Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 69.201.182.76 (talk) at 21:57, 5 June 2007 (→Has the AfD page ever itself been subject to a (presumably joke) AfD?: oh). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut


Request for Deletion

Could somebody please put Monday Night Mayhem up for deletion as failing reliable sources and verifiability requirements? Due to my lack of an account (and lack of a wish to make one) I do not have the capability to do so? Nevermind, disregard this post: I thought this was an internet radio show but apparently it has radio syndication.

New York Anime Festival

First, this looks legit, and second, I found out about it on the Comic Con site. Therefore, deletion shoukld be denied. NoseNuggets 5:19 PM US EST Mar 2 2007.

New noms to top or bottom?

Awhile back on wikien-l (see January 2007 archives, the "not so broken, after all" thread), it was brought up that sending new nominations to the bottom of the AfD log page tends to mean that discussion input comes on a "first come, only served," basis -- the later discussions are further towards the bottom, and don't seem to get as much attention. A few people mentioned the possibility of adding new nominations to the top, instead, giving each discussion a turn, however brief, in the limelight at the top of the page. I'm not sure if this ever got discussed, on-wiki, so thought I should bring it up, here. What do people think? Would that help balance out the attention various discussions get? – Luna Santin (talk) 22:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a very sensible idea. Tyrenius 22:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-16 00:47Z
It's been suggested before. There were no objections that I remember but also no one who felt strongly enough about it to do the scut work of rearranging all the currently active lists (so users would see a consistent list) and changing all the instructions pages. If you're willing to volunteer, have at it. Rossami (talk) 03:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would save work by announcing a date from which new lists would be in the new order. After a few days of dual systems, it would right itself naturally. Tyrenius 04:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be possible for a bot to handle the shuffling of the log entries? --Coredesat 06:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's just do it and fix what breaks. Guy (Help!) 12:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of the things that you need to do is talk to the owner of LDBot (talk · contribs) so that the HTML comment that it adds is "Add new entries to the top of this list" instead of "Add new entries to the bottom of this page". Uncle G 13:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the 'bot wasn't around, when I added the heading to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 May 21 I changed the HTML comment as above. Nothing appears to have broken. (I think that there isn't anything to break.) We'll see what happens at 00:00 UTC and whether this will improve the attention garnered by articles that would previously have ended up at the bottoms of per-day pages. There has been some inertia. Many editors are still adding articles to the bottom, but quite a few are being added to the top. I think that we ought to continue this for at least a week. Uncle G 14:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Old habits die hard... but I'll try if consensus is for this. I, and a lot of other closers, I notice, relist lack-of-participation AFDs at the top of pages already to spur discussion... the first 5-10 items essentially always get loads of comments, so it's a great way to solve the problem of an AFD that got 0-2 comments during its first 5 days. What would be best, honestly, is that if Dumbbot could run every 5 minutes or so and auto-list new nominations, so there's no need for step 3. Ideally AFD would be a 1-step process (just write out the nomination) and no template-juggling, but we're not there yet technically. --W.marsh 14:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Damn it. Now the old "nominate at midnight for maximum damage" trick doesn't work anymore :( --- RockMFR 04:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So far, the only other things that have required attention are User:AzaToth/twinklexfd.js, which I've told AzaToth about, and several editors who needed some friendly nudges. Uncle G 22:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussing Afd's

After participating in this discussion, apparently, I just learned that a vote entitled Delete and merge cannot be counted in an afd vote. In this article we should make it clear that these types of votes should be avoided.--Sefringle 23:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

regarding an article that is an autobiography, un-noteworthy, and bias

I am unclear if this is where i state arguments for deletion of articles. however, i wanted to point out an article "Cory Williams" Mr. Safety is currently violating TOS.

the basic outline for the argument and dispute follows:

A. the article is an autobiography and blatant advertisement of "self-promotion" / ie: (see User_talk:Viralmediaman and/ or contributions)[[1]]

B. the aritcle completely bias, and lacks notability

C. the article inaccurate and reads like spam

going on further what is notable is that Cory aka Mr. Safety is a just a random guy that uploads youtube clips and openly admits to cheating. this where safety admits to cheating as well as on his channel it says "Watched: 418,88" videos. somehow i doubt he was able to legitimately watch that maybe videos. it's really sad that he blames "his friend".

