Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 78) (bot |
|||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
{{Talk header|noarchive=yes|WT:AFD}} |
{{Talk header|noarchive=yes|WT:AFD}} |
||
{{FAQ|collapsed=no}} |
{{FAQ|collapsed=no}} |
||
{{WikiProject banner shell| |
|||
{{WikiProject Deletion}} |
|||
}} |
|||
{{Press |
{{Press |
||
| subject = project page |
| subject = project page |
||
| Line 18: | Line 21: | ||
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
||
|maxarchivesize = 250K |
|maxarchivesize = 250K |
||
|counter = |
|counter = 78 |
||
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
||
|algo = old(25d) |
|algo = old(25d) |
||
| Line 28: | Line 31: | ||
|indexhere=yes |
|indexhere=yes |
||
}} |
}} |
||
==Discussion at [[:Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion#Is RFD a valid forum to discuss cases of PTOPIC disambiguation pages?|Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion § Is RFD a valid forum to discuss cases of PTOPIC disambiguation pages?]]== |
|||
[[File:Symbol watching blue lashes high contrast.svg|25px|link=|alt=]] You are invited to join the discussion at [[:Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion#Is RFD a valid forum to discuss cases of PTOPIC disambiguation pages?|Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion § Is RFD a valid forum to discuss cases of PTOPIC disambiguation pages?]]. <span class="nowrap">—'''[[User:CX Zoom|CX Zoom]]'''[he/him]</span> <sup class="nowrap">([[User talk:CX Zoom|let's talk]] • {[[Special:Contributions/CX Zoom|C]]•[[User:CX Zoom/X|X]]})</sup> 13:47, 10 December 2024 (UTC)<!-- [[Template:Please see]] --> |
|||
== AFD request: [[Brenda Dervin]] == |
|||
== Jessica Pierce == |
|||
Rationale: Subject does not meet notability requirements. No secondary resources discuss Pierce, her life, or explain why she warrants a biography. There are a few book reviews for a book she co-authored but these reviews focus solely on the book. Perhaps the book should receive an article? I have removed passages that refer to how Pierce feels about her associations to certain universities. These statements were not sourced to anything. This biography was clearly written by her friends, and I believe her friends are obstructing the deletion process. I believe this is a vanity project. [[User:Sagsbasel|Sagsbasel]] ([[User talk:Sagsbasel|talk]]) 08:27, 15 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:"The page "Jessica Pierce" does not exist." Best [[User:Alexandermcnabb|Alexandermcnabb]] ([[User talk:Alexandermcnabb|talk]]) 08:31, 15 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::That works. Lol. Thanks for your time. [[User:Sagsbasel|Sagsbasel]] ([[User talk:Sagsbasel|talk]]) 08:46, 15 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::To clarify for the record, the page was speedy deleted for [[WP:A7]]. [[User:Qwaiiplayer|Qwaiiplayer]] ([[User talk:Qwaiiplayer|talk]]) 12:25, 15 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::::I'm not sure A7 was technically correct; the article at the point it was deleted said "{{xt|Pierce has authored or co-authored over 30 articles in peer reviewed journals and chapters in scholarly edited collections}}". {{u|DGG}} can you advise if A7 was correct here? [[User:Ritchie333|<b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b>]] [[User talk:Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)</sup>]] [[Special:Contributions/Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)</sup>]] 14:02, 15 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Persons with a doctorate submit their work to peer reviewed journals. That's just a function of their job. Just googling around, it looks like some doctorate students who work hard can have ten or more papers and have over 100 citations before they graduate (https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/134555/how-do-some-phd-students-get-10-papers-is-that-what-i-need-for-landing-good-fa). Pierce with 30 articles authored and co-authored in 45 years is nothing particularly notable. Especially when there are no mentions of her in newspapers, no autobiographies, and no evidence that her work is cited extensively by her peers. [[User:Sagsbasel|Sagsbasel]] ([[User talk:Sagsbasel|talk]]) 02:37, 16 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::::::I also found this: "Materials scientist Akihisa Inoue, former president of Tohoku University in Japan and a member of multiple prestigious academies, holds the record. He met our definition of being hyperprolific for 12 calendar years between 2000 and 2016. Since 1976, his name appears on 2,566 full papers indexed in Scopus." [[User:Sagsbasel|Sagsbasel]] ([[User talk:Sagsbasel|talk]]) 02:47, 16 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I did start a discussion about the A7 at [[User talk:Deb#Deletion of Jessica Pierce]]. I mean she doesn't look like the most notable academic out there and quite possibly isn't but the fact that we're discussing this clearly indicates that she deserves an [[WP:AFD]]. [[User:Galobtter|Galobtter]] ([[User talk:Galobtter|pingó mió]]) 07:02, 16 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== [[Ridi Corporation]] == |
