
#REDIRECT Wikipedia:Votes for deletion
#redirect Wikipedia:Votes for deletion
#REDIRECT Wikipedia:Votes for deletion
; Votes for Deletion (VfD) is where Wikipedia:Wikipedians decide what should be done with an article. Items sent here usually wait five days or so; afterward the following Wikipedia:Deletion process can be taken on an article as a result of community consensus: *Kept *Deleted per the Wikipedia:Deletion policy *Sent to Wikipedia:Cleanup or BJAODN *Wikipedia:Duplicate articles and/or Wikipedia:Redirect to an existing article *Wikipedia:Transwiki log (moved to another Wikimedia project, such as Wikibooks, Wikisource, Wikiquote, Wiktionary, or another language's Wikipedia) More information can be found at the Wikipedia:Guide to Votes for deletion. ==Things to consider== It is important to read and understand the Wikipedia:Deletion policy which states which problems form valid grounds for deletion before adding comments to this page. Use the \"what links here\" link which appears in the sidebar of the actual article page, to get a sense how the page is being used and referenced within Wikipedia. VfD etiquette: *Please be familiar with the policies of Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers, Wikipedia:Wikiquette, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, and Wikipedia:Civility before adding a comment. *Sign any listing or vote you add, by adding this after your comment:~~~~ .
If you are the primary author or otherwise have a vested interest in the article, say so openly, clearly base your vote on the deletion policy, and vote only once, like everyone else.
*Your opinion will be given the most weight if you are logged in with an account that already existed when the nomination was made. Anonymous and new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their votes may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith.
*Please vote only once. If there is evidence that someone is using Wikipedia:Sock puppet (multiple accounts belonging to the same person) to vote more than once, those votes will not be counted.
You don't have to vote on every nomination; even consider ''not'' participating if:
*A nomination involves a topic of which you are ignorant;
*Consensus you agree with has already been formed.
{| align="center" style="margin:0 auto;" class="toccolours"
| align="center" | See also
| align="center" | Wikipedia:Guide to Votes for Deletion | Wikipedia:Alternative outlets | Wikipedia:Undeletion policy | Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators | Wikipedia:Deletion process
Wikipedia:Archived delete debates | Wikipedia:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense | Wikipedia:Candidates for speedy deletion | Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Policy consensus |} ==Week at a view== See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion (long form) or WP:VFDL for the old week-to-a-view version of VFD. (''Warning:'' this page is ''very'' large and slow to load!) You may also wish to see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Log/Today or WP:VFD/Today and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Log/Yesterday or WP:VFD/Yesterday. Additionally, User:AllyUnion runs a bot to maintain an User:AllyUnion/VFD List ([ related changes]). This list of discussions keeps a list of 7 days of discussions. The bot also puts what's been recently added as a comment per hour. ''[{{localurl::/Log/__|action=purge}} Purge server cache for today's VFD page]'' ==Current votes== Articles being considered for possible deletion are indexed by the day on which they were first listed. *Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Log/2005 June 23 *Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Log/2005 June 22 *Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Log/2005 June 21 *Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Log/2005 June 20 *Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Log/2005 June 19 *Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Log/2005 June 18 ==Old votes== ''Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Log/2005 June 17'' ''Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Log/2005 June 16'' ''Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Log/2005 June 15'' ''Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Log/2005 June 14'' ''Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Log/2005 June 13'' ==How to list pages for deletion== First, be certain that deleting the page is what you want to recommend. If you can improve the article instead, do so. Consider if it might be better to WP:R the article, Wikipedia:Requested moves it, or mark it for WP:CU; you can do those WP:BOLD without listing the page here. Also, only article pages should be listed here. Go to the appropriate pages to nominate WP:TFD, WP:CFD, WP:RFD, or Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion, or to report a WP:C. To list an article/page for deletion, follow this three-step process: ''(replace ''PageName'' with the name of the page to be deleted)'' {|width=100% cellspacing=0 cellpadding=4 |- |bgcolor=#ffff99| I. ||
:
Follow that link (to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/''PageName'') and enter this text: : ~~~~
Include a reason after text= . Suggest what action should be taken for the article.
|-
|bgcolor=orange| III.
||
:
*Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/Archives __FORCETOC__ == Votes for Deletion or Votes for deletion == Is the ''Deletion'' capitilized or not? In favor of capitilizing, aka, proper noun usage *A lot of the usage on this page: VfD *The idea that VfD is a title for the page, not just a generic name (it's gotten it's own sort of etymology at this point) *Some of the templates, ex) and tags are added to the discussion, then they stand out on the page and can easily be skipped by those who don't care about them. User:Sjorford User talk:Sjorford 08:59, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
*Yes, I object. Keep those "debates". m:Wiki is not paper (an odd argument to invoke here, perhaps, but you know what I mean). As User:sjorford said, it costs very little, and it's valuable in two ways: it educates people if the nomination was wrong (or rather "less appropriate than slapping {{template:db}} on it") and alerts people if the speedy was. We don't get that many of them, and you can easily skip them.