the following is Cory Williams admitting to cheating, "HERE'S HOW I "CHEATED.... This all started while I was on a music tour back in March 2006. A good friend of mine offered to help promote me while I was away, so I left my account in his hands and offered him compensation for his help. At the time, I didn't feel the need to question his methods. Back then, I only used YouTube as a host to put my videos on myspace and that was about it. When I got home, started making videos again and noticed a few things were different on my YouTube account. I was still fairly new to YouTube because I only uploaded to it... but my number of "watched" videos was at 400,000 and I knew there was no way he could have possibly watched that many videos. So I asked him where that number came from and he told me how he did it. After that, I took back my account because I knew his method of promoting was wrong and a URL refresher was never used on my account again.

Even though I made this video confession, many people still don't believe my situation, but I can understand why. Although, I will not let this mistake or the people who don't believe me, effect the way I do videos. I am not a cheater and I will never be a cheater and I would never risk the consequences of cheating. I have worked very hard at what I do and I will not go down because of one petty mistake such as this. If YouTube thought I was a cheater, then they would have banned my account a long time ago.

Cheating did not get me ANY new subscribers and even if it did, then it was because THEY chose to subscribe because THEY enjoyed my videos. When this all happened, I only had around 400 subscribers. The refresher that was used only got my old videos a bunch of views. Many of the videos that were refreshed didn't even show up on the most viewed list because they were over 48 hours old. My total number of video views as of April 27th 2007 is 7 million views, so if 400,000 of them are fake from the incedent, then 6.6 million of those views are legit.

Here's another roomer I'd like to clear up... I have never created fake accounts for more subscriptions nor do I add fake comments or ratings. As of early 2006, all my stats are legit (minus the 400,000 fake views/watches from the incedent). Many of my subscribers came from Myspace once I became more active in the YouTube community. (I have over 20,000 friends on myspace)

Some people said I should have deleted my account and started over again after the incedent, but what good would that have done? Hiding what happened to me would have been worse than coming out and talking about it in public. No matter what I do, this will always be a part of my story... so why not tell it like it is.

For those who refuse to believe me, I forgive you. For those who do, thank you.

-Cory "Mr. Safety" "

In conclusion, its clear he is now cheating the terms of service for wikipedia. Thank you for time and consider on this issue of bias, neutrality, and advertising spam TomSkillingJr.

Wikipedia is not YouTube. You're confused. Dcoetzee 17:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds like a complaint about what is happening on YouTube, rather than about the Wikipedia article itself. This is not the appropriate place to air such complaints. Vassyana 22:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I further understand it as admission that cheating had taken place, but that it would not happen again--personaly, i think it shows an unusual degree of frankness.DGG 18:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

His Holiness Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi

Dear Administration,

I am seeking help for the last 20 days. I wrote an article on renowned Spiritual Personality Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi but it was not just deleted but also been protected to prevent re-creation.

Please be informed that I am the office bearer of Anjuman Serfaroshan-e-Islam an international spiritual movement founded by His Holiness Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi in 1980 in Pakistan and being an office bearer I am responsible to propagate and preach activities on Internet. His Holiness Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi is an internationally renowned spiritual personality with hundred thousands of followers in Pakistan and across the world. We have several online website to serve this purpose and I am officially authorized from His Holiness Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi.

I take full responsibility of the content placed on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gohar_Shahi by me. Therefore, may I request you to kindly restore my article on His Holiness Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi?

Look forward to your positive response.

Regards, --سگِ گوھرشاہی 08:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe you are in the wrong area for this request. Jmlk17 07:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minor formatting problem - please help

There seems to be a "stray" comment at the bottom of this section: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_May_10#Sovereign_State_of_Aeterna_Lucina. I can't find it in the subpage, the logpage, or the subpage of the debate listed after it. Can somebody else have a look please? --kingboyk 19:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Found it. It's in the next one: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rapture (film) --Kimontalk 19:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take care with public relations

