This is an archive of past discussions. 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.
I have just nominated this article, the first that I have so nominated. I gave some reasoning on the article talk page.
It's been around since 2009, and no-one else has tried to have it deleted, as far as I can see. So I don't want to delete it myself, without allowing for some discussion.
I've personally never heard of the term, and have for many years worked in the field. There is quite a number of 'pet words' for different kinds of network abuse; I do not think all of these items of slang deserve their own wikipedia articles. MrDemeanour (talk) 14:35, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
@MrDemeanour: You haven't completed the nomination: you need to create a discussion page with your reasoning, and then list it on the daily log so other editors can participate. Please see the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO. – Joe (talk) 15:40, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
@User:Joe Roe Thanks. As I said, this is the first time I've tried this. I read WP:AFDHOWTO; I guess I'd better read it again. MrDemeanour (talk) 15:44, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
@User:Joe Roe OK, read it again, created a AfD page, linked it from the AfD box on the target page. Would you be kind enough to check that I've got it right this time? (It surprised me how much hassle this involves) Thanks again. MrDemeanour (talk) 16:51, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
@MrDemeanour: Almost. You missed step 3—listing it in the AfD log—but a bot has just fixed that. It's a hassle to do it all manually, but I think these days almost everybody uses Twinkle, which does it all for you in one click. – Joe (talk) 17:45, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
@User:Joe Roe Many thanks! I'll have to look into Twinkle, I have noticed that it's widely used. MrDemeanour (talk) 03:25, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Notification
Per the request at mw:Community Tech/Newsletters/Commons notification bot and SVG translate - August 2018, I nominate we utilize this new bots capabilities to post a notification on the talk page of all additional articles affected by awn AfD nomination. Off the top of my head, these would include bulk nominations contingent on one (different) article's discussion and the contents of list articles. Trackinfo (talk) 04:21, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
For those unable to read previously, the link has been corrected. Trackinfo (talk) 23:29, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
The bot does not have that capability. It can only notify for file deletions on Commons. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:44, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Let the bot owners detail their limitations. They requested additional uses to develop, which I am fulfilling. Trackinfo (talk) 06:42, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
New template for articles moved to draft space.
Template:AfD-userfied has been created for articles that are moved to draft space pursuant to AfD. With this template, the input, {{subst:AfD-userfied|Foo|29 August 2018}} produces the output:
This article was moved to draft space pursuant to the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foo on 29 August 2018. Please do not restore this article to mainspace unless there has been substantial improvement to address the concerns raised in the deletion discussion.(May 2024)
A bunch of pages to nominate - what should be done?
I just came across Phlyaristis (talk·contribs). From 2010 to 2013, they created hundreds of articles about names mentioned in Greek mythology. On a quick glance, these articles rely exclusively on primary sources, and often contain multiple different individuals as a sort of pseudo-dab page. Lysidice (mythology), their last creation, is a good example. I don't think a bundled AfD would be able to give each article the scrutiny that they deserve - I'm sure that some could potentially meet notability, though it would certainly not be obvious in their current form - but opening one AfD for each of the 300+ articles would likely overwhelm the logs and be a waste of time and effort. I could use PROD, but if someone decides to remove them all, we'll be right back here. Speedy (A7) probably doesn't apply to mythological figures. What is the best course of action here? ansh666 02:39, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Go with PROD for now. I’d suggest ~20 a day or so to give people a chance to review. If any get contested, a bundled AfD of 20 isn’t as bad as 300. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:41, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
yep, an initial prodding some each day looks like the way to go, the problem with bundled afds (especially of 20 or more) is that some editors are put off contributing given the (possibly) hours required to check each name for sources, also if an editor finds a number of sources for any individual article, then that can be messy eg. seperation of afds, also, instead of prodding/afding, have you considered merging/redirecting to another article as the names might be legitimate reader search terms ie. "List of characters in ......." or to a Characters section of the story/epic article? Coolabahapple (talk) 04:20, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Please do a quick but competent Google search for possible sources first, and do not try to delete stubs on notable topics, Ansh666. Your time is better spent by improving them instead. Cullen328Let's discuss it 04:26, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
sorry, agree with Cullen above, i should of checked a few of the articles first instead of blundering in with my two cents worth:)) Coolabahapple (talk) 04:52, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
I also agree with Cullen328. I don't see any harm in the stub articles either and agree that it is far better to spend your time improving the sourcing than trying to get rid of articles that may develop. If you find that names are bogus, that's a different story... --David Tornheim (talk) 15:45, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Having spot-checked a few, I think many if not all of these are valid, useful articles; over-reliance on primary sources is a surmountable problem. I don't think PROD is appropriate (I don't want to have to remove 300 of them!) and bundling too many AfDs is almost always doomed to failure. I'd suggest doing some "test" AfDs on a few representative articles individually and proceeding from there. – Joe (talk) 05:20, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Interestingly, all of the ones I spot-checked were of the type that I linked above - multidabs (and not even proper dabs, since none of them have their own articles) of people from entirely different historical/mythological authors and stories, many of whom seem to be trivial mentions even in the primary source material. @Joe Roe and Cullen328:, how would you suggest we deal with those? ansh666 05:44, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
I didn't come across too many of those, but I'd say they are useful set indexes of names that occur in Greco-Roman mythology (a highly notable subject). – Joe (talk) 06:08, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Seems like my definition of notable and useful and whatever else doesn't match you people. Whatever, do whatever you want, I'm not going to put in the effort if this is the type of response I get. ansh666 06:18, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
All figures from Greek and Roman mythology are notable and should be presumed to merit an article, and even if they weren't, there is nothing to be gained from deleting what we can merge. Nor is there anything objectionable about a list of figures with the same name. James500 (talk) 04:33, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
All figures from Greek and Roman mythology are notable and should be presumed to merit an article What constitutes a "figure"? A lot of ancient mythological texts are of the kind that include hundreds of names of otherwise unknown individuals. English Wikipedia probably has standalone articles on only about 1% of the proper names appearing in the first book of the Kojiki, and a hypothetical "complete" encyclopedia would probably only be up to 2% or 3%. Absolute maximum 20%, and definitely nowhere near the 100% suggested by the above. Hebrew and early Christian mythology have the same problem, with the caveat that every word of the Christian bible (at least Catholic and Protestant versions) has been expounded on by hundreds of scholars, sometimes resulting in interesting issues that make the words/names notable enough in their own right, if not the individuals supposedly behind them, like here. (Although in cases of Biblical "figures", we face the extra problem of obscure articles like this being used by POV-pushers with agendas, without a care for building an article that accords with our content policies and isn't covered under DELREASON.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:26, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
I checked several and would !vote "keep" on each. Sure, there is improvement possible, but reliance on primary sources is not usually a critical problem for ancient topics. WP:SYNTH is more of the question to apply, and I did not see any problems. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:07, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
The pages created by Phlyaristis have had about 2.2M views altogether, which seems quite respectable. Kudos to them for filling so many gaps. The PROD process should not be used for such pages as it is only for uncontroversial deletion and "must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected". It is good that Ansh666 checked before doing something like that. A group nomination would have given much the same end-result but, this way, we don't have the chore of placing and removing all those tags and that's good too. Andrew D. (talk) 16:42, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
American political candidates
I'm sure this discussion was had before, but here we go. I don't understand the mentality that political candidates (for US House or Senate) are supposed to be redirected until the election. NPOL states, "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". Specifically Mary Gay Scanlon, who is a candidate 1) in an importance house district 2) that doesn't have a representative at the moment 3) has a 99% chance of winning according to FiveThirtyEight. Plus the article is well sourced and meets GNG, even though it is argued that campaign sources don't count. I'm wondering why this came to be a consensus (if it is) that articles about her campaign are not useful to establish notability. Why are candidate pages purged before the election if the candidate is not a holder of a lower office? ~EDDY(talk/contribs)~ 15:21, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't understand it either. I voted !keep at the article AfD. I've seen plenty of other candidates for less powerful positions with less WP:RS coverage. --David Tornheim (talk) 15:56, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
There is so much false info on the AFD article by deletionists. User:Bearcat is making ridiculous claims about the level of notability required, which is well beyond GNG. If people claim that the sources are not up to the standard for GNG as per depth of coverage, so be it, but it is not true that they are simply routine or that any candidate would receive this level of overage. Also, why do so many people agree that candidates for office should be deleted if they aren't big names? ~EDDY(talk/contribs)~ 03:56, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
I think the primary concern would be notability for a single event (i.e. running for said office). It may be that there was little to no coverage before they started campaigning, local (and national, to a lesser extent) news goes wild until the election, and then we never hear about them again after they lose, or even after they win, and potentially no one outside a very localized area ever gave a damn to begin with. At least, that’s my best guess why Politician X’s notability would be in questoin; I’m not familiar with the case you refer to, so it may be entirely unrelated. —67.14.236.193 (talk) 04:35, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Would someone kindly complete the AfD nomination for Chronicle (UK TV series)? In the eight years that the article has been in place, not a single usable source has been found (only IMDB and a dead piracy site, besides primary sources) and notability has not been established, so I’m nominating it on notability grounds. Thank you. —67.14.236.193 (talk) 00:40, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Would someone kindly complete the AfD nomination for the above page. Not a single usable source has been found and notability has not been established, so I’m nominating it on notability grounds. Thank you. WikiEdits2255 (talk) 14:29, 16 September 2018 (UTC) 16 September 2018 (UTC)
@WikiEdits2255:Not done You are now auto-confirmed so that you can do it yourself now! Hhkohh (talk) 14:56, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Try checking again? I removed a "relisted" category, which may have been confusing the tools. AfD stats/XfD stats seemed to have been doing fine, though. Can you link a specific page where the bot issue is shown? Enterprisey (talk!) 08:39, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
We can probably just ignore it and manually archive the AFD/Old entry, so it's not a big deal, but it is strange. – Joe (talk) 08:46, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
None of the sources in this article are reliable; some of these sources fall under WP:BLOGS. Fails WP:NSONG as a song that never charted. 99.203.30.163 (talk) 17:33, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
RfC: Stop creating separate AfD pages for renominations
It's a blizzard.Opposed.∯WBGconverse 09:25, 1 October 2018 (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.
