Illinois. The stageplay concerns the misadventures of a crusty but benign free-lance lumberjack, his loving but spinster daughter, a stalwart but clueless Mountie, and a deliciously hateful villain. The action takes place during the Great Yukon Blizzard of 1888, and consists of three acts. The play continues to receive productions as of 2008, having been produced in 2008 at the Brookville Community Theatre in Brookville, Ohio[1] and the Mansfield Playhouse in Mansfield, Ohio.[2] Heartrending deletion, this. Michel

What was suspect (above and beyond what's wrong with AFD in general)? -Matt On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 1:39 PM, Kurt Maxwell Weber <kmw(a)armory.com> wrote:

...and promptly told that this was entirely proper by at least two people including me. -george On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 4:43 PM, Nathan <nawrich(a)gmail.com> wrote: -- -george william herbert george.herbert(a)gmail.com

On 10/03/2008, George Herbert <george.herbert(a)gmail.com> wrote: Indeed. If the reaction of AFD regulars to the prospect of the community they work in the name of actually *showing up* is to "report" people to ANI ... - d.

On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 4:56 PM, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote: A point I made on-wiki... If we were intervening on a specific AFD poll only, this would be canvassing and improper. We're not doing that. We're concerned about the process, and intervening in a general manner. This is entirely proper operation of the community. The analogy with canvassing is false. -- -george william herbert george.herbert(a)gmail.com

Where's this focus you speak of? On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 10:11 AM, Martijn Hoekstra < martijnhoekstra(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

On 11/03/2008, Martijn Hoekstra &lt;martijnhoekstra(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Oddly enough, I have been pushing for general participation in AFD, and consider focusing on a few articles not likely to be useful. - d.

I haven't followed this discussion in full, so sorry if I'm wrong here. I believe that statement was made by Kurt, whilst it was David who started off this discussion here. That said, I agree that in *some* of those cases, deletion isn't warranted. In any case, I don't think we should blame the list in whole for what one member has done. On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 10:34 AM, Martijn Hoekstra < martijnhoekstra(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote: The way is should, *or* they way you believe it should? ./scream

The coordinated attempts seem to be going in both directions. If one group of people can join to delete articles without all of them necessarily even reading them, others can do similarly to keep them. At present the process is set to favor the deletors. Perhaps some of the people objecting to efforts to support articles want to continue it that way. The keepers are not disrupting the process, they are trying for equal treatment. The first step in reform would be to not merely permit but require fair notice to all groups and individuals interested in an article--notice before the discussion even begins, to minimize the effect of immediate pile-on deletes. The second would be to make repeated attempts at deletion symmetrical with repeated attempts to re-insert: to require prior permission from a separate process for a second AfD after a keep. On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 9:19 AM, Charlotte Webb &lt;charlottethewebb(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: -- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG

On 3/11/08, David Goodman &lt;dgoodmanny(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Or at least a general agreement that the second AFD can be speedy-closed if there have been no substantial changes since the first AFD (or if any discernibly negative changes have been reverted/undone, especially if they are the primary reason for the second AFD). Or maybe if we start viewing repeated nominations (especially by the same user) as prima facie evidence of deletion hunger... —C.W.

On Tue, 11 Mar 2008, geni wrote: You do not need a 2/3 majority. It's not a vote, remember?

Martijn Hoekstra wrote: It is indeed a bit "pointy". I think that that is necessary. The deletion proposers have already been pointy for several years. Campaigns by a group with similar goals and perceptions can be very efficient if they deal with material in one subject at a time. Of a sudden large numbers of articles are proposed for deletion in one subject area, and an ultimatum is issued to deal with them all in five days. This easily overwhelms the knowledgeable editors in that area who cannot deal with massive attacks on what may have taken years to build up. That's pretty pointy too. Later that same technique can be used in another subject area with a completely different group of knowledgeable editors. It's a divide and conquer strategy. The campaign to do something about AFD seeks to balance the pointyness. Ec