AFD is still the source of some of our, ah, trickiest public relations problems after living bios (and it would probably be bad for it to necessitate a similar Foundation smackdown). Could I please strongly suggest you stick to verifiability, not "notability" in nominations? Note that "notability" was invented as a Wikipedia jargon word right here on VFD AFD as a euphemism for "I don't like it" - this is why it's so hard to get across to outsiders (a) what we mean by the term and (b) why it's supposed to be a good idea - David Gerard 11:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the problem with saying that an article doesn't assert notability as defined by Wikipedia. "The subject of the article is not notable" is hardly comparable to "you are a criminal" (to paraphrase the BLP problems). Verifiabilty (or attribution) has the same problems of misunderstanding between Wikipedia and the real world. I have just nominated a few MMORPGs: while some of them are verifiable (in the general sense: look, I have a website, you can play my game or at least look at some screenshots!), they are definitely (maybe) not notable. Saying to someone that we will delete your article because it is unverifiable is equally insulting to some people, and is not equal to what consensus currently is. "Yes, you are a professor, but you are only a run-of-the-mill professor, not a notable one, so we delete the article": the problem isn't that we can't verify that X is a professor, but that X isn't a notable professor. Notability is not a euphemism for "I don't like it", I like myself, but I'm not notable. "Notability" is a shorthand for "We (consensus) think that this subject is not important enough (with "important" being "verifiably discussed in whatever we deem notable or reliable enough sources") to be included in Wikipedia". If you want to suggest a different name for "notability", be my guest, but don't just forbid it. By the way, when you threaten with Foundation action, is that you speaking in an official Foundation role or just your personal opinion? Fram 12:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My personal opinion, based on what's happened before and how problematic AFD is in practice. It's not just a private organisation's internal mailing list. Same reason "vanity" is considered an unsuitable term to use in an AFD - David Gerard 12:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be good enough if we changed WP:NOTE to Wikipedia:Inclusion standard (WP:IC) and gave the AfD rationale "subject doesn't meet the general or a specific inclusion standard for Wikipedia" or something similar? We can disagree on what these standards have to be (just like people disagree about the notability guidelines now), but I don't think anyone can have a problem with the fact that Encyclopedia X determines on its own what standards are used for deciding which subjects are suitable and which aren't, as long as it is expressed in such a way? While it may take a while before I drop the habit of sying 'non notable', I have no objections against such a terminology change. Fram 12:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Might help. Then there's the problem of getting everyone to do so, because changing words on a guideline page doesn't actually change behaviour. It's a tricky issue all the way down, caused by the unfortunate interaction of regular people colliding with overworked AFD regulars dealing with the FIREHOSE OF CRAP that hits Wikipedia every day. (I find explaining that we get 11,000 articles a day and shoot 6,000 of those on sight helps a bit. But that's cleaning up after the problem rather than solving it.) The problem is that jargon is fundamentally newbie-hostile, even when it arises for very good reasons - David Gerard 13:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm glad you agree that deletion is often needed, I at first feared that you somehow wanted to keep a lot more articles by removing "notability" alltogether :-) Getting everyone to do so is mainly a case of repeating it often enough on AfD's (and ProD, I use and see it there all the time as well). We have largely gotten rid of all uses of Xcruft, so getting rid of "notability" should be possible as well. However, renaming the pages (notability and so on) should probably be discussed on the WP:NOTE talk page, with enough announcement (WP:AN, village pump, ...) to get consensus for it. If I just start saying on AfD that "notability" should be avoided, I'll get probably laughed away for going against consensus. Will you do a proposal on the talk page, or do you prefer taht I do