Should we stop having AfD renominations at separate pages named "2nd nomination", "3rd nomination", etc., and instead just place renominations under previous nominations at the original AfD page? This has been suggested by Kaldari at phab:T169441. If so, then this would make it consistent with renominations on Wikimedia Commons. Also, if this RfC passes, then the aforementioned Phabricator task should be closed as declined. And MfDs should then be treated similar to AfDs, with new nominations under old ones. Finally, Twinkle would then be modified to edit the original AfD or MfD page instead of creating a new one. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 02:35, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Oppose this is what Commons does and it is confusing as heck. Also, given the amount of text our AfDs produce, especially the ones that tend to have multiple nominations, I would not want to be the poor admin to close that (or for another matter, be an editor trying to load the page.) TonyBallioni (talk) 02:49, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Oppose: oh God, no! Many AfDs produce pages and pages of text; bunching subsequent nominations together will be too cumbersome. It's much easier to look up prior discussions from the links provided. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:51, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Support: The proposal above fails to mention the main reason I suggested this change, which is to make it easier for software to interact with the AfD process. The current process (checking to see if previous nominations exist, and if so, creating a new page with a disambiguated title linking to the previous pages) is rather complicated and English Wikipedia-specific (and also totally unlike how we handle discussions in other contexts). The WMF would like to build software that makes this workflow easier across all wikis, but the complexity of the English Wikipedia process makes it difficult to support (requiring complicated fragile custom code). If the pages sometimes get too long, why not do what we do on all other discussion pages and create archives? Seems simple enough. This should make the process easier both for humans and scripts. Kaldari (talk) 03:55, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
I buy the claim that it makes it easier for scripts, but it appears to make it significantly more difficult for humans (the pure length of these pages), and I don’t think the archive solution is workable: it would require an SPI-like system of archiving past debates, which you also wouldn’t want a bot to do because we want the last debate to be viewable. You’d need a human to manually archive these after a 2nd (or 3rd) discussion was created. Additionally, as I mentioned, I personally find the commons DR format to be disorienting because you’re mixing two different discussions. I get the goal of making page curation wiki agnostic, but this may be one of the areas where en.wiki has it right. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:59, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
But we already have software (e.g. Twinkle) that handles it fine. Why do we need a WMF-developed tool that does the same thing? Especially if it requires us to change a years-established workflow? (Presumably breaking all those other scripts, at least temporarily.) – Joe (talk) 05:58, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
@Joe Roe: The WMF tool in question (Page Curation) is used extensively for most NPP-related tasks. People not realizing that AfD noms are broken often use it to nominate articles for deletion, and when there's been a previous discussion, everything breaks. —Compassionate727(T·C) 06:12, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Probably the tool should be fixed instead of changing the process, as someone with a bit of experience designing tools around the processes on this wiki. Enterprisey (talk!) 06:14, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
@Compassionate727: Then why not fix the tool to know there's previous nomination(s) and stop breaking everything? –Ammarpad (talk) 06:27, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
The WMF is trying to make it as wikiagnostic as possible, which doesn’t mesh with that goal. I agree with your statement below, but I get why from a developer standpoint this is ideal. I just don’t think it is from an end-user standpoint, and I see a lot of benefits to keeping our process the way it is beyond “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it.” TonyBallioni (talk) 06:35, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm aware of that, Compassionate727. My point was a) if other tools support this workflow, it can't be that hard to do; and b) there's little benefit to upending our AfD workflows just to enable the WMF to duplicate a tool we already have. Recent discussions at NPP have tended to agree that we should be moving away from expecting Page Curation to do enwiki-specific tasks like deletion nominations anyway. – Joe (talk) 07:22, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Oppose Trying to solve a little problem by creating bigger one. I am baffled to see this. This is a problem with Curation toolbar fix it, or remove the feature from there entirely. I don't use it completely for AfD nomination for the tool is no match to Twinkle, and I am dead sure I am not alone. There's another problem also in comparing our AfD pages to Commons process. Commons does it that way doesn't mean we should follow them as one single AfD page here can generate more text than scores of similar pages on Commons. In general, this proposal seems to be a calmer way of declining this outstanding Curation toolbar problem rather than saying declined, this Curation toolbar problem will not be fixed. But whatever it's, trying to make work easier for tools and harder for humans is terrible and counterproductive.–Ammarpad (talk) 06:24, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Oppose I have been working pretty regularly at AfD and this would lead to needless confusion. If it is re-nominated, then presumably conditions have somehow changed to re-warrant the new review by a fresh set of eyes. The editors who weighed in previously may be long gone, and the arguments they made then may be stale and hard to follow and make sense of. For all we know some of those editors may have been blocked for WP:PROMO. I support a fresh new look, but some level of consideration for the old nomination and the reason it failed must be considered. --David Tornheim (talk) 07:28, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
(ec)Oppose per all the others above. AND Each nomination succeeds or fails on its own merits. Having previous (failed) AFDs on the same page would unduly impact the new one. A previous AFD can of course be mentioned/referred to/quoted insofar as it is relevant to the current one but to have the dead carcasses of previous AFDs displayed on the same page is by definition prejudicial. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:33, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Support It is already standard practice to relist AfD discussions so that they have a recurring internal structure. Adding renominations just extends that structure. It would be helpful to have the bursts of discussion in line because they are talking about the same topic and can sensibly refer back rather than having to repeat points made earlier. And this is good when the renominations are vexatious attempts to forum shop per WP:KEEPLISTINGTILLITGETSDELETED. Our deletion policy states that "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome" and so we should discouraging this. Keeping the discussions together seems a sensible way of doing this. Andrew D. (talk) 07:34, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Oppose- I don't see the need. The previous nominations are already linked; anyone interested can go and read them. There's no reason a previous discussion necessarily has any bearing on the current one because consensus can change, not to mention the state of the sourcing, and our policies and guidelines. I see no value in having to scroll through pages of "keep- I've heard of it" from 2005 to get to the relevant bit. ReykYO! 07:44, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Oppose I dont think the benifits outweigh thedisruption to our established workflows. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 07:46, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Oppose. At Village Pump a senior WMF manager recently "recommen[d] 30KiB as an upper limit" for article page size.[1] While I disagree with that recommendation, it well illustrates the point where the WMF acknowledges that reading and editing a page becomes increasingly inconvenient. (Editing large pages can become effectively impossible in VE or the "2017 Wikitext" mode of VE.) Scanning search results for AFDs, I see it's not unusual for a single AFD to exceed that size. Notably, I spotted WP:Articles_for_deletion/Covfefe coming in at 136 KB. Piling several AFD's on the same page would often become disruptive. It may work for Commons, but I suspect their discussions don't often expand like ours can, and I suspect multiple re-nominations are less common. Alsee (talk) 08:33, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Oppose to, at the least, maintain continuity. I think the proposed change would cause widespread confusion. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 12:51, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Oppose This is trying to fix something that isn't broken. Can you imagine the work necessary to convert all AfDs for the same article into one? This would only confuse people for no real benefits. ~EDDY(talk/contribs)~ 13:06, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Oppose don't see any particular reason to do this and it would make things more confusing. Comments in previous AfDs aren't supposed to be taken into account when determining consensus in subsequent ones, but this would imply they should. If this isn't what some script is doing then the solution is to fix the script. Hut 8.5 17:46, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Oppose If the curation toolbar has a problem with this, don’t use it. Twinkle is a thing and always does it right as far as I know. Previous AFDs are already automatically linked in the header so they can be easily viewed without creating incredibly long pages as this would do in many cases. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:07, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Oppose as a solution looking for a problem. Having the different nominations as different subpages helps with finding what the previous consensus is. There appears to be something chilly on this proposal . . . SemiHypercube✎ 20:41, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