A workable compromise might be to remove the transclusion from the page and leave a short explanatory sentence with a link to the discussion. I think that's more trouble than it's worth, though. User:JRM · User talk:JRM 09:31, 2005 May 13 (UTC) *I'd prefer to close the debates as we do in WP:VFD/Old, by slapping a vs. vs.
:::* Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/April 2005 Part Two#subst:vfd -- why subst?
:::* Wikipedia:Deletion policy#\"Listed for deletion\" notice
== Purge link ==
Would it be possible to have the VfD bot include the purge link in daily pages, as it used to appear at the top of the VfD page when all was on one page? --User:Tabor 21:21, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
==VFD Categories==
How do you submit a VFd for a category on wikipedia? Such as Category: Scientific neologisms [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Scientific_neologisms] I can't get it to work![http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Log/2005_May_21&diff=14001371&oldid=14001245] Can someone help?--User:Deglr6328 17:08, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
:Use Wikipedia:Categories for deletion. User:Smoddy User talk:Smoddy 17:30, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
== Post-VfD vote casts ==
I would like somebody to make a category called "Post-VfD locker" so that people can look through post VfDs for historic interest. --User:SuperDude115 23:49, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
*There's a log for each day's-worth of votes, for example, Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Log/2005_May_12. User:Android79User talk:Android79 02:07, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
* You may take a look at my User:AllyUnion/VFD Calendar, should you like to review previous VFDs by a calendar date. --User:AllyUnion User talk:AllyUnion 08:10, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
* Actually, the "official" archive is at Wikipedia:Archived delete debates. This includes not only the archive under our latest scheme but also the prior records. User:Rossami User talk:Rossami 13:50, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
== Proposal: Retirement of obsolete Wikipedia:Votes for deletion (long form) page ==
The new per-day hierarchical structure for VfD appears to have been working very well for some weeks, with no significant complaints.
We should now consider retiring the old "long form" version of the page, which seems to serve very little purpose, given the new scheme. Keeping it has two disadvantages:
* it presents a severe load on the WP servers whilst being rendered, since it is both huge and makes extensive use of templates, and provides a potential denial of service attack vector
* it will be rendered many times a day, since it will be hit by crawlers, and will not be cached effectively, since it is updated regularly
* when accessed deliberately, it tends to choke Web browsers presented with multiple megabytes of content, and the new hierarchical VfD is an easier way to navigate the VfD discussions, in any case
I'd like to ask other VfD users:
* does anyone still use this "long form" version of the page?
* does anyone have any other arguments for keeping it?
-- User:The Anome 10:13, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
:I expected that I would continue to use the long form, but actually as I make extensive use tabs when browsing, I can still see all the votes I want easily by opening multiple days. As I can load several days simulatenously quicker than the single long form I no longer use it. User:Thryduulf 11:30, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
:As someone who still uses the long form, I have no problem with removing it. It would only mean I'd open five tabs instead of just one, which is no big deal. --User:CesarB 13:07, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
:I don't see a problem with keeping the long form. I don't think there's anything wrong with keeping up the page for those folks that want to continue using it. --User:DeathphoenixUser_talk:Deathphoenix 13:46, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
*Just FYI, there's an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Reducing VfD load about ways to, well, reduce the size of VfD. Check it out. User:Soundguy99 14:58, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
**I use it, and I definitely want it kept. It's much easier to scoll up and check if any new evidence/arguments have surfaced. User:Kappa 15:34, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
***I agree. We should keep it. The VfD process is confusing to newbies as it is, removing something they've gotten used to would be even more so. User:RickKUser talk:RickK 20:10, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
****The fact that Kappa and RickK actually agree on this point suggests that it should be kept. --User:TenOfAllTrades (User_talk:TenOfAllTrades/Special:Contributions/TenOfAllTrades) 20:58, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
**I definitely use it, it's very useful because I can search for my name and see if anyone has directly replied to my votes, or if any new evidence has arisen on matters which I've already voted upon. Keep it. Starblind">User:Starblind 11:35, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
*I vote keep since I use it occasionally, but like CesarB, I wouldn't find it devastating if it went away.—User:Wahoofive (User talk:Wahoofive) 16:59, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
==Removing attacks on VfD nominators' motives==
I have gotten sick and tired of all of the attacks on the motives and "lack of research" that VfD nominators have been getting lately. I hereby announce that, if I see them, I will WP:RPA. I ''will'' leave the attackers' votes in place, of course. User:RickKUser talk:RickK 20:10, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
*I don't interpret things like "could have googled a bit first" as personal attacks, just as requests. User:Kappa 20:25, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
*In general, I don't have a problem with this idea, but lack of research before nominating an article is sometimes a sign that the nomination is being made in bad faith, and in those cases, comments about that should remain in the discussion (unless they speak to motive or are otherwise abrasive). User:Android79User talk:Android79Special:Emailuser/Android79 21:03, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
*Nor do I. I posted a response to the accusation that I attacked a nominator on RickK's talk page because I don't want to highlight it here. We all bitch and whine about how high the traffic is on VfD, why not remind the nominators to take thirty seconds to have a look for themselves before nominating something they're not knowledgeable about? --Un">User:Unfocusedfocused">User talk:Unfocused 21:08, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
**You are referring to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Masjid e Tooba, which a google test wouldn't have helped. 114 hits does not help its vfd case any. I tend to agree with RickK here, there is no need to demean nominators by suggesting that they are being lazy. Unless the nominator has a history of nominating notable articles, the comments should be kept to a minimum. A simple "Keep. Notable." will do fine. --User:DropDeadGorgias User_talk:DropDeadGorgias 21:12, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
***COUNTING Google hits is virtually useless. LOOKING at the first Google hit in this case would have immediately established notability. 70 meter minarets! Interior space for 5000! This place is HUGE by virtually any measure of enclosed buildings.
