Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 74

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 70

←

Archive 72

→

Can an admin look into this WP:NAC thread Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wayne C. Doty

I think this thread is not closed properly and to me it seems too close to call. It's a bit too controversial to be handled by a nonadmin. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:43, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Need to complete Monogamija afd

can someone pls complete the afd with reason Not notable with poor sourcing. 181.94.224.64 (talk) 13:15, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Done Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monogamija --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Scope of article changed during an AFD

I recreated an article, Runeterra, which was immediately nominated for AFD due to the excessive amount of unsourced detail in the article, and received several delete or redirect votes. Since then I cleaned up the article and expanded it to have less narrow of a focus, however all of the redirect or delete votes have remained. Is it okay if I recreate the article if the AFD has concluded, since technically it a completely different article which was nominated for deletion?--Prisencolin (talk) 02:02, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I think a dictionary entry article should be nominated

Hi, I'm not very well experienced with nominating articles for deletion, but I noticed that the article Way (vessel) basically just consists of a definition and example sentences. Per WP:NOTDIC, I think this means this article should be deleted, but I also don't know Wiktionary well enough to fully incorporate it, or enough about nautical terminology to know if there could be a fuller article about a ship's speed. Should I make a post in WP:SHIPS? Any thoughts would be appreciated, thanks. Umimmak (talk) 21:10, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Done Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Way (vessel) --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:56, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Afd needs for this

Can someone nominate these 6 poorly sourced article, as they are not notable here Afu-Ra, Nemanja Kojić (musician), Škabo, Albin Gutman, Beogradski Sindikat, and Bad Copy as they are more likely created as a fandom. These serbian articles is very awful as you think. 23:36, 15 July 2020 (UTC) 187.189.107.24 (talk) 23:40, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Done

--Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:48, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

@Tyw7: I really appreciate your being helpful, but please consider that we do not have to comply to every IP request. Even if you do, please perform some independent WP:BEFORE research for yourself, since you are de facto taking responsibility by opening the AfD. "More likely created as a fandom" and "very awful as you think" do not constitute a valid rationale for deletion. I consider these requests frivolous and time-wasting. Thanks. No such user (talk) 14:04, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

No such user, I had performed some rough WP:BEFORE and I could find nothing significant for Afu, Nemanja, and Skabo. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:07, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

AFD needed for Non-notable self-promotion

This is about the article Payam Zamani. I saw that he had been hastily added to an article mentioning prominent Iranian-Americans, in the same sentence as the CEO of YouTube and Exec Chairman of Twitter. I clicked to read about this individual.

The references are all passing mentions, paid promotions/announcements about his company, and sites with personal connections to the subject (e.g. things written by himself). The more you dig, the more you see it's a very sophisticated example of a history of paid promotion (e.g. paid postings about his businesses e.g. exactly of the type covered in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Examples_of_dependent_coverage, or from his own company/sources related to him e.g. not https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Primary_criteria https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#Self-promotion_and_publicity It seems like a fairly sophisticated self-promoter. e.g. pass the first page of google results (which a lot of it is also paid or self-created content) or use an alternate search engine (e.g. DuckDuckGo or Yahoo) and it looks even worse. He does not meet any of these criteria: notability (WP:N), reliable sources (WP:RS), and what Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

This page was created by an individual "JasonSpark". Seems related to the company Spark Public Relations (check the edit history). All content of the page was added by three users whose only contributions seems to have been to this page. See users: LeighMartinez, Drevie, CatrinaRae57

As the Wikimedia resolution goes "Many people create articles that are overly promotional in tone: about themselves, people they admire, or those they are paid to represent. These are not neutral, and have no place in our projects" I do not have a wikipedia account (and probably won't make one, I'm a student procrastinating studying for a final) so I can not create the AFD myself. -76.109.102.245 (talk) 02:21, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Done. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Payam Zamani. --Finngall ^talk 03:09, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LP Duo

Hi, Would it be normal to reopen a Afd once it was closed. I closed it as keep this morning as there was three keep votes. Now user:Soperisy a new editor has reopened it. It seems that one of the editors on the Afd has been classed as a sock and subsequently blocked. Thanks.scope_creep^Talk 09:45, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Problem has been fixed. The editor who reopened it was a sock.scope_creep^Talk 09:45, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:BEFORE is not a core content policy

Far too much time is wasted at AFD because people don't respect WP:BEFORE. People should not be nominating articles which have extensive coverage in books. Can we do something to embolden WP:BEFORE as people are nominating and ask them to look in Google books too? There also needs to be something to warn editors about confusing lack of content with lack of notability.† Encyclopædius 06:49, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

To be honest, I have always had the impression that the primary use of BEFORE at AFD is as a missile to chuck at the head of nominators when they don't find your source immediately. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:37, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus, same. I have WP:BEFORE chucked at me when I couldn't find an obscure source the voter found. I think there's a limit of how much detail that a nominator spends before nominating an article. I doubt someone is going to find a day trying to find 1 obscure notable source somewhere. Plus, WP:GNG requires several third-party notable sources, not just one. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:02, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

BEFORE can't be a core content policy, because it isn't about content, it is about behaviour - and snippets from Google books often don't give sufficient context to be usable in a deletion discussion, and cannot confirm whether coverage is significant (and not everybody sees the same thing when they use Google Books and the like - we should not penalise people just because they live in a different part of the world.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:26, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

True, but you know what I mean. :-)† Encyclopædius 13:24, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

BEFORE is merely a consequence of WP:PRESERVE which is a policy, i.e. if lack of sourcing is the only problem that stands in the way of keeping an article, try to address this problem instead of nominating for deletion. Regards So Why 12:59, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

The problem is that nominators skip over "Before nominating: checks and alternatives" and go direct to "How to nominate a single page for deletion". The top of any AfD discussion has (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL). I can't see how to make it more obvious. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:10, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

@Aymatth2: Yes, but the top of the AfD becomes visible only after the AfD is created, not BEFORE :). I think one solution is to have those links shown in Twinkle. I have filed a patch to Twinkle to that end. SD0001 (talk) 15:05, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I am never so bold as to publish a change without first previewing it ... but yes, I agree with a Twinkle warning. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:13, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree that WP:BEFORE is often used as a weapon by people who want to keep the article. The problem with sources is that it's easy to demonstrate they exist, impossible to demonstrate they don't. Just because you found some good sources doesn't mean the nom didn't try. Yeah, people should spend more time doing BEFORE, but, as Nigel Ish noted above, that's about behavior, it's not content policy. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:13, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, in my experience virtually every AFD I've had thrown at me could have been avoided if the nominator looked properly. In most instances it should be plainly obvious there's hits in books. There may be instances of BEFORE being used in a snarky way towards nominators, but that doesn't in any way excuse how irresponsible a lot of nominators and prodders really are. i ge tthe impression a lot of editors use this process as an expand upon demand service.† Encyclopædius 13:27, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

There have been various proposals in the past to make BEFORE stricter e.g. by requiring the nominator to include a list of places they looked for sources, search terms, used, etc, or including a boilerplate statement that the nominator tried to find sources. These have consistently failed because they constitute pointless bureaucracy and/or would be unenforcable. There are plenty of legitimate reasons why the nominator didn't find a source which someone else did (different search terms, looking in different places, finding the source but not thinking it would show a GNG pass, etc). New editors trying to nominate at AfD already find the multi-step process somewhat confusing, adding additional requirements wouldn't help. And in cases where BEFORE is raised in an AfD discussion it often turns the debate into a discussion of the nominator's behaviour rather than the merits of the article. Hut 8.5 13:57, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Not every AFD is due to notability issues - though many are. When it is about notability, most articles are based on a presumption of notability - the creator(s) believe the article meets the GNG or an SNG and thus the onus switches to those that want to delete to show that the presumption is wrong and in those cases that is almost where some type of BEFORE search must be shown to have been done. But then you have cases where the challenge may be "this topic doesn't meet the given SNG claim" which would also be valid grounds for deletion. Alternatively, there can be other reasons to delete like violations of NOT or BLP or other reasons, which BEFORE wouldn't address at all. BEFORE applied to 90% of the AFDs out there but it can't apply to all. --Masem (t) 14:05, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. Here is a great example of WP:BEFORE being weaponized for what appears to be no reason other than to impugn a (my) nomination. I think AFD's would be better served without the use of comments like "did you even do a WP:BEFORE?" and instead editors should add the sources straight to the article and note in the AFD that they did so. Praxidicae (talk) 14:06, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Even if you're an expected AFD nominator, you should still state that you have tried to look for sources and to what extent you did your BEFORE. There, as a YouTube show, a Google search would be sufficient, but that should still be said just in case for newer editors. --Masem (t) 14:15, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Well if AGF is a thing that we care about, shouldn't we assume that nominators, particularly those with a track record actually did a before? In that particular case, it was obvious a before was done since I reasonably came to the conclusion (as did others) that it wasn't notable and it was made up by it's creator. That is literally WP:BEFORE. Sources existing that a nominator may not find is not necessarily an indicator a WP:BEFORE wasn't done, especially in complicated topics and topics where the names are generic and widely used (ie. John Smith (banker)) Praxidicae (talk) 14:19, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Not every participant at an AFD is going to know the track history of the nominator or other contributors. And while AGF that a BEFORE search was done, describing the bounds of that search in the AFD nom may help identify to others what other areas to look for. Basically, it is just easy to assume that each AFD is a "blank slate" of people so explaining concisely reasons to delete helps to make the discussion easier. --Masem (t) 14:57, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

It is true that some sources can turn up that were missed in an initial BEFORE Search, but if there are plenty of sources easily accessible, then that's an indication BEFORE was not done. And if the nominator has a history of this, it's a problem. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 15:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

The difference between PRESERVE and BEFORE is that the former describes and helps guide what the AfD participants and closing administrator ought to consider when making their decisions. BEFORE is a pretty good guide for how to construct a convincing nomination- if a nominator neglects it that might be a bad idea but it's not a reason to shut down the nomination. Or to make personal attacks on the nominator, which is the other thing BEFORE has historically been used for. Reyk _YO! 20:22, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree that tossing WP:BEFORE into a deletion discussion as a !voter is rarely helpful. I find it helpful when a delete rationale includes a nod to WP:BEFORE. This indicates to me that the process is being respected and encourages my productive participation. ~Kvng (talk) 20:30, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Mentioning WP:BEFORE in deletion discussions is helpful as an educational aid for new editors. When experienced editors ignore it, that's another matter, and one that we're not very good at handling.Jacona (talk) 20:51, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

While I'm sure some editors routinely honor WP:BEFORE, this has been the exception rather than the rule in my experience. This is compounded by the all-too-common closure based on vote counts (we can try to pretend it doesn't happen, but that's giving far too many administrators far too much credit). I've seen many AfDs over the years that have been: (1) Nomination based on "Fails GNG," (2) 2 "per nom" delete votes, (3) keep vote by editor who has added 6 new sources, (4) keep vote saying it now meets GNG, (5) closure stating "Delete" with no rationale. If I had to choose between (a) nominator stating that they've done a WP:BEFORE search or (b) losing large amounts of content because of nominators and administrators not following instructions, I would choose (a) every time. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:12, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Generally, WP:BEFORE is a good idea, but tossing it into an AfD debate is a bit like a grenade. Often the person starting the AfD knows all about BEFORE and just disagrees with this article having sufficient sources or being otherwise suitable (eg: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim and Mary McCartney (2nd nomination). Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:42, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I read that above. I posted my response, as I believe it's a bogus claim, so repeating it does nothing to sway my opinion. If someone asks if a check for sources has been done per WP:BEFORE, the answer could be "Yes, I didn't find anything significant, but I'm willing to consider any sources you're able to find and add". In fact, anyone can feel free to use that line if it suits the situation--just copy and paste it. Problems I see with your response include (1) Many people nominating articles feel like the discussion is about winning or losing rather than what's best for Wikipedia (or in keeping with policy)--see Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Archive_73#Predicting_AfD_outcomes as an example of discussion about "succeeding" at AfD, but many AfDs show "Delete" voters--especially nominators--shouting loudly and constantly while being unwilling to pull their fingers out of their ears (2) Your link is a lengthy page with no indication of what I'm supposed to be looking for. Did someone cite WP:BEFORE? If so, I can't see it. What I can see is people badgering the "Keep" voters over and over and over. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:45, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

In the archive User:GaryColemanFan posted, WP:BEFORE was once again a point of discussion:

Extended content

What is with editors claiming that the nominator didn't follow WP:BEFORE even after the nominator stated that they searched for sources beforehand? I thought I would mention it here because it just happened again with me and the sources given were instructions, a non-English reference, and a reference that requires a subscription. It seems unfair and assuming bad faith. SL93 (talk) 21:57, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I am assuming it is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hackergotchi as the AFD in question. There are several points: You did not itemize what you looked for for that term. Did you just use Google, etc? It is best to explain (to offer a good BEFORE rationale) what you searched, which may or may not be sufficient for the topic in question. Second, just because a source is behind PAYWALL or is in a foreign language does not invalidate them, though for notability purposes, someone needs to at least verify them as reliable sources. PAYWALL is harder, but you can always Google Translate to get a rough idea of a foreign-language source to know what it is saying, if we're talking a one line mention or a full blown article. Basically, if you want to say you've done the BEFORE work you need to be very clear what you actually did, otherwise the nom is challengable. --Masem (t) 22:07, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I never invalidated them. SL93 (talk) 22:09, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

BEFORE actually doesn’t state that I need to list everything in my nomination - just to do it. SL93 (talk) 22:10, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm slightly confused here. Did you find those sources or not? If didn't find them, then perhaps this was reasonable given how difficult they were to find, I'm not sure. If you didn't find them, I don't really understand what you're trying to say taken your comments here and there. If you were unable to properly evaluate those sources and so couldn't reliably conclude whether or not the article met the GNG, it was likely reasonable to mention them in the nomination. You said "I found no notability". You didn't say, "I found these 2 sources, and it's possible the subject meets GNG since I could not properly evaluate them but I don't think so because X". Whatever BEFORE or any other guideline says, if you cannot be sure whether an article is notable because you were unable to properly evaluate the potential sources you found, it seems fair enough that people may expect this to be mentioned. Nil Einne (talk) 14:18, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Don't stress about WP:BEFORE. Although it's purportedly there to improve the quality of deletion nominations, it is more often used just to attack the nominator. Reyk _YO! 06:48, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Reyk, I've often seen it used when someone found an obscure source. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:00, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

...yep, and then it's a lot of snide, condescending commentary about how a mention in an out-of-print book in another language proves the nominator is a blithering moron who can't even use google. Reyk _YO! 15:39, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

One easy way to head off this type of comment is putting some of the sources you found in your nomination and explaining why they don't illustrate notability. Enterprisey (talk!) 01:14, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

--Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 09:35, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Many editors don't seem to have read WP:BEFORE closely because they commonly seem to suppose that it just means that a source search is expected. There's a lot more to it than that as it has four major stages and 17 detailed steps. The biggest failing is a failure to consider alternatives to deletion. Such negligence is probably due to the common use of Twinkle which makes nominating for deletion an easy thing to do whereas due diligence requires effort. Editors who have a poor record of making nominations should have their Twinkle rights removed. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:05, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
I do agree that there's a lot of AFDs I've seen where there is an obvious merge or redirect target (on the basis of "redirects are cheap" and we should still be allowing some things to be searchable terms.) It is rare that a page needs to be deleted as part of merge/redirect unless we're talking gross BLP violations. And as been discussed zillions of times, AFD is not "Articles for discussion" but "Articles for deletion". If that alternate route exists, then a discussion needs to happen at the talk page, and not taken to AFD. I can understand if an obscure target for merge/redirect may come up but rarely is that the case; it takes just a bit of work reading the article that is of concern to then ask "should this go here?" Obviously not all topics can do this. --Masem (t) 15:47, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

AFD request: List of LEGO Themes

List of Lego themes is a cesspit of un-notable, unverifiable fanwank, monopolized by a small group of editors who immediately undo all of my attempts to clean it up. The articles on the specific themes and environments themselves aren't much better. Can we please get some outside eyes on this? 73.70.13.107 (talk) 21:04, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Not done AFDs are not permitted that result from editing disputes as per WP:EARLY, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:09, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

This does not result from an editing dispute. The two are just parallel approaches to trying to solve the same problem

I would also suggest that the IP try harder to resolve the dispute on a talk page or walk away for a while. The recent edit warring, coming on the heels of a month-long block for edit warring, is not likely to turn out in the IP's favor. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:16, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Bro I've been trying for months. It doesn't work. These people are crazy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.70.13.107 (talk • contribs) 21:37, July 19, 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Takatika Grit theropod

Greetings. Can I get some experienced eyes on this AfD? Article was nominated, discussion ensued between nominator and one other editor, nominator converted the article to a redirect and self-closed (with the wrong templates, causing it to pop up on WP:BADAFD which is where I found it) within 24 hours of the original nomination. I didn't look at the article enough to have an opinion on the nom one way or the other, the end result doesn't appear to be an unreasonable one per se, and if it were purely a matter of redoing the close with the correct templates I would have been perfectly happy to do the job myself, but given the time elapsed and the self-close I could see a procedural argument for undoing the close. Thoughts? Thank you for your time. --Finngall ^talk 02:44, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

This has been resolved. --Finngall ^talk 17:41, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

AFD from 2005 that was never closed

I noticed that Movilogo (talk · contribs · logs) recently added {{afd}} to WikidPad but didn't complete the rest of the AFD process yet (didn't add it to today's AFD log, etc.). But what's strange about this case is that the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WikidPad dates back to 2005 and was never closed.