OpposeKaldari is exactly wrong. The software exists to serve our processes. Our processes do not exist to help the software. I urge Kaldari to apologize and refrain from further discussion, as I find this conduct offensive. Beyond that, an article could be deleted, re-created with different sources, and then nominated again. Those two discussions should not live on the same page. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:30, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't think Kaldari has anything to apologize for. It is reasonable for a developer to suggest a change to our processes that would make sense from a developer point of view—in some rare cases this has even occurred by fiat (e.g. meta:Creation of separate user group for editing sitewide CSS/JS). It's okay to disagree with the proposed change if you think it would be detrimental to our existing process, but it's far from offensive for a software engineer to simply ask, "Hey, it would be nice from a software standpoint if this were to happen, what do you all think?" Mz7 (talk) 22:33, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, seems a massive overreaction to me. ReykYO! 23:21, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Oppose per Chris troutman. Double sharp (talk) 08:59, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Strong oppose - Would make AfD much more cumbersome to navigate and use. WP:TROUT for the proposer. Kirbanzo (talk) 21:34, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Oppose. I could see why this would be proposed, but it's easier to have the different discussions on different pages, so that way the different AFD attempts would not be confused. epicgenius (talk) 16:35, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Oppose and snow close: the different pages are simpler for users, who are a priority over tools. The biggest problem I see in our system for AfD pages is what to do when a page is nominated for deletion, moved to a different title and nominated again (I don't know if we have a policy on this but I've seen some inconsistencies in practice). — Bilorv(c)(talk) 23:24, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Discussion
The English wikipedia is a mess because you have lots of wild development done using templates in an inconsistent way. There ought to be a common framework for discussing articles -- DYK, GA, FA, AfD, RfC, &c. It would be sensible to base this on the talk page, which is supposed to be the main place to discuss an article, and this is how GA reviews are structured -- as subpages of the talk page. A common framework and protocol would ease understanding and make it easier to develop standard tools, as Kaldari is proposing. Andrew D. (talk) 08:08, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Andrew Davidson If we did that, discussions of deleted articles would be deleted at the same time the article was deleted, wouldn't it? Do you think that would be a good thing? --Vexations (talk) 00:48, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
There's no need to delete talk pages. We don't currently delete AfD pages when the corresponding article is deleted. Even the articles don't actually get deleted; they are just restricted so that only admins can see them. Admins can thus refer to the content of "deleted" pages and it's reasonable that all editors should be able to see the content of any related talk pages, so that they can review previous discussions. Andrew D. (talk) 09:18, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
This seems like a different proposal to what is currently suggested, and one I might support. The strangest one for me is that DYK noms are in template space. However, if we make it retroactive then that's an absolutely gigantic number of page moves (I don't know if this would put any strain on servers) and if we don't then that would cause a hell of a lot of confusion. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 23:30, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I picked one where I knew there were multiple discussions that weren’t super long, but it could obviously get way walruses than this. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:04, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
These numbers are quite small, compared to other pages. An RfA page is typically about 200K, for example, because hundreds of editors comment. Wikipedia has thousands of editors and so its processes and pages have to be capable of handling lots of traffic. Andrew D. (talk) 09:26, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Comment I have stopped using the curation toolbar for deletions, and use Twinkle for that part. There have been glitches, though I haven;'t been systematically collecting them. DGG ( talk ) 03:44, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Comment. I've worked both sides of the street. On wikipedia, I'm a software consumer. In my real life, I'm a software developer. So, I get the tension between users wanting the software to exactly fit their desired workflow, and developers wanting things regular and scalable. I agree with Andrew D. that our collection of processes (DYK, GA, FA, AfD, RfC, DRV, RFA, etc) is a mess. They're all minor variations on a theme; somebody makes a proposal, it gets discussed, and eventually the issue gets resolved in one of several ways. Some of which are specific to the type of discussion. Guess what, that's a ticketing system. In theory, phabricator could replace all of those processes. From a software engineering point of view, that would make sense. From a user experience point of view, it would be a disaster. Still, I'd like to see some kind of unification of our various discussion processes. -- RoySmith(talk) 13:47, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
so would I. I think we could have only two: AfD and MfD. It would get more people to look atthe non-AfD discussions.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
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.
This article is unsourced for more than ten years and looks like full of original research. I think it should be deleted.--2001:DA8:201:3512:BCE6:D095:55F1:36DE (talk) 19:03, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Article is full of self-published sources and no reliable coverage can be found; falls under WP:ROUTINE. 99.203.30.102 (talk) 21:59, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
AfD Request: Mark Lindley-Highfield of Ballumbie Castle
Not an issue for Articles for deletion. Referred elsewhere
– If you want it deleted, nominate it. If you need soemthing else use the appropriate noticeboard. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:19, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Can someone please look into getting the article Mark Lindley-Highfield of Ballumbie Castle deleted. It is demonstrably a vanity page set up by the subject and curated by sock puppets and anonymous IP addresses. Every time I try to tackle the problem of notability in the article Mr Lindley Highfield cries foul by proxy to try and avoid the content being properly scrutinised. Mark Hamid (talk) 22:21, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
I have gone onto this page and have made edits, which have been reverted by Mark Hamid (talk). Looking into the history of the page, it has previously been assessed for notability and it was Mr Hamid who tried to remove it. The party is Mark Lindley-Highfield of Ballumbie Castle, not Mr Lindley-Highfield. There appears to be an ongoing issue for this editor and this article which goes beyond impartiality. Very happy for someone else to come in and improve my edits, but do not believe that a reckless removal of edits supported by credible sources or attempt to delete based on personal bias should prevail. 82.129.81.98 (talk) 22:49, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
As noted elsewhere, 82.129.81.98 is a single issue 'account' which has heretofor only made edits to articles about Mr Lindley-Highfield. The person behind this IP address attempts to paint me as the individual who lacks impartiality, when in fact he is simply one of a small group of individuals (I suggest a party of one) who seek to promote the aggrandisement of the subject: I submit I am not the one who has a lack of perspective in this matter! The finding of one editor that this article barely meets the notability criteria is unfortunate (and I hope Wikipedia's stance against this sort of behaviour proves to be more robust); it is certainly not justification for the accretion of banal content on the page which does not merely acquire notability by being deliberately peppered about fascinated quarters of the internet.Mark Hamid (talk) 23:15, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
This page is for discussing the AFD process or for those who are not able to request that others open an AFD on their behalf. This discussion is neither of those things. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:19, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Not done This is a redirect, so using WP:RFD instead and you can nominate yourself Hhkohh (talk) 05:22, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
AFD request: Shah Salim Khan
The article Shah Salim Khan is semi protected. I want to nominate it for AFD and the AFD nomination also needs an autoconfirmed registered user to complete the nomination.