it or that we proceed in some other way? Fram 13:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Might help, even if it's just cosmetic ... I suspect a lot of the problem is the application of "notability" and AFD determining inclusion standards that just don't make obvious sense per the fundamental core policies of Wikipedia - either to outsiders or to other Wikipedians. "Verifiability" is a fundamental unchangeable, "notability" really did start as a euphemism for "I don't like it" on VFD as was. The actual problem is trying to justify things that are good in theory but problematic in practice. With living biographies, we can set harsher standards for inclusion because (a) we have a spam problem (b) it helps protect people from attack "biographies" to some degree - so we can set duelling policies, and WP:BLP is quite deliberately phrased as a restatement of the core content policies of neutrality, verifiability and no original research ('cos I wrote the second draft of it that way). "Notability" doesn't obviously and evidently follow from any of these, or at least I haven't seen a formulation of it that does. (Most justifications of "Notability" I've seen frequently speak of "Not an indiscriminate collection of information", but the articles this is being applied to are in encyclopedic format - just that the justifier is using "indiscriminate collection of information" as a euphemism for "cruft" in the derogatory sense, i.e. he doesn't like the subject.)
So, the actual solution: explain really simply how "notability" follows obviously and evidently from neutrality, verifiability and no original research. Looking at the way WP:BLP is a particularly harsh application of these might provide ideas.
I realise I'm asking for something that no-one including me has come up with a formulation for in three years ... - David Gerard 14:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think this section of WP:V should either be removed or expanded to solve this problem (note, oh Irony, that it mentions "notability"...): "Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves
Material from self-published sources and sources of questionable reliability may be used in articles about themselves, so long as:
* it is relevant to their notability;
* it is not contentious;
* it is not unduly self-serving;
* it does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject;
* there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it. "
If you keep this and remove WP:NOTE, then everything is "notable" or at least fit for inclusion. I write an article that I have a band, and my MySpace page is a verifiable (everyone can check it) self-publsihed source establishing the existence of my band. There is no requirement to have third party sources as well. As long as this requirement is not included in WP:V, we need WP:NOTE. Fram 14:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But here's the problem, David. Sometimes something is verifiable, but it isn't notable. Say I go write the article "Seraphimblade (Wikipedia editor)". Now, can you verify that I exist? Well, you're talking to me right now, right? It's in a published, tangible form that I can cite as a source, directing readers to, so no problem there? That's as verifiable as you get. But I'm not notable. Now, I'd be all for changing "notability" to "encyclopedic suitability" or "inclusion standards" or anything like that, and I argued for that months ago, for precisely this reason. But what we need is a name change, not a reasoning change. We shouldn't have articles on subjects that there's little or no third-party, independent material on. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and as to the cleanup there, let's get rid of the highly-subjective subguidelines (WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:PORNBIO, WP:PROF, etc., etc.). If we've got plenty of sources, and it doesn't fail WP:NOT, it's suitable. If there's very little sourcing, it's not, regardless of how many pornos the person was in or how many national tours or gold releases the band had. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh hell yes. All the subjective guidelines are pretty much spurious (and a minefield of US POV and hideous systemic bias). The "what about my hairdresser" or "what about me?" objection is dealt with by those being living bios (or indeed bios at all) and the reality of us dealing with floods of spam. Records going gold would be verifiable by the organisation who certify gold records in that country. I can hardly think of a national tour that didn't generate some press trail. Etc. Etc.