How should this situation be addressed? There are at least two issues here: (1) unclosed ancient deletion discussion, (2) incomplete AFD nomination process. Thanks, Biogeographist (talk) 13:57, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Nice find! I relisted it with a note about the time delay, and hopefully added the pointers in the right places. This was an old VfD discussion that was renamed when that process became AfD but it seems it wasn't tagged properly. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:07, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: not sure why this caught my eye during my current 5 min per day WP allowance. But what actually seems to have happened is that it was deleted as a result of the VFD in Jan 2005, but no one closed the VFD discussion. Moving VFD to AFD was 9 months later. I think a better approach is probably to close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WikidPad, and if someone feels it needs a new discussion, start AFD#2. We can't really use comments about a now-deleted version 15 years ago to help determine consensus for deletion now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:19, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, I approached it as a fresh AfD, and was perfectly willing to see it kept, considering that over 15 years is plenty of time to become notable (per Wikipedia itself), but a BEFORE indicates no more coverage now than probably existed then. Which strengthens the argument to delete; it's not often we have an object lesson in a demonstratable lack of sustained, persistent coverage, etc., in reliable sources. ——Serial 14:28, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, it seems to be heading pretty firmly for deletion anyway. If it was contentious at all I might suggest going through the motions to "close" and archive(?) the original discussion and split the new nomination out to an AFD2, but at this point it seems like a lot of busywork for a page that has been endorsed by absolutely nobody. That being said, Floq, should we happen to come across another many-years-old open AFD I'm sure your approach is technically correct (the best kind of correct). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:59, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Ivanvector, whoever re-listed it deserves a trout as it was relisted as "biographical." --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:34, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

@Tyw7: Thanks for that, I copied the template from a different discussion and didn't check the categories. I don't work in deletion very often these days. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:38, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Paul D. Thacker

Paul D. Thacker seems to be a personal portfolio for a journalist with no notable features, and it is sourced by many times to his own articles and events that happened relevant only to his life. Hes also apparently an unreputable figure in his field according to some controversies in 2018. Full disclosure, I'm also aware from an internet discussion that he has been accused of harassing a minor online because they were involved in an article positive about GMOs and vaccines. Activity on the page also looks suspicious, with a criticism page being deleted and several rewrites, and users "having to check Watch," which is apparently a website Thacker writes for. In any case, I think the page violates rules on notability, as it doesn't talk about why he is notable but, rather, what he has done for work -- the page is already tagged as "reads like an advertisement." It also has a clear internal narrative that seems to set Thacker up as a righteous crusader against biased scientists who are in favor of climate change models. I'd like to nominate it for deletion considering its bias and lack of notability. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 01:10, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Could an admin check Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/V (programming language) (3rd nomination)

I looked at it under NPP. Something went haywire, possibly because it appears that the article was instantly recreated on Feb 25th 2020 within minutes after it was deleted. I ended up manually creating the afd page. Possibly should be just deleted and salted. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:52, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

North8000, I have placed a CSD tag on the article --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:09, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Also someone renominated. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:25, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

North8000, now it's a mess with 2 active AFDs. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:28, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

@Tyw7: As I mentioned to the person who renominated, I wasn't sure how to handle hence my request here, and that's also why I didn't mess with it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:32, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm working on this. Should be done shortly. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
RoySmith, great thanks. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:51, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Tyw7, Further discussion at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/V (programming language) (3rd nomination). The short version is, I think this is fixed now. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:02, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

RoySmith Thx for the help. If something like this happens in the future, what is the best thing for us to do? I don't know if my making a 4th deletion nomination (to get the software to automatically create all the needed links & notices) made things worse or better. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:12, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

David Tornheim, Probably just post here. What you're looking for is somebody who is both 1) an admin, so they can move and delete pages with impunity, and 2) knows the arcane ins and outs of how AfD is organized. This page is probably the best place to find somebody like that. You might also try posting to WP:AN; that gets watched by a lot of people so it's likely somebody will see see it quickly. But, no worries, I think we've got everything under control at this point. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:18, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

RoySmith Thanks! North8000 (talk) 19:27, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. --David Tornheim (talk) 16:36, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Find sources and parenthetical disambiguiators

The Find sources links provided on AfD subpages don't handle parenthetical disambiguators very well, requiring the disambiguator to follow the title immediately. For example, on the AfD for V (programming language), the Find sources links only find sources where "V programming language" appears in that order (see below). I have made changes in the sandbox that would allow the disambiguator to appear anywhere, finding more sources (237,000,000 vs 29,100 results on normal Google). This is implemented using a new parameter |title=, and the current output would still be available to transclusions not using this parameter.

Current version: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Sandbox version: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · Gemini AI · WP refs) · FENS · Bing (Copilot AI) · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library

The main downside would be that the results may be less relevant. I want to check here if people want this change. Danski454 (talk) 19:06, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

270towin.com

Can someone create the deletion discussion? My rationale is as follows:

Subject has no significant coverage in the news, articles on it have mere mentions and Google has no results showing newspapers writing about this in detail.

45.251.33.42 (talk) 11:30, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Done Danski454 (talk) 11:41, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Duplicate AfD entry

Dave Maynard is listed twice at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 July 24. I wasn't sure how to correctly remove the duplicate, so I thought I would ask. // Timothy :: talk 06:40, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Fixed, I hope.--Bduke (talk) 06:56, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks // Timothy :: talk

Malformed AFD

Hi, can someone please fix this malformed AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thelma Darkings, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:37, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorted. Rcsprinter123 (drone) 19:50, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Misplaced July 24 AFDs appearing under August 1 AFDs=

Log/2020 August 1 This date seems to also include AFDs for July 24 at the bottom part of the page. — Maile (talk) 19:51, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

@Maile66: Those were all relisted early (around 1:20 UTC) today, this is perfectly normal. Danski454 (talk) 20:00, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Afd help

I'd like to nominate Wayne Doty for deletion. Why does this death row inmate deserve an article?

AFD request

Hi, I'm an IP user so I can't start an AFD - I'm also not interested in creating a Wikipedia account just for this purpose - I prodded the following articles for deletion but the prods were both removed Avi Benlolo and Mark Zubek. If they don't meet the deletion criteria that's fine but I think in the case of Benlolo there isn't much there to justify the article (an earlier version of the article was full of unsourced claims and looked like a promotional piece - and most of the article was about the organization he headed rather than the person himself) and in the second case, it also seems rather promotional and the subject doesn't seem notable. I'm wondering if editors who are are more knowledgeable of the relevant criteria could review the two articles and if they don't pass muster, put them up for deletion using the AFD process? Thanks. 75.119.247.192 (talk) 17:48, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Duplicate Dreamcast Homebrew articles

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreamcast_homebrew is very spartan and out of date, while https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Dreamcast_homebrew_games also exists and has much better data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.58.104.108 (talk) 18:00, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Crystal Scales (actress)

On May 9, SNUGGUMS had removed links to this little known voice artist on a staggering 24 pages ranging from Static Shock to The Adventures of Jimmy Neutron, Boy Genius. I have difficulty finding the AFD discussion for her. Tried doing a deep search from all archives, but no mention arose on any of these. Can someone find the link?

67.81.161.226 (talk) 23:47, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

It turns out there was no discussion of that nature; somebody placed a WP:Proposed deletion (PROD) notice on her page, and then it was deleted after it received no objections. When a PROD is placed on a page and nobody opposes such deletion within a week of its placement (in which case they'd remove the tag), an admin can simply delete the article altogether. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:23, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

The article can be returned by WP:REFUND but it would need good references to significant coverage in WP:Reliable sources to be added for it to survive for long, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:51, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Request to delete violence against Muslims in India

Hello. I'm requesting that the article titled "Violence against Muslims in India" be removed. It seems incredibly biased and politically motivated, and systematically distorts the realities of Indian society. For example, it doesn't address issues like anti-hindu rhetoric from Muslim fundamentalist and Naxalite groups, nor does it honestly take into account India's history — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krao212 (talk • contribs) 14:56, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

There is a process for deletion - WP:AFD. I wouldn't say that this is biased - on what basis are you saying this is politically motivated?. There are tonnes of reliable sources listed in the article and regardless of whether there is an anti-hindu rhetoric amongst Indian Muslims or not, there is widespread coverage and it is well documented that some Muslims in India experience violence. Wikipedia's job is not to censor events that happen around the world. I suspect there is a WP:edit conflict here and that you are against the article because you are a Hindu/reside in India? ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 16:09, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Request AfD discussion John Farndon

Could someone request John Farndon's Wikipedia entry for AfD disucssion, as I am not convinced of the author's notability and there appears to be a number of grossly inaccurate, misleading and unfounded statements.

hi CambridgeGraduate, probably won't fly, his books are held in 100s of libraries, have reviews ie. Kirkus Reviews here, Publishers Weekly here, School Library Journal here, may be a case of a cleanup/rewrite rather then afd. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:31, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Not sure what I did wrong

Although I am an experienced editor, I rarely nominate articles for deletion. I tried with Karen Ashley and Phoebe Hirsch but they are not showing up on the log for today. What am I doing wrong? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:26, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

They're showing up for me at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 August 4; you may have got the date wrong. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 06:36, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Cullen328, I had this problem the first time I nominated an AfD and it drove me crazy. I found out you sometimes need to purge the page's server cache, then it will show up. There is a gadget in prefs to add a link in the More menu. You've probably already figured this out, but I hope this helps. Best wishes, // Timothy :: talk 18:08, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Requesting review of several articles which may violate inclusion in Wikipedia

Hello, may I suggest reviewers and administrators to check on these articles if they should be deleted. From what I can see, these are not notable and there is no significant coverage about them except merely as being activist against/victims of Martial Law under Ferdinand Marcos, nor does their existence have any lasting impact. Most of the names below are included in the Wall of Remembrance of the Bantayog ng mga Bayani, though my understanding is that their inclusion in the monument does not mean they should have their own Wikipedia article.

Also, please take a look at List of torture methods used by the Marcos dictatorship. I can see possible violations like WP:Original research, WP:Synthesis, WP:Undue and also uses several self-published, partisan/advocacy, and/or single sources with unknown/relatively unknown publishers.

–Sanglahi86 (talk) 14:34, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

From the several which I perused, they seemed to be notable and well-sourced. There may be some sourcing issues, I haven't examined that closely, but it would be a mistake to nominate all of them. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 14:43, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
- My initial response after looking at only a few is "keep". The ones I looked at seemed well-written. We have articles like Mike the headless chicken and we have articles on graffiti artists. By comparison these individuals seem like important people. Bus stop (talk) 14:49, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you both for the prompt response. My understanding is that WP:SINGLEEVENT applies to several of those people.–Sanglahi86 (talk) 15:55, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Requesting deletion for a large number of "Department"-style articles

There are a bunch of articles for departments at specific universities (see some of them listed here[1]), including Princeton University East Asian Studies Department. These seem to be on very shaky ground to me in terms of notability, as well as in terms of evaluating why a Physics department at one university is notable but not at another university. A lot of these pages seem to rely on primary sources. They seem kind of promotional also. Is there a way to go about requesting the deletion of a large number of these articles or do I have to request deletion of each manually? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:49, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, There's nothing that requires you to nominate them one-by-one, but historically, large bundles of articles at AfD has not worked out well so I wouldn't recommend it. It may well be that the physics department at one university is notable while the physics department at another isn't. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:12, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, Princeton University Department of Mathematics is clearly significantly more notable than most other University's maths departments, having had more significant faculty and famous prizewinners than many entire universities. I don't think it should be deleted. Many articles on departments can be viewed as reasonable subarticles of long articles about a university, per WP:Summary style. Of the list you link to, actually none look like a slam-dunk delete to me. Princeton East Asia Studies looked weakest of those I checked. Before you go and try to delete a large number of these articles, I would suggest to start by nominating one or two of the weakest ones and see how it goes. Nominating all of them at once will probably result in a trainwreck (and a keep). —Kusma (t·c) 22:23, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

AFD Request

Article: Beheaded Children Contest Reason: Fails WP:NALBUM. 100.37.166.70 (talk) 00:25, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Can I edit my AfD nomination?

Re the AfD of Chris Vice, it is clear that my nomination is being misunderstood. The full stop after the mention of pro wrestling is being ignored as is the hyphen after the invocation of WP:ATHLETE for his Lethwei career. One user in particular provoked my personal opinion on pro wrestling world titles. I need to edit the nomination, but I'm not sure if I am allowed to do so. I intend to strike out the current text and re-present it thus; "Contested prod times two (my fault as I forgot about the first prod). Reason given on the talk page irrelevant (wikilinks). Fails WP:ATHLETE as a Lethwei fighter. Not a notable wrestler and only one source in the article. "World" title claim is controversial as that title is not recognised as such by any major magazine. Recommend deletion." Please advise. Addicted4517 (talk) 09:42, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Editing comments in discussions is frowned upon because it means subsequent replies lose context - people look like they're responding to something which isn't there. You can certainly add another comment beneath your nomination, or strike out any parts you want to retract. Hut 8.5 17:07, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the above, but I would not even strike out parts. I would say in the comment that I now retracted part of the nomination clearly indicating which parts. --Bduke (talk) 23:01, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I have thanked both of you via the system and I thank you in this reply as well. I thought it would be frowned upon and I'm glad I checked. It has also been helped by the fact that the nomination has been relisted, and HHHPedigree finally provided sources to prove the title was a world title in the appropriate way. I will start the relisting with an amended nomination. Addicted4517 (talk) 00:46, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

And done. Addicted4517 (talk) 00:57, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Who are "the authors" in Step 3 of WP:AFDHOW?

Step 3 of WP:AFDHOW says:

Consider letting the authors know on their talk page by adding:

{{subst:Afd notice|NominationName} ~~~~

I'm confused; who are "the authors" here? Momo824 (talk) 09:59, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

The editor(s) who wrote the article. Hut 8.5 11:45, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Mason Vale Cotton

This article was deleted and recreated two times before [2] [3], but also it fails WP:NACTOR, to reflect its general notability. --122.2.10.69 (talk) 13:57, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I have tagged as CSDG4 --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:19, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

@Tyw7: would you re-nominate for deletion? but instead of speedy deletion, it's completely nonsense. --122.2.10.69 (talk) 21:57, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Done. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mason Vale Cotton (3rd nomination) --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:48, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

AFD request

Can someone create AFD pages for nominating We (TV channel) and Kairali News for deletion? Please copy-paste my rationale for both: "Verifying this channel's existence itself was a hard task. No reliable coverage. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG". Thank you. 157.46.169.137 (talk) 13:20, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Y- I set those up for you. Enjoy. Reyk _YO! 13:26, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Request for comment on Notability essay on awards and medals

Essay: Wikipedia:Notability (awards and medals)

There were three recent AfDs ([4], [5], [6]) which were closed as no consensus and contained some controversial claims about "state awards are always notable". In addition one of these AfDs was cited by BD2412 as an example of a difficult close at a general AfD discussion.

I would like comments on this essay and improving it in order to help discussions at AfDs. Thank you. // Timothy :: talk 01:31, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

AfD sorting: updates

A note about recent changes made to User:SDZeroBot/AfD sorting. The page is getting hundreds of views so thought I'd make a note here:

In each section, the the table is now sorted by date by default.
For relisted AfDs, the number of relists is now shown in the table.
The AfD date now indicates the date of last relist rather than the date the AfD was creted.

Suggestions for any other improvements are welcome. SD0001 (talk) 07:08, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Request for deletion of Verguas Culture

Verguas Culture: This article's title is misspelled. Should be deleted or relocated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.134.116.163 (talk) 18:15, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Nice spot. I just went and did the move. Reyk _YO! 21:45, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect instructions

In "How to nominate a single page for deletion", these are the instructions:

The resulting AfD box at the top of the article should contain a link to "Preloaded debate" in the AfD page.

Click that link to open the article's deletion discussion page for editing. Some text and instructions will appear.
Give a reason for the deletion and a category for the debate (instructions are on that page).

However no instructions or text appear on the discussion page, it is just a blank page.

Please could somebody who knows the correct procedure update the instructions here so that new editors know what to do.

Thanks Saberking321 (talk) 13:57, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

When I click the link, I see instructions. You could ask WP:VPT. Danski454 (talk) 14:53, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

@Saberking321: I've added the necessary template to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hallucinogenic mushroom--looks like you did everything else right, and the discussion can proceed. Thanks. --Finngall ^talk 16:43, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I just did my first AfD and had this problem as well - no instructions at the top once I clicked the link. Also, step II was confusing to me as I understood the "OR" to mean "either do the first two steps listed or do the following 6 steps" but that left me without ever having pasted in the necessary template. I would work on clarifying the text myself but I don't understand the process well enough to do so. Retswerb (talk) 01:25, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Bot to notify significant contributors about AfD nomination

"Significant contributors" is on the basis of amount of text added (not on basis of number of edits). Editor with >20% text contribution who weren't the creator would be automatically notified (unless they opt out). Please see WP:Bots/Requests for approval/SDZeroBot 6. Comments welcome. – SD0001 (talk) 17:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Autotech

I recommend this page be deleted, because it fails WP:Note There is also no real information, no updates in three years, and no, I've never heard this term used like this. In fact, I only found this page because I'm looking for information about a business with this exact name. Seems like something a creative journalist or manufacturer/marketer came up with. I see that there is another organization called The Autotech Council which appears to be an industry group, but nonetheless I do not think that "autotech" qualifies as an encyclopedic concept. It's more a recognition that technology is increasingly involved in automobile design. 130.45.43.153 (talk) 20:37, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Done Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Autotech --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:08, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Template change

FYI: {{Article for deletion}} was just changed fairly significantly—see Template_talk:Article_for_deletion#Make_link_to_discussion_clearer. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:58, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I think this is still just a proposal, the template itself hasn't changed since 2017. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 15:20, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Ah, yes—it was {{Article for deletion/dated}} that was changed today, but it looks like {{Article for deletion/dated}} is transcluded into {{Article for deletion}}? AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:24, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

It has changed on articles though. And it's kinda ugly...Praxidicae (talk) 15:26, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Shouting !votes

I think we can agree that there are bigger things to worry about. – Joe (talk) 06:32, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

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.

A few editors seem to like to SHOUT their !votes in all-caps rather than use the standard bold-only formatting. This strikes me as generally disruptive and draws inappropriate attention to entries like this. Either all should be all-caps, or none should. Given that the overwhelmingly standard practice is not to use all-caps, I think that should be how we go. We shouldn't really need a separate statement here given that there's already guidance about this at WP:SHOUT, but I've been consistently reverted when trying to apply it. Therefore, I propose another bullet point in § How to contribute along the lines of

Use sentence case for !votes: Keep or Delete, but not KEEP or DELETE.

