Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 57#Anyone want to nominate

When I decline CSDs, I usually send the article to AfD to receive addition feedback; I know that many other admins do this as well. However, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Rhenman, several editors have objected to this practice, and since as far as I can tell policy does not indicate preference either way, I'd like to hear what others think. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• It's a pratice of long-standing. I've done the odd one or two myself. It's generally employed, though, when one is taking something from Proposed Deletion or CSD on behalf of another, who hasn't the capability, or knowledge, to do so xyrself (Procedural nominations are sometimes done on behalf of editors without accounts, for example.), or when someone has made a complete mess of an AFD nomination. A procedural nomination is generally a nomination where the nominator is neutral but is helping out someone, less capable, with the process. You might want to remind some "there is no such procedure" editors of the wording of CSD criterion #A7, which explicitly states a caveat (disputed or controversial cases are to go through AFD) that was strongly supported by many people when the criterion was first adopted, that is an important part of the criterion, and that has been retained and adhered to ever since.

  As for whether you should regularly take things from CSD#A7 to AFD, as a simple matter of course: I suggest not. Leave the procedural nominations to those cases where the CSD tagger really is incapable of an AFD nomination and needs a helping hand, or where an AFD nomination has been completely messed up and you are simply lending a helping hand with the mechanism. We know from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prophetic rock that Teapotgeorge is fully capable of nominating an article at AFD xyrself without messing it up. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 17:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Addendum: The other (and possibly major) source of procedural nominations, not relevant to this discussion, is of course relistings from Deletion Review. Uncle G (talk) 17:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• "Procedural nominations" - as I stated earlier, in the current AFD discussion Eric Rhenmann is a phrase that has been seen more and more in the nominators opening reasoning. And begs the question "... what the *&^% does that mean"? I have looked through our proceedures - policies and guidelines and have not found that phrase either used - listed or even mentioned. I know, in my heart of heart, what the nominator is saying, especialy when it concerns CSD, that they do not want to be responable for either; one, deleting the article under speedy or two, they do not have the time to research the piece and determine if it is justified under speedy and so nominate the piece for deletion at AFD with the hopes that the research will be done and the article either gets deleted or improved to the point that it is proved notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. Either way, this is a bad precedent. AFD is not, or as I should say, should not be used to either improve articles or bring attention to articles. In my opinion the administrator reviewing the CSD request either delets - product tags - or improves the article themselfs, rather than having the AFD communitiy do that job for them. The adminstrators is given the extra tools for just these circumstances, and the big bucks :-). Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 17:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• AFD is meant to handle discussions about deletion. There is no other place to handle. DRV handles botched discussions about deletion. I think the procedural nomination is fine, especially since it appeals to the community's consensus procedures. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• I do it occasionally. Most speedies that I decline where the article isn't likely to meet our inclusion criteria but isn't immediately harmful I just exhort others to XfD if they feel like it. On some occasions I'll list an article with an avowedly neutral nom statement. I think the general practice of procedural noms is healthy when it is done judiciously. Protonk (talk) 18:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

::*Comment - I have a question than, why would you nominate an article for deletion, other than requesting the article to be deleted, than claim neutrality? In nominating at AFD you are expressing an opinion in that the category is Articles for DELETION not Articles for KEEP or Articles based on NEUTURAL opinion. The nomination in and of itself is expressing an opinion. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 18:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

:::*Ok. That's a reasonable question. I do it (rarely) because another editor may want to delete an article but not know how to nominate it. Or I do it because I feel there are serious problems with an article which may not be fixable through normal editing, but I don't know that the article is unsalvageable. Or when past nomination errors were so egregious that debate has to be reset. Examples are here or here among others. As for your claim that the nomination inherently represents an opinion, I disagree. The nomination expresses an opinion if the nominator adds one. Protonk (talk) 00:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

::I disagree Shoessss, the opinion expressed is what the nominator says, the title of the page does not put words in the mouth of the nominator. I see nothing wrong with using AfD to get opinions on the merit of an article. Chillum 19:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

:::I agree with Chillum. If there were a presumption in favor of deletion, or if "no consensus" defaulted to deletion, then I would agree with Shoessss. However, the "no consensus" default option is to keep the article, so nominating it really is just a way of asking for a discussion.

If someone wants to argue that deletion is somehow a de facto default based on AFD culture, I could see an issue then, but I don't think that's the case. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

::::In certain restricted instances I would agree that a procedural nomination is allowed. That being an editor for one reason or another is not able to nominate the piece him/her self. That is a legitimate procedural use of listing at AFD. However, when an article is less than 3 hours old - gets nominated for speedy, and administrator comes by, discounts the speedy and goes and nominates at AFD and than express neutrality is a misuse of the procedure. That is happen more and more. It just strikes me as the lazy man's way out without shouldering responsibility for either deleting the article - putting some work into establishing is the article worth keeping or should be deleted. The one thing I was taught in the very beginning of my Wikipedia career is that when you express an opinion, back it up with reasons of why you expressed a Keep - Support - Delete - Oppose and yes even a Neutral. That is not happening.

::::Regarding the implied opinion that the article should be deleted when a nominator places an article up for deletion is actually implied, in my opinion, in before, unless I am totally misreading it. Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 19:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

:::::It sounds as if your beef is not so much with procedural nominations per se, but with people who nominate articles too soon, or who fail to express their reasons in AFD discussions. Is that an accurate assessment of what you're saying here? -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

::::::One word answer, Yes! But I can't say Hello in less than 50 words :-). As I stated above, yes, I can see a very restricted use of nominating an article for deletion under procedural nomination. Regarding the rest, you are right, I am seeing it more and more articles that are clearly notable being nominated, some under procedural, others for various reasons, that do actually get deleted because the stars - moon and sun lined-up correctly. Typically, from my standpoint that is no big deal, if I am involved with the article already. I'll just take it and rework it to bring it up to Wikipedia standards. However, of the one I fix, I will guarantee there are 100's of others that are deleted to our electronic limbo. That is a shame for Wikipedia and more importantly it is a bigger shame to the editors that either started that piece or were working on the article because they have a tendency to go the same way their articles went. Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 19:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

:::::::As I indicated in an above section, this is a problem that interests me. One thing I feel I can do is to undelete and userfy articles that people would like to save from AFD. It seems to me that making the "it's clearly notable" argument is often pointless, because people on the "other side" won't be convinced. Thus, I'm wondering how to let editors know that it's easy to get the content of deleted articles copied to their user-space for development.

It would also be good, it seems, to encourage people to start articles in their user-space, and only copy them to the main-space when they're sufficiently developed to avoid the new-page patrollers' hasty condemnation.

The question is, how do we let editors know about these options. It seems that people now think they have to successfully argue against deletion, but that seems to me to be a waste of time, in many cases. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

:I'm one of the editors who has objected. "Procedural nomination" is not a reason for deletion. A nominator should give some reason why they believe an article should be deleted, or they should leave it to someone who actually knows why the article should be deleted. That a speedy deletion was proposed by another editor is no reason for an admin to send an article to AfD like an automaton. Unless the nomination is a proxy nomination for an editor who for whatever reason is unable to themselves complete the nomination, any nomination that simply says "Procedural nomination" as Juliancolton's did should be immediately closed. Fences&Windows 20:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

::I don't really object to this kind of procedural nomination, but I generally avoid doing it myself. If I decline a speedy, I generally either don't think it's obviously deletable at all (and hence just decline it) or I think it's probably deletable, but not via CSD (and hence PROD or AFD it with my own rationale for that). If I don't think it should be deleted, or don't care, I'll let someone else AfD it if they want to - a procedural nom is unnecessary in that case. ~ mazca ^talk 20:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

::Like Mazca, I don't use it very much--mostly because I don't use a tool that automates AfD creation. If I see an article that's CSD'ed and really, really, doesn't belong in the encyclopedia, I will usually prod it. Occasionally, (e.g., anything that admits to WP:MADEUP) I will just go ahead and speedy it as nonsense or vandalism, knowing full well that the criteria don't technically apply but silently IAR'ing to improve the encyclopedia. When reviewing PRODs, I typically will not AfD anything where I decline the prod: unless I thought it should be kept or was otherwise ineligible for prod, I would have deleted it myself. Jclemens (talk) 20:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