***Further, I suspect you're thinking "Strong Keep, suggest withdrawl of nomination." is critical of the nominator. ''It isn't.'' It's similar to voting Speedy Keep, but at the same time, asking for the agreement of the nominator rather than accusing them of vandalistic nomination, as a Speedy Keep vote does.
***Further, look at the nominator's response in Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Wazir Mansion (Karachi). He was late for work and didn't recognize it, so he nominated it. Well, there's a lot I don't recognize, but that's NOT enough to nominate for deletion, especially with the increasing traffic on VfD. No big deal, a new user mistake. I suggested he Google first, and asked him to withdraw so we don't have to wait 5 days to settle this article. --Un">User:Unfocusedfocused">User talk:Unfocused 21:45, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
****First, I doubt you intended it, but the all-caps thing is usually interpreted as shouting on the internet... I would suggest using ''italics'' as a less interpretably hostile form of emphasis. Second, counting google hits ''is'' usually a reliable measure of notability, otherwise it wouldn't be part of Wikipedia:Google test. Third, in the state that the user found it, if he only saw 53 google hits, it seems perfectly reasonable to ask the community if the topic is notable or not... All that I'm suggesting is that, instead of telling him to "google it", you could instead provide one or two helpful links to notable sites and establish the topic's notability itself. Often times, the vague nature of electronic communication can lead to subtle inferences of hostility or negativity where there are none, so its best to be as clear as possible about these things. --User:DropDeadGorgias User_talk:DropDeadGorgias 22:05, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
*****Well, I'm willing to accept that we don't agree about whether a low count of Google hits gives useful information (I think it doesn't, especially regarding areas of the world where there is little English language internet penetration). A high Google count is a valuable source of information, a low Google count is ''a lack of a valuable source of information''.
*****I'm also willing to accept that I expect people to open at least ''one'' of the Google links they find, usually the first, and you might not.
*****But I still hope someone tells me where the personal attack was in my vote comment. I gave the nominator good advice, and followed it up with a polite comment on his user page. I believe that RickK has attacked ''me'' in this instance, but it doesn't bother me. I only ask that he tell me where the ''personal attack'' is that he's upset about. After all, that is the justification that he's using to remove ''my'' comments without consent. Un">User:Unfocusedfocused">User talk:Unfocused 22:32, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
******Don't worry about RickK. He is a hypocrite. He frequently attacks others and then chooses to interpret almost anything negative said to him as a personal attack that can't be tolerated. He thinks that any acknowledgement that there may be some systematic bias in Wikipedia as "Anti-American". He has been doing this for years and has a skin thicker than the back end of an elephant, so nothing you say to him will change his petty, stubborn way of thinking. Fortunately no single person really affects the direction of the Wikipedia jaugonaut. User:Pcb21 User_talk:Pcb21 21:44, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
*******I see Pcb21 just loves to make personal attacks against me. See the egregious example on the Templates for deletion page, which even those who disagree with my opinion on the subject have repudiated. User:RickKUser talk:RickK 18:55, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
********I stand by my comments on that page. Sometimes, you call things personal attacks just to avoid answering points against your own opinion (FWIW, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion&diff=14211857&oldid=14210957 here is the diff] that Rick is getting worked up about. Of course, the TfD page contains no such repudiation. In fact it contains a long list of people agreeing that we should keep the template.) User:Pcb21 User_talk:Pcb21 21:44, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
*****Don't these examples prove that your blind faith in the Google test is misplaced? A raw number of hits ''is'' almost entirely useless for many topics. If you take a look at the list of topics at Wikipedia:2004 Encyclopedia topics, ''all'' of whom have unimpeachably encyclopedic articles at Britannica, some register Google hits only in the single figures. Yes it is a tool, but a tool to be used wisely. User:Pcb21 User_talk:Pcb21 09:41, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
*I think it's not only reasonable but good advice to ask nominators to consider more carefully whether a vfd should be placed or rather, a note on the talk page and/or one of the clean-up tags. Tagging a page with \"This article is being considered for deletion\" that someone has contributed can certainly feel like a personal attack as well and at least an attempt should be made to verify or request more info rather than submitting it to vfd and asking for someone to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Heads Up!. DoubleBlue">User:DoubleBlue (User talk:DoubleBlue 00:41, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