The article is about a non notable individual. I request the editors to complete the nomination on my behalf so that consensus can be developed clearly. I have left my nomination comment here, please use it as nomination: Talk:Shah_Salim_Khan#AfD_Nomination. 103.255.7.34 (talk) 09:45, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
I would like to nominate Merrill Elam for deletion. I've just merged the buildings and awards information with Mack Scogin Merrill Elam. I've seen other examples were people are only represented in their firm's profile, but if anyone knows wikipedia's standards on this I'd appreciate it. Thanks so much. Fred (talk) 02:05, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
{{subst:afd2|pg=William Jones (game designer)|cat=B|text=Contested PROD. Clearly doesn't meet [[WP:GNG]]. The only sources we have are a chapter the subject authored and a passing mention in his publisher's entry in the list of exhibitors for a book trade show. Google doesn't seem to be of much more help in finding sources, certainly nothing that would qualify as "significant coverage in [[Wikipedia:reliable sources|]] that are [[Wikipedia:Independent sources|independent]] of the subject".}} [[Special:Contributions/142.160.89.97|142.160.89.97]] ([[User talk:142.160.89.97|talk]]) ~~~~~
{{subst:afd2|pg=List of Martha Speaks characters|text=One, the characters list fails WP:GNG. No sources except sourcing the show itself. It has been tagged with {{notability}} and {{no references}}. Zero RS published on such characters. I don't even think MS itself could meet notability guidelines - so does the characters with a separate article all together. Furthermore, I have seen pages on much more notable fictional works that don't have list of ## characters pages, such as Clifford the Big Red Dog (TV series). Also see Talk:Helen Lorraine.
Second - the list is a frequent WP:SOCK target, especially from sockpuppets of User:Simulation12 and User:JoeyPknowsalotaboutthat. The sockpuppets believe the characters are notable, when they clearly aren't. Both have caused massive disruption on the page. Letting the article remain separate is WP:DNFTT.
Furthermore, in the Spanish and Portuguese articles, there is a massive list of characters in the article about the show itself. I think the episodes list can stay separate because the episodes are slightly more notable and have reliable second-party sources.
I'm not sure how I managed it, but can someone who knows what they're doing/has rights please close/delete the first nomination of Bani 'Udayd as it's the second one, the bulk AfD, that should stand. Sorry for mess and thanks. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:02, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
@Alexandermcnabb: Would you be so kind as to fix the links in the nominated articles themselves? --Finngalltalk 14:14, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm embarrassed to say this, Fingall, but no I can't. It means source editor and I don't know what i'm doing in there. I've already broken stuff in Bani Saad and I'm honestly totally out of my depth there. I'm a visual editor boy - even doing bulk AfDs was a miracle on my part, believe me... Sorry... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:55, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
@Alexandermcnabb: Personally, I'd recommend doing your next few AfD nominations "the hard way". Twinkle's nice and all, but it helps to work with the templates and stuff directly so that you know how to make repairs if the script doesn't do quite what you intended. --Finngalltalk 00:08, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
@Finngall: Noooooooo! Not the code/text stuff! Don't make me, you can't make me! I won't go, I won't!!! Seriously, thanks for the feedback (and I've taken it on board) but a) I honestly don't think I could have done it without Twinkle and b) if I never do another AfD again, I'll be a happy boy... :) Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:12, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
More cleanup relating to the mass AfD previously discussed two sections above. Bani Shumayli was apparently intended to be part of the nomination and was tagged as such, but was not listed on the discussion page itself. As this article is no different from the others that were nominated and deleted as a result of the discussion, it would make sense to delete this one as well, but I'll leave that to an admin's discretion. Pinging Mkdw as closing admin. --Finngalltalk 00:04, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it appears it was indeed tagged but not listed. Normally I'd recommend it would need a clear discussion outcome where it was considered, but as all those articles were nearly identical, I have deleted it under Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bani 'Udayd. Mkdwtalk 06:02, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you both. Honestly, I'm amazed I didn't make more of a hash of all those AfDs, but thanks for clearing up the spills I did manage! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:39, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
seeking clarification on participation of paid editors in deletion discussions
I am interested to find out if there is an existing policy or guideline that concerns the participation of paid editors in deletion discussions. I'm not seeking opinions about whether or not it should be allowed, but what guidelines already exist. WP:PAID, WP:PAYTALK and WP:DP don't seem to provide such guidance. Vexations (talk) 11:23, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Multiple AFD requests
Below this message are some pages I would like to nominate for deletion. Rationales are provided. 66.87.149.127 (talk) 00:20, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
None of the coverage for this release comes from reliable sources and I cannot find any further coverage; fails WP:SONG. 66.87.149.127 (talk) 00:20, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
I am also nominating the following related page for similar reasons:
None of the coverage for this song comes from reliable sources and no additional coverage can be found; fails WP:SONG. 66.87.149.127 (talk) 00:20, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
I've swapped these pages around so that the ordinals are now correct. Can someone please check that I have managed to update all the necessary links to point to the right page? SpinningSpark 09:51, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Frankly this is probably db-band in quality. Not notable musician. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.120.181.200 (talk) 04:03, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
This article references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. The article must not be blanked.
--Vrisle (talk) 09:05, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Not doneVrisle, please do it yourself since you are autoconfirmed. See WP:AFDHOWTOHhkohh (talk) 04:39, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Hhkohh kindly cast your vote in the talk page of the aforesaid article page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vrisle (talk • contribs) 21:41, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi there, could a more senior reviewer please have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Braemar Hospital? Six editors are in favour of keeping the article, one person has made some comments, and nobody has voted delete. There's no need to relist, but that is exactly what a brand-new editor has just done. Schwede66 04:52, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
After clearing out tens of settlement stubs created by admin John Carter, I've now discovered the same problem with mountains. There are a whole load of 'Jabal x' stubs, where x is a random name - a settlement or sometimes just an Arabic-sounding name. Jabal, by the way is archaic transliteration, jebel is used these days pretty much across the board. They're all coming up with locations nowhere near any notable geographic feature and they are all, so far, useless. What's depressing is how much content has been generated around these over the past ten years. It's the most incredible mess and I'm blown away it was created by an admin on WP. If anyone else wants to pitch in and clean up Mountains in n where n is any one of the UAE's seven emirates, please do feel free because it's an Augean task. This rubbish is taking time and resource away from the much-needed task of actually getting verifiable, factual information about the UAE out there. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:52, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Update. Job done. Big debate over at ANI about mass deleting John Carter's contributions which isn't a great idea, IMHO. The only deeply suspect material I found was these stubs. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:19, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
For people who do a lot of BEFORE searches, I wrote a script to show all the links for an arbitrary article: User:Enterprisey/quick-before.js. Enterprisey (talk!) 07:04, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Requesting the creation of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion please. Non-notable person, non-notable sources and has had previous articles continually deleted for non-notable sources. Paid also for this wiki article 14:20, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
AfD request: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stowaways
Reason: Fails to meet any of the criteria of WP:BAND. No independently notable musician, no major award won, no evidence any of their songs charted. A quick google search reveals results for a lot of bands named `Stowaways`, but the only page which seems to refer to this particular band is the Wikipedia article... Also, given that there is a disambiguation page, the page should (if not deleted) at the very least be moved to a more suitable title, since it clearly isn`t the primary topic... 107.190.33.254 (talk) 00:38, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Reason: Not a notable musician, former references are old and broken / unavailable (are also press release / self driven) and no significant media coverage since article creation. Does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (music) Criteria for musicians and ensembles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:C75:4F00:5163:2D53:93A:629A (talk) 15:17, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Existing sources on the page are unreliable; interview source appears to be original research. Fails WP:GNG. 66.87.148.109 (talk) 19:50, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Not done, he was a government minister of finance so should be included Atlantic306 (talk) 20:06, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Nominating a redirect turned article
There is an article which used to be a redirect and it should be turned into a redirect again. Would AFD be appropriate? I doubt it because AFD might be only for requesting deletion. Qualitist (talk) 15:59, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Firstly you could start a discussion on the article talk page with the editor who created the content, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 17:18, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
What if it fails and the editor disagrees? If nominated somewhere, it would be at least redirected back. But I don't know where to nominate. Qualitist (talk) 17:25, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Its best to discuss first, Atlantic306 (talk) 17:32, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Reason: Previous deletion discussion did not focus on the WP:MUSICBIO guidelines. In relation to WP:MUSICBIO guideline (1.) the article was written on the 24th of August 2012 using "reprints of press releases and other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves" as sources by an unregistered IP address. The content of the article has not been updated since the 24th of August 2012 and the musician has not "been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself" since. The musician also does not meet any of the other WP:MUSICBIO guidelines (2./3./4./5./6./7./8./9./10./11./12.). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:C75:4F00:A0FD:323E:1E71:7811 (talk) 12:36, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Not done The previous AfD discussion of this article (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gordon Duthie) was closed only two days ago. The result of this AfD discussion is keep. If you want to contest the closure of the AfD result, please go to WP:DRV, thank you Hhkohh (talk) 13:02, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
There is a current actor/comedian who shares the same name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.200.33.99 (talk) 04:07, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Not done. Hi. It's perfectly fine if several people or topics share the same name. When it happens, we have a practice called Wikipedia:Disambiguation to figure out what titles to use for each article and how to help readers find the right one. --Bsherr (talk) 05:32, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
AfD request: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The_Jane_Seymour
Advertising, non verified reporting sources, non verified company.
