Conservapedia talk:Articles for deletion

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

I think {{Delete Notice}} already sorts tagged articles into Category:Articles proposed for deletion. Might be a good start, but I have no idea if that template is still in active use or if this page is better. Just throwing info bits out there. We have very little organization with AFDs right now. :/ --Sid 3050 15:48, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Oh, thanks, I didn't know about that.
I'm also thinking of grouping all open AFD requests on a single page, using transclusion. --Ed Poor 15:51, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
I think that's a great idea! The current AFDs (with the exception of AFD Evolutionism maybe - Is that one still open? There was a draft version, and somebody removed the template, but the article's Talk page basically went on about it... I lost track, I think) are quite short, so the resulting all-in-one page should be a nice move. --Sid 3050 15:56, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
I'll start doing it, if you'll help. I'd like to have two pages - or one page with two sections.
Anyway, the parts would list:
  1. pages marked for deletion - and they still exist
  2. pages marked for deletion - but they were deleted
We might even be able to "close" discussions with a "no consensus" or "senior staff decided" or whatever. (Note that I am not senior staff; I just got here! ;-) --Ed Poor 16:00, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
Well, a centralized page should be a good starting point. I think the discussions will be picked up and closed quickly enough after that (most people just lose track of slow-moving AFDs, I think). Finding the AFDs shouldn't be TOO hard. Want me to list a few links on this article for now so we see what we're working with? Also keep in mind that I'm not staff, not even to mention senior. I only got a few warnings to brag with ;)
Now that you mention it... there is a page with a few old AFDs... somewhere... gimme a sec. --Sid 3050 16:17, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
Ah yes, duh. Articles for Deletion - and I see you found it already. XD --Sid 3050 16:22, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
Ah, after checking your Contributions, I begin to realize that you mean two pages with transclusions of the open and closed AFDs, right? --Sid 3050 16:27, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
After some thinking, I've come to the conclusion that transclusion may be overkill. I see it being used on Wikipedia for subject-specific things like "video games" or "websites", but we have VERY few AFDs going at a VERY slow rate, so the list should be enough. Encouraging decision-making should be enough on this scale, I think. However, I will make a template for the AFD pages to create links to the Article, the history and the article's talk page, and insert it into the current ones. --Sid 3050 16:37, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Yeesh. At the rate you folks delete stuff, this place'll be empty. --Gulik2 13:54, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Deletion candidates

ARTICLES FOR DELETION SHOULD BE DISCUSSED BEFORE THEY ARE DELETED

This is a category I hadn't noticed before. It appears the AFD articles are spread around. What should be done with this category and these articles? DrSandstone 13:59, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

I removed several articles listed for quite some time; should we let this list lengthy & wieldy too? RobS 15:44, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
The list was there before individual pages were created. I suspect that if it was orignized into pending and decided (keep or delete), and the previous discussions moved to AFD pages themsleves, it should be quite manageable. --Mtur 15:47, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Idea for process and workflow

This way, the main page doesn't grow too large, and the Keep/Delete pages could hold a significant amount of material before any archiving is needed. The main page itself, would not need to be archived as it is just a holding place for current debates. Once the debate is over, its moved to the proper page. --Mtur 17:48, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

What is wrong with the way we were doing it? Why, if the goal is discussion of the merits of an article, wouldn't that be done on the articles page? Why wouldn't we want the full discussion to appear here, in this newly created space? Seems like lots of needless paging back and forth to me. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 17:51, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
With the above setup, the discussion would appear here - just as it does now. This is a way of handling the archiving of acted upon decisions. Instead of leaving the discussion from Conservapedia: AFD Lesbians (a deleted page) on the main page (as it is now) until someone archives the whole thing, this process would remove the include on the main page as soon as the article is deleted and link it on Conservapedia:Articles for deletion/Delete so that you can find all the deleted pages and their discussions (have to follow the link though). This way, the material on the main page is always relevant and up to date and the archiving is constantly done as things need to be archived. --Mtur 18:01, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

I just guess I am confused as to who is making the decisions to delete articles, is all. I see many deleted in spite of the fact that the so-called "vote" was against deletion, and others deleted without much "debate" at all, and still others are removed from the "delete" list in spite of a majority of votes being in favor of deletion. Is it just a matter of people needing to follow the templates and making sure they voice their opinons, and if they don't the "decision" is made for them by someone I don't know of? In all honesty, I am a Sysop here, with no greater or lesser "powers" than any other one, and yet I have never been asked if something should be deleted or not. I assumed since only Sysops can delete, it was intended to be a group decision. Please forgive my ignorance here, but we aren't issued a manual of instruction when promoted.  ;-) --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 18:11, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

More discussion is fine with me and I will bear this principle in mind. None of this should preclude the deletion of obvious pranks, vandalism, or misinformation (i.e. I once deleted an article on the euthanasia activist Peter Singer that portrayed him as a pro-life activist). DanH 18:16, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