**Well, now it's looking like the nominator falls in the second category I mentioned above: it's not just one article he's nominated, it's now at least three notable articles. At this point, it would be understandable if someone said something to him on his talk page... --User:DropDeadGorgias User_talk:DropDeadGorgias 01:50, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
: RickK makes an excellent point. We should not make public displays of exasperation at deletion listings that we believe to be poorly researched. When repeated in discussion after discussion the cumulative effect is very bad and contributes nothing of value to the discussions while making them much more heated than need be. I endorse his proposal to remove this kind of personal attack and will aid him if need be. --User:Tony Sidaway|User talk:Tony Sidaway 13:41, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::If RickK or anyone else is going to do this, they, at the very least, owe the original poster whose comments were altered an explanation. I see nothing in any policy anywhere that says that suggestions and advice to reduce traffic on VfD is not permitted in the vote comments. VfD nomination not researched at all before posting is a perfectly valid reason to vote "keep".
::If someone alters my comments without my consent, accusing me of a personal attack, then it damned well better be a ''personal attack'', not just a suggestion that the other person disagrees with. In my case, had RickK addressed the issue directly with me politely and respectfully, instead of accusing me of a personal attack where there clearly was none, we probably could have worked this out without getting to this point, and I bet the same could have been said for User:DoubleBlue. RickK did not reply to me when I asked what part of my comments was a personal attack in my edit summary or on his talk page. He also didn't refactor the comments to preserve the meaning and context, nor offer any suggestion of alternate wording. Note that until Tony Sidaway volunteered to help, RickK is the only one accusing others of personal attacks for this type of recommendation. Un">User:Unfocusedfocused">User talk:Unfocused 14:24, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:: I think you're taking this a little too personally. If we make only civil comments on VfD they will not be taken as personal attacks. We should always be careful to ensure that our recommendations don't come across as displays of tetchiness or simple slurs on the good faith or competence of the nominator. This is what has happened here. And I see that you're doing it again. "Note that until Tony Sidaway volunteered to help, RickK is the only one accusing others of personal attacks for this type of recommendation." Can you not see that this amounts to a personal attack on Rick rather than addressing his actions? --User:Tony Sidaway|User talk:Tony Sidaway 14:53, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:::Please explain further what about my comment is a personal attack on RickK. This is not a facetious request, I really want to know what you're thinking. RickK is accusing others of making personal attacks. His accusations are not substantiated by the very guideline he cites, WP:RPA, yet he has so far refused to clarify what personal attacks he was accusing others of making. RickK also has not offered any suggestions to improve the situation. As I said before, had he made a suggestion of how to reword my suggestion (which I ''explicitly'' asked him to do), this would not have been an issue in the first place. As it stands, the only clear personal attacks are the unfounded and unsubstantiated accusations of "personal attack" being made. Un">User:Unfocusedfocused">User talk:Unfocused 15:55, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Please have a look at Wikipedia_talk:Remove_personal_attacks/Temp to see my '''''comments about Radiant!'s'' idea of how this could be defused in future discussions, considering we are unlikely to reach consensus about exactly where the line is crossed into \"personal attack\". Un">User:Unfocusedfocused">User talk:Unfocused 15:55, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC) ''items in italic bold inserted''''' Sorry about the phrasing, Radiant!, I didn't mean to try to steal your credit! ;) --Un">User:Unfocusedfocused">User talk:Unfocused 16:11, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
===User:RickK's deletion of User:DoubleBlue's question===
RickK: I fail to see how asking: "Why wouldn't you have waited to get results from your clean-up tag before nominating for deletion?" qualifies as a personal attack. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Are_You_Sure&diff=prev&oldid=14376093] & [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AVotes_for_deletion%2FAre_You_Sure&diff=next&oldid=14460869]
Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks says one should "refactor" personal attacks with [square brackets] such that the meaning of the comment is maintained but without the personal attack. I would appreciate it if you would do so such that my question may stand. I do not see any word in my question that is an attack of any sort but you clearly do so I would also appreciate you clarifying what word is a personal attack so that I can refrain from such phrasing in the future. DoubleBlue">User:DoubleBlue (User talk:DoubleBlue 03:29, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
Don't make personal attacks questioning the motives of the nominators, and I won't have to delete them. User:RickKUser talk:RickK 18:28, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
: "Why wouldn't you have waited to get results from your clean-up tag before nominating for deletion?" is blatantly not a personal attack. Accusing someone else of making a personal attack on such flimsy grounds, however, is another matter. - User:Mustafaa 18:36, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