Fictional Russia diamond mine, with fictional CEO and employee claimed to be
owned by a company which does only event promoting, reselling the blue diamond ring for 'charity'.
Only known person of this fictional Russia diamond company is a Singaporean of Indian-Origin Karan Tilani.
Not done. Reddotparty, you are autoconfirmed, so you can do it yourself! See WP:AFDHOWTO for instructions to nominate an AfD Hhkohh (talk) 05:50, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
This ain't happening.∯WBGconverse 14:10, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Why not rename this to "Articles for Discussion", and then fold Wikipedia:Requested moves, all of the {{Merge}} stuff, all of the {{Split}} stuff, and possibly WP:DRAFTIFY into one AFD process? I'm sure that there are one or two other process that could easily fit under an "articles for discussion" umbrella, as well. De-emphasizing deletion as the primary mechanism, even if it is only a "psychological" de-emphasis, certainly couldn't hurt anything though. Most importantly however, simplifying and centralizing 4-5 different processes into a single discussion forum could only help all of us as editors, I would think. Kamafa Delgato(Lojbanist)Styrofoam is not made from kittens. 00:03, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
oppose merge RM and undecide on merging PM If we move RM to here, AfD daily log is too messy and also if IP wants to open an RM, they need auto-confirmed user assistance, that is too complex Hhkohh (talk) 01:06, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Oppose no no no. There's already too many different types of discussions at AfD; throwing in several more things is an awful idea. WP:DRV (as an appeal process of AfD) obviously can't be included; if the whole thing wasn't certain to fail quickly I'd ask that be removed. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:04, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Oppose Yes, the OP hates RM (see userpage). No, it’s not broken and it actually works better than AfD. Please close this. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:51, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
This has been extensively discussed in the past with far more detailed reason given to support the rename. In this RfC the proposer is basically asking "Why not," the answer is Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Rename AFD. I hope this should be SNOW-closed as it does not put forth fresh argument to consider. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:24, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Oppose - does not provide any particularly good reasons for why such a complicated change in the most vulnerable aspects of the site should be made. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:28, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Oppose - Waaay too complicated, Articles for Deletion has worked fine for many many years. –Davey2010Talk 11:39, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Oppose Of the various XFD boards, AFD is the one that gets by far the most nominations as it is, typically more than all the others put together. For example, the figures for 21 December 2018 (including relisting of older noms) are: AfD - 103; TfD - 9; FfD - 8; CfD - 10; RfD - 8; MfD - 8. Bringing in non-deletion matters will only swell the numbers at AfD. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:39, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Oppose per WP:PERENNIAL (non obstante mutatis mutandis), and in any case, as far as AfD itself goes, it is the third of a series of stages solely devoted too deletion. ——SerialNumber54129 11:52, 23 December 2018 (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.
I am starting to doubt the notability of this TV series for a few reasons.
First of all, the author isn't even notable enough to warrant her own article. See this diff.
Second of all, even one one Wikipedia editor referred to Martha Speaks as "not even meet[ing] notability guidelines".
Third, it relies heavily on first-party (primary) sources for its essential (important) information. There are only three second-party sources - two of them are dead links, the third was published 10 years ago. Thus, the editor above could be right about the TV show failing WP:GNG. As an ordinary children's show, it probably would never get worldwide significance and recognition. Exponentially far more TV shows have worldwide recognition than do — and the difference between a show that gets an article and a show that doesn't is not a matter of "any show gets to have one as soon as an editor actually takes the time to make one", but of "shows only get one if their characters actually receive real-world coverage and analysis of their significance". Unfortunately, Martha Speaks failed the test, big time.
The characters list was redirected in a deletion discussion a month ago. Additionally, the characters's individual articles have been redirected for lack of notability:
Even think about it, think about more notable shows like VeggieTales and Danny Phantom. Those shows warrant articles and character lists because of their massive notability. If you even asked me, Daniel Fenton, Bob the Tomato, and Larry the Cucumber themselves would be notable to warrant their own articles. But as seen in the much above more discussions, Helen Lorraine, her Daniel Fenton-inspired father, and Mariella clearly aren't even notable to warrant any. Arthur (TV series) is much more notable and has its titular protagonist warrant an article. Just because Martha Speaks is affiliated with a notable TV show doesn't mean it is just as notable.
A search of Martha Speaks on JSTOR provides 0 sufficient results. The show is mentioned in some RS but they aren't independent of the topic in question. Zero results on Google News also.
Additionally, would you expect to find an entry for Martha Speaks in a paper encyclopedia such as Encyclopedia Britannica or even in a book about television? Even check WolframAlpha: [7][8][9]
Here are some reasons why I can argue that Martha Speaks is not notable. Being an average and now cancelled TV show, it would take a long time for it to reach notability standards, unlike VT, DP, and Arthur. I have added the
Reason for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valin Shinyei is that the topic of the article is mentioned in reliable sources, but they aren't independent of the topic is question; thus failing the topic of WP:GNG.
However, I think another suitable option is merging Martha Speaks (TV series) and Martha Speaks (book) into the current dab page Martha Speaks. Some TV programs based on books share the article with the book that inspired the series.
I don't know if this should be bundled or not; I don't know what to decide, but if you need to, then that would be okay. Thanks. 2407:7000:A269:8200:B006:D94F:9517:2380 (talk) 03:18, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
I certainly won't be the one to waste my time sorting through this request to find something that can be posted on an AFD page for Martha Speaks. It's a blatant speedy keep. It meets WP:NTV as a show that ran for six seasons (and remains in reruns) on a national network. US News and World Reported noted it as one of the "highly regarded programs that frequently turn up on recommended lists." It received four Emmy Award nominations, and won various other awards. It has been noted, it is notable. Please consider rescinding your request. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:51, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Nat. The does meet Nobility. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 05:10, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Note - my reluctance should not be taken as a call for others not to help this editor with their AfD. It may be unwise, but it is legitimately requested. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:29, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Agree, it seems a waste of time as it is an obvious keep Atlantic306 (talk) 20:49, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Oddities in AfD log
Twice in the last few days, I have noticed that the AfD log at WP:AFD does not display discussions that are nine days old. For instance: as I type, the "current and past discussions" section links to AfD logs for 15 December, and for 17-24th December, but not to the log for 16 December. This is despite the fact that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 December 16 exists and has multiple open discussions. I can transclude this log at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old, but since this has happened multiple times now, it seems to me it's a bug rather than a one-time thing. Can someone with more technical competence than myself help figure this out? Vanamonde (talk) 12:41, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Mathbot is supposed to update the old discussions page but seems to be down. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:10, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
I somehow missed that the log had been manually updated. Thanks for doing that, Jovanmilic97, and thanks for letting the bot operator know, Galobtter. Vanamonde (talk) 13:13, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
RFC on merging
Closing AFD as keep with instructions that merge can be handled at the article.