::I use procedural AfDs mainly for "no consensus" DRVs where further discussion may bring about consensus. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

:::Like Jclemens, I rarely send speedies I decline to AfD unless there are unusual circumstances, although I often leave a note for the CSD tagger explaining my decline a bit more fully and suggesting they go to AfD if they still think deletion is the right way to go. (I work mostly on contested speedies, so prodding those would be a waste.) On the rare ones I send along, either I have reason to think that someone along the line meant to send it to AfD, or there is a dispute about whether a speedy category applies where the answer isn't obvious and I think a wider discussion would be more appropriate. In the latter case, I'm often pleasantly surprised by what the community comes up with, such as a merge target that never occured to me. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• When DRV overturns a deletion and sends it back to AFD for further discussion its always a "procedural nomination" so I can't understand what the objection is. But then I'm stupid. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• Anyone that says "Procedural nomination is not a valid reason for deletion" needs to be taken away and re-educated (possibly with a two-by-four). An ideal procedural nomination should explain why the person adding it to AfD is doing it, and leave an opportunity for the person actually wanting to delete it (anon, speedy tagger, etc.) to explain it properly. Ideally, in these circumstances, nobody should make any argument (especially the nonsensical "no reason to delete" - a valid reason to keep is more convincing) until the original proposer has had an opportunity to explain themselves. This is only fair. I would also suggest that anyone de-prodding an article which has been prodded by an anon should at the very least be prepared to create the AfD, copying the description from the prod, without editorialising, and then leaving their opinion in the same way as any other participant would. I see no problem with these, but I do understand why some people might feel uncomfortable with them (person creating the page might not want to delete). Certainly a declined speedy should be referred on to another process. IMO, it would be a good idea to replace a speedy tag with a prod, and maybe if that fails bring it to AfD. The speedy criteria are narrowly-defined to bypass an administrator's judgment, so it seems reasonable to expect that an administrator will occasionally bring an article to AfD that they personally wouldn't want to see deleted, and unreasonable to attack them for such. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 22:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

:*No threats of violence, please. I think you misunderstand; the deletion nomination I objected to said only "procedural nomination". The nominator gave no reason for nomination, either on their own behalf or on behalf of another editor. If an editor nominates an article on behalf of another editor and gives valid reasons, I have no problem with this, so long as the proxy nominator has checked per WP:BEFORE to see if the reasons for nomination are likely to be valid and that there is no better alternative to deletion. Your belief that contesting speedy deletion must lead to a prod or AfD and that deprodding must lead to an AfD nomination is wrong. A significant minority of speedies and prods are completely mistaken. If I deprod an article prodded by an anon I am not obliged to send it to AfD, and I remove a speedy deletion tag I am not obliged to prod the article. I may consider doing both, but deletion is not a conveyor belt. Fences&Windows 21:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

RE: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dan_Brown_(YouTube)

I asked the nominator of an article if an article could be redirected, he agreed, and I closed the article, redirecting it. Another editor came along and reopened the AFD, stating, "The deletion discussion is supposed to last one week, not one hour"

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dan_Brown_%28YouTube%29&diff=312837669&oldid=312761647] and then voted keep. Now, whether or not this article is notable, etc. can be discussed on the AfD.

I am just interested, was that article supposed to be reopened? My understanding is that it shouldn't have. Ikip (talk) 23:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• In general, you are free to close any deletion discussion with no delete votes where the nomination is withdrawn. In practice, it is better to let things last longer rather than shorter and it is better that folks who have little to do with the article itself do the closing. An hour is pretty scant time (and the nomination has attracted one delete vote). We see a lot of SNOW/SK closes at DRV where the close itself was totally proper, but the fact that it was made so early prompted wailing and gnashing of teeth (the opposite of the intention of SNOW). Protonk (talk) 23:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

:The reason there were "no other comments" is because the discussion was closed after less than one hour. Why not let the discussion stay open for a week to give other editors a chance to give their opinions, and establish a consensus? Grundle2600 (talk) 23:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

:Multiple editors, including myself, contributed substantially to that article. Before you redirect it, and eliminate all that work that was put into the article, please wait a week to get a consensus. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

::Ikip seems keen to avoid deletion discussions and formal deletions, and is approaching nominators to see if they will agree to a merge, redirect or userfy instead. While I appreciate the idea of avoiding deletion, a redirect is in effect deletion and this approach risks losing content that would have been kept had the AfD run its course. I think it is better to let the discussions run their course rather than circumventing them. Fences&Windows 02:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

:::I think it depends, for many editors anyway, on how new the article is. If an article has only been around for an hour, then I agree that userfication is preferable to a deletion debate. AfD is not the most congenial context in which to try to get an article from zero to standards. Such articles would do better to start in user space, and move into the mainspace when they're closer to adolescent than to stillborn.

Merging, when properly carried out, avoids losing content, but I've seen closes where the consensus was to merge, but then nobody picked up the ball. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

::::As well as the merge template that gets added to the page, couldn't closers add the merge to Wikipedia:Proposed mergers?

::::I agree that alternatives to deletion aren't considered often enough, but once a deletion debate has been opened then I don't agree with trying to merge, redirect or userfy while the debate is ongoing. Fences&Windows 08:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

:::::: harej has been developing a PM listing bot. Discussion at WT:Proposed mergers has suggested that mergers determined at AfD should be distinguished somehow. Flatscan (talk) 04:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

:::::::Wonderful! I love it when someone is already working on what I suggest. Fences&Windows 18:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

:::::I couldn't agree more - AfD has recently been extended from five days to seven, one of the arguments being that the extra time might make for better participation; there now seems to be effort (from A Nobody and Ikip in particular) to circumvent the process and curtail discussion. The intent may not be to disrupt, but the effect is disruptive. The discussion should run its course.  pablo_hablo. 08:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

::::::We shouldn't drag Ikip over the coals for doing this, it's a good faith attempt to get nominators to recognise that there are alternatives to deletion, which some of them are not aware of. Ikip's preferred option is userfying the article; a soon-to-be-possible option could be sending it to the Wikipedia:Article Incubator. Merges are also very often not considered by nominators. I think that sometimes approaching nominators to ask them to consider the other options is better than continuing the deletion discussion, but sometimes deletion discussions result in wonderful unexpected article improvements, mergers or rewrites, and can flag up where Wikipedia has a gap in its coverage. A redirect can't have that result. For example, Dentist chair was redirected to Dentistry. On the face of it this is sensible, but Dentistry currently gives no information on dental chairs. We're left with a blue link for Dentist chair but no actual content on dental chairs! A red link would be more honest and article improvement would be even better. A deletion discussion might have been seen by someone who knew about dental chairs. As it is, I've got my teeth into the idea after learning of this redirect, and I'm going to add information on the history of dental chairs to the history section of Dentistry, thus making the redirect appropriate. Fences&Windows 18:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

:::::::I'm not interested in dragging Ikip anywhere. However, I don't see anything wrong with nominators learning of alternatives to deletion by letting the deletion discussion run its course, and letting other editors (instead of just one) voice an opinion as to the best option for a given article. AfDs often close as merge, userfy or redirect, after all; nominators will be educated by using the existing process.

:::::::You are spot on in saying that "sometimes deletion discussions result in wonderful unexpected article improvements, mergers or rewrites, and can flag up where Wikipedia has a gap in its coverage. A redirect can't have that result." Although some editors constantly parrot "AfD is not cleanup" and "a merge does not require an AfD", cleanups and merges do often occur, and a good thing too. ps - "Teeth into the idea" indeed!  pablo_hablo. 21:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

::::::::Pun actually unintended! Fences&Windows 22:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Can someone fix up this AFD? I'm not an AFD master, so I'd rather not hack at it for an hour.

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aalto Entrepreneurship Society

And to relist, since I can't get the (relist) tab to work.