Rather than "notability" I usually think in terms of "third-party verifiability". e.g. (from actual podcast interview) "Yes, your podcast may get 1000 downloads a week. But is there any mark on the world? Do third parties talk about it and care about it? Will anyone ever actually look up this article?" They usually get it then.

OK. Now we just need to convince 4500 editors* this is a good idea! %-D - David Gerard 16:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

* 4330 editors with >100 edits in Oct 2006, 43,000 editors with >5 edits in Oct 2006. Source - not third party, but good enough for this page.

Where on earth did I get 11000 articles/day? Special:Newpages shows 2101 mainspace pages created in the last 24 hours. Special:Log/Delete shows ~6000 deletions in the last 24 hours, but across all namespaces. Grah ... - David Gerard 21:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I just counted up the results from each namespace in Special:Newpages and got 11,871 articles across all namespaces in 24 hours, and ~6000 deletions across all namespaces in 24 hours. Really wish I had the deletion stats just for the article space ... - David Gerard 22:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From January, but take a peek at User:GRBerry/Deletion Log Stats. On January 24th, 49% of deletion log entries were for the article space. In article space, 1% of entries were restores and about 7.5% were redirects (instead of articles). So for that day about 45% of the log entries were article deletions. I haven't analyzed any other day; that one took too much work for the interest expressed in the stats. GRBerry 04:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen the 'notability' rationale used to say that if something has been 'noted', i.e. reported, that it is notable. One example that comes to mind is an article about a 30 year old murder (unsolved) that had been reported in the press. This reportage was used to justify an article about the victim. This person was in no way 'notable' in my interpretation of the term. I take 'notable' to mean 'worthy of note' in a general sense, and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia in the specific. Due respect to the family, but from the point of view of an encyclopedia, who cares?
Yes, WP is not paper, but the resources needed to cleanup, source, verify and update are human resources and are most definitely limited. The amount of time spent on AfD's and endless debates about whether some musical group that disbanded in the 80's after one self-released EP is notable, or if some specious 'award' by the DOE makes an elementary school notable, are a drain on the human resource that could and should be devoted to writing and improving articles on subjects that are 'worthy of note', not just 'noted'.
As far as systemic bias goes, a recent AfD claim for keeping List of Philippine Presidents by longevity was that we have the same articles for US pres's, British PM's, etc., and to delete this would violate precedent and show bias. The answer is not trivial articles about non-Western topics, it is to research and write articles about encyclopedic topics for these countries. But we have no time to do that because we are in endless debates about how many fuck films equate to notability for porn stars!
(end rant)
Having said all that, I can't think of any policy or guideline that will not be attacked be either the Inclusionistas or the Deletionieros to resolve this dispute.
To reverse a great Zen saying...When everything is special, nothing is special. --killing sparrows (chirp!) 02:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly I don't think I ever had a problem with notability per se even though many of my problems were with AfD. I don't think everything and everyone that can be verified by Google News should have a Wikipedia article. I can verify enough from News Archives and a webzine to create an article on myself, but I'm not sure I buy that I should have an article. However I think in too many cases people go the opposite and think a lack of Google hits means a subject doesn't merit an article, which I don't agree with. Many things in Africa, Asia, or from before 1920 won't get many ghits. Or worse they think "I've never heard of it" makes it non-notable. For example the Celestial Church of Christ is on a notability warning even though it actually gets thousands of ghits[2] and is a large religion.--T. Anthony 13:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How large? The article has to assert notability. As written the church could have 4 members. jbolden1517Talk 13:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I admit I didn't do a great job when I created it, but the links and article said tens of thousands or even a million. A simple search would have proven the matter. It was the subject of a World Council of Churches ruling nine years ago,[3] which stated it has hundreds of parishes.--T. Anthony 23:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It strikes me that the thing that spooks people first is the phrase 'Articles For Deletion'. Maybe it should be renamed 'Inclusion Review' or some such. Ajb 15:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the feeling is that it wouldn't get attendance if it weren't a battleground. (smile) DGG 22:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

""notability" was invented as a Wikipedia jargon word right here on VFD AFD" citation needed. Outsiders appear to frequently spontainiously use the word.Geni 03:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Soliciting WP:Essay feedback

Please see Wikipedia:Categories are different from articles. -- Kendrick7talk 20:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Add a new entry" is broken

When I click on "Add a new entry", it takes me to the May 12th page and doesn't open it for editing. It should be taking me to the May 13th page and should automatically open it for editing. Corvus cornix 21:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done, an anonymous changed the link to goatse, and the one reverting it did not put the right link. -- ReyBrujo 21:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Corvus cornix 23:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shortcut for AfD listings?

The steps required to list an AFD seem cumbersome. Is there a utility that shortcuts through the process? Please reply to my talk page. Thanks—Gaff ταλκ 08:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on user's talk page. --ais523 09:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Warning that WP:N is currently disputed.