I have seen this more than once on an article at AFD, an example concerning duplicate content at WP:Articles for deletion/Tabiti, that can result in a dictionary entry, when there is clear evidence leaning towards merge, or where merge was a better option, or needed for obvious policy and guideline reasoning, and it was closed as "Keep" supposedly because merge can be discussed on the article talk page.
The lead on this main page includes "Merge": "Common outcomes are that the article is kept, merged, redirected, incubated, renamed/moved to another title, userfied to a user subpage, or deleted per the deletion policy. Disambiguation pages are also nominated for deletion at AfD.".
WP:ATD-M states "If two pages are duplicates or otherwise redundant, one should be merged and redirected to the other, using the most common, or more general page name. This does not require process or formal debate beforehand.". A reason for a merge option at AFD is because local editors (consensus) can turn this into a battle on its own. A note at WP:ATD-M:
Note that an outcome of "merge and delete" may potentially cause licensing problems if attribution for the merged content is lost in the process. The essay Wikipedia:Merge and delete discusses this, whereas the essay Wikipedia:Delete or merge discusses a different case that causes no such licensing problems..
This clearly shows merge as an AFD option, and if performed by an admin removes battleground issues and listed potential licensing problems.
It does not seem logical to make a process circular so that an end result is aggravation, loss of editor interest, editors not wanting to add merge as an option, and articles remaining that should not exist. On Wikipedia there is "Keep" and "Delete". Any consensus other than "keep" is a delete no matter how you look at it. If an article at AFD has two "keeps", one "delete", and two "Merge" or "redirect" it will likely result in "no consensus". I don't see the confusion because anything other than keep is still a delete so it would seem this would dictate consideration. That is just my opinion but might edge editors to agree more to merge.
There needs to be some clarity on ignoring valid merge criterion and remanding an article back to local consensus for a circular battle. Attempts at cleanup should not have to be so complicated and in fact this is counter to above policy. If there is some Admin reasoning not shared with editors it would be good to know this. Otr500 (talk) 17:47, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
There are problems with the process, but any !vote other than "Delete" (or "Delete and salt", "Delete and trout", "Delete and redirect", "Delete and recreate") or "Sserfy" or "draftify" is "Keep" for most purposes. "Redirect" and "Merge" could be done without Administrative action, and even if the result of the AfD is unequivocally "Keep". — Arthur Rubin(talk) 21:47, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Comment I'm not sure whether there is any question up for debate here, or simply a request for comments. If there's a clear consensus that an article needs to be merged at an AfD, a merge can be the result. If the consensus isn't clear between Keep and Merge, the discussion should be closed as Keep with directions to continue the discussion elsewhere. No controversial action on the project can be made without consensus; if WP:ATD-M suggests otherwise that should be changed. In many situations, whether it is better to discuss a topic independently is an editorial concern that is best discussed somewhere other than AfD. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:12, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Enforcement needed - in cases where the merge is firm consensus, and is obligatory (better option than a redirect), then I feel the merge must be made. That's already in the rules, I believe, but it needs better enforcing. Either the closing editor needs to do it, or we need a follow-up list that gives, say, 2 weeks and then has an admin pop in to see if action is being taken. Where merge is not a firm consensus, then obviously it is optional for the editors to raise it as a discussion or not. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:32, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
While merge is a common outcome at AfD, when consensus disagrees with the nominator's rationale for deletion, an article should not be nominated for a merger at AfD (unless the nominator is suggesting merge and then delete for good cause. A nominator who believes a standard merge and redirect is needed should handle that as outlined at Wikipedia:Merging.--John Cline (talk) 02:06, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Not enough reliable coverage for a song that did not chart nor received any sales certification. Fails WP:NSONG. 99.203.31.213 (talk) 16:34, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Both articles are for Tv shows that yet to cast anyone. No start date of filming as well and its poorly sourced. I am asking for assistance as I don't know how to create a new entry in Afd. I have also proposed for deletion, only for an ip user to delete the tag without giving any reason. TheHotwiki (talk) 15:06, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
@Hotwiki: The instructions for how to create an AFD are at WP:AFDHOWTO. As you are autoconfirmed, you should have no issues following these instructions. Iffy★Chat -- 15:13, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Early closes again
@Wangi:@Ifnord:@Fenix down:@Postdlf: You all closed AfDs today before the minimum seven days had run. Some of these had minimal input. Some hadn't even run for 6 days. Can you please leave AfDs open for a minimum of a full seven days unless a criterion for speedy closure is met. Thanks. --Michig (talk) 07:40, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
@Randykitty: too. --Michig (talk) 21:02, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
?? I'm not aware of having closed any AfDs that hadn't run for less than 6 days... I did close some that were at 7 days, give or take a few hours, but I think all of them had been open for 7 days at least. --Randykitty (talk) 21:32, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
These were all closed today and hadn't run for the full 7 days required: [10] (9 hours early, only one participant other than the nominator), [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]. --Michig (talk) 21:57, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
I agree, these should have been left open until a full seven days (168 hours) had passed. People can and will quibble over the lost opportunity to weigh in at the eleventh hour. – Joe (talk) 22:25, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
I have put in a request (here that XFDcloser displays a warning when someone attempts to close before 7 days have elapsed. Only a warning, of course, as there may be good reasons to close something early (SNOW, for example). As I exclusively use this script to close XFDs, that should solve the problem (at least as far as I myself am concerned). --Randykitty (talk) 13:58, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Hmmm. I watch Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old/Open AfDs. I never actually check to see if a discussion is old enough; I just assume so if it's on that list. If the list is giving bad information, that need to be fixed. But, yeah, having XFDCloser double check and issue a warning seems like a good idea. -- RoySmith(talk) 14:13, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, that's what I do to. If I see that the nom has a time sign of "7 days", I assume that it's time to close. But as you can see in the examples of my closes given by Michig above, "7 days" may be "7 days minus 9 hours"... I guess that time sign is rounded (so anything over "6 days 12 hours" goes to "7 days". I hope XFDcloser can put in that warning, there are already enough pesky details to look for when closing AfDs... --Randykitty (talk) 14:35, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
insert a caption here Are you talking about the x days ago string that gets displayed instead of a signature's raw timestamp? That's generated by Wikipedia:Comments in Local Time, which has to be enabled by checking it in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets. It shows you how long ago something happened in a human-friendly way, but its idea of, 2 days ago is, on the calendar day before yesterday, not, between exactly 48 and 72 hours ago. See the screenshot I've attached. So, yeah, if you're relying on that to determine if an AfD is ready to be closed, that's not going to work. -- RoySmith(talk) 17:07, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
I've unchecked that gadget in my prefs. If in addition XFDcloser gets adapted to display a warning when something is less than 7 days open, that should solve the problem. Until that's fixed? I'm staying away from closing AfDs. --Randykitty (talk) 17:13, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
It explicitly says, This page contains Articles for deletion discussions that have finished their discussion period and are eligible to be closed. If that's not true, then it's just plain broken and needs to be fixed. -- RoySmith(talk) 14:57, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
In fact, I just checked Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old and clicked on the list in the middle (marked "7 days old") and the oldest AfD in there is still a few minutes short of 7 days... --Randykitty (talk) 15:04, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
I've raised the issue on the talk page there. I don't know if anyone will pick it up from there to fix that page. I would also have thought that it should be possible to have something similar to prod tags, where it detects when 7 days have passed since the nomination and displays a message within the AfD page saying the AfD can now be closed. --Michig (talk) 17:40, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Just looked through the 1 January list - lots of unexplained early closes again. At least one AfD closed early as delete with just one person contributing other than the nominator. --Michig (talk) 21:44, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old/Open AfDs only lists articles that are older than a full seven days. It can't be the source of the early closes. When I go through the "7 days old" log, I simply look at the timestamps on the nominations. Adding a warning to the XfD closer script would be nice but it really isn't that hard to check yourself. – Joe (talk) 22:25, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
One problem might be the positioning of the text "(7 days old)" in Template:Older AfDs/core, it might be misleading where it is. Maybe it should be moved to the previous gap. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:54, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
But that would be eight days ago... – Joe (talk) 10:25, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
It looks ok to me right now. Current date is 9 January, latest date listed as 'Old' is 1 January, so all 'Old' AfDs have run for at least 7 full days. If it had 2 January in 'Old' it would be an issue, and if it gets updated prior to midnight tonight to include 2 January in 'Old' it could cause a problem. --Michig (talk) 10:52, 9 January 2019 (UTC) Scratch that - it's ok when you click on 'More...' which takes you to a different page, but this template is wrong as it shows '7 days old' against 2 January, which most of those AfDs are not yet. It should be consistent with Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Current_and_past_Articles_for_deletion_.28AfD.29_discussions. --Michig (talk) 10:55, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
German West Africa
see the talk page of the article Talk:German West Africa. I bring something here for the first time and it looks comlicated to me, so someone please complete the bureaucracy. Kipala (talk) 09:18, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
I see no reason to believe it's in bad faith. The band exists but the article doesn't make a convincing claim of notability. --Michig (talk) 12:53, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Random red highlight/line
Is anyone else getting a large horizontal red line highlighting each AfD's title and options?