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OfficeSIP Server
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aneros (3rd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Le Maizeret

And one that will be a "difficult" close:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eclipse phase(Game)

Thanks, tedder (talk) 06:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

:*{{done}} All debates deorphaned. "Aalto" and "Aneros" closed "no consensus with leave to speedy renominate". "OfficeSIP" and "Le Maizeret" relisted. "Eclipse" (my god, it's full of socks) left as is for a mopster to close. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

:::I undid Ron at Aalto to get at least some discussion before that one gets closed, and closed Eclipse as keep (irregardless of socks, the outcome was fairly obvious). Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

::::Thanks, RonR and Lifebaka. tedder (talk) 16:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think these were ever listed. They show as being relisted, but "what links here" doesn't show it.

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twenty Wan (Card Game)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seithigal
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roxanne Kernohan

Thanks in advance. tedder (talk) 07:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

:I dunno, I see various pages listed under what links here for all three of those AFD's. ArcAngel (talk) 08:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

::But no transclusions on any AfD log pages. I've relisted all three, Tedder. Cheers. lifebaka++ 11:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Can someone (with better computer skills than me) please clean up the list of old discussions? Bearian (talk) 19:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• What are you referring to? Protonk (talk) 21:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
• If you're referring to the archiving, MiszaBot II is set to 25 days. There has been unusually high activity recently, so decreasing the expiration will archive only the older discussions while leaving the very large new ones. Flatscan (talk) 04:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

help. The article List of U.S. and Canadian box office bombs is a pointless and stupid article. This list is just a list of films that have failed in comparison to the budget in the DOMESTIC market(US and Canada). US FILMS are made for and with the INTERNATIONAL MARKET in mind. Frequently films do not break even just by the US market, but subsequently break even, and then make profit as they get distributed throughout the world. Its like having a list of musicians who have failed in the domestic market. This article is completely pointless, because films are sold throughout the world and the goal is to make a profit after international release. Thus this article merely says what films failed in the US market, when the budget of these films are budgeted with all markets in mind. I see no point to this article what so ever, i am not contesting the research of this article to which previous people have nominated it up for deletion for, but the mere irrelevance and unnotability of the article. Can someone please help me with nominated this article for deletion.

This article is like saying that the 3rd pirates of Caribbean film only just managed to avoid being a failure in the domestic market, because it costed 300 million, and only made back 309 million in the US/CANADA(domestic market), thus the film only just managed to succeed. NO. WRONG!!!!!! The film did amazingly well in the domestic market. AMAZINGLY WELL. IT BEAT THE BUDGET AND THE INTERNATIONAL MONEY HASN'T EVEN BEEN COUNTED!!!!!!!! thats an amazing feat. once international money is counted in, 960 million dollars total gross of the film.[http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=piratesofthecaribbean3.htm]. Hence, I hope you can now see that the film didn't 'just succeed' in the us domestic market, but actually did really well, because the studio new it would make money overseas, and budgeted the film accordingly. This article just takes a stupid 'USA is the entire world' view.

its been through deletion twice before. but that was over 2 years ago. it still needs to go.IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 08:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

:You can use the {{tl|afd}} tag to nominate the article for deletion. The instructions can be found at WP:AFDHOWTO. Cheers. lifebaka++ 21:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I am pretty sure this voilates a few wikipedia policies and is not required i have never heard of a rating page for show before should this go to AFD or Speedy Deletion? if so how do i do it the project page is quite complex and i have never done one before--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 22:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

:Seems like a forgone conclusion if sent to AfD, so I'd suggest trying WP:PROD first. If that doesn't succeed, there are instructions for listing an AfD at WP:AFDHOWTO. Speedy deletion isn't an option in this case, as the page meets none of the criteria. Cheers. lifebaka++ 22:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

::Could you advise what policies it would break i see it owuld break notabilty but nto sure if there anything else, i will take it to prod since that seems a better answer--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 22:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

:::I note that the article is referenced, but the references weren't properly formatted, it is wikified and it doesn't read like an advert. It may or may not be notable. If you wish to take it to AfD the instructions are on the project page. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

::::Ok i have now suggest deletion so will take it form there, thanks for all the help jsut out of curisty how do i mark this as resolved?--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 22:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

:::::When prodding an article you need to add a notice to the article creator's page. I have done that for you. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

:::::On further consideration, I have removed the Prod notice and placed merger banners as that would seem to be a better outcome. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Ikip is currently userifying a lot of articles that are at AFD and CSD. However, I've got to wonder what benefit there is when the user has not agreed to the userification and there is no indication that they plan to work on those articles. Indeed, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kitami_Woome&action=history this] was restored by the user after it was moved to his user space so what's the point? Surely we want some indication that they plan to work on those (often spammy) articles before we engage in a mass userification of unsuitable content? --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

:Userfication should only be undertaken if someone is willing and able to work on the article to get into a fit state to go back into the main encyclopedia. Otherwise its just a waste of time and effort.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

::"there is no indication that they plan to work on those articles" There is no evidence of this. Have you spoke to any of these editors. No? I appreciate that you strike these comments.

::The nominator agreed to userfy the article, despite reservations both of us had. The creator decided to remove the speedy tag once the article was userfied. So I just !voted to delete too, and notified the creator of the newer AFD, which Scott neglected to do.

::Alas, this posting is truly no surprise. I was just waiting for Scott to find some reason to criticize me for what I have been doing. I await the same predictable group of editors will rally behind Scott.

::Scott's repeated complaints aside, the bottom line is this: I am following the rules that wikipedia has set up. An editor can ask a nominator to close an article, as long as all parties agree. Ikip (talk) 09:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

: I was just waiting for Scott to find some reason to criticize me for what I have been doing As I said on your talkpage - do we know each other? I've seen you around wikipedia but I have no real memories of us interacting on a regular basis, I draw a complete blank when it comes to this username - do you use to post under a different name? so I'm not sure where that comment is coming from. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

::Comments struck, emphasis on this, and this alone: the bottom line is this: I am following the rules that wikipedia has set up. An editor can ask a nominator to close an article, as long as all parties agree. Ikip (talk) 10:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

::: then maybe we need to change the rules - that's why we have those pages to discuss those matters. I would argue that userification is a useful tool when the original creator is aware of the option and plans to work on the article. Simply userifying material for the sake of saving it with no plan of improvement seems a waste of time. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

:::: And I should make it clear - I'm not actually asking for the original editor to actually do any work, simply that they indicate that they will make a effort to do so. If they don't, they don't. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

:::::It shouldn't need the original editor to agree to work to improve the article as long as somebody does.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

:::::: But realistically, who is going to be working on this content in other people's userspace? if someone wants to argue for userification and movement to *their* userspace, then I have no problem with that because it's still an indication that someone is going to be working on it. Simply dumping in the userspace of (in many cases) hit and run editors who will never come back seems a waste of time - userspace is not some rubbish tip. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

:::::::obviously, if someone created an article, they have already showed the willingness to work on the article. Am I a "hit and run editor"?

:::::::I think the word "rubbish" maybe too strong. Ikip (talk) 10:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

:::::It shouldn't need the original editor to agree to work to improve the article as long as somebody does.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

::::::Above editors are discussing WP:INCUBATOR which is a

:::::::"useful tool when the original creator is aware of the option and plans to work on the article"

:::::::....and satisfies the statements,

:::::::"It shouldn't need the original editor to agree to work to improve the article as long as somebody does",

:::::::"who is going to be working on this content in other people's userspace?"

::::::I invite you both to help us write WP:INCUBATOR. Userfying or redirecting pages is a stop gap measure until WP:INCUBATOR comes online, then articles could go there, were all editors can work on them.