The decisions appear to be ultimately, sysops who make the decision. The idea behind the AFD process is to allow input on deletions and to allow editors (like myself) a way to give input into the deletion process and warning for those who are possessive about a page warning about the page is going to be deleted and a chance to defend or rectify the problems in the article. Pages that are deleted without going through the AFD process (pranks, vandalsim and misinformation as mentioned by DanH) is not something I'm trying to look at or address with this. Instead, I'm looking at the when and how pages are to be added along with when they are deleted, how the information about the process is preserved. Much of this is undocumented because it is being strongly borrowed from Wikipedia itself and adapted to work here. The idea of the include on the page on Wikipedia where hundreds of comments are made about each delete would be a bit ungainly here where you get five or ten people commenting at the most. I'm just trying to document what process there is now, and suggest on that an improvement for archival of the material. --Mtur 18:27, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Well, like I said, I must be an idiot, because I have never known it was a Sysop decision, because all the pages seemed to be a vote..... --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 18:32, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
At some point, the vote has to end. I have conceded that it ended far too soon in this case, but at some point, we do draw the line. DanH 18:33, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
I'm not aware of any case where it was ended too soon. The example of Lesbians that I gave above was at the top of the page and a deleted article and thats why I chose it. I am more interested in what you do with it (the Conservapedia AFD Lesbians page) now and how to keep the page manageable (rather than having ever growing sections on the main page). --Mtur 18:38, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Lesbians should never have been deleted without consultation, and in any case should have been redirected and merged into Homosexuality. Unfortunately when I got to the article, it had already been gutted, and there wasn't much to merge. Your proposed AFD/Process is a stroke of genius, especially since it is what I have been preaching to other sysops for months now, lol. No way you could have known about that, so I just consider it a matter of great minds thinking alike. It is wrong of us to give the impression there is some kind of vote on the deletions. We want people, especially the principle editors, to have input, but it just isn't factual for us to imply that anyone but Sysops will have a say in something being deleted, or removed from consideration for deletion. Likewise it isn't fair that just one or two Sysops be allowed to make that decision either. Of course, as Dan says, this all wouldn't apply to vandal created smut articles, etc. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 02:53, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Well, here we are ten days later. Pages are still being deleted, without discussion, removal from the lists. We have the transcluded list of Ed's without the other lists being removed. We have discussion here, and another place. How is anyone to know how this all works? Perhaps what I need to do is delete all of these pages, all of the templates associated with them, and urge other users with wiki knowledge to help it be rebuilt. Does that sound like a more forthright and speedy approach so that change can indeed come? --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 03:58, 20 May 2007 (EDT)


Alright TK, I've found the time to have a look at and think about this.

I prefer the older way it was being done. Including the individual AFD pages onto one page is confusing, and achieves little.

What I suggest is the following, although as I will note, not all of this is actually possible.

  • An editor puts a {{Delete Notice}} template on a page proposed to be deleted.
    • This notice includes a link to a new page to discuss the proposed deletion.
    • The discussion should be a separate page, not the article's talk page, partly in order to retain the discussion on why it was deleted, after it is deleted.
  • Clicking that link for the first time will take the editor to the new page for discussing the proposed deletion. It will also automatically include a template on that new page.
    • The {{Delete Notice}} template does not do that last part now, but I believe that it can be made to do so.
  • The editor writes up the reason he thinks the page should be deleted, and saves the page.
  • The deletion-discussion page is automatically included on a page listing all proposed deletions.
    • However, I don't think this is possible, and it will therefore have to be manually included.
  • Interested editors will also automatically be notified of the proposed deletion.
    • This is to solve a problem that I encountered at Wikipedia, that pages that I would be interested in commenting on were discussed and deleted (or otherwise) before I even knew that their deletion was proposed.
    • However, I don't think this is possible. There may be a way to do it via categories if Ed Poor gives a positive answer to a question I've asked him, but I'm not hopeful.
  • A time limit is set for comments. This might be automatic (by means of the templates, based on when the deletion was proposed), or manually set if there was a requirement to have more time for comments in some cases. (It probably should be automatic in the first instance, but be altered if required).
  • All discussions who's time has expired show up in a category list somewhere.
    • I think this is probably achievable, although I haven't thought it through in detail.
  • Any sysop then closes discussion and makes the decision to delete or otherwise, based on his assessment of the comments
    • This does not mean treating all comments as being of equal value.
    • If he can't find a consensus in the comments, the default result is to not delete.
    • There is no point in the closing sysop discussing the deletion with other sysops. The discussion has already occurred by then. That's what the deletion-proposal page is for.
  • The closing sysop...
    • ... notes on the deletion-discussion page the decision, marks the discussion as closed, and protects the page.
    • ... removes the deletion notice from the article itself.
    • ... Moves the article's entry from the list of proposed deletions to a list of completed discussions.
      • There should be one list for this (or one list per quarter/month/week/etc.). Having separate "kept" and "deleted" lists doesn't allow for other decisions, such as "merge and redirect".


I wonder if we should choose a different name:

  • Some discussions may be to merge and redirect rather than delete.
  • This should also be used for proposing deletion of templates and other non-article pages.

Wikipedia has a "request for comment" process, although that is for commenting about an editor, not about a page. Perhaps, though, we should have a "page review" discussion rather than an "article for deletion" discussion, or something like that.

How's that? Philip J. Rayment 07:12, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

  • I think you and I agree. I think the whole deal is overly complicated, and that is exactly what Andy's comments were. You know the old saying about letting an engineer actually design things, right? It will work, but oh boy! What a process! :p See, Ed is an engineer, lol. I will look at this later, after many cups of coffee. Perhaps if the automatic notification cannot be done for each article, maybe it could be done for the one page all of them are listed on? The main thing wanted by Andy was not so many deleted, more repaired/salvaged, and of course a quicker process and end decision by the Sysops. Thank you so much for taking this off Ed's shoulders, I guess he knew I would harp and harp until something was done. And, of course I would have! ;-) --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 07:35, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
Retrieved from "https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion&oldid=172457"