I have the XfD closer script, but couldn't say whether it was that, everyone or something else causing it. Please let me know if it's not just me.
Nosebagbear (talk) 12:48, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
It's the script which has been changed in reaction to the thread above about early closures. If you see a red line, it means that the AfD has been open for less than the alotted 7 days. After that, it turns green. If the script cannot determine the exact time that the AfD was opened, you'll see a yellow bar. See here. --Randykitty (talk) 13:02, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Has AFD become "Articles for Discussion" ?
I know it is a perennial suggestion that AFD be used for any "Articles for Discussion", where issues like merges and redirects are also considered, and has been rejected frequently.
If this is the case, then our policy pages are way out of date. Otherwise, we need to be more enforcing of when editors mis-use AFD for these purposes. --Masem (t) 22:12, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
There was a discussion about this recently: Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 71#"AFD is not for redirecting"?. The consensus was that "AfD is a right venue to seek for redirect(s), which have been challenged". I thought I updated the the relevant policy pages but I could well have missed some. They had previously had conflicting advice, at least as far back as 2014. – Joe (talk) 22:37, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Okay, because I was going off WP:ATD. I have updated the section on redirects to reflect that above discussion. --Masem (t) 22:50, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Oh I see. I held off mentioning AfD specifically there because it already links to WP:BLAR, which mentions it, and I think the duplicate advice on several pages contributed to the confusion in the above RfC. But maybe we should. – Joe (talk) 23:02, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose see above for Another "articles for discussion" RFC just two weeks ago which was resoundingly rejected. AfD does not scale well and is already overloaded so its scope should be tightly restricted to deletion – a function which requires special privilege and due process. Most other editing issues can be performed and reverted by anyone and so should be treated like any ordinary editing dispute. Andrew D. (talk) 22:54, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
What are you opposing, Andrew? There's no proposal here, only a question about current practice. – Joe (talk) 23:02, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
I oppose the proposition that AFD has become "Articles for Discussion". Andrew D. (talk) 23:06, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
That wasn't my question, I wanted to make sure if, in the case of the specific AFD above, if I had missed a change (which I now know I had) or if people in that AFD were mis-applying AFD. --Masem (t) 23:33, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
My understanding is that merge proposals are not welcome at AfD, and the redirect proposals are only welcome if they are Wikipedia:Pseudo-deletion by redirection where someone has already objected to or reverted the redirect. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:59, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
That, yes. An AFD with the intent to have it closed as redirect (and not merge) indicates that the editor wants the page deleted but thinks the title might be a good redirect. In these cases, the editor could just argue for deletion outright and then recreate the redirect after the article was deleted, so barring them from combining this in the AFD would be unnecessarily bureaucratic. That said, in many cases material can be merged, which puts the question outside the scope of AFD. Regards SoWhy 07:12, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
It all depends on the closing editor - Personally when I used to close AFDs I would allow it simply because the AFD box allowed it (If it wasn't in the closure box then it wouldn't be a thing right?), In 2016 and even now it's a 50/50 thing - some do redirect/merge closures and others disallow it screaming "THIS IS AN AFD, TAKE THIS TO THE TALKPAGE!!"
To answer the question I personally believe we should allow it as not everything needs to come to a Keep or Delete and with some AFDs the discussion will go from Delete to Redirect and then it's obviously redirected - You couldn't half way through the AFD close it telling everyone to bugger off to the talkpage, (Ofcourse you could simply disallow redirect/merge !votes (or discount them) but even that would cause issues),
For a simpler life I think we should allow them (and maybe we should rename AFD but another discussion for another day). –Davey2010Talk 23:21, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
A change in the discussion halfway through is perfectly fine, it is the nomination that matters. The nomination must make a case that the article mustn’t exist. Merge and rename are perfectly valid outcomes of the discussion even if they aren’t allowed nomination rationales. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:48, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
AFD should be articles for discussion, and OPs who aren't sure whether the page should be deleted, redirected or merged should feel free to open an AFD as the form of discussion most likely to attract attention (and the only one that can end in deletion), but it seems that at present it isn't.[17][18][19] It is a serious problem that AFD is overrun with "keepist" editors who will attack a nom who writes something like "Not sure what to do with this one, so I brought it here..." with "Nom isn't arguing to delete! Speedy keep!" or "Stop vehemently arguing for this page on a beloved character in a widely read book to be deleted!", but ANI is the place to deal with editors like that; those of us who have already learned through painful experience that the system works this way at present shouldn't be forced to learn a new system while the aforementioned "keepist" editors are still around, and are going to try to enforce the old rules even if they have already changed. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:56, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
AfD isn't articles for discussion and it shouldn't be, because the community rejected that proposal, but some leeway on proposing 'delete via redirect' seems appropriate. Far from being 'overrun with "keepist" editors', it seems to be largely populated by editors who will !vote delete on any article that looks in bad shape. It is blighted by poor nominations, poor contributions to discussions, and poor closes, with many editors seemingly seeing it as a place they can behave disruptively with impunity. Let's at least insist that anyone nominating an article here believes that the subject and content of the article they are nominating doesn't belong in Wikipedia. --Michig (talk) 07:12, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
@Michig: Your saying It is blighted by poor nominations, poor contributions to discussions, and poor closes, with many editors seemingly seeing it as a place they can behave disruptively with impunity. doesn't help much with cases like the AFDs I linked, where a nuanced discussion was thrown out the window by a bunch of editors saying, essentially, "AFD is only for deleting articles", let alone cases like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foodflation where one of the "editors seemingly seeing it as a place they can behave disruptively with impunity" actually tried to immediately shut down the discussion because the AFD nomination was completed by a registered editor in lieu of the IP editor who proposed it. I agree with you that a fair number of nominations are pretty bad, and would even be willing to concede that perhaps a majority of them are bad (I only follow a very small proportion so I can't say for certain), but given how often I myself have been accused of being an "editor who will !vote delete on any article that looks in bad shape" because I !voted delete on certain articles whose topics do not merit articles on Wikipedia and my accusers didn't understand that issue, thinking that finding X number of sources that mention the topic means it meets GNG and I'm a "deletionist", I'm highly reluctant to concede to you that AFD is "blighted" by editors who actually are what I've been accused of being by several editors who didn't know what they were talking about: if you'll meet me in the middle and say that there are a lot of disruptive "keepist" and a lot of disruptive "deletists", and neither is right 100% of the time (in fact since disruptive editors are, by definition, disruptive, they're probably all wrong most of the time), I'd be happy to join you there. Your AFD stats are similar to mine (leaning a little in the keep direction where I lean a little in the delete direction, presumably since you've come across more AFDs where the nom was not making sense while I've come across more where the keep !votes were not making sense), so I see no reason why we shouldn't be able to compromise on this. (As an aside, I completely agree with you regarding there being too many poor closes; I think I wrote somewhere on my user page that I'd feel more comfortable if non-admin AFD closures were outright banned except in the most clear-cut of keep results.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:20, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
