31:
201:
accusations are made of a "lack of transparency". It's much simpler and smoother to keep all the discussions in one place. Second, closed discussions are harmless other than taking up a little space on the main AfD page. If you see a closed discussion (one marked by the light blue background), just ignore it and move on to the next discussion.
85:
of the discussion on a single page, makes it one of the largest pages on
Knowledge (XXG), too. This results in a long page that can be difficult to navigate. More importantly, it results in long page load times, especially for Wikipedians with slower connections. It is a waste of time, bandwidth, and
220:
Some users have argued that we should be able to close these AfD nominations early. Closing the discussion early tends to just extend the controversy. By the time we finish deciding if the discussion should be closed early, we've often taken the same amount of time as if we'd allowed the regular 5
200:
Why not just de-list the entries entirely? First, AfD is a very busy place so it has a standard operating procedure which keeps everything running somewhat smoothly. Early de-listings throw a monkey wrench into the works. Discussions get lost, users challenge the validity of the de-listing and
298:
much appreciated. AfD strongly prefers indenting by bullets. The inconsistent mixing of * and : really screws up the spacing. Because of the way the bullets work, that can mean minor refactoring in order to bring a long rant back into a single paragraph or to re-attach the signature to the
216:
In this case, the community's experience shows that the most effective solution is generally to "shout down" the nomination with lots of "keep" votes but to otherwise let the discussion run its course. Some of our best and most respected articles have been on AfD at one time or another.
248:
Do not delete or strike through the votes of others, even if the vote has been made by an anonymous, new or otherwise suspicious voter. Actually deleting the vote from the page creates far more confusion than it solves if/when the anon comes back and starts screaming about
224:
By the same reasoning, the AfD tag should stay on the article during the discussion period even if you believe the nomination was inappropriate. We need to leave some part of the paper trail in place, and the tag will be removed by sysops in a few days anyway.
190:. In this case, it is not uncommon for an administrator to "close" the discussion early by carrying out the speedy-deletion. While we encourage admins to exercise their discretion and judgment, we are still left with the deletion discussion page.
244:
Do not sort votes into "keep" and "delete" sub-sections. For many of the discussions, it is critical to understand the context of the comment and rebuttal. Refactoring the discussions destroys the understanding of the flow of the
322:
When nominating an article, you may occasionally find that there is a previous discussion at the default AfD discussion page. The old discussion must be preserved. Here is the preferred process for adjusting the new nomination:
256:
be marked in the discussion as suspicious (usually via an italicized sub-bullet). Consider also adding a link to the user's contribution history so that the deciding admin can easily research the allegation. Example:
128:
long. General rule of thumb: if the discussion is so long that you're thinking: "Hmm, it would be helpful if someone tallied the votes", then the discussion is probably too long for inclusion. If someone's
164:
This discussion has become very long and is no longer being shown directly on this page in order to improve performance. Please click this link to view or participate in the discussion. ~~~~ <br: -->
240:
refactor a discussion thread in a way that makes reviewing the edit history more complicated. Please consider the following guidelines when editing the comments of others in AfD discussion threads.
313:
And, of course, true vandalism (vote blanking or editing the comments of others) should be immediately reverted - usually with a comment in the discussion thread documenting what the vandal did.
93:
be reduced. Certain types of discussion can be safely "un-included" from the main page, but still referenced by a link. This reduces the page size while keeping the discussions close at hand.
178:
At the end of the discussion period and when the discussion has been closed, return the long discussion to the log page by restoring it as a transclusion. The /Temp page can now be deleted.
228:
There are some exceptions which are closed early. As with the "speedy-deleted" discussions above, it is generally best to leave the discussion page in place but just close it early.
193:
The consensus decision is that we should leave those orphaned discussion pages in place but should close them early. The discussion should be marked as closed in accordance with the
345:
When you create the entry on the AfD page, you must make sure that the transclusion link points to the new discussion. The correct link should be provided on the end of the
291:
Some new users add comments at the top of the discussion instead of at the bottom. It is appropriate to move those comments to restore the logical/chronological order.
209:
These are sometimes called the "speedy-keep" nominations. The nominator is being credibly accused of abusing the process either as a form of vandalism or to make a
306:
appropriate to redact personal attacks which are irrelevant to the facts of the discussion. The general format is to replace the offensive language with
45:
Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the
342:
Now follow the link and state your reason(s) for nominating the article. You should also mention the prior discussion and provide a link to it.