This can of course be tweaked, but it's in the ballpark I think. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:35, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Support. I find this unnecessary and agree that it draws undue attention to the !votes in question. Might also suggest a guideline along the same lines against "strong" keeps/deletes per the same rationale. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 18:54, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Not great to add guidelines when it's only really targeted at one person. Newbies say "KEEP" or "DELETE" all the time until they realize that's not what people do (and in fact it gives them away as newbies). There's only one person who persists in the all-caps !vote despite polite requests over the course of years, and that's Dream Focus. It shouldn't be a big deal, but it does come off as obnoxious that one person insists on displaying their own !vote as bigger than everyone else's in hundreds of discussions despite people asking them to stop. All that needs to happen is for someone to put on an admin hat and say "please stop per WP:SHOUT", or otherwise I guess a consensus that SHOUT doesn't apply to just the !vote portion (in which case it's hard to argue against stylizing the text in other ways to separate your own words above everyone else's). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:00, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

OPPOSE- yeah, it's weird and annoying but I don't see the need to micromanage and overregulate every little thing people do. Reyk _YO! 20:02, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
OPPOSE I find capital letters easier to read. Same reason the votes are bolded. Its for clarity. If someone imagines the big scary capital letters are shouting at them, that's their problem, not mine. You should never edit someone else's comments because you don't like capital letters. We do need a rule against someone making their comments larger as Deacon Vorbis has done at the current List of fatal dog attacks in the United States AFD [7] Dream Focus 21:44, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Dream Focus, indeed, your vote and that of Deacon Vorbis are the two most annoying contributions to that AFD. All caps are universal code for shouting, so if you use all caps on the Internet, people will think you are shouting. It is okay if you didn't know that, but you have been made aware now. Please stop shouting when voting, it is against WP:SHOUT and annoys your fellow editors for not enough benefit. We do already have a rule against DV's edit in that AFD, it is WP:POINT (but the disruption is rather minor). —Kusma (t·c) 20:01, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
neutral As someone who closes a lot of deletion discussions this doesn't matter t me one way or the other. The writing is just as, if not more, important than the bolded !vote. The reason it's a !vote is, after all, because it's not a vote, it's a discussion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:06, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

OpPoSe I don't think it matters one way or another what case a vote is in. We don't need a rule for everything. The tone of the vote content matters more. Natureium (talk) 22:11, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
0PP05E: The rule isn't needed. SL93 (talk) 22:14, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Oppose a hard and fast rule. That being said, I encourage Dream Focus to voluntarily comply with the existing guideline. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:23, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
0|>|>0$€: It's off-putting for sure, but certainly not actionable or warranting of bureaucracy. Sometimes, it's best to let trivial nuisances go. Dark knight 2149 09:25, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
oPPoSE, just as with flashy signatures, editors have the right to choose caPITaLIZation that makes them look like silly attention seekers. —Kusma (t·c) 18:31, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm neutral but use common sense. Don't set your text as 100 size font. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:16, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
- BUT WHY THE HELL NOT? STOP JUDGING ME AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH! Dark knight 2149 04:58, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
!5UPPORT. RULeS R needed or else thi5 haPpens. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:02, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

That would never happen, would it? Dark knight 2149 08:32, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

But we could get scope creep and the need to list every single permutation of the rule break. Even then there could be loop holes that can be abused. That's why I think the catchall phrase "use common sense. Don't use fancy fonts in the voting." would suffice. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:39, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I don’t think there’s a problem. More instructions means that less instructions will be read. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:20, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Oppose per SmokeyJoe. If we're going to introduce more instruction WP:CREEP then let's at least make it about issues that matter. I also find it silly when people say "Strong Support" etc. because ultimately such a !vote doesn't count any more than any other support just because it's "strong", but ultimately these things don't change the outcome and it's irrelevant whether people do it or not. — Amakuru (talk) 13:27, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Adding "weak" or "strong" to your support or delete !vote may not have an influence on what the closer does, but it is not totally useless to tell others how open (or not) you are to being persuaded to change your !vote. —Kusma (t·c) 13:58, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

If someone says "strong support" in every AfD like the subject of this thread uses all caps in every instance, that's one thing. I've never seen that, though. I use weak/strong to communicate when I think something is a borderline case, when I can more easily be persuaded, when others seem to think it's borderline but there's actually an unconsidered decisive factor, etc. I've only used "strong" in an AfD...probably fewer than 10 times ever, but use weak relatively often. I just don't see it as the same thing. This thread isn't about someone using all caps once in a while for emphasis or to communicate something in particular; it's about only ever using all caps in every instance. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:33, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
STRONG OPPOSE this is needlessly bureaucratic. Praxidicae (talk) 14:57, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Though it is generally observed that more experienced editors focus their civil efforts during deletion discussions on forming rational, logical, and coherent arguments in an effort to influence their peers towards their perspective and interpretation of relevant texts, and that editors newer to this internet-based plane of societal contribution are not yet accustomed to the social norms which exist within our discussion spaces, and thus are lesser equipped to influence others with their not-fully-formed style of argument, often instead assuming the normalities of discussion etiquitte, which result in the sort of capitalization and format often seen from those not yet fully mentally initiated into the general way of going about deletion discussions, fully capitalized arguments are not really seen as any more important and y'all've never really been harmed by it, so we truly ain't need to force 'em into leaving the all caps behind, eh? Vermont (talk) 15:20, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
weak oppose not really, but since no one else will...--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:52, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
oppose I'm with you in spirit but not with making every form of sub-optimal behavior illegal. And in this case only for a particular venue. North8000 (talk) 01:01, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Oppose WP:SHOUT does not say caps can't be used. Part of WP:CIVILity is to tolerate minor incivilities. Paradoctor (talk) 01:07, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Oppose I see no need for a rule here and think this discussion should be closed as the consensus is clear. --Bduke (talk) 01:13, 8 September 2020 (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.

Question

How many days wait to close afd after relsit? Thanks 136.228.175.163 (talk) 04:34, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I think it's safe to say a few months. A "keep" article tends to remain notable but a "delete" article may become notable in the future. Like a lesser-known actress or actor gains a prominent role and wins an award. If you disagree with the outcome, you could open a deletion review, where you are asking another admin to "check" the outcome of the AFD. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 08:29, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

If you are asking how long after an active AFD is re-listed before it should be closed or re-re-listed, I think the usual rule of thumb is about a week. In rare cases, such as a withdrawal where nobody else is supporting deletion, or new information that would have led to an SNOW close had it come to light before the re-list, the wait can be shorter. An example would be a person of marginal name recognition/borderline-notability who suddenly gets a lot of press and clearly meets Wikipedia's notability guideline starting the day after the AFD is re-listed. That would probably SNOW-close as "Keep" after a few days assuming there wasn't any still-valid reason for deletion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 14:38, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

davidwr is essentially correct, but technically a relisted afd can be closed as soon as consensus is reached without waiting seven days, without needing to invoke SNOW. However, that rarely ever happens and in practice we almost always wait seven days unless an overwhelming consensus develops. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:04, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

RfC on shopping malls and notability guidelines

Background: I believe there may be a problem regarding the clarity of the guidelines establishing notability for shopping malls/centers. The two applicable guidelines are WP:GNG and WP:NBUILD. Routine, average coverage that any and every mall will have such as announcements about openings, closings, and events and articles, local promotional articles and articles about land redevelopment after a mall closes are being interpreted as WP:SIGCOV to establish notability. I base this on a number of current and recent AfDs.·

Question: Should existing guidelines be clarified (or a new guideline created) to provide more guidance between what is considered routine run of the mill coverage and what coverage will establish notability? // Timothy :: talk 01:01, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Support for clarification I can certainly envision a collaboratively written essay called "How general notability applies to malls". Maybe someone can even come up with a better title, but I'm sure everyone here understands my point.

Slight oppose for new guidelines, since we already have so many notability guidelines. The oppose is slight, since people who write mall articles would know more about what's best than I do. (Summoned by bot) --I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me after replying off my talk page. Thank you. 02:53, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

~~::I dream of horses, How do you feel about clarifying the existing guidelines? // Timothy :: talk 03:15, 31 August 2020 (UTC)~~

The proposal is to say that sources that are announcements about events at the mall, or only discuss store openings and closings, etc., are not significant coverage? That sounds like a sentence at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes rather than a guideline. --Bsherr (talk) 03:19, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Bsherr, I agree, I'm surprised that this is so controversial on the AfDs that are in progress. There seems to be a faction of mall article editors that feel any mall with routine coverage is notable, they ignore GNG and NBUILD, and they flood AfDs with routine coverage. Even articles about land redevelopment long after a mall closes are being cited as reasons for the mall being notable. // Timothy :: talk 03:41, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Support clarification, if only to provide examples of sources that are not useful for our purposes. BD2412 T 04:01, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

This had been argued for years. Myself, I prefer a definite guideline not depending on the chances of finding sources, and for many years it was considered that the dividing line was 1 million square feeet, or (approximately) 100,000 sq meters. That said, for malls in chains, it might often be preferable to combine the material into a combination article. DGG ( talk ) 04:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Oppose, just use the existing WP:NCORP for any sources that discuss the shopping mall as a business, which is the vast majority of cases. If there are sources that discuss the architecture of the mall beyond what is necessary to provide routine coverage of the business (rare), then WP:NBUILD applies and those sources need not meet NCORP. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:55, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
@BD2412, Bsherr, I dream of horses, DGG, and King of Hearts: Someone started an ANI thread about the issue related to shopping malls at AfD Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#TimothyBlue mall AFDs. This is something that really needs clarity; hopefully this will help. Join in if you have an opinion. // Timothy :: talk 07:03, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
~~Oppose~~ Under the Wikipedia structure, as SNG would only lower the bar for malls, which is the opposite of of the intended effect. Better to work on the core sentence at the SNG which right now says little / is badly worded: "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." North8000 (talk) 12:39, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
I don't know if it will stick, but I added "in depth" (standard GNG wording) to the coverage requirement at the SNG. North8000 (talk) 13:09, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
@North8000: That's not true, WP:NCORP and WP:NEVENT are both examples of SNGs that tighten requirements. But I am opposing for a different reason, namely that NCORP is sufficient for malls. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 13:12, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

The beginning of wp:GNG says that it passes if it meets EITHER GNG or the SNG. So, under that structure, it is logically impossible for a SNG to tighten the GNG requirement. But in the squishy way that Wikipedia operates, it may be that a SNG can have some effect on tightening the GNG. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:18, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

NCORP is the only SNG that purposely is more restrictive than the GNG because of the potential for misuse by local businesses due to the lack of something akin to WP:AUD at WP:GNG. That is, to this discussion, a mall that has lots of coverage only in its local paper but nothing elsewhere may seem to pass the GNG but fails NCORP for this reason. And malls would easily fall under NCORP here. --Masem (t) 13:30, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, GNG says you don't need to pass the applicable SNG. But I think that in practice an SNG can effect a more restrictive standard. North8000 (talk) 16:10, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Support clarification, not a whole new sng Changed my mind. Despite structure, in practice, a clarification could indeed raise the bar. And being a sort of a combination of a building and a business venture makes it somewhat of a different case. North8000 (talk) 12:39, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Support clarification: I find shopping malls - both in NPP and AFD can be somewhat challenging to evaluate. Shopping Mall articles can be boring, and you can spend time looking at close connections, too. Clarification of existing guidelines would of assistance. --Whiteguru (talk) 13:29, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
The relationship (except for PROF, which is accepted as an independent standard) between the SNGa and the GNGs have been argued both ways for years for every field. There are cases wherein practice the SNG is accepted as a broader standard: populated geographic features, and politicians in office. There are others where it has flipped back and forth whether or not it is restrictive, in particular athletes. This is WP , and the guidelines can be interpreted however consensus wants to interpret them. Progress was made with NCORP by the indirect means of restricting the type of acceptable source. In general, that seems the best approach, rather than a frontal attack on the guidelines. Anyway, such is my advice, and I;'ve been involved in most of the battles over these for years/ DGG ( talk ) 16:53, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
I would add that "significant coverage" if we use the GNG (I don't think it should) needs to be more than routine announcements. In the case of a mall, just documenting when it opened, closed, renovated, etc. would be that.. Why a mall was built, the impact of a mall on its community (like $ in business sales), conflicts with the community like land-right issues, etc. would be significant coverage. But the mere existence of a mall is not make it notable, though I would sale large scale malls (50+ stores with at least 2 anchor stores?) are the type of thing I'd be documenting in a city/town article just as with schools. But as I said above, NCORP should be he leading guideline for when a standalone article should be given on a mall. --Masem (t) 17:54, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Support clarification. On one hand, almost every mall will have news coverage of its opening (and if applicable, renovation or closure). On the other, we need some guidelines to clarify whether that coverage is automatically considered run-of-the-mill coverage, and to what extent should a mall's impact/size be before we consider it to be notable. For instance, some malls may be notable because of their failure, rather than in spite of it. Additionally, even under GNG, some small malls may be notable while larger ones may not be. I should note that I did !vote on four of the applicable AFD discussions where I believed that the coverage was not run-of-the-mill. epicgenius (talk) 18:54, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
I concur with Masem and Epicgenius's statements. Sources should cover the mall as a whole rather than opening/closings of tenants, should establish with in-depth coverage what makes the mall more notable than a generic place to buy things, and should not just be local news with routine business coverage. Reywas92^Talk 19:15, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Support clarification. I think the biggest distinction to be drawn is between indoor malls, which are usually (but not always) notable, and strip malls, which are usually (but not always) non notable. Of course, defining significant coverage is always tricky. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 03:41, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Oppose as this is one of the first times that anyone has dismissed coverage as "run of the mill". There are several GA-class mall articles that have a depth of coverage akin to the articles that were sent to AFD. Compare the sources at Tri-City Pavilions or Los Arcos Mall to those in use at GA-class articles such as Swifton Center and you will find that the depth of coverage in both is pretty close to the same level. I have seen this level of coverage unquestionably declared sufficient for mall notability for almost the entire length of time I've been on Wikipedia. Compare this AFD from 2007, this AFD from 2013, and this one from 2018 which were all kept with less sourcing than Tri-City Pavilions or Los Arcos or even Methuen Mall has now -- from these results alone I think it's clear how much is enough to declare a mall notable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:29, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Support- I think we do need to decide what constitutes run of the mill coverage. Does "Herpinstone Heights Mall opened in 1979" constitute significant coverage that contributes to notability? What about coverage about individual businesses? Reyk _YO! 07:41, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Comment for discussion: NGEO currently states: "geographical features meeting Wikipedia's General notability guideline (GNG) are presumed, but not guaranteed, to be notable. Therefore, the notability of some geographical features (places, roadways, objects, etc.) may be called into question." I believe items covered by NGEO that are presumed notable under GNG may not be and NGEO exists to clarify what makes these items notable. So adding clarification here will solve the issue.

I suggest something like this should be considered:

Sources that are run of the mill or routine news and stories, such as those about construction, demolition, redevelopment, openings, closings, common issues and problems, crime, temporary circumstances and events, regular business news, advertising, or promotional articles, do not establish notability.
Statistics such as size, value, sales, or age do not establish notability, because what would be notable in one community would not be notable in another.

This is just a suggestion as a starting place for discussion, not a proposal. // Timothy :: talk 13:23, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I do not consider construction or demolition to be routine coverage; if the construction or demolition of a mall is considered worthy enough to be covered in a non-local newspaper, then that is good enough to meet WP:NCORP. The kinds of sources we want to avoid are coverage of temporary events that are too minor to even write about in the article. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:05, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

There are two issues: vague guidelines for buildings, and the question of whether a mall is a building or a business. At some point, people decided that Wikipedia is a gazetteer (I've never tracked down those early discussions btw, if someone has them handy and wants to do me a solid), and WP:NGEO is one of the loosy-goosiest guidelines we have as a result. That's fine, but I've never been clear why we include not just rivers, mountains, and settlements, but also individual objects and buildings inside those settlements like that one-story building that went up in the 1990s with the Starbucks inside. Since NGEO includes none of the qualifying that other guidelines do (again, intended mainly for subjects in a very small class of inherent notability), we only have the one line to go by. It requires "in-depth" coverage, but nothing else, so as long as the local small town paper covered that building going up or getting demolished, we're basically good. Step one is to move buildings out of that guideline.

As for whether a mall is a building or a business, I'd be inclined to apply NCORP, but with the understanding that in-depth coverage of the structure itself is not routine coverage as long as it is indeed in-depth and it meets the other standards for sourcing.

I'm wary of adding material about routine coverage too liberally. You can apply it to any SNG: we can expect that any Oscar winner is going to get routine coverage of the win, routine interviews and criticism of their work, etc. ... but that in-depth coverage is routine for an Oscar winner is why winning an Oscar contributes to notability (not the fact of the Oscar, but because it means some in-depth coverage exists). So opposing this proposal by default.