There really needs to be a warning flag somewhere in the AfD process to notify people that at the moment the parts of WP:N that determine notability are currently disputed pending a re-write. Deletions on notability grounds should be handled very carefully, and not predicated on the disputed sections of the guideline. --Barberio 09:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, "disputed" doesn't mean invalidated, and AfD has its own historical precedent to rely on until a change of consensus has been demonstrated.zadignose 11:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A change of consensus has already been demonstrated Wikipedia_talk:Notability/Archive_10#Straw_Poll. Only 25 out of 65 comments to support the status quo. --Barberio 11:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would really be pointless, since we base guidelines upon common practice, not the other way around. WP:N is not a "law" that is being changed, it is a description of actual practice, that attracts people who believe they can change actual practice by changing the description. >Radiant< 14:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Only 25 out of 65 want the status quo, but of the other 40, there seems to be about a twenty-twenty split between those wnating it gone and those wanting it to become stronger, policy, ... I think it still reflects the middle ground between the opinions of most Wikipedians, and is obviously used all the time at AfD and Prods, indicatng that many people feel that if not prefect, at least it is useful and in some form needed (in a small parallel discussion, it was recently proposed to keep the idea, but rename it to something less dubious like "inclusion standards": these are the currently accepted Wikipedia inclusion standardsn, and articles which fail those (and have no other exceptional strong arguments) have no place on Wikipedia and should be deleted. We no longer tell people that there favourite band, book, teacher, webcomic, or (pseudo-)scientific concept is not notable, but just that it fails our standards. Less subjective (in name), less confrontational, but still the same result. Fram 14:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would be the case if Wikipedia guidelines were some kind of prescriptive rule instated by a majority vote. But in fact they are none of the three. >Radiant< 14:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My interpretation of WP:N has always been that articles must have substantial (not "X is a thing which exists") content that can be reliably sourced, and that follows from WP:V. A significant number of other people share that view, so does it really matter if we call it "notability" or "ability to be substantially described by reliable sources"? -Amarkov moo! 14:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This would only work if [[WP:V] is substantially rewritten to make it clear that primary sources can be used for additional info, but not to determine if a subject has enough reliably sourced content. Currently in WP:V primary sources are considered acceptable, even to establish notability (I have never understood why that's there, everyone can claim what they want about their own notability). WP:N can only be abolished if WP:V clearly states that every subject must have at least multiple independent reliable sources with substantial coverage to be acceptable for Wikipedia. If we don't have that, every band with a mySpace page, every webcomic, every online game, ... will have a Wikipedia page without any policy or guideline to argue for deletion left. Fram 14:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that would be a substantial expansion in the scope of the long standing consensus at WP:V, and I, for one, would not support such a new consensus. This is exactly the root of the controversy at WP:N, and the reason it has been disputed for its entire sad tenure. This does not mean that we have to retain articles on every local fad and garage band. We just don't need to expand WP:V to delete them. We have WP:OUTCOMES that summarizes the community consensus regarding these things quite well, without setting arbitrary universal standards.
As for "X is a thing which exists" articles, there is nothing inherently wrong with this, especially if it is something I can hold in my hand or reach out and touch. If it exists, and I can post a picture of it to the article, then I can write a description of it, and one primary source is sufficient to verify it (the object itself is a second primary source, if you like). That should be enough for inclusion. Whether we merge the article with like items or leave it to stand alone is an editorial decision based on content. We don't need a Gong Show panel sitting in judgment of worthiness.Dhaluza 23:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't quite follow you: you agree that articles on your local garage band should be deleted (good), but then you state that articles on "objects" should be kept. So the article for the garage band should be deleted, but the article on their demo-tape or self-published CD should be kept? I can touch it, listen to it, write a description about it (post it on a website if you want to have it "verified" that I wrote that description). How is that enough for inclusion? Fram 08:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT covers these things fairly well, and WP:COMMON fills in additional detail. So, no, I'm not saying we should have an article on every grain of sand on the beach. But assuming the subject meets policy and generally accepted standards, and is a real thing that exists, any arguments on notability should be moot. Dhaluza 09:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COMMON in AfD's will almost always be shot down (except hoaxes and so on). What is common sense to you ro me is not common sense for someone else. It was common sense to me that a list of the individual locomotives of a certain type was excessive detail and should be deleted, but the AfD ended in a keep. As for WP:NOT, the only item there to keep out self-published CD's is not for self-promotion (but what if I write about someone else's CD?), and not for advertising (but what if I write in a neutral, encyclopedic tone?). It is not obvious to me that WP:NOT is sufficient to get rid of such articles. As for generally accepted standards, that is a bit of circular reasoning: notability is a generally accepted standard, so if it meets that standard, of course it becomes moot to discuss its notability. However, if you remove all notability standards, there are no "generally accepted standards" left for things like self-published books and CD's with minimal (blog-like) coverage. Fram 11:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the confusion over the wrong link, I meant to link to WP:OUTCOMES not WP:COMMON, and that does cover the cases you cite. Dhaluza 01:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedians should be able to create profile pages, why should a peoples dictionary restrcit the people who help create it?