: Please stop claiming everything you don't like is a "personal attack". User:Pcb21 User_talk:Pcb21 19:36, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
:RickK, since you still haven't told me what about my comments to VfD submitters that you deleted is a personal attack, by accusing others of personal attacks, you're making personal attacks yourself! Removing the comments of others is an extreme action, and needs to be justified. I think you're beginning to hold yourself to a different standard than everyone else, and don't think it's fair. Un">User:Unfocusedfocused">User talk:Unfocused 20:26, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
:RickK, I did not question the motive of the nominator, though I believe this is sometimes pertinent (i.e. WP:POINT). I only asked why he would request a clean-up but not wait for action. May I presume you would feel attacked were I to ask you this question? How should I phrase it to calm the nerves of our more sensitive contributors because I do strongly believe in Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. Thanks for your response here. DoubleBlue">User:DoubleBlue (User talk:DoubleBlue 21:28, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
:For what it's worth, it's a pretty weak personal attack, if we were to consider it that. It struck me as more of a "what were you thinking?" kind of question, as it ''was'' an unusual procedure by the nominator: he originally added a strikeout and a note to the effect of "that wasn't very polite" would be far more appropriate than a dubious accusation unsupported by the guideline cited. --Un">User:Unfocusedfocused">User talk:Unfocused 15:55, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:I certainly did not consider that I was attacking the nominator. I did, however, find the accusation, with no message from RickK on what was wrong to be rude. That page will stand with the implication beside my name that I said something highly inappropriate. I would far prefer for it to have been struck out or at least re-factored.
:You stated that the subjunctive tense was troubling for you. I appreciate that since no one had yet stated what was a personal attack there. Would it have been better to ask: "Why ''didn't you wait'' to get results...?". I'm still curious to know the answer to that question, though I have no expectation any longer of receiving one. DoubleBlue">User:DoubleBlue (User talk:DoubleBlue 20:03, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It seems to me that RickK confuses criticism directed to a particular person with a personal attack. I also think that Doubleblue was not critisizing, but making a valuable observation of strange behaviour, with a request for an explanation. Doing this hopefully educates people to not bring certain articles straight to vfd, which could have been better handled elsewhere. --User:MarSch 17:25, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
== Leonardo, Leonardo and Leonardo ==
I found three duplicate high school stubs that I think the subject itself is not noteworthy. How do you think?
These three stubs are: Leonardo Da Vinci High School, Leonardo da Vinci High School and Da Vinci High School. -- User:Toytoy 10:09, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
== Reducing VfD load ==
There is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Reducing VfD load about ways that the size of VfD might be reduced. While there is still much discussion about possible new procedures and policies, there is a general consensus that ''one'' way to reduce the size would be to encourage editors to use other processes before or instead of nominating a page for deletion. Some of these other processes are:
#Research the subject. A lot of articles are placed on VfD because of very little/poor content, but then kept because the subject is determined to be encyclopedic, even if the article in its current state is not. Nominators should put more effort into finding out if the ''subject'' of the article is keepable, and make sure it is correctly categorized/stub-tagged/cleanup-tagged.
#Patience. Two applications of this -
## Give an article at least a ''little'' time to develop; It is understood that some RC patrollers feel they need to take action before an article disappears off the RC page, but nominating an article for VfD within minutes of its creation is often inappropriate. Use the "Watch" button - it won't kill us if a questionable stub is created and sits around for at least a couple of days until the author gets a chance to work on it.
##"A month" isn't exactly a long time either; many VfD's seem to be based on "this article's been around for a month (or 2 or 3) and nobody's worked on it!!!!!" Nobody knowledgeable about the subject may have found it (especially if it hasn't been categorized/tagged/listed) or had time to work on it. Not all editors are Wikipedaholics.
#Categorize/Stub-tag/Listing on the appropriate \"needs attention\" page. In conjunction with the two points above, an article may not have been "placed" or linked to a place where an editor with knowledge of the subject can find it and fix it.
#Merge and Redirect. Any editor can do this. See Wikipedia:Merge, Wikipedia:Redirect and Wikipedia:Duplicate articles. This would help with sending "cruft" articles/info to a place where the info will get attention from informed sources, and unnecessary/inappropriate stuff can get deleted without clogging VfD and requring admin attention. Also Move can be used by any logged-in user, when appropriate.
#'''Use the article's Discussion page''' to raise questions about an article's appropriateness. Also, discussions on the talk pages of articles related to the subject can be especially useful in determining if an article should be merged with a larger article.
