Conservapedia talk:Articles for deletion

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)