I feel that if people registered on Wikipedia have profile pages that contain a blank space, they should be allowed to edit thier page just as long as it fits with the encyclopedia's guidelines (not putting up false info or pictures). Just because one has won no awards or has no notable accoplishments they should not be told by some everyday joe editor that they cannot exert their first amendment right.

Landonjones 19:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but your userpage was deleted because it re-directed to a non-notable biography. You can't write about yourself on here anyway. See WP:BIO. // Pilotguy radar contact 20:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to what Pilotguy said, you're 1st amendment right allows you (among other things) to express yourself without repercussions from the state, not from private entities. You can yell and scream and say whatever the heck you want in a public place. But, for example, in my house you would play by my rules alone and if I didn't like what you said, I could tell you to shut up and kick you out of my house. Furthermore, if this were a public forum where your freedom of expression were guaranteed, so would the freedom of expression of "some everyday joe editor" would be. May I suggest you read up on the US Constitution (which applies to the US only, by the way). --Kimontalk 02:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New users?

"Note that if you are editing under an IP address because you have not yet created a user account, you will not be able to complete the AfD process, as anonymous contributors are currently unable to create new pages (as required by step 2 of "How to list pages for deletion," below). If this is the case, consider creating a user account before listing an article on AfD."

What should a user do during the four-day cooling off period between signing up and performing step II? Except for alleged defamation, is the answer always "it can wait"? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 19:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Such new users can use the {{prod}} with the test "Requesting AFD because..." - it's a simple trick, and any person who sees this text can easily bump it to an AFD. Alternatively, they can post a message to another page (e.g. Help Desk) to request assistance in tagging the page for deletion (especially if it can't wait). --Sigma 7 20:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

who can close?

are non-admins permitted to close deletion debates? (no intention of doing so myself, was wondering about another user. & if not should i just, politely, inform that user or what?)  ⇒ bsnowball  02:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. See here, and the discussion here. --Ezeu 02:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a pretty common question actually. Jmlk17 05:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Ryan

Could someone please create a separate subpage for the new discussion? YechielMan 16:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article I want to delete *already has* an AfD

I was about to nominate Plod as a dicdef (in English and Bulgarian(!)) but after I'd inserted the template on Plod, I found that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plod was already an existing page! It seems that the page was deleted once, and someone created it again. The AfD template says I shouldn't change it now, and really I don't know what to do. What should I do? And can someone add instructions to WP:AfD to explain what to do in such situations? Thanks. The Wednesday Island 16:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is still not fixed. Could an admin compare this article to the previous incarnation to see if it can be speedied as recreation? Article has had wrong AfD tag for a bit over a week with no reaction. Also, I am removing the AfD tag, this does not imply that I think the article should be kept, merely that I think it's the wrong tag. Taemyr 04:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Creating an AfD now automatically links to previous nominations if the standard naming scheme is followed. --ais523 13:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
The content it used to consist of was "Plod (noun)- A nickname given to an extremely influential and intelligent person", so it can't be speedied as recreation. — MalcolmUse the schwartz! 14:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Religion

Do the Wiki standards about advertisements and notability apply to articles purporting to be about a religion? If a new article on a religion only relates to its own website, and lists its beliefs, does the "advertisement" tag apply. And, in case you are wondering, this is a real question. I've just come across something on Special:New Pages Bielle 03:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If they have a real existence and there's any references at all to them, they are sometimes kept,so I'd tag it unsourced. But if they've just imagined it, & you yourself can find no refs, please nominate it for AfD. I think such a deletion may always be controversial, so I don't think it fair game for a speedy unless it's really absurd. DGG 05:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
The world does tiptoe around belief, doesn't it? Thanks for the answer. I shall be circumspect. Bielle 05:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Corporate libertarianism