One more thing: You're welcome to write an essay about routine coverage and how you think it should be applied. If enough people support it, it might even become an explanatory supplement or somesuch. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:42, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Oppose, existing guidelines are sufficient. I wouldn't describe coverage of construction/destruction as "routine", especially outside of local news. As malls tend to be important to their local communities, merging to articles about these communities could be a good WP:ATD if corporation or building notability guidelines are clearly not met. —Kusma (t·c) 16:48, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Comment I'm not sure this is a productive RFC. I might support new guidelines but it would depend on what they are. Supporting/opposing guidelines in the abstract is kind of an odd thing to do. That said, I don't particularly see a need for new guidelines. GNG should be enough. My view about how the GNG should be applied to malls is that a news article "X store opened at the mall" or "Y event is happening at the mall" is probably not the sort of thing that establishes notability for the mall, but that "routine" pieces about construction of the mall, trends in sales at the mall, the mall's overall health, renovations at the mall, redevelopment of the mall, etc. do in fact count toward notability. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:57, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Comment: Having a look round a selection of Shopping centres in East Hampshire, England and a couple of others the handling seemed pretty reasonable. In general centre was often in part of an associated article, typically a settlement, where the information on it was not undue. Gunwharf Quays and the Tricorn Centre had their own articles which was pretty reasonable. Cascades Shopping Centre is an example where it isn't saying much that couldn't be covered in the settlement article, however, that situation is complex as it would WP:UNDUE in the Portsmouth article which suffers from an under-developed Landport/Commercial Road article. Merry Hill (Merry Hell to the locals) is an example where the shopping centre would dwarf the settlement article and is best split out; it also has the of level of depth that could cause an ordinary article to be split out. A Retail park however would usually not warrant a separate article nor warrant a redirect; in fact shopping centres in settlement articles probably dont mostly warrant a re-direct. But are we not doing this fairly well already and are additional guidelines needed? Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:09, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Oppose per WP:CREEP and WP:NOTLAW. If the OP failed to delete something, this is not a problem or reason to create more creepy cruft. We already have WP:MILL and, as an essay, "that's just like your opinion, man". Andrew🐉(talk) 11:12, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Support clarification of the guidelines. I refer you to the deletion review for Sunshine Mall, an article I A7 tagged far early this year. Bbb23 deleted it as A7, and a long discussion followed. While the consensus was to overturn, some administrators said they would have deleted it, that it had "A7 written all over it", and there was some discussion over what guideline actually covered it (i.e. is it a business or not?). It seems as though there were two different interpretations of how a shopping mall would be characterized. As such, clarity in the wording to prevent such a mistake from happening again in the future would be helpful to the project. Red Phoenix ^talk 21:50, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Oppose as no exact proposed criteria has been put forward, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:02, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Oppose as the nominator hasn't presented what to really further clarify. Do you think shopping centers shouldn't follow WP:NBUILD? WP:NBUILD states: Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability. A newspaper will no question mention the group behind developing the shopping mall and most likely have some form of interview or comment from the entity. The articles are verification that the buildings exist. I would want to say that social importance could be interpreted as they were central hubs to go to before the internet. I would not imagine that the shopping centers of the past were responsible for improving the transportation grids around it. Of course, you're also seeing how their age leaves a lot of decay behind as well. I'm really not in agreement with the newspaper articles as being "run of the mill" - they're economic hubs for areas as well. It's often not even marketing behind it - it's the news media actually covering the items about development. – The Grid (talk) 23:18, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
The Grid, I wish to clarify what types of sources are acceptable for establishing notability for shopping malls. What is considered routine run of the mill coverage and what coverage will establish notability. If there are RS with SIGCOV that shows they are/were social or economic hubs, then they would be notable. But if there is just run of the mill routine coverage (the types I mentioned above) that every mall receives I don't believe it shows notability. So the question is what kind of coverage demonstrates notability. // Timothy :: talk 23:27, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Oppose as proposal is too vague. Besides, terms like "routine/run of the mill", "in-depth", or "significant" are highly subjective and are debated in AFDs in many types of articles beyond shopping malls. Unless there is a clear rule (like size >= 500,000 sqft - which I don't support or believe could gain consensus), there will always be differences of interpretation. MB 00:11, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
oppose simply because there is no actual "proposed change" to evaluate. Anyone can create an essay and provide guidance on what is and is not run-of-the-mill or any other issue. Oh look, someone has: WP:ROTM. I believe such an essay would be welcome, but until there is something to actually take a formal position on (for or against) I have to be against any open-ended change.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:51, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Oppose (I came here from this AfD) I would not describe a major construction project announcement as WP:MILL. What makes a subject notable in NBUILD? If the building had a fire? Suddenly we have news and it is notable? There are often incredible social and economic benefits which come with a significant building or shopping mall. I would oppose creating more notability obstacles than we have for this SNG. Wm335td (talk) 19:03, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Help on Clean up of Article -Melissa B.

Hello Admins - I would like to ask if you could please help me with my article which has been recently flagged to be deleted. Now based on all the research and time I have been doing for this article I know that my article hold weight. I have done a little research on other articles on Wikipedia and there are alot that do not even have half of the information I was able to dig up on this Artist. My article was told that I need to find sources in which I did. Here is an example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trav_Walls I did a little search in google and could barely see a lot about this person when trying to do my research. There were even noted cites that I think you would deem not as "NEWS WORTHY", But you say that there is not enough on Melissa B. and I was able to find a ton of information and awards an even searched the web archive for the billboard article on the single that made number one on billboard. IF you want to compare these two articles Melissa has way more accolades and noted articles that are factual on her. It took some digging but is that not what Wikipedia is for people who like us enjoy to do the research an find the information on the subject. I can honestly say that I have and I am hoping that you please look at this on a more open perspective. There are a ton of articles I could point out to all of you that have not had this type of such harss takeaways. Please be open and mindful of newcomers like myself who really want to bring to light noted and vaild articles that should shine in Wiki. Itgemgirl1 (talk) 03:44, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

AfD Request: Pika parser

Can someone create an AfD page for Pika parser? Rationale: fails WP:NOR (The article is more or less entirely based on a recent arXiv preprint that has not been peer-reviewed and appears to have been written by the same person, and there exist no reliable sources on the article's main subject, which is itself first proposed in the aforementioned arXiv preprint.)

Thanks in advance. 2601:19B:701:6980:715C:5417:4D8F:2B7D (talk) 18:10, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Done--see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pika parser. --Finngall ^talk 18:28, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

AfD Request: Jake Burns and the Big Wheel

I am proposing the deletion of this article about my band, Jake Burns and the Big Wheel. I do not believe that this this band I am apart of is notable enough for its own page. The fact this article does not have any sources whatsoever substantiates my claims of non notability. I do believe based on The relevant policies/guidelines "WP:NMUSIC" and "GNG" that this page fits the criteria for deletion. Wikiuser2020belfast (talk) 20:38, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikiuser2020belfast, I have redirected Jake Burns, and I have proposed Jake Burns and the Big Wheel for deletion. If no one objects the latter will be deleted in a week, and the former needs to remain as a redirect. – bradv🍁 22:20, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikiuser2020belfast, please stop editing these articles directly. You have a clear conflict of interest as you claim to be the subject. I'm trying to help you – please don't edit war with me. – bradv🍁 22:38, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Simply noting that the requestor has now been blocked for sockpuppetry. Waggie (talk) 03:13, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wahre und Falsche "Fauen-Emanzipation"

Is it OK for me to: (1) withdraw this AfD; (2) immediately move it to Wahre und Falsche Frauen-Emanzipation (the correct title); and then, immediately thereafter, (3) redirect Wahre und Falsche Frauen-Emanzipation to Augustin Rösler per the emerging consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wahre und Falsche "Fauen-Emanzipation"? There haven't been any delete !votes so far, and per this helpful comment from Romaine, it seems that offline sources and/or expert opinion on the subject may be forthcoming, at which point the redirect could be reverted. Basically, I just want to know if I can withdraw for any reason, including the complicated content-based reason outlined above/at the AfD. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:32, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

AleatoryPonderings so long as there are no other 'delete' or 'redirect' !votes, an AFD can be withdrawn by the nominator for any reason. You can always boldly redirect it outside of AFD, as it seems you are proposing. If the redirection seems to be controversial or merits further discussion, you can discuss it further at afd (per WP:BEFORE#C4), but in this case I think it would be better to discuss on the article(s) talk page(s). tl;dr: Use your best judgment about the redirection, but yes you can withdraw it. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:27, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Eddie891, Thanks! Will withdraw and redirect shortly (I don't think the redirect is controversial—just complicated). AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:29, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Oh, wait, Kusma did !vote to redirect—does that preclude my withdrawing? Sorry to be dense. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:32, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

AleatoryPonderings, you are allowed to use common sense, sometimes better than figuring out the minutiae of the rules :) As my suggestion is very close to what you propose, just go ahead. —Kusma (t·c) 16:53, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Done. Sorry for bothering everyone with technicalities. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 17:19, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

AFD Request: Adolf Hitler and vegetarianism

Hitler's vegetarianism has been debunked by dozens of reliable sources. The sources in the article are coming from people who "allegedly" knew Hitler, but this is all hearsay. We know for a fact that he was an animal rights activist, but his vegetarian lifestyle has been debunked by reliable sources such as PETA [8] as well as many other journalists. There is no reason for this page to exist.

There is also no reason to have a separate article in the first place. Emo524 (talk) 17:06, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

For a figure so notorious, this claim, which made of a signfiicant part of mysique, might well be notable enough for an article. The sourcing is certainly sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 09:46, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

As I said, the sources are nothing but hearsay. There have already been several reliable sources that have been excluded from the article that have debunked the notion that he was a vegetarian. Hitler said he was an animal rights activist. He never said he was a vegetarian. Emo524 (talk) 12:44, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

On a side note, PETA is not particularly reliable, so if that's been excluded, I'd certainly understand why. In any case, if you think it should be merged, see WP:MERGE for how to start a discussion on that. If you think it's not sufficiently notable for its own article, no one is stopping you from starting an AfD discussion yourself. There's no reason to make the case here. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:09, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

AFD Nomination - Paul Fincham

I am nominating the article Paul Fincham for deletion. This individual is not a no more a noteworthy composer than many others of the same ilk and if we allowed them each to have their own page, we would be cluttered very quickly. To me this seems like little more than a vanity project by an individual who seems to feel entitled to a page because of their more famous brother. I cannot see this article being of use to anybody who uses this website, and therefore this is the definition of a vanity project. Unless Paul Fincham does anything of note in the future, there is certainly no reason for him to have an article at this stage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.21.78.36 (talk) 19:15, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Done -- see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Fincham. --Finngall ^talk 23:54, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Ray B. Oladapo-Johnson

Hi, this article has two AFD pages. Can someone please sort it out, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 21:43, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Fixed. I think. --Bduke (talk) 22:08, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:26, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

AfD Request: Korea Passing

Can someone create and complete the AfD request for Korea Passing? The entire article appears to be based more on criticizing South Korea's foreign policy rather than addressing a supposed neologism that is of little importance or, at least, should be merged with another article if more sources can be found that reference and analyze this neologism. Four issues were found overall with the article, namely: (1) promoting a neologism, (2) disputed neutrality, (3) inappropriate citations, and (4) failing to meet the general notability guideline. It seems to have bee edited by a few people, especially by one person since 20 August 2020, with little reliable sources on the actual term 'Korea Passing'

Thanks. NettingFish15019 (talk) 15:22, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I removed your incomplete AFD template. In a few days you will be "auto-confirmed" and should be able to nominate pages for deletion yourself. For more information, see your talk page and the article's talk page.

The removal was purely procedural, to avoid having an "broken" AFD template on the page. If someone who can - which is almost every account that isn't new that's actively editing - wants to nominate this for deletion feel free. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:08, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I understand the removal of the incomplete AFD template, but I would still like to ask for someone to create and complete the AfD request. Thanks NettingFish15019 (talk) 03:12, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

When your account is 4 days old (2 more days to go) and you have 10 total edits (which you already have), you will probably be able to do it yourself, see WP:AUTOCONFIRM for details (note that "autoconfirmed" status is calculated "at the time," there are uncommon situations where you may have 4 days and 10 edits and NOT be autoconfirmed). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:02, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Let's talk about problem AfDs

As a frequent AfD closer, I often try to close the hard cases that have been repeatedly relisted or lingered for days after their expiration. This leads me to wonder what can be done by AfD closers as a community to handle these discussions more efficiently. What causes a discussion to be difficult to close? Are there specific common characteristics to problem discussions? Are there changes that can be made to the process to facilitate clearer and cleaner outcomes? For example, should we have some sort of discussion board where closers can bring difficult deletion discussions to get multiple AfD closer opinions on how they should be closed? In my experience, closing discussions is a rather lonely task. You go in relying on your own experience, judgment, and knowledge of policy, and there is no established practice of discussing and addressing discussions presenting difficult closes. BD2412 T 05:06, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I think you saw one of the big problems yourself in an AfD you recently participated in. "Consensus is that we always keep articles like this." "What? No." "Yeah, yeah." "Show me where this is in WP:N" "Well it's not written down but it's from lots of AfD closes". Plenty of discussion about rules and guidelines, bickering about what can be found in dust-encrusted talk archives, but not a lot of discussion about the article or the available sourcing. Reyk _YO! 05:33, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- Wikipedia doesn't do much in the way of treating past AfD discussions as precedents for future discussions. Occasionally, a particularly contentious AfD will lead to the amendment of notability guidelines. I would definitely encourage editors who assert an unspoken rule to take the steps necessary to make it a written rule. BD2412 T 05:53, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
  - I'm not necessarily a fan of bright-line rules. They tend to lead to bad outcomes such as excluding decent articles that don't quite fit the mold or, more often, including a lot of vacuous microstubs about non-notable topics. I've also often found cleanup to be as thankless a task as you seem to find closing discussions. It seems one can't nominate an article or !vote delete in an AfD without getting called names or being accused of all sorts of weird things. May I respectfully suggest pulling up people who make personal commentary when you do closes? This may seem like an additional burden but I hope and believe it will pay off in the long run. Firstly it will encourage voters whose first instinct is snark to actually make pertinent comments. Secondly it will encourage people who'd otherwise be driven off by the personal attacks to participate at AfD. That should make it easier to get either an informed consensus or a robust unequivocal non-consensus. Reyk _YO! 10:12, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Oppose per WP:CREEP. This is a discussion about setting up a committee to discuss discussions. And when they can't agree you create another level of discussion? And then it all goes to WP:DRV for another discussion? Enough, already.

Someone once put it quite well – if you are having to debate whether there's a consensus then you haven't got one. WP:DGFA puts it like this: When in doubt, don't delete. And note that it emphasizes the point.

Andrew🐉(talk) 09:24, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

One way to make AfDs easier to close is to require that everybody put down a bolded bullet point. Then you could just count them up. It wouldn't make the process better, but it would make it easier :-) Somewhat more seriously, I could see writing a "How to effectively argue your case at AfD" document (my WP:THREE essay started out to be that), and having a bot which notices the first time somebody posts to AfD and drops a link to that on their talk page. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
To be clear, this is a discussion about any ideas that might help resolve the more difficult closes. I have thrown a few out there, but this is not any sort of formal proposal. An AfD doesn't get relisted three times and then sit in the backlog for five days after the last relist expired because administrators haven't noticed it there. It's because whatever is going on there is such that no one wants to touch it. Often the discussions in those cases are so convoluted and vitriolic that any close is bound to go to WP:DRV. I think that can be avoided if a number of admins get together and talk out the problems. BD2412 T 14:45, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- That's not the worst idea ever. Something similar happens with contentious RFAs, where a panel of crats closes the intractable ones. This seems to work well. We could at least give the admin discussion idea a try. If it works, great. If not, no harm done. Reyk _YO! 15:09, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
I think having some sort of semi-formal area where closers can work out things together is something that's very much worth trying-- to the point that I almost proposed it here myself. I think not only would it allow people to work out and discuss policy (the more people who look at something the less change for their implicit biases to impact the outcome and likely the assessment of consensus will be better), but it might also allow newer admins (such as myself) to better learn how experienced admins approach closing controversial discussions (given the current atmosphere where non-admins are expected to not make close calls). There's a big jump between closing a discussion with 6 'delete' !votes and zero keep !votes or 14 keep and 0 delete and closing something with, say 4 and 6 (and well argued points on both sides). And we don't currently have much in the way of helping people make that jump Best, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:37, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Honestly I think closing AfDs is easier than closing almost any other sort of discussion on the project. There's a standard format, a limited number of outcomes, and a clear procedure for dealing with contested closes. I think the ones that hang around at WP:OLD aren't difficult or contentious, they're tedious. Usually because someone has derailed the discussion with a wall of text or an extended back-on-forth debate (which, in my experience, also put people off making additional comments and clarifying the consensus). And often it's the same characters – if you look at the oldest open AfDs now, for example, there are two usernames that appear in almost all of them. Maybe we should bump WP:BLUDGEON up to a guideline and start taking it more seriously as disruptive behaviour? – Joe (talk) 17:08, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- We could extend the principal to XfD processes in general (and move requests), and have a single place to bring lingering discussions that any given closer is having trouble assessing. I find some AfD's to be very, very close calls, particularly where both sides are making horrible arguments. BD2412 T 17:16, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
  BD2412, Isn't that what WP:ANRFC is for? -- RoySmith (talk) 17:20, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
  - Not explicitly, I don't think. It has been more of a place to ask for an admin to come close a discussion, but I have rarely seen a prospective closer go there to say, e.g., "this is what I think is the right close for this discussion, am I missing something?" I suppose we could have discussions of that sort there, or at the little-used Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. BD2412 T 17:23, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm not that experienced with the AFD process, but I have a half baked idea that may be of some worth. Perhaps, if a discussion comes to include a certain minimum of editors, the discussion will require two closers instead of one. On the surface, this may seem worse, since it will now be even harder to close contentious discussions, but hear me out. This system may result in sysops being more inclined to close contentious discussions since if they close first, they don't have to accept responsibility for ending the discussion (it will still go on until a second closer comes along), and if they are the second closer, they know that another sysop agrees with them and that they're not way off base in their decision. Also, the comments left by the first closer would be valuable feedback for some of the noisier participants that were under the impression they would "win" thanks to their sheer numerical superiority consisting mostly of WP:NOTARGs. Again, this is just a pitch. I haven't worked out the specifics, like what happens if the two closers themselves disagree, and I'm not looking to overcomplicated the process. If the response to this is that it's a terrible idea, then just forget about it. --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 17:33, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
@Puzzledvegetable: Would you object to a single closer in cases that were clearly non-controversial, especially those that come close to or actually do meet the criteria for a WP:SNOW-close? For example, if an XfD had a weak argument to begin with and had 50 who "oppose deletion" with a variety of strong arguments and 20 who supported deletion with nothing more than "per nom" I don't see the need for a "second pair of eyes," it's clearly a "keep" or at best "no consensus to delete." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:17, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. I haven't really fleshed out this idea. I have only a very rough draft in my mind about what it would look like. Your point seems valid. Perhaps, there would be a bot that could distinguish between types of !votes, and would only trigger the dual closer requirement if there was a certain minimum number of participants, and a certain minimum of !votes that disagreed with the majority. --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 20:17, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I'd just relist things even longer. There is no harm in waiting for consensus for weeks or months. Of course, reading all of the accumulated discussion is a challenge the longer it gets... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:33, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
I think this idea has a great deal of merit for improving AfD closes and reinforcing the !vote principle. I believe it should be a transparent process and one that participation is limited to those that meet the criteria to perform a close in terms of both experience and not being involved in the AfD (this will be useless if it turns into a rehash from involved editors). If a consensus appears for clarifying certain notability guidelines and essays, it could form the basis for an RfC on the subject. // Timothy :: talk 13:42, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

BD2412, there's no reason you can't close an AfD with two delete !votes and no other input, as no consensus. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:34, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Note: I have initiated Wikipedia:Discussions for discussion as a place specifically for the discussion of how to close problematic discussions needing closure. BD2412 T 06:09, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
- It's starting to work. Cheers! BD2412 T 02:45, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Example discussion

Here is an example of a discussion that I find difficult to assess: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Third degree medal of the Republic of Azerbaijan for "impeccable service in migration bodies". Clearly there is a consensus by raw headcount to keep the article, but there appears to be no basis in policy for that result. There is only the example of previous similarly situated articles which were kept despite a comparable lack of a basis in policy. I would close this as "no consensus" and suggest that the participants seek an appropriate amendment to the GNG encompassing this subject. BD2412 T 00:19, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

That example was a farce from beginning to end. The nomination was a classic NPP drive-by. The nominator identifies a sensible alternative to deletion right at the outset but getting that done would involve some actual work and understanding of the topic, so he just punches a button to make it someone else's problem. It should have been speedily closed at that point but that never happens because admins only look at the old AfD noms. The participants are then a mix of AfD regulars who don't know Azerbajani and so have to fall back on airy generalities; while the rest are Azerbajanis who insist that the topic is fine, as well they might. Nobody really cares because the topic is so unimportant. But the closer is a deletionist who can't bear to endorse a topic that he doesn't like. He would really like to supervote delete but knows he can't get away with that and so settles for a grudging and grumpy no-consensus. The entire thing was a big waste of everyone's time and the article would normally disappear into oblivion as few people are going to read it and so it would mainly become the plaything of gnomes eager to add to their edit count.