|||
Rationale: Article sources don't meet [[WP:CORPDEPTH]] requirements. |
|||
Could someone finish the remaining steps please? Thank you, [[Special:Contributions/180.150.37.213|180.150.37.213]] ([[User talk:180.150.37.213|talk]]) 22:12, 17 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:{{done}} [[User:LilianaUwU|<span style="font-family:default;color:#00c6ff;">''Liliana''</span><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:#ff879a;">''UwU''</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:LilianaUwU|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/LilianaUwU|contributions]])</sup> 23:33, 17 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== [[Orna Guralnik]] == |
|||
Rationale: Lacks in-depth coverage that is independent of [[Couples Therapy (2019 TV series)]]. |
|||
Could someone please complete this nomination? [[Special:Contributions/180.150.37.213|180.150.37.213]] ([[User talk:180.150.37.213|talk]]) 22:19, 17 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:{{done}} [[User:LilianaUwU|<span style="font-family:default;color:#00c6ff;">''Liliana''</span><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:#ff879a;">''UwU''</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:LilianaUwU|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/LilianaUwU|contributions]])</sup> 23:33, 17 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== Ambassadors == |
|||
I'm new to the AfD pages so thought I'd ask a question here before messing up too many discussions. |
|||
A number of articles about ambassadors are currently in AfD as "Ambassadors are not inherently notable". However, each British ambassador I have looked up has had an article in [[Who's Who (UK)]] (I believe it's an editorial decision for that book to include all British ambassadors), which seems to make them notable under [[WP:ANYBIO]] #3. So I thought I'd get some thoughts here before going too far with the idea "Ambassadors are not notable but British ambassadors are notable because someone at A & C Black says so". Cheers, [[User:Mgp28|Mgp28]] ([[User talk:Mgp28|talk]]) 13:02, 18 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
Stub page for a random, no-name college professor that has just 6 sources and a "Life" section that consists entirely of 2 paragraphs - the first 4 sentences, the second just one. In addition, the first external link (which directs to an archived page from 1997) admits it has outdated content. Finally, this page's creation was literally the only edit its creator, [[User:Dani4|Dani4]], ever made. [[Special:Contributions/100.7.34.111|100.7.34.111]] ([[User talk:100.7.34.111|talk]]) 18:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC) |
|||
<s>:For what it's worth (I'm a AFD regular, disregarding no-consensus !votes, [https://afdstats.toolforge.org/afdstats.py?name=CT55555&max=500&startdate=&altname= 76%] of my !votes match consensus, I lean more towards keeping than deleting biographical articles) I think your logic is good and your argument is fair, I'd suggest framing it like: |
|||
:: Passes [[WP:PROF]] criteria 1 with large numbers of citations for her works as shown [https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ORFiUwQAAAAJ here] on Google Scholar, so it is very likely to be kept at AfD, imv [[User:Atlantic306|Atlantic306]] ([[User talk:Atlantic306|talk]]) 21:54, 12 December 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:*'''Keep''', due passing [[WP:ANYBIO]] criterion #3 {{tq|The person has an entry in a country's standard national biographical dictionary}} due to presence in [[Who's Who (UK)]] on page XX of the 20XX edition. |
|||
:[[User:CT55555|<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;background-image:linear-gradient(90deg,green,orange);color:transparent;background-clip:text;-webkit-background-clip:text">'''CT55555'''</span>]]<small>([[User talk:CT55555|talk]])</small> 13:18, 18 March 2023 (UTC)</s> |
|||
:You would get pushback over this (but not from me) because many editors are more familiar with the US Who's Who publications and these folks will not believe that the UK version is any different, and (2) although the UK version is selective, the entries are written by the subject followed up by somewhat slight editorial oversight and so the independence can be questioned. On AFD generally, in my experience it is best to accept that it is an arbitrary process. [[User:Thincat|Thincat]] ([[User talk:Thincat|talk]]) 15:12, 18 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