#So fix it. While "write about what you know about" is certainly useful, it's definitely not a rule or requirement or anything. No reason that editors couldn't or shouldn't do some research (even if it's just online research) and make some improvements themselves rather than VFDing it.
Please note that this is not a suggestion about changing policy or procedure. This is simply "spreading the word" about some possible ways that we can reduce the size of VfD, and so this will be posted in several places around Wikipedia. Thanks for listening. User:Soundguy99 15:31, 29 May 2005 (UTC) ---- ==Vanity Pages== * Todays Vfd seems overburdened by vanity pages. I added this thought to the sixth or seventh vote, and realized the common thread was Date of Birth. So I wrote this ageistic suggestion: " *Speedy Delete 'WOT' -- dob 1986, age 19! 'Perhaps need a guideline that someone has to be at least 25 or subject to speedy' would thin these vanity/hoaxes into something we should be spending our time on. say could immediate place the arty into a basket for 'merit review'... while making the arty invisible on the web. The occasional legit pop-star/icon/boy scientist/mass murderer can then be gated in w/o rewarding the hoaxer by giving them five+ days of fame." *Whether this is feasible is for the code people to say, but allowed articles should have an equivilent trigger allowing the arty so that someone doesn't freshly tag it... presumably protected by some password key, known only to administrators, and necessarily, something that could not be duplicated into a new vanity hoax, or deleted from the one it actually belongs to and with. Presumably, the article would still be edit accessible, except for the header and tail which involve the locks. Some hash code keyed to the article title should do the trick as this sort of 'lock'. Drop me an email if my drift is going amiss! User:Fabartus 00:58, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC) : This kind of vanity article isn't susceptible to pre-emptive thinning out by putting up an age criterion because those who are making the articles would simply lie about their age. : On the frequent comments I see about VfD load, I will only say that really there is no need to trudge through all the silly vanity listings if you don't want to. A listing that doesn't attract a single extra vote over a five-day period will be deleted if the nominator recommended that. But the listing does have to be there on VfD just in case the article is about a notable person--as in the recent Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Cheryl Campbell, where the problem was apparently that the nominator didn't recognise the name of the actress. : I don't see any point in making articles about young people invisible in any case. It might be a useful trick to defer creation of all anonymous new articles for an hour or so, but that's a different matter. --User:Tony Sidaway|User talk:Tony Sidaway 15:38, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC) Um, lots of people under 25 are notable, and even ''more'' people over 25 are ''not'' notable. As regarding the rest of your suggestions, User:Fabartus, please read m:instruction creep. User:Soundguy99 16:02, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC) == cocktails == I see the cocktail I nommed isn't the only one out there, see :Category:Cocktails. Did something happen to ''Wikipedia is not a recipe book'' while I wasn't looking or should most of these be deleted? Some have sufficient story to make them valid articles, but ones like Soviet cocktail shouldn't be kept in my view. --User:Weyes(User talk:Weyes) 06:18, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC) *We decided that more drinking would help reduce wikistress. . . . . User:Soundguy99 02:15, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Wikibooks:Main Page includes a recipe book - Cocktails should have some sort of link to that or they will just continue to be added... The Steve ">User:Thesteve 02:30, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
**Wikibooks actually includes two recipe books now: a Cookbook and a book on Bartending. Some of the recipes had conflicting names, as I understand it. The problem appears to be that list of cocktails and cocktail are both not clear about where recipes (as opposed to encyclopaedia articles) are. (cocktail says that the recipes are at list of cocktails.) User:Uncle G 02:38, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)
***Wikibooks:Cookbook:Cocktails actually is a redirect to Wikibooks:Bartending:Cocktails. It looks like it was moved over back in April sometime. I can't speak to the duplicated names issue; presumably that can be straightened out through their local disambiguation process...? Evidently the wording at Cocktail needs to be changed so we don't suggest that recipes are at List of cocktails. --User:TenOfAllTrades (User_talk:TenOfAllTrades/Special:Contributions/TenOfAllTrades) 02:53, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
****Yes, it has been straightened out. The separation into two wikibooks did that. User:Uncle G 03:24, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)
:Here's my suggestion:
:*Cocktail articles that are no more than recipes should be transwikied to the appropriate Wikibook. On Wikipedia, the articles should be redirects to List of cocktails.
:*List of cocktails should have a ''prominent'' notice directing people interested in recipes to Wikibooks. (Maybe the boilerplate notice that's there right now needs to be enhanced?) Hopefully cocktail authors will be able to figure out this subtle hint, too.
:*Articles on cocktails with significant historical or cultural significance can be retained in Wikipedia, those articles can still be linked to from List of cocktails. Other cocktails should not be internally wikilinked; if they are described in Wikibooks perhaps they can have external links there.