::::::: I will be amazed if that terrible terrible idea is not nuked from space within six months of it going live, simply to clean out the tat. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

::::::::Gee Cameron, that's just the kind of constructive criticism that we need! I'm so glad that you're working hard to make Wikipedia a friendly and collaborative environment. If you don't have anything good to say, then best say nothing at all. Some of us actually like working to improve articles, rather than just "nuking them from space". The Article Incubator might be a good way to concentrate the efforts of that rare and little seen breed, the content contributor. Fences&Windows 17:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

::::::::: I'm just telling you what I think will happen based on my experience of wikipedia - the project will bottle-neck and then people will me will move in and on the second or third AFD and after much fighting it will die. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

::::::The option to delete again is always there. I told the editor of Kitami Woome that he needs to show some sources, because I was watchlisting the userfied page, and I would put it up for deletion myself if it was not done. Ikip (talk) 10:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• If we're talking about new articles, then the fact that the author created it is reasonable evidence that they have an active interest in developing it. An exception might be test pages but preserving these in user space seems quite harmless. If this initiative reduces the number of articles at AFD then this seems sensible as it is my understanding that the process is overloaded and so backing up. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

:: If we're talking about new articles, then the fact that the author created it is reasonable evidence that they have an active interest in developing it. not really - it's evidence that they have some content they want to get on wikipedia, it's not evidence they have any interest in developing an article that conforms to our standards. Many hit and run editors simply disappear once they realise that they cannot simply have an advert or a puff-piece that they control. Now of course, many of those people *will* try and develop a useful article but we cannot simply conflate the two different approaches and say that this always happens or that is always the reason they try and get content onto wikipedia. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

:::Colonel makes a reasonable and proper assumption of good faith. Unless or until an editor shows that he is unwilling to improve an arricle, it is not proper to assume bad faith. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 18:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• Id suggest we wait and see how Ikips idea plays out. I agree theres no point in userfying if no ones going to improve the article. On the other hand I understand the project doesn't have to worry about storage space, but the decline in the number of editors , especially relative to global internet usage, is a concern. New editors are discouraged by having their creations deleted outright , and few seem to have the patience to explain to them how to operate within our guidelines. Time will tell whether a worthwhile proportion of these articles are worked on, but at first glance I think editor Ikip is to be commended for their plan! FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

:: Some people like to keep their userspace organized a certain way. If you want to userfy something into another user's space then you really should ask them first. Chillum 16:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

::::Indeed many do... established users who have a better grasp and understanding of how to use the pages. Such an expectation cannot reasonable be toward a newcomer. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 18:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

:::I agree, which is why the Article Incubator should supersede userfying, unless the article creator explicitly requests or agrees to userfying. Fences&Windows 17:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

:::Some people do but not most genuinely new users. It can be a double benefit to them as they keep the article and get introduced to user space sub pages. I agree Article Incubator would be best as long as folk are going to mange it. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

::::Incubator and user workspace should go hand in hand. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 18:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate someone erring on the side of userification when there's a chance the article might be improved. Who wants to type all that back in? That having been said, I agree that if there's no likelihood of someone working the material into an acceptable article then it's pointless. But if anything I started or worked heavily on was being deleted I'd appreciate the chance to have that (formatted) info. preserved. I could always delete it myself. What'd be useful here is pages that self-delete after a month if no one edits them--userfy them and then let them disappear automatically if no one cares. JJL (talk) 17:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree that there's a significant distinction between userfication and userfication without consent. Creating an article in someone else's userspace without permission is problematic: I do it sometimes to help a newbie get started, but always in the context of discussion. If Ikip chooses to use his userspace as an orphanage to expedite the process, I wouldn't have a problem with that.—Kww(talk) 17:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

::If userfied to the newcomer author's userspace, with a notice that it has been done, why it was done, and that the editor is welcomed and encouraged to seek input from others in how to improve an article, the project benefits. If not a newcomer, this is not really of a concern, as experienced editors know better how to use sandboxes. I see this as a method to help and encourage new contributors.... not chase them off. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 18:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

:I would. Given that the article is sub-par, we have to consider why. There are many categories for deletion and they exist for a reason; unreferenced BLPs and blatant copyvios(eg) whether they be in userspace or anywhere else are a big problem. It is really better to let them live or die in articlespace, where there are more eyes upon them.  pablo_hablo. 22:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

::If something qualifies for a speedy, it rarely makes it to AfD. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 18:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• I think that moving these articles into the Article Incubator per Fences and windows is acceptable. There are a number of experienced editors who can help with oversight and workload. I worry that without a tracking system, many of these articles would be lost in user space indefinitely. Flatscan (talk) 03:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
• :Valid point... but consider, if in userspace of a new editor learning the ropes and trying to become a better editor, the article will quite likley be improved and find its way back. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 18:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
• :: To expand on what I wrote previously, more available editors increases the chances that the new editor will receive mentoring and assistance. I doubt that most newbies will notice the namespace difference. Flatscan (talk) 04:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
• I love this userfying idea. I'll try to find someone who is willing to team up with me, so that we can look for fancruft where the editor has not edited in a while: my userfy buddy nominates the article, I suggest userfying, he agrees, and poof! the article is gone from the mainspace, not even leaving a redirect behind. No need for discussion, agreement of the original editor, or any extended discussion. And if the article does come back, we can still start a normal deletion discussion...
• All sarcasm aside, userfication without the consent of the editor is a bad idea. The incubator is an experiment that may be worth trying, but I would disagree with closing AfD's by moving articles to it. Let the discussion run, and let incubation be one of the possible outcomes. Fram (talk) 08:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
• :If the newcomer editor knew about a userspace sandbox in the first place, there would be no need to politely hand his contribution back to him with a request that he continue working on it. I see Ikip's userfications to be a way to help newcomers become part of the family. I see the incubator as a way to encourage the improvement of articles that may have merit. The two methods compliment each other in improving the project. The differences beteen the two concepts are important to note. Userfied, the article does not have a deadline. In the incubator, it does. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 18:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
• Yeah, when I thought up this particular incarnation of the idea (I'm sure others have had it before) I saw it as either an alternative to discussion (i.e. pre-AfD) in the case of articles with one substantive contributor who could agree to have it moved over - then incubation could be a learning exercise about our guidelines as well as content improvement without having stuff littering the articlespace. I don't really think incubating an article during discussion is a good idea - it will cause unnecessary division. But it would help if incubation was one of the options for people to choose, or for an admin's close. I suspect that will depend on finding agreement at the relevant policy pages, so initially we'll try incubation at the NPP level, with possible extensions to certain CSD criteria while we all hash out a way to integrate incubation into the main deletion process without undermining the community involvement element of AfD. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oh, just make sure that incubated articles are not indexed (don't turn up on Google and so on). And get a good process for getting them back into the mainspace. Whether the process wlll work and be worth the effort has of course to be seen, but as long as most fundamental problems have been avoided, it is worth a shot. Fram (talk) 09:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
• Yeah, we're going to tag the pages, and I plan to write some automation to make sure that all the subpages are/stay NOINDEXed. I think we'll have to work out a process for return to mainspace as we go, otherwise the process will be arbitrary rather than useful! Fritzpoll (talk) 10:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not comfortable with userification if it happens a) without consent (it doesn't have to be to the original user but it needs to be a user that has positively affirmed they plan to work on the article, not just that they created it at some point in the past) or b) before the XfD concludes. There seems to be an increase in things that seem to make closing XfDs harder, and that's not a good thing. ++Lar: t/c 14:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

:We do not see enough active participation in educating and encouraging newcomers. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 18:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• Have any of those who have had this happen on their page complained at all? If a new user has an article which don't believe instantly meets requirements for an article, then its good to put it in a place where they can work on it, and add it back when it is ready. Dream Focus 14:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

:The nominators seem to like the idea, the creator seems to like the idea, (except in the one case which started this discussion, which was easily remedied), the only resistance is from completly uninvolved editors

:Wikipedia:Userfication#Notification: It may be important to notify a user of the addition of content to one of their user subpages as well as action taken on content they posted. While a personal note generally is nice, the following templates may be used to provide the notification

:Clearly this shows that userfication does not need the permission of the user.