* According to [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources]]: {{tq|Who's Who (UK) is considered generally unreliable due to its poor editorial standards and history of publishing false or inaccurate information. Its content is supplied primarily by its subjects, so it should be regarded as a self-published source.}} This source is also not "a country's standard national biographical dictionary", so it does not fit the [[WP:ANYBIO]] guideline. However, I encourage you to participate at AfD, including to offer sources and ask questions, because the format is a discussion. Cheers, [[User:Beccaynr|Beccaynr]] ([[User talk:Beccaynr|talk]]) 15:24, 18 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*:That is very good advice and nullifies mine! [[User:CT55555|<span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;background-image:linear-gradient(90deg,green,orange);color:transparent;background-clip:text;-webkit-background-clip:text">'''CT55555'''</span>]]<small>([[User talk:CT55555|talk]])</small> 15:29, 18 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*::Thank you all for your responses. I had thought ''Who's Who'''s content might be questionable but that its main claim was that its entrants were notable. |
|||
*::From [[WP:ANYBIO]] I thought I had followed a link for '''national biographical dictionary''' and found ''Who's Who'' as the first book referenced, but now I see that the link was only to '''[[biographical dictionary]]'''. |
|||
*::Thanks again, [[User:Mgp28|Mgp28]] ([[User talk:Mgp28|talk]]) 15:55, 18 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*::PS Is there a list of countries' "standard national biographical dictionaries"? It sounds like the sort of title lots of publishers would like to claim. --[[User:Mgp28|Mgp28]] ([[User talk:Mgp28|talk]]) 15:56, 18 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*While Wikipedia has decided that the ''content'' of WW should not be considered to be altogether reliable due to its autobiographical nature (although, in my experience, almost all entries ''are'' completely reliable and the waters have been muddied by a handful of over-exaggerated claims), that is an entirely different issue from its use to establish ''notability''. People are selected by the WW staff to appear on the basis of their notability. They do not apply to be in it and they do not pay to be in it. I should also point out that, in the UK, WW is considered to be a standard and reliable reference work and in pre-internet times was held by almost all public and university libraries. -- [[User:Necrothesp|Necrothesp]] ([[User talk:Necrothesp|talk]]) 11:51, 20 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*:Thank you for your reply. Yes, it is in my local library, and in general I thought most ''errors'' were of omission rather than outright false claims. |
|||
*:Regarding notability, if the publishers have a policy to include all British ambassadors then their presence in ''Who's Who'' simply reflects that policy rather than being a comment on the individual's notability. (I tend to expect that many ambassadors would be notable but that's a separate discussion.) --[[User:Mgp28|Mgp28]] ([[User talk:Mgp28|talk]]) 18:15, 20 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
*:: And there's the rub. WP consensus has decided ambassadors are not inherently notable, WW has decided they are. Their editorial policy doesn't shape WP's, right? Best [[User:Alexandermcnabb|Alexandermcnabb]] ([[User talk:Alexandermcnabb|talk]]) 06:04, 21 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== Making sure I understand this right == |
|||
== Proposed deletion: [[Strict rules]] == |
|||
{{closed-top|Closing to avoid duplication. The parallel discussion at [[Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#AFD clarification]] remains open for anyone who wants to contribute. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 13:26, 13 December 2024 (UTC)}} |
|||
The article states that: |
|||
{{TQ|If a redirection is controversial, however, AfD may be an appropriate venue for discussing the change in addition to the article's talk page.}} |
|||
Does this mean that an AFD can be started by someone with the intent of redirecting instead of deleting? [[User:Plasticwonder|Plasticwonder]] ([[User talk:Plasticwonder|talk]]) 04:06, 13 December 2024 (UTC) |
|||