But now that it has been highlighted as an example, others are sucked into the vortex, and the matter may escalate per WP:LIGHTBULB. BD2412 thinks that the answer to form a committee and that would certainly be an excellent way of occupying more people's time per Parkinson's Law. Be sure to tell potential committee members that they are going to be considering topics like the Third degree medal of the Republic of Azerbaijan for "impeccable service in migration bodies". This will be a good test of whether they have the right stuff for such important work! Andrew🐉(talk) 14:21, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I idly drilled down on the history of this important example to find that there's more to it than first appeared. The AfD was first closed as Keep after 8 days. The closer stated that consensus was clear as the score was then 5 Keeps, 1 Merge and 1 Delete. But the nominator wasn't having that and so rushed off to DRV where he managed to get the close overturned as the closer was a presumptious non-admin and Nigerian, who needed to be put in their place. Sandstein obligingly relisted it without discussion but the Keeps kept coming so the deletionists had to grind their teeth and give in. The nominator then tag-bombed the article to display his displeasure and frustration, and here we are.

So, this is indeed a classic case of WP:LIGHTBULB and I'm going to put it on my watchlist to await the next twist. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:54, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Andrew Davidson, per the closer was a presumptious non-admin and Nigerian, are you accusing an editor in good standing of disrupting the deletion process for xenophobic reasons? AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:03, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I checked out the closer, Nnadigoodluck as I wondered whether they might be Azerbajani too. It was interesting to find that they were Nigerian as the Global South is commonly thought to be under-represented here. As to whether this made a difference, I cannot say, but suppose it was the non-admin aspect which was more significant. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:30, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Andrew Davidson, what has people race to do with anything? I read the deletion review and there was no mention that the review was raised because the closer "was Nigerian who needed to be put in their place." Heck, the closer's race was not brought up at all, only that the deletion request was too close to call.

Plus, you said "deletionists had to grind their teeth and give in" does not correspond to the outcome of that AFD. It was closed as nonconsensus instead of a clear keep. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:33, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

He's always accusing people of racism. [9], [10]. Reyk _YO! 15:08, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm also pinging @Sandstein: and @Stifle:, who aren't involved in this conversation right now but ought to be given the opportunity to respond to the personal commentary levelled against them. Reyk _YO! 15:16, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I think the personal attacks and aspersions cast by User:Andrew Davidson are so far beneath contempt that I will not dignify them with a reply. Stifle (talk) 15:26, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Same here. Sandstein 15:54, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

@Andrew Davidson: Not all discussions will be on topics that excite you. BD2412 T 16:03, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

One thing I noted is that some "keep" voters think they are "defending" Wikipedia from those voting "delete." Then it becomes an "us" vs "them" mentality. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:18, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

One solution is that we should have clarity on the lack of clarity of wp notability. :-) Like maybe this Wikipedia:How Wikipedia notability works right now or something like it should be made more visible as a guide. With this I think one could have more comfortably closed this example as "keep".

Template:AfDh up for deletion

Please comment at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020_October_11#Template:AfDh if you are so motivated. Primefac (talk) 03:15, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Draftifying an article currently at AfD

I am currently in the middle of middle of an AfD which appears to have consensus in favour of deletion. The creator of the article moved it to draftspace, so I asked for advice and later reverted. The creator of the page has since done it again. Based on the advice I was given, I would like to say that it should be reverted, but would like some consensus from others before doing it again. Username⁶⁸⁹² 11:09, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Username6892, I'd say yes it should be reverted, but I can't give you a policy or guideline. An editor including the creator can properly request Daftify at AfD, or if it is deleted it can be refunded to their userspace. // Timothy :: talk 12:00, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Username6892, I would say that it is an annoying behaviour, but that the AfD can track the article wherever it goes. I suggest it stays wherever it happens to be. One can lose a lot of good humour over these things and it's not needed.

It's worth considering the editor's draftification as a request. No-one loses by it. Eventually it will expire and go as a G13 if the chap isn't notable, or it will be accepted if he is Fiddle Faddle 13:17, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

no policy to cite here, but as I advised on my talk, once an afd is initiated it should be where consensus for draftification or something else is obtained. I haven’t looked at the afd recently, but if the consensus is that the topic is non notable it should not be moved to draft space, it should be deleted. This is because after the afd people will likely lose track of the article as well as the fact that draftspace isn’t just a place where we send non notable topics without a chance of being notable to languish until they get G13’d. We already have a way to deal with non notable topics and it’s called deletion. Again, I haven’t extensively looked at the specific afd, that’s just my general thoughts on the matter. Best, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:51, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I can't find where it says this, but it's generally agreed that moving/renaming a page while it's under discussion at AfD is not a good thing. I've move-protected the page for a month. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:20, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
For those searching for the policy (mildly) discouraging moving articles while they're at AfD, it's the last point of WP:AFDEQ. – Joe (talk) 14:40, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
- Now that it's been deleted, I wouldn't be opposed to the article being undelted to draft. That is, if you intend to work on it to establish notability. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:27, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  Editorofthewiki, I move protected the page, just to prevent disruption while the AfD is running. I have no objection to it being restored to draft, and whoever undeletes it should just un-move-protect it. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:10, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Deletion and incoming redirects

After an article is deleted, any incoming redirects will then be deleted as well. Now, occasionally a deleted article may get restored or recreated. But when that happens, the previous redirects don't get restored or recreated; in fact, there is no way that I know of that they can be traced. In the way it decouples articles from their redirects, deletion is then not a completely reversible process. Shouldn't there be a way to keep track of such redirects? For example, a bot could patrol open AfDs and add a little box at the side (similar to the ones that link to previous nominations) with a list of the redirects. Or maybe have the XfDcloser gadget generate such a list upon deletion?

I doubt many people would worry about that – most deleted pages remain deleted, and many articles probably don't have redirects that can't easily be recreated. But this becomes a bit more pertinent when the article concerned is an old or established one, and quite relevant for articles that have been involved in moves or merges. One situation is when at some point in the past articles X and Y are boldly merged into List of Z; some time later the list is sent to AfD, judged not to be notable as a list, and deleted. This then also unwittingly leads to the deletion of the erstwhile X and Y, even though they may easily have been notable independently of the list in which they happened to be merged. – Uanfala (talk) 00:39, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Help improve article Izzul Iman Zainal

I'm looking for help in improving Izzul Iman Zainal how to remain tthe article from delete Luzzinami (talk) 13:43, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Scott Krug

He's a member of Wisconsin's Legislative branch in lower chamber of what is called the Assembly body. He represents the 72nd District of Wisconsin's 99 Assembly Districts. The area he represents is largely the Wisconsin Rapids Area and some of Portage/Adams counties. Wages523 (talk) 05:10, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

It's WP:SNOWing pretty hard over there. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 15:54, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

AFD discussion closing

Since I couldn't figure out what the default result is for AFDs having no discussion for at least seven days, I'm guessing that the default would be "delete". This is similar to RFD, see this sentence at WP:RGUIDE: If a good-faith RfD nomination proposes to delete a redirect and has no discussion after at least 7 days, the default result is delete. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 16:07, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

p.s. hope you don't mind but just switched the cyan text for {{tq}} so its more easily readable. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 16:26, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

That's not how I read the AFD documents. Barring something obvious, like "any reasonable person would say keep" (page became a featured article during the discussion) or "the article qualifies for speedy delete" (e.g. a recently-discovered sockpuppet author or recently-discovered incurable copyright violations) or some other unusual situation, "relist" is the way to go. Not just relist, but make sure that the AFD was properly listed in the appropriate places and transcluded into the right "daily" AFD list. If that didn't happen, that could easily explain the lack of discussion.

After multiple relists, the default for a zero-discussion AFD is "non consensus to delete" or MAYBE "soft-delete/treat as a PROD" if the deletion rationale was very strong. At least that's how I would read it. One possible outcome if a related topic is covered is to "officially" close it as "no consensus" then either start a merge discussion or WP:BOLDLY redirect the page and add enough content to the target page so the redirect makes sense, knowing that any editor could come along and revert that action and start a discussion, per WP:BRD. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:21, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Please complete the deletion process

This article has no importance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinara_Rakhimbaeva — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.90.82.140 (talk) 15:18, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

What's the deletion reason? --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 17:26, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Request listing Filmhouse Cinemas for discussion

Hello, Please could someone list the article Filmhouse Cinemas for discussion with the following rationale.

"The article for the distribution side of this company was deleted approximately a year and a half ago, deletion discussion is here. About a month after being deleted an article on the distribution companies cinema chain was created by a user who has since been indefinitely blocked for spamming and advertising. The only users to add content to the article are the blocked account and a single purpose Corporate IP address from Nigeria.

The majority of the sources in the article are either trivial coverage or run of the mill corporate coverage, e.g. mentions of them opening new locations, a mention of them installing Imax equipment and their CEO resigning. The other sources in the article consist of some defunct paid for press releases sites, 2 mentions in a blog and a google drive link that I really didn't feel like clicking. Searching online turns up a lot of press releases, paid for coverage and SEO spam, but I could find no reliable independent coverage of this cinema chain. I can see no evidence that this chain of cinemas is any more notable than when it's distribution company article was deleted. There may of course be sources in other languages or something that I've missed, hence listing it here."

Thank you 192.76.8.72 (talk) 02:07, 11 November 2020 (UTC) edited at 192.76.8.72 (talk) 03:00, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Done see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Filmhouse Cinemas --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 03:34, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Please avoid deletion

Please avoid the deletion of my wikipedia page about Arun (actor) Sudev Vijay (talk) 08:25, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

@Sudev Vijay: Deletion discussions are a consensus-building process which you are welcome to participate in. Please do not continue to try to obstruct the process, i.e. by removing the AfD template from the article or blanking the discussion page. – Joe (talk) 08:36, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Flora and fauna

Which category do flora and fauna articles go under when listed for deletion? Is it science or do we need to create a new category for these debates? Mjroots (talk) 17:42, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Mjroots, I guess biology? --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:03, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

@Tyw7: - there isn't one that I can see -

cat=M Media and music

cat=O Organisation, corporation, or product

cat=B Biographical

cat=S Society topics

cat=W Web or Internet

cat=G Games or sports

cat=T Science and technology

cat=F Fiction and the arts

cat=P Places and transportation

cat=I Indiscernible or unclassifiable topic

cat=U Debate not yet sorted

but biology is one of the sciences. Mjroots (talk) 18:09, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Mjroots, Oh I thought you meant delsort. But science would be appropriate, I think. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:28, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

AFD request

Can someone help create an AFD for Adithada? The rationale is "WP:CONTENTFORK, as it is essentially same or a part of Adimurai and is already mentioned in its History section. Also, the parent article is not large enough to justify WP:SPLIT. Redirect". Thank you. 2409:4073:2088:2472:E5B9:1AD7:E16F:CD (talk) 19:47, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Articles for deletion Faysal Aziz Khan request

Please delete Faysal Aziz Khan as it has invalid content and against Wikipedia notability guideline and policy WP:Notability Faizan Munawar Varya^chat_{contributions} 00:14, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

What are the general notability guidelines in a nutshell?

Howdy. I recently started helping out at Wikipedia:Requested Articles, in the companies section. There are long lists there of self submitted companies with poor quality citations.

To help prune the lists there, and to just wrap my head around this very complicated process in general, what are the WP:GNG in a nutshell? What simplified criteria do you use when voting and nominating to immediately see if a general article is notable or needs to be deleted?

Significant mentions in X number of green/yellow/some color combination sources listed at WP:RSP?
Significant mentions in X number of any newspaper?
Significant coverage in enough newspaper articles for a Wikipedian with no connection to write the article from scratch?
WP:3REFS?
Other?

I've seen subjects/companies with hundreds of thousands of google hits and thousands of Google news search mentions not survive AFD. So I feel really confused about the process. Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:22, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, "in a nutshell" is a tough nut to crack and in practice it is going to vary a bit from subject to subject. Basically, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes is going to be a good place to start if you want to summarize GNG with respect to a particular subject area. Granted, most if not all of these now have at least a blurb in a more specific notability guideline, but the concept of "what has been the line of notability about other articles on the same topic in the (recent) past?" still applies even if there is no special subject-area notability guideline. I know this "I don't know, but I know it when I see it" answer isn't what you are looking for, but it's probably the most accurate and honest answer available. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:01, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Most of your dot points are off the mark. “Mentions” don’t get you there, not matter how many. “Significant” means? A very low bar suggested is 100 running words of comment. For a nutshell, WP:N and WP:CORP have good nutshells. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:39, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Boldly adding some Holiday Magic™

I added a date-sensitive line to WP:BEFORE so it shows a link to Nick Moyes's homage, Wikipedia:The Night Before Wikimas, on December 24-26.[11] Demo that works any day of the year. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:20, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Okay, that was reverted. I didn't consider how Western-Centric it was.

Clarity on AFD Criteria for local politicians

I suggested an AFD (without deletion discussion, which is where I had erred). I have run into some contradicting information regarding local politicians.

WP:NPOL states the following is presumed to be notable "state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels"

However, This page states that other local politicians are not inherently notable just for being in politics, and goes on to state that each case is evaluated on it's individual merits.

The page which I had suggested involved a member of the NH State legislature, which is one of the largest legislative bodies in the world at 424 members. I'd argue that a one-term elected member is not inherently notable and just because they serve in a state legislature, it is really a local position.

The reason for initially suggesting the page for deletion is that it was written by the candidate herself, and admittedly so on the talk page. The page reads like a resume for her work in a company that is not inherently notable. I believe that deletion is the most appropriate option, but cleanup viable if not deleted.

I'd love some clarity and thoughts on this, thanks! ~RAM (talk) 03:25, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

It is very likely that a modern-era member of any state legislature in the United States has enough significant coverage to meet WP:GNG, so lack of notability is probably not an issue. However, WP:COI is a huge issue and WP:Blow it up and start over is sometimes the best outcome. A better outcome in this case may be to stubify the page and make it very clear to the original author that he has a "conflict of interest" and shouldn't edit the page directly, except as allowed to remove policy-violating content, particularly unsourced negative WP:BLP content.

Interestingly, precisely because this legislature's constituencies are so small, it is possible that this person does NOT meet WP:GNG, in which case you may have a good reason to send it to AFD on lack-of-notability grounds. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:52, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Davidwr, This was my thinking precisely, if someone does not have an understanding of the NH political system, they may mistake notability. The article certainly needs to be reworked significantly - if not deleted. ~RAM (talk) 06:04, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@Ram1055: Perhaps all of the "special notability guidelines" need to make explicit what I think is already implicit:

A topic which meets this or any other special notability guideline is presumed to be notable until demonstrated otherwise. Editors who claim a topic is NOT notable despite meeting this or another special notability guideline have the WP:BURDEN of convincing other editors that the topic very likely has NOT received significant coverage from reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Making a convincing claim of "non-notability" typically requires looking for sources in places where they would be reasonably expected to be found. For most topics, this will include local libraries, paywalled sources, bookstores, local museums, specialized archives, and other hard- or expensive-to-access places.