:Once again: emphasis on this, and this alone: the bottom line is this: I am following the rules that wikipedia has set up. An editor can ask a nominator to close an article, as long as all parties in the AFD agree. Ikip (talk) 14:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Userfication is not a "get out of jail free" card for articles on the chopping block. It is a tool for editors who have a sincere desire to resurrect a deleted article with the proper improvements such that it now passes our inclusion criteria. Userfied articles are not meant to linger in user-space ad infinitum but should be in a consistent state of improvement. There is also not only a question of whether an editor will work to improve it but a question of whether or not they even can. Much as some editors would like to disagree, there are some topics which simply are not going to meet inclusion criteria no matter how much work an editor puts into the article. To put it shortly : userfication is a tool to be requested by an editor who has both an interest and an ability to improve an article, and not something to be done mindlessly. Shereth 15:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

:Then there should be a very polite and newcomer-friendly bot that instructs a newcomer in very simple terms how he or she might have an article "withdrawn without prejudice" from an AfD and userfied for them to continue works. If a newcomer does not know that the process exists, how can they be expected to know to request it, or how? MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 18:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

{{ec}}::Userfication should only take place with the consent of an editor who has agreed to work on the article. I'd like to see a time limit on how long articles can stay userified. I guess it is ok for a nominator to withdraw their nomination so long as everyone who has commented agrees, but I'm open to other opinions on that. Dougweller (talk) 17:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• All else equal I'd really prefer we didn't do this. Protonk (talk) 16:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

::*Newcomers need be encouraged in as many ways as possible to stay and learn and become valued contributors. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 18:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

:::*And a real bang up way to do that is drop a page in their userspace without asking them. You want to encourage people to stay? Do RCP and NPP and review new edits to the encyclopedia before the hordes of deletionists goths/visigoths/other germanic tribe which will not be named get to them. Point people to extant articles. But please don't keep us down this path of creating two tiers of content. I say this as a general caution, not a partisan warning. This userification drive will not end the way inclusionists want it to end. You will end up reinforcing the present view that article space content has a minimum quality bar and that deletion/userification is meant to enforce that. You don't want that. Down that road lies the slow erosion of WP:DEADLINE. Protonk (talk) 20:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

::::* I'd love to see better methods instituted that encourage newcomers to stay instead of chasing them off. Protonk, you are a fine editor with a great deal of experience and many thousands of hours editing the project. I ask you to consider your first few days attempting to edit these pages. Is there a way it can be made easier for newcomers to learn how to best contibute? We've all seen the acrimonyous AfDs where some newbie's article is up for deletion and in their lack of knowledge results in frustration, mane-calling, and even puppetry.

:::::*I'm a bad example. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jay_Friedman_%282nd_nomination%29&diff=prev&oldid=206176993 This] was my first edit other than to my talk and user page. My point above is that the search for method is often fruitless. The solution to getting editors to stick around and getting content to be neutral and factual isn't to write better policy or make better processes. Most of that stuff is extraneous. The solution is to work hard at improving content and at helping editors. FA doesn't work because we have a policy in place. It works (interpretations of how well may differ) because there is a core group of editors who are determined to pore over articles before they make it to the main page and another group of editors who are determined to improve content so it can face that scrutiny. Take those efforts away and the FA process is worthless. So I am skeptical of policy or process solution to effort problems. I'm doubly skeptical when the solution offered will actually reinforce what I see to be an erroneous view of article content. Protonk (talk) 21:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

:::*And a question directed back at Ikip: Ikip, How do you determine if an article you userfy back to it's author has any potential or not? What steps are you taking to prevent the userfication of something that is totally unsalvagable? MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 21:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

:*Guys there is a very similar thread running at Wikipedia talk:Twinkle#Adding userfication to Twinkle. In my view userfication should continue for and be used more frequently for userpages created as non-notable autobiographies and introduced for obvious tests that can be moved to sandboxes. I see no reason to move possible articles to userspace. If we want a minimum quality threshold before something appears on mainspace why not no-index stubs so they don't show up in google searches? ϢereSpielChequers 16:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

::*I think userifying articles liberally has some benefits but also some dangers. Eventually we will come to some site wide agreement on NOINDEXing userpages, so I'm not terribly worried about user page google hits. But for the inclusionists in the room, establishing a precedent that nominated content be userified only reinforces the assumption that there is a minimum quality threshold (above coherence) where none should exist. We have grown less willing over the years to have 1 sentence articles about a notable subject, sending articles like that off to a user's subspace automatically tends to continue that trend rather than halt it. Protonk (talk) 16:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• Another general comment since the thread title has changed: if you have the nominator's 'consent' to userify the material why not just put it in the nominators userspace? Protonk (talk) 16:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

::One danger of that , is that if it is done without suitable discussion, it may be used as a sneaky way of deleting an article without going through AfD - i.e when the nominator or whoever says they will improve the userfied article has no intent of doing so. It would probably be best to only do it after due process in AfD or similar.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, newcomers should always be encouraged to work in userspace sandbox before unleashing an article in main space. But it is presumptuous to believe that a newcomer would know how do this if they obviously do not understand mainspace requirements. The example Cameron Scott so helpfully provided illustrates this more than anything else. Ikip's userfication was a fine solution, per guideline, that allows an author to continue work without alienating him. Too often newcomers are hit by that growing wave of "all submited articles must be perfect right now!" that permeates NPP and which unfortunately tends to chase newcomers away from these pages. ANd before any hackles are rasied, it is happily granted that NPP does fine work in seperating the wheat from the chafe with new submissions. However, I see that there is a sadly increasing tendency to forget our own duty toward actually determining potential before judging something bad based only upon one or two initial sentences. Userfication is a good idea... specially in circumstances where an new editor does not know that the process exists or that he could ask for a userspace workspace to be created, or even create one himself. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 18:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
• Give Ikip a collective barnstar for cutting the process workload without biting the newbies and move on to something that's actually a problem. Guy (Help!) 20:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Ikip's userfication was a fine solution, per guideline, that allows an author to continue work without alienating him. except for the fact that he never touched it and simply reverted back to his preferred version in article space - yes perfect! Oh and look how much help he got as a new user to work on it - a template and a quick note, yeah, a perfect example. It will be a featured article in weeks! --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

:Ignoring your sarcasm, I see that the author in your single example had been an editor on Wikipedia for less than one day. Did you leave an encouraging message on his talk page suggesting he keep it userfied and continue work? Or have you just presented him as an example that Wikipedia no longer wishes nor will encourage newcomers? MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 21:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

:: No I present him of an example of "userification without asking might be a waste of time, especially if you userify and run". --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

:::To opine that something should not be done because it "might" not be useful, acts to assume the worst in someone, and runs contrary to WP:AGF. If even 5 out of 10 userfied articles get improved, we all win. To deny that potential does not improve the project. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 21:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

::::A comment. Though I dislike assumptions about articles (As they are normally incorrect), to argue is not necessarily to assume and to assume about content is not at all contrary to WP:AGF which instructs us to assume the best with regard to editor intent. If I assume that Bloody Sunday (1969) will never make it to FA because it there is too little content out there, I am not failing to assume good faith at all. Protonk (talk) 22:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

::::: You beat me to that - AGF applies to individual editors, I don't have to apply it to my analysis of trends and current patterns of behaviour as I see them. I could be completely wrong about my assumption but it's nothing to do with AGF. --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

::::::Yes, WP:AGF applies to editors. Ikip's userfications were not userfications of trends... they were userfications of contributions of editors. I will continue to accept that WP:AGF be applied to all newcomers's intents. I shall continue to assume good faith that a newcomr who made the mistake of beginning an article in article space other than userspace simply did not know better... being new. I will not automatically assume any negative intent to why a new editor might author an article in the first place, no matter where he put it. And unless it is demonstrated that a specific newcomer has no intention of ever improving an article, I will not assume the worst and postulate based upon worst case scenarios. I note that Ikip's userfications assumed the best intents from these authors and stated as much in a notice sent to then upon the userfication. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 22:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

:::::::Ok, communication seems to be breaking down. Protonk (talk) 23:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

This solves some, but not all of the criticisms. The newly created: Template:Userf, this was a suggested template I found on WT:Userfication. It has {{noindex}}, and it also allows editors to track userfied pages, which, I might remind everyone here, is a requirement that has never, ever been required by anyone else userfying articles on wikipedia.