Yes, it was not to change the results on these in particular, it was a way of drawing attention to the list in general. People should simply go, find something interesting, read the actual article being discussed--which is not all universal among those participating in afd discussions--and give their views based on what they think the applicable policy. all of us regulars there with whatever views--and very few of us really are uniformly on one side or another-- would be helped by some fresh participation. Speaking for myself, it can get rather monotonous, and those of us attending regularly have most of us other things we would rather be doing at least part of our time at WP. On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 9:28 PM, George Herbert &lt;george.herbert(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: -- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG

*groan* And they tell us the system works. On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 9:52 AM, David Gerard &lt;dgerard(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

David Gerard wrote: I remember when the Encyclopædia Britannica was wanting to sue Science Magazine for daring to suggest that Wikipedia might be as good. Ensconced hierarchies seem predisposed to such actions. Ec

On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 4:59 PM, Kurt Maxwell Weber &lt;kmw(a)armory.com&gt; wrote: A cursory glance suggests that this deletion was in very poor judgment. I'm tempted to go rogue(/rouge) and just undelete it. If I didn't know I'd get thrown against the wall. -- Chris Howie http://www.chrishowie.com http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Crazycomputers

On 3/11/08, Bryan Derksen &lt;bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca&gt; wrote: Excellent idea. I'm glad somebody besides me cares about the relationship between AFD and the GFDL. Unfortunately this will probably be very difficult and searching for 'q="merge and delete" site:en.wikipedia.org' will be bloody useless due to the robots.txt exclusion of Google-Bot from AFD pages. As it is most of the results are from CFD where it has a completely different meaning. Another excellent idea, but how would you know where to look? Even if you can view the deleted edits, how would you know which titles to look under? Tool-server access might be be a necessity. Get a list of red-link titles according to number of deleted edits (this could be extremely helpful for finding "merge and delete" incidents), or any other meaningful filter you can think of. —C.W.

On 3/11/08, Bryan Derksen &lt;bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca&gt; wrote: It was a suggestion I made once in a thread about "soft deletions" To expand on the idea, "soft deleted" articles could go to a "deleted" namespace which would be made uncrawlable by search engines. The only way to get to a soft deleted article would be to know its name, follow a link from an xfd discussion or specify the "deleted" namespace in an internal search. The "deleted" namespace would also be good for articles temporarily restored for DRV discussions.

I just took a look at that list myself. All the items in it look like they deserve deletion from all except a *very* extreme inclusionist viewpoint. I can see a point for Klondike Kalamity, though. The play predates the Internet and Googling for it is going to produce limited results.

Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote: How come?

On Mon, 10 Mar 2008, Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote: Because nobody's heard of them. I agree that notability as it is is nonsense, but any view except the very extreme inclusionist is at least going to allow for deletion of articles about individual works that nobody's heard of (except the person creating the article and his friends). I also find your main argument silly: "Like all so-called "policies" on Wikipedia, "Notability" is absolutely non-binding. We're expected to exercise our own judgment based on the given situation, not defer to a bunch of arbitrary and non-binding "rules" and "policies"." First of all, notability is a guideline, not a policy. By ragging on policies, you're overextending the argument. More importantly, we should follow policies and guidelines most of the time. If you're not following them, you need a good reason--and a good reason for that specific case. You haven't articulated any reason why you think these particular AFDs are ill-served by notability. All your reasons are generic ones merely stating that we shouldn't ever have to care about notability at all. (Incidentally, I'll retract my earlier remark a bit. Jumpstart sounds like it could be legitimately okay too, since it's likely most Wikipedia editors wouldn't have heard of it merely because of geography. Moslanka, in Russia, may be another one. There seems to be a common theme here of something foreign being called non-notable because nobody in America has heard of it.)

On Tue, 11 Mar 2008, Ian Woollard wrote: Only if WP:POINT isn't considered a rule.