:Any thoughts? --User:TenOfAllTrades (User_talk:TenOfAllTrades/Special:Contributions/TenOfAllTrades) 02:45, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::Makes sense to me. --User:Weyes(User talk:Weyes) 06:26, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)
*I'd agree. User:Radiant!User_talk:Radiant!meta:mergist 14:08, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
==Unprocessed vfds==
I've come across a number of articles such as 32 universes that have been vfd'ed, gone through the voting process, but then have had nothing further done to them. The example article I mentioned was nominated on the 25th - 12 days ago. It has no indication that the decision is being postponed in some way. Are there any specific steps to get them moved along? --User:TheParanoidOne 21:01, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
: See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Old. Like everything else on Wikipedia, closing out the old discussions is a volunteer activity. Discussions get closed when someone has interest, experience and ability. The backlog of discussions that have expired but not yet been closed tends to run between 4 and 10 days (though it's been much higher at times). Be patient and it will get closed eventually. Or even better (especially if you are an admin), review the Wikipedia:Deletion process and help us stay caught up. Thanks. User:Rossami User talk:Rossami 21:37, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
: Thanks for the info. --User:TheParanoidOne 22:25, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
== Interpretation of votes ==
At [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_undeletion&oldid=14865442 Lucky Octavian's VFU] which I brought to VFU, RickK voted keep deleted on the grounds that "the admin has the clear right to assess the votes and determine how to interpret them". I'm a bit interested in finding out how many people would "interpret" Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Lucky Octavian as a consensus to delete the article. For me, if I found out that a closing admin started interpreting my merge votes as endorsements for the article's deletion I would be quite astonished. What about you? User:Sjakkalle User talk:Sjakkalle 06:32, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
: I count 3keep, 7del and 3merge, which means that there is a consensus that this does not deserve its own article. Thus the info should be merged and this article become a redirect. IMHO --User:MarSch 13:51, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
::Indeed. In my humble non-sysop opinion, I would tend to read a small majority of delete votes, combined with merge votes and only a few keeps as an opportunity to merge as a sensible compromise. The redirect also tends to cut down on recreation of the articles, so we can avoid having to go through VfD again. Then again, I'm a closet mergist, so maybe I'm biased. --User:TenOfAllTrades (User_talk:TenOfAllTrades/Special:Contributions/TenOfAllTrades) 14:35, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
== Transwiki on VfD ==
Okay, I know reducing VfD lod is curretly a big deal, so here's a little help I can offer. First, have you noticed a lot of articles listed for deletion that are "already transwikied?" Well, a lot of times there were previous VfD decisions for transwiki. Also, a lot of times the discussion drags on even when there
Votes for Deletion
#REDIRECT Wikipedia:Votes for deletion
Votes for Deletion
#redirect Wikipedia:Votes for deletion
Votes for deletion
#REDIRECT Wikipedia:Votes for deletion
Votes for deletion
; Votes for Deletion (VfD) is where Wikipedia:Wikipedians decide what should be done with an article. Items sent here usually wait five days or so; afterward the following Wikipedia:Deletion process can be taken on an article as a result of community consensus: *Kept *Deleted per the Wikipedia:Deletion policy *Sent to Wikipedia:Cleanup or BJAODN *Wikipedia:Duplicate articles and/or Wikipedia:Redirect to an existing article *Wikipedia:Transwiki log (moved to another Wikimedia project, such as Wikibooks, Wikisource, Wikiquote, Wiktionary, or another language's Wikipedia) More information can be found at the Wikipedia:Guide to Votes for deletion. ==Things to consider== It is important to read and understand the Wikipedia:Deletion policy which states which problems form valid grounds for deletion before adding comments to this page. Use the \"what links here\" link which appears in the sidebar of the actual article page, to get a sense how the page is being used and referenced within Wikipedia. VfD etiquette: *Please be familiar with the policies of Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers, Wikipedia:Wikiquette, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, and Wikipedia:Civility before adding a comment. *Sign any listing or vote you add, by adding this after your comment:
Wikipedia:Archived delete debates | Wikipedia:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense | Wikipedia:Candidates for speedy deletion | Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Policy consensus |} ==Week at a view== See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion (long form) or WP:VFDL for the old week-to-a-view version of VFD. (''Warning:'' this page is ''very'' large and slow to load!) You may also wish to see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Log/Today or WP:VFD/Today and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Log/Yesterday or WP:VFD/Yesterday. Additionally, User:AllyUnion runs a bot to maintain an User:AllyUnion/VFD List ([ related changes]). This list of discussions keeps a list of 7 days of discussions. The bot also puts what's been recently added as a comment per hour. ''[{{localurl::/Log/__|action=purge}} Purge server cache for today's VFD page]'' ==Current votes== Articles being considered for possible deletion are indexed by the day on which they were first listed. *Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Log/2005 June 23 *Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Log/2005 June 22 *Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Log/2005 June 21 *Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Log/2005 June 20 *Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Log/2005 June 19 *Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Log/2005 June 18 ==Old votes== ''Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Log/2005 June 17'' ''Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Log/2005 June 16'' ''Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Log/2005 June 15'' ''Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Log/2005 June 14'' ''Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Log/2005 June 13'' ==How to list pages for deletion== First, be certain that deleting the page is what you want to recommend. If you can improve the article instead, do so. Consider if it might be better to WP:R the article, Wikipedia:Requested moves it, or mark it for WP:CU; you can do those WP:BOLD without listing the page here. Also, only article pages should be listed here. Go to the appropriate pages to nominate WP:TFD, WP:CFD, WP:RFD, or Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion, or to report a WP:C. To list an article/page for deletion, follow this three-step process: ''(replace ''PageName'' with the name of the page to be deleted)'' {|width=100% cellspacing=0 cellpadding=4 |- |bgcolor=#ffff99| I. ||
Edit ''PageName''.