Give the editors a month, and if there is no significant improvement I will put them up for deletion myself. Ikip (talk) 23:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

::myself, I only userify if I judge there's a chance the editor will work on it effectively, and that an acceptable article might be possible. Many editors are indeed people who make an article and are unlikely to work further in any useful way. Unless they obviously are knowledgeable contributors, I think it would generally be right to ask first if they are interested. And if we do userify for an inexperienced editor, I think we owe it to them to give some real help--some personalized help, based on the actual article and its problems--and to give them some realistic advice about the likelihood of success. I find when I do explain to people what would need to be done--in particular the need for good references--many wisely decide it would be better to abandon the article. I think however Ikip's proposal for an article incubator makes a good deal more sense as a general technique. DGG ( talk ) 06:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Let's look at some of the articles that were actually userfied by Ikip here. User:Ivioix/Eie-manager is created by a SPA who hasn't edited since April 2009. User:Temambiru/Temesgen was created by an editor who hasn't edited since April 2007... User:Jpt22/422nd Military Police Company was tagged for notability in August, and the tag was removed by Ironholds as it passes in his opinion[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AJpt22%2F422nd_Military_Police_Company&diff=309393144&oldid=308981539]. The prod was removed by Jclemens[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AJpt22%2F422nd_Military_Police_Company&diff=308981539&oldid=308923923]. I don't think it is a good idea to userfy an article where uninvolved editors have previously indicated that they see either notability or potential for notability, and where the author hasn't edited anything else and hasn't edited for over a month now. I believe that in cases like these three (out of the first four I encountered), userfication will only lead to the abandoning of these articles, whether they had potential or not. An AfD would have brought fresh eyes to the article, and would have given those articles a fairer assessment (whether positive or negative). Coupled with my fear that this system may be misused by people with less positive intentions than Ikip, I have to strongly oppose any userfication without the consent of the creator / major editor as a means to avoid AfD. Incubation or userfication (with consent) after an AfD are perfectly allright. Fram (talk) 06:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

:We are talking about a maximum of 5 articles in a day, an average of 2 a day. This process is A LOT of work. I have about ten steps I have to take, and it depends on (1) the nominator agreeing, and (2) no other comments being made on the AFD before the nominator agrees. So, 2 articles a day, that is 730 userfied articles a year on an encyclopedia of 3 million articles.

:given the minor scale of what I am doing, I think JzG's comments are apt:

::"Give Ikip a collective barnstar for cutting the process workload without biting the newbies and move on to something that's actually a problem"

:I volunteered to put these articles up for deletion myself after a month, I assured two things which are not required: there would be a noindex tag and that editors could monitor the userfied articles. Also these selective examples will be probably be up for deletion soon, dropping the yearly articles userfied probably to less than 70. And once WP:INCUBATOR goes online, this whole converstaion will become a non-issue anyway. Ikip (talk) 20:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

::"Selective examples"? I took three of the first four articles you userfied in this way. What's so "selective" about that? And Incubator is a completely different thing, for the moment it is looking at incubating articles as the end result of an AfD, not as the very early closure of one. Fram (talk) 07:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

There are currently two (2) articles for Revenue Technology Services. This request is to delete one of the article pages. It can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue_technology_services.

The other article has a more narrow focus of facts, easier to categorize, and sources for context will be submitted. This will make the article for this topic easier to maintain via the Wiki community. This article is found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue_Technology_Services.

--Schamber-09 (talk) 15:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

:You can find instructions to nominate one, or both, of the articles at WP:AFDHOWTO. Note that posting on this talk page is not part of that process. Feel free to ask me at my talk page if you have any questions. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I've redirected the former to the latter. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 17:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

: This seems like a G7 author request to me, but there have been other editors. Since the search box is case-insensitive, I'm not sure that this {{R from other capitalisation}} is needed. Flatscan (talk) 04:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm unsure why categories aren't appearing for the above discussion. Could another user assist with this? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 10:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

:What categories? Remember, if you want a category to appear as a clickable link, put a colon after the , like so: [[:Category:Living people. This will create the link you want, :Category:Living people. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

:The template {{t1|REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD}} doesn't handle additional /s, {{BASEPAGENAME}} in this case is Articles for deletion/Friendly's and testimonials sufc, which is not Articles for deletion, so it doesn't show up categories. You could bring this up to WP:VPT, maybe there's a solution, maybe a magic word can return the basepagename even for sub-sub-...-subpages. Cenarium (talk) 22:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

::Actually, there is one: fixed using titleparts. It was also requested here. Cenarium (talk) 22:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

:::This change makes the AFD log pages show in the categories of AFD debates, which appears to be unintentional. If this is a problem it could be fixed by changing the {{tl|afd2}} template so that it adds tags around the {{tl|REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD}} template (the "remove" template's only purpose is to add the categories so there appears to be no reason to transclude it in the log pages). The code is currently {{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|{{{cat}}}}} – I'm not sure exactly how it works but I think something like lude>{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|{{{cat}}}}}lude> would prevent the the log pages being categorised as AFD debates. snigbrook (talk) 13:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

::::It works but I preferred to fix directly in {{tl|REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD}} using {{#titleparts:{{PAGENAME}}|1|2}}, this way it won't categorize when added manually, and it's possible that noinclude tags puzzle users, scripts or bots. Cenarium (talk) 15:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I've written an essay on how to handle deletion discussions of good and featured articles. Your input and edits are welcome. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

:There are no problems with it inherently - but as I mentioned in a previous discussion, what is the point? There's really nothing that should be done to GA/FA articles before and during an AfD discussion that shouldn't be done to any other article. When you get down to the nitty-gritty of what the essay (and previous similar suggestions) says, it comes down to "Improve it if you can, check the history to see if it's salvageable, otherwise nominate for deletion". This should be standard operating procedure, and every article up for deletion should be given exactly the same considerations that GA/FA articles get. I don't see much need for this. Shereth 17:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

{{la|List of Dictators}}

I tried following the instructions on deletion, but I got some template errors, so I reverted.

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of dictators for the previous AfD. See also List of modern day dictators (deleted) and a category deleted.

Whew. That was quick. Thanks, Nancy. Wizzy…☎ 15:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

:In the future, the {{tl|afd}} tag can take a parameter for second (and further) nominations. {{subst:afd|

There was a Telegraph article on this page today: [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/wikipedia/6250515/Wikipedia-20-articles-earmarked-for-deletion.html] JN466 19:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

:Will this coverage for Raptor Jesus save him? ;-P I've added a box of media coverage to the top of the talk page. Fences&Windows 20:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The above has been nominated for deletion but it's linking to a previous afd on the article. I don't know enough about the afd process - would someone kind enough and please check that it has been done appropriately? many thanks --Merbabu (talk) 23:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I've started a thread on whether closing rationales should stay optional here. Please contribute! Fences&Windows 01:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

We've recently had instances of GA class articles being nominated for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Jersey Route 64). Is there consensus that articles that meet GA class and above are ineligible to be nominated at WP:AfD? Such article have already been through a review process and it should be demonstrable that they meet WP:N. Or are we going to end up with the situation of "Today's FA" (whatever it happens to be at the time) also being nominated at AfD? Can anyone forsee a situation where a GA or above class article should be deleted? Mjroots (talk) 08:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

:See Deleting featured/good/important content above. The short answer is "no, no article is immune to AFD."—Kww(talk) 12:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

:While no article is immune, the fast that it is a reviewed article argues strongly in favor of keep or in some cases, a WP:SNOW close. Remember though that just because it met GA standards 4 years ago doesn't mean it meets them now.

:In the case of most GA+ articles, instead of !voting "keep per it's GA" !vote "keep per it meets current GA standards" or "keep because reasons for deletion are simply not true" and point back to the GA nomination as evidence that the reasons weren't true at the time of promotion and follow up with a statement saying why they still aren't true. Hopefully after a handful of such replies the nominator will withdraw or someone will snow-close it. In the few cases where the AfD nomination points out serious, hard-to-fix flaws, then even if the AfD fails the article should promptly be put under review for demotion. As with any GA+ article, easly fixable flaws should of course be promptly fixed.

:Think of having recent or recently-reviewed FA or GA status as a poker hand having 4 aces: Unless there was cheating, it wins over AfD. Think of an older GA or FA one as a poker game where a player MUST replace their oldest card every turn. Just because it started off as a good hand doesn't mean it has one now.