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 15:46, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Davidwr, I agree with that suggestion. I appreciate your take on the situation! :) ~RAM (talk) 00:12, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Snowracer

I have AfD tagged this article, unregistered so need help to create Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snowracer, thank you. 162.208.168.92 (talk) 05:25, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Done Iffy★Chat -- 10:13, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

list for deletion

Could someone please list List of Afghan philosophers for deletion? It contains 4 entries, 3 of which are already in Category:Afghan philosophers and the other one is apparently neither afghan nor a philosopher. Entirely redundant article when the category exists jonas (talk) 00:38, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

@Jonas1015119: Is there a reason why you can't do it yourself? – Joe (talk) 07:37, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Request for Deletion of: Law for the Protection of Macedonian National Honour

Whole article is original research done by the editor, all facts about the fundamentals of forming the Macedonian state on the Presidium of ASNOM are totally opposite to what this editor is trying to misrepresent. Moreover, he is pushing some theories that are also proved wrong in the Talk Page (ex.Bulgarians were not allowed to declare themselves as such in Macedonia-official census results clearly shows that people were allowed to declare themselves as Bulgarians). This article not that is not aligned with the reality, but is pushing some totally opposite facts, obviously serving some nationalistic propaganda. Sorry to say, but this is an attack of one country constitutional law and order and therefore I kindly ask this article to be deleted and the editor sanctioned. Thanks--Forbidden History (talk) 09:14, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

@Forbidden History: Please see WP:AFDHOWTO for instructions on how to nominate something for deletion. You might first want to familiarise yourself with our reasons for deletion policy first, however. – Joe (talk) 10:29, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply Joe, I added teh template, but it's not showing properly. I cannot understand what I'm doing wrong? Can you explain my mistake in adding the tag? Thank you. --Forbidden History (talk) 11:06, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

@Forbidden History:. You have to use the source editor ("Edit source") not VisualEditor ("Edit") to add templates like this. But WP:PROD is only supposed to be used for uncontroversial deletions, where "no opposition to the deletion is expected", and I'm pretty certain that Jingiby will object. I'd recommend using AfD by following the steps I linked to above. – Joe (talk) 11:24, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks,Joe. --Forbidden History (talk) 12:06, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Chateau Royale (Hamilton, Ontario)

Can someone please nominate Chateau Royale (Hamilton, Ontario) for deletion. Chateau Royale was AFDed in 2019 and closed as redirect to List of tallest buildings in Hamilton, Ontario. Then this year, Chateau Royale (Hamilton, Ontario) got created and is likely referring to the same location. The previous discussion concluded that this location fails WP:NGEO and nothing major has happened there so it still likely fails WP:NGEO. I cannot nominate a page for AFD because I am an IP. 122.60.65.44 (talk) 03:42, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Not necessary, speedy-deleted as a copyright violation of this. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 03:57, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, major update, it looks like this is a case of the original's author being the same person as the Wikipedia editor, subject to confirmation and other procedural necessities. The discussion is ongoing at Talk:Chateau Royale (Hamilton, Ontario). I recommend against opening an AFD for the time being, the issue may resolve itself on the article's talk page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 04:32, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

List of later historians of the Crusades

How likely would List of later historians of the Crusades be deleted if it was the subject of a deletion discussion? Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:25, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

It would probably depend on the arguments made for deletion. About the only realistic argument I can see against it right now is if someone makes a compelling case that the content is duplicated elsewhere or that the need for a "group" is better served by a category or navigation template. Other than that, I don't see it being vulnerable unless you know something I don't know. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 02:09, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Davidwr. Could I get your opinion on List of women writers? Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:53, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip: Thank you for asking, but I'm going to pass for now. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 13:40, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Unused templates?

Template:Afd header (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Afd footer (multiple) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Afdx doc (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Afd in 3 steps (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Happened upon these templates which appear to be out-of-date duplicates of the official WP:AFD documentation. Do they have some purpose that eludes me or should they be redirected/deleted? (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 05:13, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Where to discuss potential deletion?

Is there a better place than here to discuss if an article should be nominated for deletion? I would like some views on List of women writers but clearly this page is not quite active. Thanks. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip: The purpose of AfD is exactly that – to discuss whether articles should be deleted. There is an expectation that you do some basic checks to make sure the page meets the deletion policy beforehand, but I hope we haven't reached a level of bureaucratic creep that would mean we need to have a discussion about whether we should have a discussion about whether we should delete something. That said, I'm struggling to see any possible justification for deleting a core article like List of women writers (as opposed to splitting it). – Joe (talk) 13:00, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Joe Roe. A discussion before AfD isn't necessary but it would be for cases where I am not sure if this should be deleted or not. I can see why the article wouldn't be deleted, but it seems like it can never be close to a complete list and may be superseded by categories. I take it there are no better places to discuss potential nominations? Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:05, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Onetwothreeip, you could try to start a discussion on a relevant Wikiproject talk page. In the case at hand, I would suggest Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists, which may be the best place to discuss any fundamental problems you see with this, and to develop solutions if necessary. —Kusma (t·c) 21:54, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

That talk page looks substantially less active than here. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:50, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Semantics (psychology)

Hi, despite a consensus at Semantics to not split the page, another article was created at Semantics (psychology) which was a copy-paste of the relevant section of Semantics. Neither page has since had any real changes to this content (there was a change from curly quote marks to " but thats it). I've mentioned this on the talk page of Semantics (psych), and the creator responded that they thought it had been deleted already due to aforementioned consensus, and suggested that I nominate it for deletion. I don't know how to do this or if it's reasonable (the policies around it are hard to understand in contect given that I'm very very new to editing WP). I personally feel that this was not a reasonable split but like I said, I don't know what I'm doing. Please help, ta. Xurizuri (talk) 12:14, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

That would be a WP:CONTENTFORK. I suggest you file a WP:MERGE request at Talk:Semantics (psychology). 122.60.65.44 (talk) 00:39, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Which deletion process to follow?

I have studied all the materials on grounds for deletion and believe that an article should be deleted because of problems with notability, verifiability, reliable sources, and what Wikipedia is not. My question is about which process to follow. From what I can gather, the article was nominated for speedy deletion a couple years ago, shortly after it was created. The author got upset and deleted the speedy deletion tag. References were added in an attempt to improve the article, but I discovered there are reliability problems with those sources. I don't believe there is hope that the article can be improved. Should I attempt speedy deletion or go through the articles for deletion nomination process? Lagringa (talk) 21:46, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@Lagringa: AFD. There are a set of criteria for speedy deletion of an article, which are listed at the WP:SPEEDY page. Reliability of sources is not one of them. If you believe that the deletion is non-controversial, follow the process at WP:PROD. However speedy deletion is not possible here. 122.60.65.44 (talk) 00:30, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I went ahead and tagged it as having a notability problem and started a discussion on the talk page. I’ll have to get back to figuring out the AFD process when I have time. Lagringa (talk) 01:03, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Chinese word for "crisis"

I need someone to nominate Chinese word for "crisis" for deletion. I believe the Chinese word is not notable because as a Chinese speaker, I've never heard anyone ever mention the alleged notability of the word, namely its composition from 危 and 机. So, no one in the Chinese-speaking community cares. Zh.wp does not have a separate article on the word, and the info is contained in the main article for "crisis". (zh:危机) I am the same IP who made the request about Chateau Royale (Hamilton, Ontario) above. 122.60.65.44 (talk) 00:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Done – Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chinese word for "crisis". – Joe (talk) 20:32, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Nominations by new user

Brand new user very familiar with this process. Should look into these edts.... are they genuine or disruptive?--Moxy 🍁 05:57, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't know. The AfDs themselves are plausible enough, though unlikely to succeed. I'd be lying if I said I wasn't slightly suspicious about them being a sock, but there is no law against familiarising yourself with WP policies and procedures before creating an account. And if a returning user, there are legitimate and acceptable reasons to chuck away an old account and start again as new. So some AGF is warranted. Finally, the passive-agressive teasing of this user on their talk page and at User_talk:Horse_Eye's_Back#January_2021_2 is revolting. Reyk _YO! 17:02, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Stepping away from the specific case, if someone is very familiar with Wiki-processes and has a new account, the most-good-faith explanations are that they used to be an IP editor or that they used to edit heavily but lost access to the previous account, which is certainly possible if they haven't used it in awhile, forgot the password, and either never set up email or lost control of the email address they used on the abandoned account. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 19:21, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
It's abundantly obvious they're not a new user. On the other hand, there's no specific evidence that they're doing anytihng in violation of WP:ILLEGIT; if you have some particular reason to believe they are, you should open a WP:SPI report and present your evidence. Other than that, there's nothing that says you can't quitely keep an eye on them. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:46, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
RoySmith, I second this. Also, casting aspersions at users is not tolerated on Wikipedia. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:43, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
The user has been blocked by Sro23 for being WP:NOTHERE. CMD (talk) 00:41, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Sorry for missing this discussion, I didn't know about it until after I had blocked the user. In my opinion, most of you are being far too lenient on someone obviously hiding behind a sockpupppet account. I don't think it's fair to block users for being "suspicious", but it was clear this was a sock made to target a particular user (nominating articles started by the user for deletion within minutes of their creation). I have no patience or good faith for a sock whose sole purpose seems to be wikistalking and accusing a long-term editor of paid editing with absolutely no evidence. And I was shocked to see said long-term user get templated for "casting aspersions". You have a right to defend yourself against accusations made by an obvious sock, that should include calling a spade a spade. Sro23 (talk) 01:21, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Sro23, in my eyes repeatedly posting the same message on all the AFD doesn't look good on User:Horse Eye's Back. See this and this and this. I would have probably raised a WP:SPI rather than posting the same question on all the AFD. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 03:13, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
SPIs are for linking accounts to masters, not for general fishing. Further, there are reasonable reasons to have alternative accounts, and it's reasonable to provide a chance for disclosure. Horse Eye's Back is literally a second account. CMD (talk) 03:23, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Chipmunkdavis, well if Horse thinks that Bowler is a sock, SPI can find if they are puppeted by another known abusive user. And why post the same question to all AFDs. They could have just left the message on Bowler's talk page. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 03:25, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Even if they’re weren’t a sock what they did was disruptive and harassment, they were getting blocked even without the “knows too much” element. As CMD said SPIs aren’t for fishing, if I was more sure about which of the half dozen sockmasters I have royally pissed off over the last year or so was behind the account I would have taken it to the relevant investigation. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:30, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) SPIs are explicitly not for fishing. The account in question is a clear and obvious harassment sock. It's unbelievably blatant. Horse shouldn't even have to deal with it, let alone be asked to go more out of their way. CMD (talk) 03:36, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Reverse Osmosis (group)

Please nominate Reverse Osmosis (group) for deletion. I cannot find any reliable sources on Google Search. Most of the article is unsourced WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. 122.61.73.44 (talk) 05:07, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Also, there are a lot of Wikipedia band articles like this one, I just came across this and is now nominating it for deletion. 122.61.73.44 (talk) 05:09, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

While IMDB is not a "reliable source," it does have a page about the film Rock and R.O. This plot description says that it is about the band. The fact that someone bothered to make a documentary about the group will carry some weight in a deletion discussion. I would encourage you to create an account, make 10 edits and wait 4 days, then make a case for deletion that acknowledges that a documentary film was made about the group. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 15:23, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Detecting Business Scam Articles

I was surprised and initially fooled by the effort of article promoters. Renaming Facebook pages to make the company to look older, fake linkedin employees, link to fake company review sites, google reviews (but all the same date) etc Are there any web search or scraping tools eg apis to linkedin or additional information and links in infoboxes ( eg company numbers) etc or even the date that the wikipedia page was created that would make detection of promoted businesses easier? Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 00:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Archive.org can sometimes be helpful. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:22, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

AFD help

Can someone please help me add the AFD for “Rahul Pillai” to the main page? CRICKETMANIAC303 (talk) 21:49, 11 February 2021 (UTC) CRICKETMANIAC303 (talk) 16:19, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Done I've added both AFD's you've created to today's log for you. Iffy★Chat -- 16:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Why?

Why do we need separate processes for the deletion of articles, categories and redirect pages? Borsoka (talk) 06:29, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

"your obstructionist attack on the deletion process is making Wikipedia worse."

See the argument here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/D._Liyanarachchi.

Since when did AfD become a space where anything other than "delete" -- even if it is just a comment that does not argue either way -- become an "obstructionist attack on the deletion process"? If this is now policy, it is certainly not on the project page. Gnomingstuff (talk) 09:34, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

For context, I am a returning editor from the 2000s, using a new account per WP:VALIDALT (privacy reasons; my old username is traceable to my real-world identity, which was not so much an issue in college but is as an adult). I am very familiar with the process of creating an article, as well as the AfD process. I am not familiar with any precedent for which anything but a delete argument is "making Wikipedia worse." If this is the case, the project certainly has changed a great deal. Gnomingstuff (talk) 10:00, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Gnomingstuff: - The viewpoint you encountered there with "your obstructionist attack on the deletion process is making Wikipedia worse" is not a mainstream view in most parts of the AFD process. I will note that application of the notability process has gotten a bit stricter since the 2000s, so AFD isn't quite like it was. Particularly in the area of sports, which is where the AFD where that was encountered occurred, there is a growing consensus that a marginal pass of some of the more inclusive WP:NSPORTS guidelines with no GNG-meeting coverage often doesn't warrant an article (I am not passing a judgment on the notability of that specific AFD, as I have not conducted a WP:BEFORE on that subject, and I do not speak any of the non-English languages sources about him could be in). But still, that comment does not reflect the mainstream viewpoint in AFD (at least the areas where I frequent), and is not civil, either. Hog Farm _Talk 03:47, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@Gnomingstuff: The comment in question was made by John Pack Lambert. This is best dealt with at WP:ANI where recent threads include Johnpacklambert AfD nominations and Uncivil and hostile comments and edit summaries. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:46, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@Gnomingstuff: As Andrew says, we had a lengthy discussion about this recently, and the overall consensus is that John Pack Lambert hasn't done anything harmful enough that sanctions would be necessary to protect the encyclopedia. Personally, I think JPL is making a good point in a bad way - many articles, once they pass the perusal of New Page Patrol, sit around uncared for and undeveloped for years and years and years. This has never been a policy issue (cf. WP:RUBBISH) but it doesn't mean the basic premise is not true. It's a general problem with an encyclopedia with over 6 million articles and not enough editors to go round; stuff gets neglected and forgotten about. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:31, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm not asking for any kind of sanctions, nor do I particularly care about any of the sports articles. I find the million sports nominations per day kind of weird, but -- as I've mentioned multiple times at this point -- I have no real opinion on whether they should be kept; my concern there was the glib comments about someone's name masquerading as a delete argument and, from what I have seen, going unchallenged. Nor is this really a complaint about civility; I'd be equally offended by this comment if it were delivered politely.
In other words, what I care about is the sentiment being expressed, which I find appalling. Something has gone terribly wrong when the default assumption is that this is "the deletion process" -- i.e., rather than a discussion about whether the deletion process should happen -- in which any comment or dissent is seen as "obstructionism that is making Wikipedia worse." This is the most egregious case yet, but I've seen it a lot -- "stop improving the article" is something else that's been said recently -- and generally it goes unchallenged. Going unchallenged leads to precedent; precedent leads to policy. Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:44, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

FYI, John Pack Lambert is actually subject to a topic ban due to their history of nominating sports articles for deletion. This was enacted in 2017 and the exact conditions are
Johnpacklambert is indefinitely banned from nominating any articles at WP:AFD to a maximum of ONE article in any given calendar day, determined by UTC. If JPL, wants to nominate a group of articles in one discussion, they must refrain from any further AFDs for the same number of days as the count of articles nominated. This restriction does not apply to nominating articles through WP:CSD or WP:PROD.

Their record of AfD nominations seems consistent with this restriction and the AfD in question was nominated by a different editor. The general state of affairs is described at Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia but that perhaps needs updating.

Andrew🐉(talk) 20:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Pinging @Johnpacklambert: who I don't believe has actually been told this discussion is happening. First, I'm assuming JPL misread, or didn't take the time to read, Gnomingstuff's comment; it's a complete non sequitur. JPL owes GS an apology for not taking the time to read GS's comment before responding, and (if this is a habit) needs to stop responding to comments without reading them. Second, even if GS had actually been voting keep, that's not an acceptable level of discourse, and the hyperbole of "obstructionist attack on the deletion process" makes everyone just incrementally less likely to pay any attention to your point of view, so it's self-defeating. JPL owes GS another apology for being pointlessly rude, and (if this is a habit) needs to stop being pointlessly rude. Third, considering that JPL complained at ANI recently about someone being rude to him at AFD, his being rude to a completely uninvolved editor concerns me. And fourth, @Gnomingstuff:, while this kind of comment is not cool and should be discouraged, I've noticed that AFD is a toxic place for keep voters and delete voters alike, and until some kind of systematic cleansing can occur, I'd advise staying away. That's pretty much what I do. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:37, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- It's funny, because I actually considered myself a deletionist back then, don't not these days, and I don't think my view is what's changed (per the main AfD page, I just don't comment when the only thing I have to say is that I agree with consensus.) I don't think it's just the notability standards, either. I think the turning point for me was the Theresa Greenfield thing; I fully agree with all of Jimmy Wales' comments on it. I don't bring it up to re-re-re-litigate it, just that it expresses my thoughts better than I can, particularly with regard to "our notability standards are largely fine, our process/interpretation is frequently not working." I see arguments to avoid all over the place -- particularly rampant are 1.7, 3.1 and 3.6 -- gone largely unchallenged, and there seems to be significant resentment against people who claim these are poor arguments for deletion (especially 3.1). The logical extension of that would be what we have in the subject line here. As far as staying away/it being a "toxic place," unfortunately I think the low participation just makes it worse. Gnomingstuff (talk) 04:33, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
I apologize for my comment. I am sorry for expressing my frustration. It is very clear that the person in question was not anywhere close to being notable. On the other hand I would note some of the comments above are down right vicious and they falsly use some terms.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:52, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

AFD assist

can someone nominate Levy Rozman into afd, that YouTuber isn't notable at all. 49.151.173.220 (talk) 02:07, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Announcement: (essay) WP:SOLDIER deprecated

Any regular of AfDs will surely have encountered this when discussing military figures. Per a recent RfC at the WikiProject Military History discussion page; it's been found to be inappropriate and there was consensus to deprecate it. Just letting you know in case you end up upon it still being cited in relevant discussions.