Enter the following text at the top of the page: :
Create its VfD subpage.
You should see a prominent link to "'''this article's entry'''" in the new VfD text.
Follow that link (to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/''PageName'') and enter this text: :
Add a line to VfD.
Follow [{{localurl:Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Log/__|action=edit}} this edit link] and add a line to the bottom of the page: :
Votes for deletion
*Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/Archives __FORCETOC__ == Votes for Deletion or Votes for deletion == Is the ''Deletion'' capitilized or not? In favor of capitilizing, aka, proper noun usage *A lot of the usage on this page: VfD *The idea that VfD is a title for the page, not just a generic name (it's gotten it's own sort of etymology at this point) *Some of the templates, ex)
A workable compromise might be to remove the transclusion from the page and leave a short explanatory sentence with a link to the discussion. I think that's more trouble than it's worth, though. User:JRM · User talk:JRM 09:31, 2005 May 13 (UTC) *I'd prefer to close the debates as we do in WP:VFD/Old, by slapping a
Please note that this is not a suggestion about changing policy or procedure. This is simply "spreading the word" about some possible ways that we can reduce the size of VfD, and so this will be posted in several places around Wikipedia. Thanks for listening. User:Soundguy99 15:31, 29 May 2005 (UTC) ---- ==Vanity Pages== * Todays Vfd seems overburdened by vanity pages. I added this thought to the sixth or seventh vote, and realized the common thread was Date of Birth. So I wrote this ageistic suggestion: " *Speedy Delete 'WOT' -- dob 1986, age 19! 'Perhaps need a guideline that someone has to be at least 25 or subject to speedy' would thin these vanity/hoaxes into something we should be spending our time on. say could immediate place the arty into a basket for 'merit review'... while making the arty invisible on the web. The occasional legit pop-star/icon/boy scientist/mass murderer can then be gated in w/o rewarding the hoaxer by giving them five+ days of fame." *Whether this is feasible is for the code people to say, but allowed articles should have an equivilent trigger allowing the arty so that someone doesn't freshly tag it... presumably protected by some password key, known only to administrators, and necessarily, something that could not be duplicated into a new vanity hoax, or deleted from the one it actually belongs to and with. Presumably, the article would still be edit accessible, except for the header and tail which involve the locks. Some hash code keyed to the article title should do the trick as this sort of 'lock'. Drop me an email if my drift is going amiss! User:Fabartus 00:58, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC) : This kind of vanity article isn't susceptible to pre-emptive thinning out by putting up an age criterion because those who are making the articles would simply lie about their age. : On the frequent comments I see about VfD load, I will only say that really there is no need to trudge through all the silly vanity listings if you don't want to. A listing that doesn't attract a single extra vote over a five-day period will be deleted if the nominator recommended that. But the listing does have to be there on VfD just in case the article is about a notable person--as in the recent Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Cheryl Campbell, where the problem was apparently that the nominator didn't recognise the name of the actress. : I don't see any point in making articles about young people invisible in any case. It might be a useful trick to defer creation of all anonymous new articles for an hour or so, but that's a different matter. --User:Tony Sidaway|User talk:Tony Sidaway 15:38, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC) Um, lots of people under 25 are notable, and even ''more'' people over 25 are ''not'' notable. As regarding the rest of your suggestions, User:Fabartus, please read m:instruction creep. User:Soundguy99 16:02, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC) == cocktails == I see the cocktail I nommed isn't the only one out there, see :Category:Cocktails. Did something happen to ''Wikipedia is not a recipe book'' while I wasn't looking or should most of these be deleted? Some have sufficient story to make them valid articles, but ones like Soviet cocktail shouldn't be kept in my view. --User:Weyes(User talk:Weyes) 06:18, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC) *We decided that more drinking would help reduce wikistress. . . . . User:Soundguy99 02:15, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) *Wikibooks:Main Page includes a recipe book - Cocktails should have some sort of link to that or they will just continue to be added... T