:As a matter of politeness and for the good of the wiki, anyone arguing that a GA+ article should be deleted should put the article under review first to see if it can be rehabilitated. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

::Agreed, we should make every reasonable attempt to fix the article first. Having said that, GA is simply one reviewer's opinion that an article meets the specific GA criteria. That review does not require one to look at notability or other common deletion reasons. AfD, drawning from a larger group of editors, shouldn't be restricted by that one reviewer's opinion. Still, the fact that there is presumably at least one good revision in the article's history should be a pretty good indication of the article's potential. This is even more true of FAs. Is anyone aware of a former FA that's been deleted? I haven't heard of one. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

::: Slut Night is an example of a GA (reviewed in oct 2008) that someone looked at again and noted that "hold on those sources are shit, what's all this about" and it was delisted in April and then deleted this month. The sources were *never* any good in that article. GA trumps nothing because it's a completely random process. If someone said to me at AFD "this is a GA", I say "yes and?" It carries no weight with me at all, because it relies on one editor doing the certification. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

:::Bulbasaur was not only FA, it was on the front page.—Kww(talk) 16:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

::::It is now in WikiProject space. Here's the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pok%C3%A9mon/Bulbasaur&oldid=140280517 article] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pok%C3%A9mon/Bulbasaur&oldid=140280618F talk page] immediately after demotion. Follow the links to the FAC and two FARs. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• Strong oppose, GA reviews are done by a single person, so it would be ludicrous to make them immune to deletion. Stifle (talk) 15:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

In the section "How to list pages for deletion" I propose to add after "Note: Users must be logged in to complete steps II and III" the words "An unregistered user who wishes to nominate a page for deletion should complete step I, note his reason on the the article talk page, and then post a message at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion asking for a registered user to complete the nomination." The situation does in fact arise - see here. Any objections/better ideas? JohnCD (talk) 19:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

:The afd template itself should also be updated to reflect this change. I'm not sure where the text ("Unregistered users placing this tag on an article cannot complete the deletion nomination and should leave detailed reasons for deletion on Talk:Article name") is used in the template/documentation. It only appears if the step 2 page doesn't exist, I believe. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 19:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

::There's an open request to the developers by the WP:AFC project to ask to allow IP editors to create pages at specific non-talk locations (complete with subpage path). Perhaps WPP:Deletion should also ask for it?

::I'd also suggest in the meantime to create a new template that IP editors can use to tag the section where the IP editor left the deletion rationale on the talk page... or create a Talk:articlename/AfD subpage and tag that with the proper templates. 76.66.197.30 (talk) 05:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

:::How about a category? That would be a good clearinghouse - just create the AFD2 and pull the cat when it's done. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

::::As a first step, I have made the change I proposed above. JohnCD (talk) 20:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Per a discussion above, would somebody complete the AfD? Deletion rationale can be found on the article talk page. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 16:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• {{done}} - see, it works! JohnCD (talk) 17:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Would somebody please complet the AfD? Here is the deletion rationale:

I have tagged this article for deletion on the grounds that it does not follow the NPOV guidelines for living persons biographies. This article is extremely, extremely pro-Gideon Koren. The article emphasizes his composition of Israeli music, emphasizes his accomplishments, and completely muddles up the Olivieri case where he wrote hate mail to colleagues (which he eventually admitted to). Every attempt on my part, and on several other's parts, to change this article have been met with threats of libel, and change-backs to their previous state. Because this article does not give readers anything close to a NPOV and is about a living person, it should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.123.207 (talk) 07:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• {{notdone}} - Your view that an article is not neutral doesn't mean it should be deleted. The article subject is clearly notable. Crafty (talk) 07:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• To expand on what Craftyminion said, NPOV issues are editing issues, not deletion issues. You've tried editing the article; the next step is to discuss on the article's talk page why you think changes should be made (include references!) and get a concensus. If you aren't able to come to an agreement, dispute resolution is the next step.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Another one for step two by a registered editor. Deletion rationale on the talk page, step 3 already taken care of. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 17:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• {{done}} ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 17:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

::Wow, it does work :) 98.248.33.198 (talk) 17:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

You may like Wikipedia:Coordination/Relisted AfD debates, which is updated every 30 minutes. @harej 16:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Would a registered editor be kind enough to take care of step 2 for me. Deletion rationale on the talk page. Thanks, 66.57.4.150 (talk) 14:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

:{{done}}--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

::Thank you. 66.57.4.150 (talk) 16:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I would like to recommend the template User:Davidwr/XfDFeatured (doc) or one like it for any XfD of featured, good, or other valued content. This is a continuation of the work done at User:Davidwr/Deleting GA+ articles, although I think it stands fine on its own independent of that user essay. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

:Thanks for doing this. This is a good idea. Is there going to be any way to track how often it's used in appropriate circumstances? Jclemens (talk) 02:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

::I envision a bot that sweeps :Category:Open XfDs of valued content and its year-subcategories and adds "|closed=yes" on a regular basis, giving us a useful history while keeping the Open... categories usefully small. I also envision XfD closers manually adding "|closed=yes" when closing XfDs. I don't see this being used more than a few times a year but even with that low usage it will be very helpful. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Another to be completed by a registered editor. Deletion rationale can be found on the talk page. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 04:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

:{{done}}. Cheers. lifebaka++ 05:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Another one for completion of step 2 - deletion rationale on the article talk page, step 3 already done. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 18:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

:{{done}}. If you're going to keep doing these, you might want to consider creating an account, so that you won't have to wait for someone else to complete it for you. Cheers. lifebaka++ 18:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I used it here but got a bunch of gobbledegook. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=GW_Patriot&oldid=318889889]. Did I do something wrong?? --AW (talk) 16:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

:You should have used {{tl|afdx}}. {{tl|afd2}} is supposed to be used on deletion discussion pages. Tim Song (talk) 23:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Another for completion by a registered user. Rationale on the talk page, step 3 already done. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 07:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

: Got it. - 2/0 (cont.) 08:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Another for completion by a registered user. Rationale on the talk page, step 3 already done. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 17:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

:{{done}}. Cheers. lifebaka++ 17:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

And another... 98.248.33.198 (talk) 03:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The Biltmore Estate is a famous resort in North Carolina. While taking a look at this article, I noticed the following:

William Cecil is the present owner and is credited with preserving the estate which remains open to the public.

I wanted to check this fact, but the only citation is the website of the Biltmore itself. Poking around a little, it appears to me that some of the contributors to that article appear to have POV issues. In any case, I recommend that the following articles be deleted as non-notable:

George Henry Vanderbilt Cecil

William Amherst Vanderbilt Cecil

In addition, the following articles need some expert attention for references/POV issues:

Biltmore Estate

George Washington Vanderbilt II

Thanks for your time and have a great day.Jarhed (talk) 07:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Another for completion by a registered user. Rationale on the talk page, step 3 already done. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 05:48, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Done. Protonk (talk) 05:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I added [http://www.phonenews.com/stepping-in-to-stop-a-feud...-9276/ this] to the list of media mentions above. Joe Chill (talk) 16:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Another for completion by a registered user. Rationale on the talk page, step 3 already done. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 16:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

:{{done}}--Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Another for completion by a registered user. Rationale on the talk page, step 3 already done. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 20:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

:{{done}} by User:MrKIA11 ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 21:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Unregistered user requesting assistance in deletion process. Entry does not seem to fit Wikipedia's notability guidelines for academics. Further, a look at the page's history gives a strong suggestion that the page was actually started by the subject of the entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.119.21.130 (talk) 21:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

:{{done}} ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 21:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

smacks of self-promotion article of a non-notable person. GW has achieved a middle management role in IBM, has published (?likely self published) a book on chess (http://www.books-by-isbn.com/0-9514103/ - it's the only title published by the Phnumphic Press). I think User:Thegn, one of the main contributors, might well be Gavin Wilson, judging by the information he has provided. Also User:Ombudswoman. Also User:Amy Crescenzo/Sandbox. 86.134.92.67 (talk) 13:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

:Maintenance templates added... I'll be keeping an eye on this one, and further research on it later... - Adolphus79 (talk) 14:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

::A look at the history of Proximity mapping reveals User:Gavin Wilson too. So three of the four user accounts/socks have edited his vanity page.86.133.208.66 (talk) 16:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

:::Feel free to {{tl|prod}} the article yourself if you wish... - Adolphus79 (talk) 16:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

::::Done. This diff [User:SuggestBot/Requests&diff=prev&oldid=78721733] shows User:Thegn is a sock/alternate account of User:Ombudswoman. 86.133.208.66 (talk) 16:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

:::::Can you check I've done it (the Afd) correctly please? 86.133.208.66 (talk) 16:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I followed the instructions in Articles for deletion, but messed up and used a wrong Edit summary: "AfD: Nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NominationName" instead of "AfD: Nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ACDSee". Is it a serious mistake? What should I do? --M4gnum0n (talk) 15:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

:I'd say it doesn't matter much, as long as the AfD tag on the page points to the right place and such, which it does. Besides, edit summaries are impossible to fix for regular users and admins, so unless something needs oversight it usually isn't worth worrying about. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

: For future reference, a new and corrected edit summary can be submitted using a Help:Dummy edit. Flatscan (talk) 03:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

:Feel free to state your position on the proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons.