For WikiProject Military history,

RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:50, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

AFD help

Can someone please help me add the AFD for “Drive the Boat” to the main page? I’m very new to this. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 20:15, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Already done Cyberbot I added it to today's log for you. Iffy★Chat -- 20:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC) Huh? Possible to add afds to Main Page? Ne'r heard o' this. Ema--or (talk) 23:42, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Mansigh

Hi there, I'm looking for a place to apologise and explain my actions regarding the subject above. My previous questions e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&oldid=1008441157, http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests&oldid=1008958784 did not satisfy. Thanks for help!...?? Regards Ema--or (talk) 23:57, 25 February 2021 (UTC) PS Wp's huge...

Article that got WP:REFUND after undeletion request after it was originally soft deleted due to lack of participation

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Frances_Street_Squats It was soft deleted due to lack of participation,but got undeleted due to an undeletion request. Is it eligible for a normal AfD again immediately as if it was a PROD in the first place? I did a search again and I still don't believe that it can pass WP:ORGDEPTH. Graywalls (talk) 14:17, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

In theory you can nominate it for AfD again, yes. However somebody does think there are sources available [12] so it might be good to give them some time to work on it. Hut 8.5 14:43, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Gaia Movement USA

The owner of the company requested I delete this page because the context written is false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.153.228.65 (talk) 00:17, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I have reverted the AfD tag as a bad-faith nomination. IP appears to be the logged-out IP of the now indef-blocked Gaia.movement (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which claimed to represent the organization and had been attempting to remove unflattering but well-sourced information from the article. As the effort to whitewash the article has failed, they now want to delete it in its entirety. --Finngall ^talk 00:35, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Proposal for discussion: Sockpuppet nominations at AfD

I do not believe nominations made by socks should be considered as valid at AfD; we already disregard votes by socks in discussions, I think we should consider noms by socks invalid as well.

I propose that a point be added to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How an AfD discussion is closed that Active nominations made by sock puppets be procedurally closed, not a keep close or any close that would reflect on the validity of !votes already in the discussion. It should be clear that this type of close will not impact the validity of a subsequent good faith nomination if another editor decides to make it. This would not impact nominations which had previously been closed.

This could easily and quickly be done by the blocking admin, which already strike the noms rationale but do not close the discussion. This will discourage sockpuppets from attempting noms and help the integrity of the AfD process. // Timothy :: talk 15:20, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

Just because someone is socking, doesn't mean they are wrong. WP:SK criteria allow us to quickly close bad sock noms. This proposal is just silly unnecessary bureaucracy. I'm generally a big fan of WP:BMB but with a dash of common sense. What about socks who nominate long term hoaxes for deletion? Massive BLP vios? Do we just ignore it because of the user, when it's got bigger policy implications? Are we going to CU every person who starts or votes in an AFD? This looks like a solution in search of a problem. I've also noted several times after having voted in a sock initiated AFD that it shouldn't be closed when there are other good standing editors discussing. That applies to this idea. Sock noms aren't as big of a problem as I think you believe they are. CUPIDICAE💕 15:24, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Praxidicae, this was a simple suggestion for discussion, I think the above may be more harsh than you intended. If it doesn't have support that's fine. The comment "Are we going to CU every person who starts or votes in an AFD?" is a bit over the top based on the simple point I submitted for discussion. // Timothy :: talk 16:04, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

If nobody else has commented on the AfD, tag it with {{G5}}. If there are only keep !votes, then yes speedy close it (I think we typically already do this). If there are other delete !votes, then make a note in the AfD and strike the sock's comments. Just like any other sock edits, it should be reverted/struck unless other users have built on the material. If someone else has argued to delete, you might as well just consider them "taking over" the nomination if that helps (but let's not create a process for doing so :) ). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:50, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

G5 is a good point. // Timothy :: talk 16:05, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Many socks are throw-away accounts. Blocking the sock is meaningless. What matters is that they don't don't achieve their goal, whether it's to create an article, or to get rid of an existing one. Any editor in good standing who !voted to delete is free to start a new AfD. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:06, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Comment: Also, just because a point is added to the section, it does not mean it is an iron clad rule; like all closes, the person is expected to use good judgement, if there are other factors to be considered, I would expect them to act accordingly and this could be included in any wording. // Timothy :: talk 16:11, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

AfD

Hello. I'm following the AfD rules for IPs, and requesting that perhaps someone here can complete the AfD process - for [13]. Thanks. --2603:7000:2143:8500:40E5:C46D:4560:BA39 (talk) 20:37, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Done - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oxford University Handball Club. --Finngall ^talk 21:48, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Disney XD original series

This template no longer feels necessary since Disney ended original productions for Disney XD. It should be merged with the former category or deleted entirely. MegaSmike46 (talk) 06:25, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

No/dead references articles in EN. WP about Iran villages.

Hello All. Currently i found a user (Aryagolparvar) in Persian WP has created many small articles about places in Iran as village but all are nominated for speedy deletion, because of they aren't village, not verified and there is no any trustable reference for them. But reference of all are EN.WP. I checked articles such as Chah-e Shomareh Yek Amalzadeh or Tolombeh-ye Sarhang Bahrmand and found author of all is user:Carlossuarez46 and reference of all is same and it is a dead link to an excel file without any another reference. As WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY, all of articles in Persian will be deleted. But as these articles are not a village. (for example: title of Chah-e Shomareh Yek Amalzadeh is The well no.1 one of Amalzadeh or Tolombeh-ye Sarhang Bahrmand means The pump of Mr. Sarhang bahmand). Then as they are not a village really and even not verified and known even Iran and because of they haven't verified citation and are spam only, I ask you to check all contribution of user:Carlossuarez46 and delete completely similar articles in order to increase credit of WP and save it from any spam. I added propose deletion template for some such as this but it was reverted by other users. Also i will mention this discussion link in PE.WP to inform their managers. ThanksShahram 09:31, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Shahramrashidi please note that when a user removes the PROD, that article is no longer eligible for PROD. If you believe that these articles should be deleted, you should start a discussion at WP:AfD. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:54, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

@User:Spiderone WP:AfD has guidelines only and not is page for discussion. How can i add a section at there and talk please?Shahram 09:23, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

@Shahramrashidi: Do you know (approximately) how many articles like this there are? It might not make sense to use AfD for a large number. – Joe (talk) 10:11, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive830#Carlossuarez46_mass-creating_articles. It looks like these articles were semi-automatically created from the census spreadsheet, which is a problem considering the spreadsheet includes many isolated households with "less than three families". – Joe (talk) 10:14, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

@@Joe Roe: Thank you for your kind reply and information. Then i recommend if anyone nominate these articles without verifibale reference for deletion, it to be deleted, by this credit of WP is increased and these article are removed slowly. Currently, I nominated some but other players reverted it and asked me to discuss at here. Please guide. Shahram 10:39, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

@Shahramrashidi: Given how many there are, I think the first step is to talk to Carlossuarez46 about it. I've left a message at User_talk:Carlossuarez46#Places_in_Iran. – Joe (talk) 11:14, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

@Shahramrashidi: if you want to nominate a single article for deletion where the PROD has already been contested, please read WP:AFDHOWTO Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:14, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

@Joe Roe:, @Shahramrashidi:, @4nn1l2: I would agree that trying to AfD all of these articles at once might be problematic but it might be a good idea to send some of the more blatantly non-notable ones into an individual AfD to see what the community consensus is on them. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:28, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

AfD

Hello. I am following the rules for IP afd, have completed step 1 and left the reason on the talk page, and am asking if someone can (as I was asked, to ask) complete the process for Green Templeton Boat Club. I proded the page, but the prod was removed without comment.

Same with List of Presidents of Vincent's Club

Thanks. --2603:7000:2143:8500:284F:1640:953:7AA8 (talk) 06:57, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Done, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Green Templeton Boat Club and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Presidents of Vincent's Club. Iffy★Chat -- 09:46, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Iced Out Audemars

Can someone close the AFD for Iced Out Audemars? It has three keeps and has been open for over two weeks. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 03:15, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Down the Street

Hi, hope this is the right place to mention this, not sure what the procedure is. I found the article Down the Street via a maintenance category. I've cleaned up the text, but I found in the previous text of the article an AfD notification message from 2018, which apparently ended as "Keep" but is now hidden, with no record on the article talk page of any previous AfD nomination. However Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Down the Street appears to indicate that the article *was* deleted, in 2005. Article is still unreferenced, and appears to be no more notable now that it was in 2005, so prime for deletion, but I'm not familiar enough with the deletion process to know what might have happened here. Assuming that someone reading this will be! Jdcooper (talk) 18:27, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

It was deleted in 2005 and recreated a week later. Reywas92 seems to have tried to nominate it again in 2018 but had trouble with the template and gave up (leaving the comments behind). There was no discussion and no decision to keep. Nowadays we'd record this kind of thing on the talk page but not back in 2005. – Joe (talk) 19:13, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Oops, sorry! Still not sure what makes it any more notable than other generic nightclubs I've been to. Reywas92^Talk 19:27, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I think it is better to delete articles same as this and don't let to be created similar articles, otherwise WP will be same as google map and anyone can register his business. Any article must be notable in creation date and able to be developed by others.Shahram 22:17, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Randal Reeder

Marked this BLP with the AFD template and was wondering if a registered user could complete the process. Please check that article's talk page for rationale. Thanks 2A00:23C5:1E2F:A201:255C:CAF0:9978:67DC (talk) 17:50, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Done -- see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randal Reeder. --Finngall ^talk 18:51, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Splitting discussion for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 April 1

An article that been involved with (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 April 1 ) has content that is proposed to be removed and moved to another article (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/April Fools' Day 2021). If you are interested, please visit the discussion. Thank you. Diriector_Doc├─────┤^Talk_Contribs 01:46, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Christopher K. Tucker

Request that a registered user complete the AfD process, please see the article's talk page for details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.59.16.209 (talk) 03:34, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Done - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher K. Tucker. --Finngall ^talk 04:44, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Making a proposed deletion

how do i make a proposed deletion 108.88.82.1 (talk) 03:44, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Requesting to create afd3 for Losliya Mariyanesan

Requesting here to create third Afd discussion for the article Losliya Mariyanesan as, in my opinion, it still fails to satisfy WP:NACTOR. The previous two afds are Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Losliya Mariyanesan (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Losliya Mariyanesan. 2600:6C58:4B7F:6084:5C0:2EF:B11A:C8BA (talk) 22:47, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Both Afds agreed that it should be deleted. An admin should delete it. --Bduke (talk) 23:07, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Done -- see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Losliya Mariyanesan (3rd nomination). Apparently it was deemed different enough from the previous iterations to necessitate a new discussion. --Finngall ^talk 23:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

ForeverSpin a candidate for deletion?

Hoping someone can take a minute to see if ForeverSpin really belongs on Wikipedia. The article was tagged for speedy deletion within minutes of it being posted 5 years ago and although it was contested by the author, the (very short) article still seems to accomplish little more than promoting the company's products. Their claim to fame seems to be "we make tops like the one from Inception". 74.194.157.22 (talk) 20:25, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

There's this page Spike Brandt & Tony Cervone filmography which duplicates Spike Brandt and Tony Cervone#Filmography should it be deleted, or is it large and notable enough to be standalone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles536 (talk • contribs) 00:19, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Requesting to create afd3 for Aranthangi Nisha and Som Shekar

These are promotional articles created for Bigg Boss (Tamil TV series) contestants by the same user Romil.Choudary, Bilal.Choudary2 and 58.108.86.194. These articles fail WP:NACTOR. Thera are two other afd discussion currently ongoing related to the same user for the same reason ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Losliya Mariyanesan (3rd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shariq Hassan). I request to create afd discussions for these articles to check the notability and verifiability of these pages. 2600:6C58:4B7F:6084:690E:881A:67B:3FF1 (talk) 01:44, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Requesting to create afd for Pavithra Lakshmi

The subject fails WP:NACTOR. In my opinion, it just a promotional page as the subject participated in the recently aired reality tv show Cooku with Comali. The page was recently deleted by WP:PROD. I request to create an afd discussion for this article. 2600:6C58:4B7F:6084:698A:F734:4973:AE2B (talk) 13:24, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Requesting AfD for Information theory and measure theory

See rationale at Talk:Information_theory_and_measure_theory#Updated_reasons_for_deletion. 66.17.111.151 (talk) 18:21, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

This article has no inline references or sourcing and seems to be 100% OR and unverifiable - the talk page seems to question the merit of key parts of it and deletion would appear to be the safest course. Any views? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:44, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

More emphasis needed that closing is not based on closer's personal interpretation of the guidelines?

One thing that I've seen many times is an AFD where the result was sky-is-blue "no consensuses" where the admin closer closes it based on their own evaluation of the article with respect to guidelines, and pretty clearly says that that was their rationale for the close, including no reference to it being the outcome of the discussion. This is contrary to both the AFD page and normal practice. Perhaps addition of an extra sentence to that section to reinforce it would be good idea. Like "so, the close should be based only on the community discussion and not on the closer's personal assessment of the article with respect to guidelines." North8000 (talk) 23:00, 17 April 2021 (UTC) North8000 (talk) 03:20, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Possible AfD for Julie Nolke?

Not sure about this one: Julie Nolke is an orphan article about a Canadian YouTuber, writer and actor who had a pandemic video go viral. Until recently, the article was mostly about that but it's since been expanded with personal information and a filmography that appears to comprise amateur videos and small roles. I have just removed an image as a likely copyvio. Sources include social media and IMDb. Subject has over 900k YouTube subscribers and has appeared in national media to discuss the channel. What do you think? Wbcgqbvj (talk) 16:30, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Failure of WP:GNG, no/limited independent coverage. YouTuber, which AFAIK doesn't go down well with The Gods of Notability Guidelines. I'd take it to AfD with reasonable confidence, IMHO. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:04, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I've opened an AfD page. Wbcgqbvj (talk) 21:33, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

AFD suggestion.

I accidentally fell awry of "PROD is one-shot only: It must not be used for pages PRODed before or previously discussed at AfD or FfD." when I did [14] to a page PRODded once in 2011. Please look at the diff and respond.--50.201.195.170 (talk) 03:49, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

AfD: LaLa Ri

Hi everyone. I'm not a registered user, so I'm asking for someone to complete my afd nomination. The page is LaLa Ri; I have expressed my reasons in the Talk page. --78.148.25.46 (talk) 21:35, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Done - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LaLa Ri. --Finngall ^talk 20:49, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Sneaky vandalism

Under the guise of alphabetizing old AFD day pages, a vandal has sneakily de-listed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sink Salad twice, now. Notice the section number counts either side of the diffs. If you see an alphabetized old day page, please be on the lookout for sneakily removed discussion pages. Uncle G (talk) 23:20, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ash Sarkar

Could we get some uninvolved eyes at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ash Sarkar? A pretty clear WP:SNOW situation that's producing a lot of pointless, acrimonious discussion. I'd close it myself but already !voted. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:05, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Requesting to create AFD for Dhanusha Murugasan

The subject is barely noticeable and fails WP:NACTOR. PROD was removed by User talk:49.196.155.229. I request to create an afd discussion for this article. 2600:6C58:4B7F:6084:A900:12DD:9976:A459 (talk) 19:56, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Done. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dhanusha Murugasan. -- Johnnie Bob (talk) 00:51, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Requesting to create AFD for Dharsha Gupta

The subject clearly fails WP:NACTOR. It is a promotional article as the subject participated in the recently aired reality show Cooku with Comali. The page has lot of edits from an IP involved in recent socky puppetry investigation Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Romil.Choudary/Archive. The PROD was removed by this IP. I request to create an afd discussion for this page. 2600:6C58:4B7F:6084:1994:1790:4070:5EB8 (talk) 03:59, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Requesting to create AFD for L. Murugan (2nd nomination)

This page was deleted very recently. L. Murugan did not win in any elections. He is a state president for a party with 2.5% votes in the state. Fails WP:GNG, and WP:POLITICIAN.

2409:4072:6E15:8E6A:9280:A879:360D:EEE (talk) 05:17, 11 May 2021 (UTC) @Powerful Karma: add this for reason. 2409:4072:206:E0FB:1691:812A:AB3E:4FAD (talk) 09:38, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Articles created by subject

Do we have to go through the AfD process for an article that appears to have been created by its subject themselves, or is there another rule that covers this? If the page has been around for years, does that make any difference? Thanks. Wbcgqbvj (talk) 09:45, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

They still have to go through the AfD or PROD processes, unless they're so promotional that they qualify for speedy deletion as advertising. It doesn't make any difference how long the page has been around. Hut 8.5 11:50, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Requesting to create AFD for Dharsha Gupta

The subject clearly fails WP:NACTOR. It is a promotional article as the subject participated in the recently aired reality show Cooku with Comali. The page has lot of edits from an IP involved in recent socky puppetry investigation Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Romil.Choudary/Archive. The PROD was removed by this IP. I request to create an afd discussion for this page. 2600:6C58:4B7F:6084:1994:1790:4070:5EB8 (talk) 22:21, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Requesting to create AFD for Kaavya Arivumani

The subject fails WP:NACTOR. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dharsha Gupta. The PROD was removed by an IP. I request to create an afd for this page. 2600:6C58:4B7F:6084:1994:1790:4070:5EB8 (talk) 00:37, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Requesting to create AFD for Standartenführer (Oberst) Herzog

The subject fails Wikipedia:Notability. 195.50.217.92 (talk) 15:18, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Done - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Standartenführer (Oberst) Herzog‎. --Finngall ^talk 16:41, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Requesting to create AFD for OS Fund

The article fails WP:ORGSIG 195.50.217.92 (talk) 15:17, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Done - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OS Fund‎. --Finngall ^talk 16:41, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Requesting to create AFD for Blue Morpho S.A.

Article fails WP:ADPROMO and WP:NOTDIARY.