This is an unnecessary redirect to [[Rules of golf]] that was clearly created only to match the name of a link on the [[Golf]] page, which could easily have used a link like this: [[Rules of golf|strict rules]]. The page was clearly not meant to be linked to from any other page. (I can't nominate this article for deletion because I do not have an account.) [[Special:Contributions/209.237.105.194|209.237.105.194]] ([[User talk:209.237.105.194|talk]]) 15:11, 22 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:Yep. [[User:Alpha3031|Alpha3031]] ([[User talk:Alpha3031|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Alpha3031|c]]) 10:18, 13 December 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I'm going to blank the page and fix the link but we should still remove this article. [[Special:Contributions/209.237.105.194|209.237.105.194]] ([[User talk:209.237.105.194|talk]]) 15:12, 22 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:Don't post things at multiple places. There's no reason to have two separate discusssions on this at VPP and here. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 13:07, 13 December 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::This has been done by Rosguill. (Just for future reference, proposals to delete redirects go to [[WP:RFD]] rather than AfD, and I believe IPs ''are'' allowed to nominate at RfD.) [[User:Extraordinary Writ|Extraordinary Writ]] ([[User talk:Extraordinary Writ|talk]]) 17:41, 22 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
{{closed-bottom}} |
|||
:::I did not know RFD existed, thanks. [[Special:Contributions/209.237.105.194|209.237.105.194]] ([[User talk:209.237.105.194|talk]]) 20:10, 23 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== |
== Request == |
||
I am the subject of this article: [[Terry Blade|https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Blade]]. I don't think it meets the notability criteria for an article on Wikipedia. The article is semi-protected. I'd like to request that an editor nominate it for deletion please? [[User:BladeTerry|BladeTerry]] ([[User talk:BladeTerry|talk]]) 01:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Rationale: [[Wikipedia:Out of scope|Out of scope]]: Irrelevant due to the lack of a clear definition. Furthermore: It doesn't add anything meaningful to Wikipedia, in fact quite the opposite it could be considered harmful to the overall project scope. |
|||
== Closes before 7 days == |
|||
Even the article itself admits that there is not a single coherent definition of what Far left politics is. So, if there isn't a single coherent definition of WHAT it is, then I am hamstrung to see what its [[Wikipedia:Relevance|relevance]] is. On the other hand, far right and alt-right are well defined political science terms. Just because some people on the alt-right and far right, as well as far right extremists like to throw around the term "far left" does not mean it has any relevance what so ever. There are a bunch of people who think the world is flat, it's a bit like adding scientific credibility to flat earthers. Once there is a relevant page for them to congregate on it gives them a sounding board to make up pure nonsense about a theory that has absolutely no relevance to political science (which by the way is a science) mostly falling under systems science. To give credence to such contemptible and ridiculous nonsense goes against the [[wp:credibility|credibility]] of Wikipedia as a whole. |
|||
I have started a discussion at [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#"Early"_closes_at_AfD|the Administators notice board]] about AfDs that are closing before 7 days/168 hours that watchers of this page may be interested in. Best, [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 04:09, 19 December 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Far-left is just a nuisance term like [[Woke#As_a_pejorative|"woke"]] is now that is thrown about at moderate people to throw a cat among the pigeons every time the far-right doesn't like what a "leftist" or "leftoid" says. It's both unscientific, and unencyclopeadic in nature. It adds no collective benefit to this encyclopedia to have an article on something that is a thought bubble that doesn't exist in reality as anything more than a pejorative. [[Special:Contributions/120.22.38.19|120.22.38.19]] ([[User talk:120.22.38.19|talk]]) 05:01, 31 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
Latest revision as of 13:57, 3 January 2025
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Articles for deletion page. |
|
Q1: I don't like this page's name. I want to rename it to Articles for discussion or something else.
A1: Please see Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Rename AFD. Note that all of the "for discussion" pages handle not only deletion, but also proposed mergers, proposed moves, and other similar processes. AFD is "for deletion" because the volume of discussion has made it necessary to sub-divide the work by the type of change. Q2: You mean I'm not supposed to use AFD to propose a merger or a page move?
A2: Correct. Please use Wikipedia:Proposed mergers or Wikipedia:Requested moves for those kinds of proposals. Q3: How many articles get nominated at AfD?