• Hopeless. Why did you even suggest this? Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 15:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• STRONGEST Oppose - "AfD is complete nonsense" sounds like complete nonsense to me... - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

:Any additional comments:

Read my rationale. It explains why I want to propose this. Robert9673 (talk) 16:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

:The question was rhetorical. It's obvious this will never happen. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 17:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

:This suggestion itself is a disruption to the community... Firstly, not every article brought to AfD is the result of editors who are inexperienced in creating articles. Secondly, not every article brought to AfD is deleted... also, if we relied completely on AfC, very few articles would be written, compared to the number that are written now. The rational that because articles are being deleted, we should get rid of the deletion process, and only write articles that people request, sounds like a bad faith nomination from either A:) someone who just had an article they created deleted, or B:) someone who does not fully understand the hows and whys of Wikipedia... - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

::Please see the response I made on User talk:Robert9673#Articles for creation. Robert9673 (talk) 18:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

::You people really need to start to assume good faith before jumping to conclusions. At least give the idea a thought before opposing. Robert9673 (talk) 18:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

::It takes time to review articles before they are officially created. We should encourage collaboration to the fullest extent. This will prevent vandalism in the future. Robert9673 (talk) 18:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

:::Special:NewPages is forever backlogged. What you are proposing is effectively permitting only creation of patrolled new articles. Look at the NP backlog, and you should realize what a bad idea this is. No. Tim Song (talk) 18:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

::::It is forever backlogged if they allowed any editor to create articles without review. If everyone reviewed articles before creation, it would prevent unnecessary vandalism. Of course it would also encourage collaboration among Wikipedia editors. Isn't that the point of Wikipedia to work together to produce high-quality articles? Robert9673 (talk) 18:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

:::::Your proposal simply moved the backlog to AFC instead. It's still going to be a backlog. In addition, the application of some policies, such as WP:NOTNEWS, WP:N, WP:RS, WP:BLP, etc., are often not clear-cut. Asking a single reviewer to decide the issue invites arbitrary decisions; requiring extensive discussion would make AFC into AFD in all but name. Tim Song (talk) 18:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

::::::A backlog that will encourage more participation will result in strong collaboration. It takes forever for one article to be accepted at Wikipedia:Articles for creation. If there were more editors to review, we wouldn't have this problem. Collaboration is sorely needed for an online encyclopedia like Wikipedia to succeed. Robert9673 (talk) 18:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

::::::Yes, a single reviewer decides the issue. However, he or she can asked others for more input if it's needed. This collaboration replaces all the unneeded discussion at Articles for deletion. It's a win-win situation for everyone involved. Robert9673 (talk) 19:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

:::::::And completely does away with the free encyclopedia... with your idea, instead of anyone being free to create an article, each and every article (hundreds a day) would need to be created, reviewed and OK'd... and what happens when one of those articles is about a notable person, but the reviewer does not catch on, and that article is lost? this will not encourage anything other than the ideas already circulating that Wikipedia is run by a cabal... Instead of simply deleting those articles that are created which do not pass policy, you are proposing that "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" be changed to "The encyclopedia that anyone can edit, so long as some random reviewer thinks your article is worthy"... With your idea, CSD and PROD would inevitably be done away with also, and I would much rather see an attack (or NN-BIO, or spam) article be created and deleted within the space of 5 minutes, than see that same attack aticle sit stagnant on AfC for a month or more because noone has had a chance to review it yet because AfC is backlogged with several hundred requests each day... - Adolphus79 (talk) 19:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

::::::::In the early days of Wikipedia, it used to be anyone could edit because the Wikipedia community was smaller. Now it has gotten rather large and enforcing is necessary for the goal to still be met. Do you not support the goals of Wikipedia:Articles for creation? By not allowing editors without accounts to create articles, it would now allow them to create articles at all. Robert9673 (talk) 20:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

:::I did give it thought before commenting... my first thought was the fact that article creation is already slowing down (to the point that some are suggesting an end to Wikipedia in the next 5 years), my second thought was that there is no reason for someone to have to go through the AfC process, when it's much easier (and less admin work involved) for them to create an article themselves... Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit and add too... While that means that, yes, some of the articles created do not belong, a good number of new articles do belong... In addition, what about those editors that have been working on the project for several years, and have a good number of article creations under their belt already, what do you think they would do if they were no longer allowed to create articles? I think that this is a poorly thought out idea, by an editor inexperienced in the full process of creation and deletion... Furthermore, I think that even if we were to not allow user to create articles anymore, there would still be a need for AfD... the two are not so closely related that you can enforce one and do away with the other... - Adolphus79 (talk) 18:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

:::P.S. Nothing about this idea is going to stop vandalism in the future... only allow more if there is no deletion process... - Adolphus79 (talk) 18:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

::::Apparently I have to re-post this again since people are not getting the point. I am proposing that all new articles must go through Wikipedia:Articles for creation. WP:Articles for creation have been a success. If it weren’t, the community would have never accepted it. Despite the heavy burden of reviewing the articles, it has prevented the drama level of potentially deleted articles and prods. Many editors come to the AfC to create articles. It has never discouraged editors from contributing. Don't be afraid of failure. Work hard and the work will pay off.

::::Besides, it would give the editors of WP:NPP an easier time to check the created articles as all of them have been reviewed before creation. Robert9673 (talk) 18:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

::::A curious story! How did you learn the stunning piece of news that "the community"{{who}} "accepted" {{what}} ? How did you know it "was" (past tense) a "success" and what happened afterwards? How many editors (not IPs) "come to the AfC to create articles" and what is their rationale for not creating them on their own? Perhaps you are right on one account only, that "It has never discouraged editors from contributing" - maybe because they are unaware of it ... yet. NVO (talk) 19:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

:::::Apparently the community accepted the Wikipedia:Articles for creation. If it didn't, it would have never existed. Some editors don't create accounts because they feel creating accounts would expose them to scrutiny. If they edit under an IP address, they can still contribute under less scrutiny. And of course, it will give them less pressure to create articles. Less pressure allows editors to feel confident in what they edit. Robert9673 (talk) 19:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

::::::AFC, by definition, is a low-throughput operation run by a very limited force of volunteers. Anything wider will hit a stone wall of "not enough admins", "not enough reviewers" etc. May I recommend waiting until Flagged Revisions proceed from "test of a test of a test" to "test completed" stage, at which point the community (the real community) will get a feel of just how many revisions it can sight and approve. Although the failure of new page patrol should be a good indicator of FR future. NVO (talk) 19:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

:::::::Are you saying that if there were a lot of AfC submissions, it would be impossible? Editors who choose to not have accounts have the same right as every other editor who has an account to create articles. You cannot just say no to AfC. The only solution to the "not enough reviewers" is simply to recruit more reviewers. Robert9673 (talk) 20:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

::::::::Then maybe that is what you should be doing, instead of trying to delete AfD... no point in cutting off your nose just to spite your face... - Adolphus79 (talk) 20:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

:::::::::What does this have to do with anything? Can you just focus on the issue? There is no need for uncivil comments. Robert9673 (talk) 20:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

:''The above discussion is preserved as a failed proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on a new section of the discussion page. No further edits should be made to this section.