An interesting discussion regarding the proposed deletion of an article has arisen. I propose that the article Corporate libertarianism be deleted, but I have been overrulled on the following grounds: --Gavin Collins 21:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I declined your request that the instant article be speedily deleted as spam inasmuch as it doesn't facially serve only as blatant advertising and because we interpret criteria for speedy deletion, including G11, narrowly; that the article had been edited by several users but had theretofore not been tagged as blatant spam, further, suggests that there existed at least some belief that the article might serve some encyclopedic purpose (covering, for instance, an economics concept advanced in a[n ostensibly notable if relatively insignificant] book). I am not at all sure, though, that the concept/phrase is sufficiently notable as to merit encyclopedic inclusion (I don't know, in fact, that even a redirect thence to When Corporations Rule the World would be appropriate), and so I would encourage you to suggest that the article be deleted, either through AfD or PROD, in order that the community might consider the notability of the concept and the propriety of our covering it in a standalone article or even referencing its tenets more-than-cursorily in the article about the book. Should you have any questions or should you think me to have erred here, you should, of course, feel free to write me at my talk page. Cheers, Joe 19:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your arguments against the speedy deletion are eloquent, but I put it to you that the article was indeed created with the intent to promote the commercial interests of an individual. Promotion of individual or organizational endeavour (as in this case, a book), is not necessarily self-seeking or can be categorised as spam in itself. On the other hand, nor does the fact that the article has been edited by several users (related parties perhaps?) make the article encyclopaedic. By extending your analogy that the article does not facially serve as blatant advertising, once the veil of intent is formality is lifted, it is clear that this article purporting to be an encyclopaedic article is in fact an example of self-promotion similar to an author writing a review about his own book on Amazon. Proof, I would suggest is apparent in the fact that the contributors of the article did not see fit (or find time) to include reference to the book to any other article would lead me to the (cynical) conclusion that this article is indeed self serving spam.--Gavin Collins 21:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing interesting about this - put it up for Afd like the man says. Johnbod 23:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2nd Time Nomination

I wish to nominate 2000s in American fashion for deletion. It barely survived a previous AfD with minimal participation, and it's gotten weaker since then. I tried following the steps for nomination (which I have only done once before) but of course, I get the old AfD page discussion archive. What do I do? Unschool 08:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the help. The point is now moot, as an editor has wisely ended the article's existence through a merge of the microscopic material that was in it into another article. Thanks anyway! Unschool 03:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Standardizing deletion process

Since the XfD talk page has been pretty dormant, I've decided to post here.

I'm a regular closer of AfD discussions, and I am thinking of "brodening my horizons" by participating and closing in image, stub, cat, and other deletion debates. The problem I find is that there are different ways of nominating and closing discussions. I know that these are different media and have various criteria, but standardizing would make the process much simpler. Also, this is a small suggestion in change of process, so it wouldn't be much of a problem if change need be made. Thoughts? Sr13 02:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I participate in image deletion discussions and would love separate pages. Or at the very least that the templates actually pointed to the right entry. On the other hand most images for deletion get almost no discussion. Most articles get 10 comments or so. jbolden1517Talk 11:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has the AfD page ever itself been subject to a (presumably joke) AfD?

I've recently browsed the history page of Weasel, and seen at least two occasions when some joker has slapped the {{weasel}} tag on that. :-) I presume that this page is not immune from such shenanigans. Korax1214 13:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On countless occasions, since its inception as Votes for Deletion. It got old fast. :-) Sometimes it was intended as a dumb joke and sometimes as a political statement by people protesting the process or by extreme inclusionists who oppose deletion altogether. Dcoetzee 14:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
VFD actually was deleted once during a discussion about whether it ought to exist. Supposedly, the server lag from deleting all those linked pages caused Wikipedia to shut down for fifteen minutes. 69.201.182.76 21:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Early closure by WP:SNOW

Is it possible to close an AfD early, if its a snowball case, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Winter laake? I ask because its obvious what the outcome of the debate will be, yet the contributor and one IP (either the contributor or some other conflict of interest hanger on) persists in making disruptive/repetative comments on the AfD and the article. —Gaff ταλκ 00:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in fact I'll close it. Definitely evident that the consensus is to delete, and the only opposer is disruptive. Sr13 02:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Social Boston Sports

Please re-instate the article on Social Boston Sports. If there is something you feel is missing, or would like to see changed, please inform me, and I will update; rather than full out deletion.

Thank you.

BDShaw 18:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC) May 30 BDShaw[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion&oldid=136161664"