Sure, that will work for knowledgeable people like you and me. But WP contributors do not all have the determination to persist over resistance or difficulty. This shouldn't be an obstacle course. We should be helping the newby and the clueless and the inept, the people who don't know they need to source, the people who don;t know how to source, and the people without the ability to source in a particular case. That is, if we want to actually join in helping build, not destroy, an encyclopedia. There is only one really good response to an unreferenced article that is not obviously hopeless--and that is to help look for references for it. Everyone, not just the author, but the patroller, the nominator for deletion, the person !voting at Afd, the admin deleting a CSD or a prod, all individually share that responsibility. At least for what I can do best, when I see someone asserted to be a notable author without any evidence, I look. Depending on what I find, I act to keep or delete. I follow the evidence: I've done 2 searches for things at AfD in the last 2 days, where people were !voting both ways without any basis but their intuition--in each case I looked properly, found nothing really adequate, laid out what I did find, and said delete or weak delete. Only when I find enough for a keep, do I say keep. On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 6:31 PM, Ian Woollard &lt;ian.woollard(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: -- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG

On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 6:42 PM, David Gerard &lt;dgerard(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Don't get me started on newpages. It is truely horrible. Apart from the bot-like entries of new villages in somewhere, new astroids, or sports players from template, I do think 60 to 80 % should be deleted. And of that, 50% as crystal clear speedies. We need plenty more carefull, deliberate, newpage patrollers. The problem is, the pages that should be kept, about half of those look just as bad as the really horrible ones. And getting one page to a more or less decent standard, slightly refd, tagged, and ready to enter the motherload, takes me as much time as about 20 good, or about 8 speedy pages. And then, when you *do* mess up (and I do, every once in a while), the comment that I do more to break down wikipedia then to build it up is not exactly encouraging.

Ian Woollard wrote: How these things are handled is the important issue. The aggressive approach is not the way to deal with a newbie with a short edit history. Nuking him when he apparently used a sockpuppet (The Russian name translates as "Brilliant pearl".) was a hasty move. What would be better would be to explain very politely and very respectfully at least once that this sort of thing is just not done, as I have in an off-list message to him. Drastic measures should only be used if he becomes clearly defiant. The absence of third-party references alone should not be sufficient for deleting an article. Reasonable doubt that the entire article is false needs to precede a move for deletion. Talking to the contributor in a constructive manner can be very helpful. In this case the editor is currently active; there is no need to dig deep into the article's history to find out who is responsible for what. Threatening such actions is unwarranted. The article has problems, and I presume that the other article which was speedily deleted has similar problem. I agree that articles about recruiting should not go into the same details about available courses as the article on the institute in Moscow, but an article on Moslanka. By talking nicely the hoped for result will be that he is willing to remove the redundant material himself. I have no problem with basic neutral information about a company coming from a single source. Basic information would include where they are, who the directors are, and their general areas of activity as well as other routine information. This would certainly be helpful to a person who is a potential recruit and who just wants to know who these guys are. Other kinds of activities would require independent verification. One participant in the AfD suggested that some people had made complaints about the company; that would certainly need to be sourced before it goes into the article. Another valid question might be what other companies might be doing the same thing in other parts of the world, or what are the typical recruitment policies of the Russians. These would interest some readers, and with a little guidance this contributor's efforts could be redirected to more acceptable work. Ec

On 12/03/2008, Ray Saintonge &lt;saintonge(a)telus.net&gt; wrote: Your description of the situation is wildly at variance with reality. The user involved was running two different identities in an AFD, has just had his main account suspension upheld after 4 entirely spurious unblock requests; and had been caught resurrecting a speedied unverifiable and self-interested article under a different name. He was also essentially harassing other users, including myself. Basically, you're saying anybody with a website can create a wikipedia article and expect to not get it deleted. That doesn't fly. It's inconsistent with NPOV VER NOR every core policy, none of them work without reliable sources. -- -Ian Woollard We live in an imperfectly imperfect world. If we lived in a perfectly imperfect world things would be a lot better.

On Monday 10 March 2008 17:24, David Gerard wrote: So many articles get listed on AfD that many people who work for a living or go to school (I fall in both categories) simply do not have the time to respond to them all. -- Kurt Weber &lt;kmw(a)armory.com&gt;