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 Ashleymillermu (talk | contribs) at 17:06, 23 April 2016 (→Phone Advertisements: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Wikipedia term "Navel-gazing" usage in deletion debates

I've created an essay page on usage of the term "Navel-gazing" in deletion debates on Wikipedia.

Essay at: WP:Navel-gazing.

Feedback would be appreciated on the talk page, at Wikipedia talk:Navel-gazing.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 20:22, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why ?

There are many articles that can be either speedily deleted or AFD deleted, but still no one nominates them. Instead many experienced users add categories, decorate the articles with the non-RS source (used by the page creator from their own websites to create the article). Some of the articles would have remained like that if I wouldn't have noticed. There are many new page patrollers who are working hard for a long time, but some only patrols pages, without using google news search and google book search to check notability. I have seen that in new page patrol, one can see pages only 30 days back. That means there are many non-notable pages created before 2016 which doesn't have notability, but remains in Wikipedia.

Question is that If I want to see list of articles created on a particular date, like 19 July 2015 (beyond the 30 days limit), and see the user who created the page (side by side as it is visible in new page patrol), is it possible? --Greek Legend (talk) 17:58, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April Fools' Day

Today is April Fools' Day. "AFD" appears as initials for both "Articles For Deletion" and "April Fools' Day". GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:29, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a separate section on today's log for April Fools' AfDs. ansh666 02:05, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to move that this year we try to leave some of these open rather than close them immediately. My reason for this is that this would just allow people to have a little fun and might prevent repeated attempts to renominate. At the very least we could probably only close the ones that don't look like they'd attract a lot of attention. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should generally leave these open until after 10:00 UTC on April 2, so that residents of Hawaii have the full day to see them. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:46, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2016

Do not delete the article as its important to keep for infomation it just needs a translation use google translate if required 198.52.13.15 (talk) 10:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. — JJMC89 (T·C) 15:17, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

People posting resumes/startups

All apologies if this is the wrong forum. I will gladly start the topic on the appropriate sub forum. I have noticed many people who've made startup companies creating articles for those companies and their own personal "resumes" as well. Wikipedia is not Linked in, or Tech Crunch. Is there a broader policy or group looking into this? Jay(Talk) 20:14, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

first really have a look. if there is nothing NOTABLE there and it is pure promotion, see WP:G11; if that gets removed by some inclusionist who can't see abuse of wikipedia for promotion if it hit them on the forehead, try WP:PROD, and if that fails and we really have to waste the community's time with an AfD, then you have to AfD it. if there is something NOTABLE there, just clean it up! Jytdog (talk) 20:24, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
An over-detailed résumé or autobiography on a user page, such as we often get from newbies who think this is a social-networking site, can be tagged with {{db-u5}} if the user has "few or no edits outside of userspace". It's helpful to add a talk page message pointing them to WP:NOTWEBHOST. JohnCD (talk) 22:10, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Stats vote counting

As a result of a recent discussion on a RfA, I changed the configuration of the tool a bit to make "Draftify" !votes equivalent to "Userfy" !votes. Afterwards, at a discussion on my talk page, Rob pointed out that [w]hen a non-notable article is nominated, it's somewhat common to userfy/draftify it if the creator isn't an SPA and thinks it will be notable in the future, and that he would consider a vote to delete to be "correct" (i.e. correct application of WP:N), even if the result winds up being userfy. The question here is whether the tool should consider votes to delete in discussion closed as userfy as correct. Any comments? APerson (talk!) 00:02, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question that might be a little off topic, if a !vote on an AFD disagrees with the outcome of the AFD, is it "wrong"? -- GB fan 00:22, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, it isn't necessarily wrong, which is why I put correct in quotes. I was thinking about it in the context of the RfA where I noticed that userfy and delete are considered non-matching outcomes. Whether or not it's right to think this way, I think it's clear most RfA voters consider non-matching to be "wrong". ~ RobTalk 00:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's "wrong" for the purpose of calculating in what percent of discussions the user is "correct" (which is displayed on the tool), but I agree that given the policy-based nature of AfD (which the tool (of course) can't look at), votes disagreeing with the discussion's outcome aren't necessarily "wrong". APerson (talk!) 00:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also slightly off-topic, but I've always disagreed with many of the "correct"-markers such as merge vs redirect and merge vs keep/delete. It would be nice if we could define them ourselves when we visit, but that would probably take much more effort than its worth, including making a usable UI and all. ansh666 01:54, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we could have a bunch of presets (e.g. "original", "Ansh666", etc where each preset is a list of "correct-markers") stored somewhere onwiki which the tool could read from. However, this sort of sounds like a RfC; speaking of that, I am 100% open to having a RfC or something where we could define which votes are "equivalent". I believe the original "correct-markers" were assigned by Scottywong himself, and it's entirely likely that some of them would need updating. APerson (talk!) 02:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On another note, I'd be supportive of removing the percentages/color-coding and just leaving the matrix. That would hopefully encourage people to dig a bit more into what makes up the stats. ~ RobTalk 02:59, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Rob here. I've never understood how delete vs redirect is a "match" and merge vs redirect is a "match" but delete vs merge is a "not-match". Anyone reviewing this output should move rapidly over the numbers and take the trouble to investigate some of the individual AfDs listed below them: Noyster (talk), 09:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. I'd support taking the percentages and colors out as well, if it comes to an RfC. (Sorry to derail the thread!) ansh666 10:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(No problem!) Do you all want the functionality removed wholesale, or would an option to add coloring that's off by default be okay? APerson (talk!) 11:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the issue then becomes "what's the default?" I do like the idea of an opt-in color scheme to encourage editors to do without. How would you all feel about making the diagonal green, no consensus yellow, but also all of these "maybe matches, maybe not matches" yellow as well? Delete/merge, delete/userfy, delete/redirect could all be yellow and the wording could be changed slightly to indicate that a yellow means the AfD stats page can't conclusively tell whether the outcome is "matching" (rather than just "no consensus"). Hopefully, that would push people to look at the specific AFDs more. ~ RobTalk 12:45, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't do it right - can someone help?

Sorry, I thought I had followed the instructions, but my AfD entry isn't showing up. However, I did create the project article, so I don't think I can start over. The page is: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/What_Every_Science_Student_Should_Know. It is missing headers and other boilerplate, so I must not have completed the process. Thanks! LaMona (talk) 01:40, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. ansh666 02:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that was quick. Thanks! LaMona (talk) 02:02, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Deletion process#Is it inadvisable to relist and at the same time participate in an AfD?

I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Deletion process#Is it inadvisable to relist and at the same time participate in an AfD?. Cunard (talk) 07:59, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Phone Advertisements

See this and this Would someone enlighten me why they are fit for being featured on WP

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion&oldid=716755243"