A3: Per the Oracle of Deletion, there were about 470,000 AfDs between 2005 (when the process was first created) and 2022. This comes out to about 26,000 per year (2,176 per month / 72 per day). In 2022, there were 20,008 AfDs (1,667 per month / 55 per day). Q4: How many articles get deleted?
A4: Between 2005 and 2020, around 60% of AfDs were closed as "delete" or "speedy delete". This is about 270,000. More detailed statistics (including year-by-year graphs) can be found at Wikipedia:Oracle/All and Wikipedia:Wikipedia records#Deletion. Q5: Is the timeline strict, with exactly 168 hours and zero minutes allowed? Should I remove late comments?
A5: No. We're trying to get the right outcome, not follow some ceremonial process. If the discussion hasn't been closed, it's okay for people to continue discussing it. Q6: How many people participate in AFD?
A6: As of October 2023, of the 13.9 million registered editors who have ever made 1+ edit anywhere, about 162,000 of them (1 in 85 editors) have also made 1+ edit to an AFD page. Most of the participants are experienced editors, but newcomers and unregistered editors also participate. Most individual AFD pages get comments from just a few editors, but the numbers add up over time. |
 | This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
 | This project page has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
|
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78 |
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 25 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
About deleted articles
There are three processes under which mainspace articles are deleted: 1) speedy deletion; 2) proposed deletion (prod) and 3) Articles for deletion (AfD). For more information, see WP:Why was my page deleted? To find out why the particular article you posted was deleted, go to the deletion log and type into the search field marked "title," the exact name of the article, mindful of the original capitalization, spelling and spacing. The deletion log entry will show when the article was deleted, by which administrator, and typically contain a deletion summary listing the reason for deletion. If you wish to contest this deletion, please contact the administrator first on their talk page and, depending on the circumstances, politely explain why you think the article should be restored, or why a copy should be provided to you so you can address the reason for deletion before reposting the article. If this is not fruitful, you have the option of listing the article at WP:Deletion review, but it will probably only be restored if the deletion was clearly improper. List discussions WP:Articles for deletion WP:Categories for discussion WP:Copyright problems WP:Deletion review WP:Miscellany for deletion WP:Redirects for discussion WP:Stub types for deletion WP:Templates for discussion WP:WikiProject Deletion sorting WT:Articles for deletion WT:Categories for discussion WT:Copyright problems WT:Deletion review WT:Miscellany for deletion WT:Redirects for discussion WT:Stub types for deletion WT:Templates for discussion WT:WikiProject Deletion sorting |
Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion § Is RFD a valid forum to discuss cases of PTOPIC disambiguation pages?
[edit]
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion § Is RFD a valid forum to discuss cases of PTOPIC disambiguation pages?. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 13:47, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
AFD request: Brenda Dervin
[edit]Stub page for a random, no-name college professor that has just 6 sources and a "Life" section that consists entirely of 2 paragraphs - the first 4 sentences, the second just one. In addition, the first external link (which directs to an archived page from 1997) admits it has outdated content. Finally, this page's creation was literally the only edit its creator, Dani4, ever made. 100.7.34.111 (talk) 18:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- Passes WP:PROF criteria 1 with large numbers of citations for her works as shown here on Google Scholar, so it is very likely to be kept at AfD, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:54, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Making sure I understand this right
[edit]The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The article states that:
If a redirection is controversial, however, AfD may be an appropriate venue for discussing the change in addition to the article's talk page.
Does this mean that an AFD can be started by someone with the intent of redirecting instead of deleting? Plasticwonder (talk) 04:06, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yep. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:18, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- Don't post things at multiple places. There's no reason to have two separate discusssions on this at VPP and here. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:07, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Request
[edit]I am the subject of this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Blade. I don't think it meets the notability criteria for an article on Wikipedia. The article is semi-protected. I'd like to request that an editor nominate it for deletion please? BladeTerry (talk) 01:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Closes before 7 days
[edit]I have started a discussion at the Administators notice board about AfDs that are closing before 7 days/168 hours that watchers of this page may be interested in. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:09, 19 December 2024 (UTC)