Page is entirely comprised of biographical trivia and promotional details. 195.50.217.92 (talk) 15:40, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Done - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue Morpho S.A. (3rd nomination)‎. --Finngall ^talk 16:41, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Requesting to create AFD for Gunnar Stansson

Self-promotional page has been deleted before because it fails WP:CREATIVE and appears to have been created/maintained by its subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.175.200.238 (talk) 04:07, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Discussion created. Sam Sailor 07:39, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Requesting to create AFD for Magdalen Berns

Requesting to create AFD for Magdalen Berns. This is a youtuber who got less than 30k subscribers and less than 200k views on most viewed video. There isn't a single independent, reliable source which makes more than a passing mention to her, so following the "golden rule" of wikipedia she isn't notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.66.3.32 (talk) 16:09, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Done please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magdalen Berns (2nd nomination) Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^{Talk to me} 17:48, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Requesting to create AFD for ASAS & Partners Law firm

The article for ASAS & Partners Law Firm is poorly written and a advert. Lastly, it is created by someone who probably works at the company. It also breaks the notability guidelines of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyramids09 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@Pyramids09: There is no need for a full AfD discussion. The WP:PROD tag cannot be reapplied because it was contested, but the article clearly and obviously qualifies for speedy deletion under at least two criteria and I have retagged the article as such. --Finngall ^talk 17:19, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Requesting to create AFD for Kate Nicholl

The page Kate Nicholl is not even a article.

I deleted it under WP:A7. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:49, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Requesting to create AFD for Santosh Arron

The page Santosh Arron is a ad, has extremely poor writing,and is just terrible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyramids09 (talk • contribs) 17:12, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Pyramids09, When tagging an article for speedy deletion (WP:CSD), it is not also necessary to also post it here, as that creates extra work for people and creates a possibility for error due to processing of two independent methodologies simultaneously. It would be best to wait, and if the CSD is declined or contested, THEN post either here or submit it for WP:PROD. But please do them one at a time. Thank you, Johnnie Bob (talk) 19:30, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Johnnie Bob Thank you for alerting me. I am new to wikipedia, and I am still learning. Cheers! Pyramids09 (talk) 19:33, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Pyramids09, no problem, thanks for the reply, and thank you for your contributions on Wikipedia! Johnnie Bob (talk) 19:38, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Requesting to create AFD for Sonny Wrinkler

The page Sonny Wrinkler is a attack page of another level.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Maria Cristina Amelia of Naples and Sicily

It looks like this AfD from 2019 was never closed or decided. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:54, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

It's been relisted recently after a DRV, as you can see from halfway down. I'm not sure why the relister didn't just start a new AfD. Hut 8.5 09:03, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Oh, thanks for the details, Hut 8.5. As you can probably tell, I'm not a regular at AFD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:40, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael E. Rodgers

This article should be deleted because it doesn’t contain any sources about him, I even tried to find sources myself and I couldn’t find nothing. Is there any chance if someone could delete this article? 2600:1000:B079:4F69:4021:2508:E685:8B28 (talk) 01:44, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Please do whatever is required to close this AFD as withdrawn by proposer. IP has stated that the AFD was a mistake, but continues to remove this thread and the AFD notice rather than simply ask to withdraw the AFD. See [15] and [16] for example. Meters (talk) 05:15, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Question about malformed AfD

Hello, whomever watches this talk page,

There is a PROD on Building Rome with a notice saying that it isn't valid because it was sent to AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Building Rome, specifically. But this AfD from 2011 wasn't formed properly and was never closed. Should this malformed AfD be deleted? Or does this make the PROD ineligible? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:40, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Any recommendation at all? Does this malformed AFD mean that this article should be De-PROD'd? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:07, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure this was the right thing to do, User:Liz, but couldn't see a sensible alternative - the AfD doesn't show up in the log as far as I can see, so I nominated the AfD page for speedy with a 'custom rationale', then removed the template from the page. Waiting for the speedy to come through and then will happily leave you to re-PRod or AfD or will do it myself if you prefer! I don't think this is elegant, but hope it is at least practical... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:05, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

And then *poof* all is gone in the twinkle of an eye! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:45, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Deletion of Piper Harron

Please complete the deletion nomination for Piper Harron. This is an autobiography by a postdoc who has only written one published paper and appears in just a few blog posts. Being a postdoc and having blog coverage is not real notability for a scientist. 12.88.178.218 (talk) 20:22, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Done - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Piper Harron --Finngall ^talk 04:03, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion for new (minor) guideline

I wonder what people think about a guideline not to use (or discouraging the use of) bold text in !vote descriptions, and instead to use Italic text when trying to emphasize something. This is so that the keep and delete !votes which are in bold, can be markedly different from the paragraphs of text that come afterwards. When people use bold excessively to emphasize certain points, it also seems to dominate people's attention when they look at the AfD as a newcomer for the first time, and could be abused to WP:BLUDGEON what is supposed to be a neutral AfD discussion. I think using Italic text for emphasis is better than using bold because bold is already reserved for the words keep and delete. Dr. Universe (talk) 20:12, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

sigh Radio stations and notability...

Hi folks. This has been a while in the incubatin', but I respectfully submit there now needs to be a definitive discussion. You can feel free to say 'Shut up, Alex', but I think SportingFlyer's comment here says it all: "The article fails WP:GNG. Simply meeting WP:BCAST cannot save the article, as it is not a SNG exempt from the GNG requirement - we need sources to demonstrate that this is a notable organisation, otherwise we'd just be a directory of radio stations, which also fails WP:NOT." Can we agree on some benchmarks? Because the debate is now taking place across multiple AfDs... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:13, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Seems like SportingFlyer's argument is correct. NMEDIA may grant a presumption of notability for radio stations, but that is a rebuttable presumption if no further sources that meet the GNG or key policies like WP:V can be found. (and the station appears new enough that this isn't "we need to search paper sources first"). Arguably even further, radio stations and most other media should probably fall into WP:NORG's minimum coverage requirements since these are business/organizations and there's a potential issue related to COI sourcing. --Masem (t) 16:24, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Relevant: Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Should_WP:NMEDIA_be_removed_from_the_SNG_sidebar? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:11, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I closed an AfD on equal numbers as delete, on the basis that specific policy/guideline exemption was needed to override GNG. Not sure what the cross-AfD consensus has been Nosebagbear (talk) 11:14, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

AFD

Requesting to create AFD for Ratta (YouTuber) as the article was written poorly, loads of unrealible sources and a non-notable Youtuber. 49.149.116.86 (talk) 13:32, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

That it may be poorly written is not a reason for deletion, so that should be set aside. I make no comment on the other factors you mention Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 11:25, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Katherine Needleman

Hi, I proposed a deletion for this article, can someone complete steps II and III as described in WP:AFDHOWTO? Thanks. 82.173.133.70 (talk) 20:08, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Done - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katherine Needleman. --Finngall ^talk 21:32, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Complete this AFD, please.

Reynard the Fox must be removed from this site, for it is about a furry! Think of the children, and delete the page (or perhaps complete the nomination)! 2603:8080:A800:3E4E:842A:C914:3F92:A067 (talk) 13:19, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

N Not done. Not a legitimate reason to nominate an article for deletion per Wikipedia's Deletion Policy Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:33, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Requesting to create AFD for Meaghan Davies

Hi, I am requesting AFD for this article. This article does not cite any sources. Lack of notability and reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG. Thanks. ---Trap133 (talk) 15:43, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Done My own WP:BEFORE agrees with your request Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 16:01, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Potential sockpuppets at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atma Global

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/S0merkile.4meter4 (talk) 16:02, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Andrew Clausen

Hi, I am requesting AFD for this article. The reason is Fails WP:GNG. Can someone complete it? Thanks. Trap133 (talk) 15:41, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Done per request and my own WP:BEFORE Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 16:11, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Request to check if List of journalists killed under the Arroyo administration should be deleted

Can somebody check List of journalists killed under the Arroyo administration if it should be deleted? It appears to be an arbitrary list, with content not updated for a long time, and has several unsourced statements.–Sanglahi86 (talk) 11:56, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Requesting to create AFD for Emilio Villegas

Hi, I am requesting AFD for this article. This article fails WP:NBOX. Trap133 (talk) 17:10, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Trap133, oh you already did it yourself. So

Done I guess? --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:13, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Requesting AFD for Gangarampur Girls' High School

This article is not notable. Fails WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES.--42.110.145.167 (talk) 15:49, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMESSAYS as an argument to avoid. If it isn't notable, that is an argument, but "fails WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES isn't a valid deletion argument. SamStrongTalks (talk) 15:53, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

@SamStrongTalks The article fails WP:GNG. --42.110.145.167 (talk) 15:56, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Requesting AFD for The Equidistribution of Lattice Shapes of Rings of Integers of Cubic, Quartic, and Quintic Number Fields

Fails WP:NB, next to no relevant coverage. Page was made in place of the recently deleted Piper Harron article.195.50.217.92 (talk) 21:22, 24 June 2021 (UTC) ‎

Done —David Eppstein (talk) 19:52, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Potential sock or meat puppets at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael J Coudrey

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JalenPhotos2.4meter4 (talk) 22:13, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Non-twinkle users of the Afd doc for deleting a single article

Do any of you regulars have a feeling about the extent to which some users still follow the step-by-step instructions in the #How to nominate a single page for deletion section (via transclusion of {{Afd in 3 steps}})? I know that Twinkle makes it far easier, but I'm still one of the Luddites, I guess, who use the WP:AFDHOWTO instructions, although I've always found them woefully inadequate.

I finally decided to do something about that, and I've got a replacement for the instructions section. Like {{Afd in 3 steps}}, it is a template that can be transcluded into WP:AFD, and imho it is much clearer that the current version that's there. Unlike {{Afd in 3 steps}}, the new template can take an optional ArticleName parameter, and in that case, it generates customized instructions for that article, including the exact values to use for the various afd templates, files, and logs, in particular, the correct nomination name with WP:PARENDIS disambiguation for articles that have been nominated before. The goal was to leave as little to chance as possible, and make everything copy-pasteable.

This is pretty close to done, but I wanted to throw it out here to get feedback. A couple of points before we get into it: the template has an awful name, so don't worry about that for now; I propose to rename it (probably to {{Afd in 5 steps}}) unless you have a better suggestion. Secondly, it currently sits in a collapse bar. I'm partial to keeping this, with the instructions default-expanded on the AFD page, because it makes it possible to collapse for those who are interested in other parts of the Afd page, and want to save their scroll finger for their Golden Years.

To view the template stand-alone, that is to say, in the way it would appear if transcluded onto the WP:AFD page instead of the current one, please try:

Template:Afd in 5 steps

and expand the collapse bar (it will be changed to default-expand later).

To view the template in its customized view, find section #Try it now in the Template doc, and click the link. To show off the best features of the new template, try it with an article that has been nominated for deletion before. To get you started, I've included one example below:

Deletion process how-to for Jimmy Wales

Disclaimer: this is still in test, and should be used with caution until verified.

This is a step-by-step summary of how to nominate a single page, Jimmy Wales, for deletion, using the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion procedure.

Deletion status summary

"Jimmy Wales" exists, and can be nominated for deletion. It has been nominated for deletion nine times before under this name. Consider using Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jimmy Wales (10th nomination)^[a] as the NominationName, but see this caveat. The step-by-step instructions below will walk you through the process.

Place the deletion tag on the article.Place the deletion tag on the article:
- First, log in; you won't be able to complete the process if you don't. IP users are unable to use this process.
- Insert {{subst:afd1}} (no parameters) at the top of Jimmy Wales. Do it now
- Include in the edit summary: AfD: Nominated for deletion; see [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jimmy Wales (10th nomination)]].
- Do not mark the edit as minor. Save page.
Create deletion discussion pageCreate deletion discussion page:
- Create deletion discussion for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jimmy Wales (10th nomination) and follow the instructions there (which are also found below).
- Add {{subst:afd2 |pg=Jimmy Wales |cat=Category |text=Deletion reason}} ~~~~
  - Pick Category letter from Template:AfD categories
  - Write your Deletion reason text, referring to entries in WP:DEL-REASON (or WP:SPEEDY)
- Use edit summary Creating deletion discussion for [[Jimmy Wales]] and save.

Add article to deletion logAdd the article to today's deletion log:

find the current deletion log,^[b] and open it for editing.

right now (2024-12-01 10:46 (UTC)) the current log is: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 December 1.^[c]

add {{subst:afd3}} to the top of the list at the current deletion log

how do I do that?

Edit the current deletion log: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 December 1
Look for a series of templates, with the 'Add new entries' hidden comment, and place your entry there:


{{subst:afd3 |pg=NominationName}} 
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Underground basket-weaving}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of Outer Slobovia}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bar coaster flipping}}

use edit summary: Listing [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jimmy Wales]], and save the page.

Notify users and WikiProjectsNotify interested users and WikiProjects:
- notify creator^[d] and main editors^[e] by adding {{subst:Adw|Jimmy Wales|Jimmy Wales (10th nomination)}} to their user Talk page
- notify WikiProjects^[f] via Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Compact using same Adw template as above.
Update the deletion logUpdate the deletion log:
- go back to the same deletion log^[g] you added the article to earlier
- add one {{subst:delsort|Topic|~~~~}} template to the nomination for each WikiProject you notified.
  - Pick Topic from Deletion Sorting list.
This lets log viewers know what projects were notified, and prevents duplicate effort.

Explanatory notes

^ This nomination name should be a red link. Is it blue? Then theres a problem; see documentation.
^ Deletion logs have the filename format [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/yyyy Month dd]]. The day is not zero-padded; so the log filename on New Year's Day is "...January 1" (not, "January 01").
^ The last time you previewed/saved this page, the time was 10:46 (UTC). If the UTC day could have changed since then, you may wish to preview again or refresh the page to ensure you are pointing to the correct log.
^ The page creator can be found in the Page Statistics tool, or by examining the page History, scrolling to the bottom of the page, and clicking the 'oldest' link if there is one.
^ The main editors of the page can be found by going to the Page Statistics tool and clicking 'Top editors'.
^ Which WikiProjects should you notify? The ones listed (usually) at the top of the Talk page of the article, i.e., Talk:Jimmy Wales.
^ The deletion log has today's date on it, and rolls over to the next day at midnight UTC; be sure to use the same log as you did before in step 3.

I was thinking about how to deal with feedback, and if you agree, I think this might work best: feedback about template bugs and features working or not, improvements, bugs, enhancements, requests, etc., should go on the Template talk page. Feedback about whether this template (in some form, after improvement) should or should not be used here at Afd to replace the current {{Afd in 3 steps}}, should go on this Talk page. (But I'm open to other ways of doing it.) Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 01:59, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Women are people?

I initially listed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aisha Sultana under "People" for DELSORT. It was later added to "Women", and then removed from "People". Is this really appropriate? If so, doesn't that mean we should change "People" to "Men"? User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 21:13, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Generally we specify women because there are many WikiProjects devoted to women specifically that get notified when we do that which would otherwise not be notified. We don't, as far as I know, have any editing groups dedicated solely to men.4meter4 (talk) 21:30, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Requesting AFD for Eevee (band)

Fails WP:Band. All sources are YouTube except the first ref that was widely unreliable sources. It has been sent to AfD in 2010, but was obviously not discussed properly. 49.149.126.227 (talk) 10:04, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Done Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eevee (band) (2nd nomination) --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 10:59, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Requesting AFD for Third Oli cabinet

Hi there! I request for AFD on this article. It fails notability as it's not mentioned anywhere except wiki. That's much annoying when media's have included it's no a cabinet but continuity to previous arrangements. I discussion is required before reaching a conclusion of keep, delete or merge. This is an article related to issue of national concensus. So, I request afd and discussion for/against this article. Please help me complete the process soon!103.10.29.111 (talk) 06:30, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion already ongoing about merging the content into Second Oli cabinet. The article would need to be kept, for edit history reasons, if the merge is successful. —C.Fred (talk) 17:47, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Why do we sign our comments at AfD?

The goal is to assess the strength of arguments to keep/delete an article, not to vote. The discussions are not in talk space. And if someone wants to assess the votes, they can look at the edit summary history. So why isn't there a semi-structured "arguments to keep" / "arguments to remove" section that isn't signed? User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:02, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, actually, part of the goal is to have a vote. If there aren't at least 3 editors who have signed that the article should be deleted, you're going to have a hard time. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:02, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Actually, the fights over edit wars get too bad without signatures. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:02, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Why are you having a conversation with yourself? 🤔😏 — Amakuru (talk) 22:16, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

It's only a conversation with myself until someone else responds. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:17, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

How lucky you signed it. Now we know who wrote it. 🤪😂😈 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 22:27, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

It is simplistic to say that !votes don't matter in an AfD. For instance, let's suppose that WP:THREE sources have been presented for GNG, and the coverage is about a paragraph long for each, making it a borderline case. Barring any unusual circumstances, an AfD with 3 keeps and 6 deletes will get deleted, and an AfD with 6 keeps and 3 deletes will be kept, simply on a numerical basis of how many people take a particular subjective view of the sources (there's no right or wrong here, only differences in opinion). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:39, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

AfD was originally called Votes for deletion (VfD) and still has the same structure – here's an example from 2004. The NOTAVOTE idea came later around 2006/7 – a power grab after incumbents had established themselves. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:18, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

RFC on WP:WikiProject Religion/Notability guide and WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES as policy at AFD

Please comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion/Notability guide#RFC on Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/Notability guide and WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES as policy at AFD.4meter4 (talk) 15:58, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

[1] This nomination name should be a red link. Is it blue? Then theres a problem; see documentation.

[2] Deletion logs have the filename format [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/yyyy Month dd]]. The day is not zero-padded; so the log filename on New Year's Day is "...January 1" (not, "January 01").

[3] The last time you previewed/saved this page, the time was 10:46 (UTC). If the UTC day could have changed since then, you may wish to preview again or refresh the page to ensure you are pointing to the correct log.

[4] The page creator can be found in the Page Statistics tool, or by examining the page History, scrolling to the bottom of the page, and clicking the 'oldest' link if there is one.

[5] The main editors of the page can be found by going to the Page Statistics tool and clicking 'Top editors'.

[6] Which WikiProjects should you notify? The ones listed (usually) at the top of the Talk page of the article, i.e., Talk:Jimmy Wales.

[7] The deletion log has today's date on it, and rolls over to the next day at midnight UTC; be sure to use the same log as you did before in step 3.

[a]

[b]

[c]

[d]

[e]

[f]

[g]