46:
75:
17:
366:
371:
194:
175:
Replace all the "pagename" instances with the actual name of the page that has been nominated for deletion.
79:
57:
38:
30:
281:
264:
210:
186:
Sometimes an article is nominated for deletion via AfD discussion when it clearly qualified for
101:
187:
360:
348:
330:
136:
To un-include an extremely long discussion, edit the Daily Log page and replace:
78:
one of the busiest places on
Knowledge (XXG). The way AfD is currently set up,
120:
This is the most helpful type of un-inclusion. Some AfD discussion can become
339:
with the ordinal (2nd, 3rd, etc.) representing the number of this discussion.
96:
Please note that un-inclusion is a purely voluntary procedure. No one
133:
tallied the votes then it's almost certainly too long for inclusion.
112:
The following types of discussion are candidates for un-inclusion:
205:
Abusive, invalid or other nominations which are not in good faith
124:
long. Of course, use your best judgement to decide how long is
25:
74:
Dozens of articles are listed for deletion every day, making
197:. Once marked as closed, all users can safely ignore it.
294:
Refactoring the votes to make indentation consistent is
100:
to do it — making this a requirement would be a form of
271:
148:{{Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/pagename/Temp}}
65:
280:
edit history shows comment was actually left by anon
37:
This page is currently inactive and is retained for
252:Unsigned, anonymous or potential sockpuppet votes
141:{{Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/pagename}}
8:
221:day discussion period to run its course.
153:On the newly created /Temp page, paste in:
76:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
24:
232:Refactoring the discussion thread
29:
1:
89:Fortunately, the page bloat
158:=== ] (long discussion) ===
108:Candidates for un-inclusion
388:
116:Extremely long discussions
104:, which is to be avoided.
55:
372:Knowledge (XXG) deletion
270:this is the user's only
367:Inactive project pages
327:Tag the article with
86:server resources.
102:instruction creep
54:
53:
379:
352:
282:user:123.12.1.12
263:. It's great.
195:Deletion process
68:
50:
33:
26:
387:
386:
382:
381:
380:
378:
377:
376:
357:
356:
346:
320:
265:user:sockpuppet
234:
207:
188:speedy-deletion
184:
118:
110:
72:
71:
64:
60:
44:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
385:
383:
375:
374:
369:
359:
358:
355:
354:
343:
340:
338:
334:
319:
316:
315:
314:
311:
309:
300:
292:
289:
288:
287:
286:
285:
277:
250:
246:
233:
230:
206:
203:
183:
182:Speedy-deletes
180:
173:
172:
171:
167:
166:
165:
161:
160:
159:
151:
150:
149:
145:
144:
142:
117:
114:
109:
106:
70:
69:
61:
56:
52:
51:
43:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
384:
373:
370:
368:
365:
364:
362:
350:
344:
341:
336:
332:
328:
326:
325:
324:
318:Renominations
317:
312:
307:
305:
301:
297:
293:
290:
284:
283:
278:
275:
273:
268:
267:
266:
262:
259:
258:
255:
251:
247:
243:
242:
241:
239:
231:
229:
226:
222:
218:
214:
212:
204:
202:
198:
196:
191:
189:
181:
179:
176:
169:
168:
163:
162:
157:
156:
155:
154:
147:
146:
140:
139:
138:
137:
134:
132:
127:
123:
115:
113:
107:
105:
103:
99:
94:
92:
87:
84:
81:
77:
67:
63:
62:
59:
48:
42:
40:
35:
32:
28:
27:
19:
335:, replacing
321:
303:
295:
279:
269:
260:
253:
237:
235:
227:
223:
219:
215:
208:
199:
192:
185:
177:
174:
152:
135:
130:
125:
121:
119:
111:
97:
95:
90:
88:
82:
73:
47:village pump
36:
249:censorship.
245:discussion.
361:Categories
331:subst:afdx
41:reference.
39:historical
353:template.
80:including
58:Shortcut
236:Please
131:already
66:WP:AFDM
333:|#th}}
274:so far
254:should
238:do not
308:'']''
299:vote.
211:point
143:with
16:<
349:afdx
296:very
272:edit
261:Keep
213:.
122:very
337:#th
302:It
126:too
98:has
91:can
83:all
363::
351:}}
347:{{
329:{{
304:is
276:or
310:.
170:]
49:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