It is not uncommon for an AfD to have three or four people comment delete on it before anyone has made a good faith, competent attempt to search for sources to determine whether the subject of the article is notable. We regularly get people !voting delete on the basis that the subject fails the GNG because there aren't enough sources in the article, we get an awful lot of !votes that amount to 'Delete, not notable' with no explanation of how they arrived at that conclusion, and we get an awful lot of delete votes from editors who just don't like certain types of articles, often people who see promotion everywhere or have an axe to grind. We are regularly getting AfDs closed as delete with only 2 or 3 people contributing to the discussion, often editors who fall into the categories above. We also have some people closing AfDs with an outcome that maybe only one person has supported in the discussion, simply because they like that opinion best. We are getting AfDs routinely closed before they have run for 7 days with often not enough quality input for a genuine consensus to have been reached. This is what I mean by "It is blighted by poor nominations, poor contributions to discussions, and poor closes, with many editors seemingly seeing it as a place they can behave disruptively with impunity". And yes, some of the keep !votes are just as bad. --Michig (talk) 07:37, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Hijiri 88, Even though there is no agreement to change the name, the possible closes are already stated in policy. I first brought an "I can't figure out if this is notable " AfD in my first few months here, and was told this was exactly the way to do it; I've been doing it ever since as needed. It's good that there are non-afd ways for merging and redirecting, because many such changes are perfectly obvious, but we should try to centralize the ones that need discussion at afd, since if people disagree, there may be other options to consider. And of all our processes, a challenge at AfD is in practice the only real way to enforce a cleanup. DGG ( talk ) 21:09, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
I think it's reasonable for someone new to the delete process to be unsure about what to do, but no, dumping things that may not need deleting onto editors working on the AFD without satisfying yourself that WP:BEFORE has been properly done is generally not a great idea. Do WP:BEFORE and satisfy yourself that it needs deleting. If you can't do that then don't propose it for deletion. FOARP (talk) 11:46, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment The problem in my view is 1) Nominators not doing WP:BEFORE. This really is very unhelpful and throws all the work of assessment onto other editors. 2) Nominators who aren't sure that the article should be deleted. This is a sub-set of those who haven't done WP:BEFORE, but clearly if you're not clear that the article should be deleted then, guess what, it's not likely that others will come to a better conclusion, and why are you nominating an article (at least a non-BLP article) for deletion anyway if you're not sure it should be deleted? The default should be to leave it alone. 3) People trying to use AFD as clean-up. No matter how many times it is said that AFD is not clean-up people keep trying to use it as such. Merge/redirect stuff is always best handled on the talk page and AFD should not be treated as a replacement venue for that (not least because we'll then get epic forum-shopping issues).
If you want my proposal for improving AFD, it is that no further AFD proposals should be accepted on grounds of failing WP:GNG without a disclosure of the WP:BEFORE (i.e., the nominator should disclose where they searched and what they found there, and why that isn't enough to support notability). FOARP (talk) 11:46, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Redirect Comment - I agree with using AfD in this sense (including Nom's starting with "redirect"). Being required to try BOLD first in cases where you KNOW it'll be controversial induces a high level of being shouted at. Talk pages of this category of article seem rarely trod so you can leave a query there for days and still face just as much of an issue. Thus it makes good sense to enable this route. As said above, it's a functional deletion that's occurring, rather than primarily a redirect. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:44, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Wouldn't it just be easier to start a new forum ("Articles for redirecting")? We have enough trouble dealing with the 50-100 articles nominated for deletion on an ordinary day. FOARP (talk) 12:48, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Four stupid articles
Hi folks. This is a strange place to ask about this, but I'm not sure where else to post it.
I made these in the past and now think some or all should go. AfD? PROD? Something else?
The coffe one, I feel, is probably a keeper. That "coffee achievers" campaign was corny but wildly succesful. The other three, I'd say PROD first and if that doesn't work individual AFDs is the only remaining route. I'd start with the disco ball as the low-hanging-fruit of the bunch. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:30, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, Beeblebrox. I would have thought the coffee was the low fruit, so I'm glad I posted here. I appreciate your view and will take your advice. Oh, and disco ball, low-hanging fruit. Very funny. :) Much obliged, my friend. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:11, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Multiple AfDs
Is there a particular policy regarding multiple AfDs of the same page running at once? I already AfD'd Stay Out (band) last week, then today another user made a second nomination. Jalen D. Folf(talk) 15:49, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
If the first one is still on going (it is) , the 2nd should be speedily closed, and the nom encouraged to reply on the first AFD. --Masem (t) 15:55, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
All that. I've deleted it as housekeeping. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:57, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Formatting assistance
Hi all, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashley Feinberg could use some formatting assistance if someone could kindly lend a hand (I'm not 100% sure how to do it manually correctly and since I've already ivoted, I feel like I should try to avoid mucking it up). I'm also not sure it got listed properly. Thanks so much. Innisfree987 (talk) 01:05, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
73.61.21.173 (talk·contribs) has completed the first two steps of the unregistered-user process in WP:AFDHOW for Shelley Hurwitz (tagging the article and posting something resembling a rationale on the article talk page) but appears (several hours later) to have forgotten the next step, posting here so that someone else can create and log the discussion page. So if someone wants to either turn the talk page comment into an AfD or decline the nomination and remove the AfD tag from the article, that would be helpful. I don't want to do it myself, as I created the article and would be !voting keep in any AfD. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:45, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi, if you propose a merge it should be a merge discussion on the article's talk page, but if you propose deletion it should be an AFD, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 18:48, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
I haven't been through deletion on wikipedia before, but I stumbled on a page that seems like nothing but self-promotion for (and maybe by) a low-importance filmmaker.
G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion
A7. No indication of importance (people, animals, organizations, web content, events)
Where do we go from here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73mmmm (talk • contribs) 01:16, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Self promo spam. Not notable. Can someone please finish the deletion process?
Wikipedia is not a promotional medium. WP:SPIP The majority of sources are self WP:ABOUTSELF or articles written by the person. WP:NWP:BIO — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.66.14 (talk) 20:34, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
In portuguese Wikipedia we're discussing the deletion of the translated version of Wikipedia:List of country categories because it has the same information that can be obtained by Category:Countries by continent, which makes that page useless. Maybe you can be interested in this elimination too. Rafael Kenneth (talk) 03:32, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
AFD using merge/redirect more
There can be bad faith in Wikipedia. Some people foaming at the mouth want things destroyed and deleted. This is reasonable in the case of BLP violations, copyright violations, potential libel, etc. However, destruction to be happy is uncalled for. Bandwidth is almost free. If an article is set for deletion, should the new standard be that it be merged/redirected if the article is reasonable? What's the harm?
In the case of a clearly obscure biography where it appears to be a promotion piece, this could be deleted. But not the articles that have some relevant information. Cheesesteak1 (talk) 22:28, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Particularly when we are not talking promotional topics (people, businesses or products), trying to see a merge target is always a good thing, but there's not always a merge target. But it should not also shoehorn in a topic into a otherwise a wholly different topic. --Masem (t) 22:43, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Seems to be an article created by the subject himself. 70.15.82.67 (talk) 03:43, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Talk pages consultation 2019
The Wikimedia Foundation has invited the various Wikimedia communities, including the English Wikipedia, to participate in a consultation on improving communication methods within the Wikimedia projects. As such, a request for comment has been created at Wikipedia:Talk pages consultation 2019. All users are invited to express their views and to add new topics for discussion. Individual WikiProjects may also consider creating their own requests for comment; instructions are at mw:Talk pages consultation 2019/Participant group sign-up. (To keep discussion in one place, please don't reply to this comment.) Jc86035 (talk) 15:02, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Please complete this process. Self promotion spam, not notable at all. Page about a high school science fair winner, of which their are literally thousands. 128.12.255.132 (talk) 07:10, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
I am new to Wikipedia so I am not sure whether I'm right to suggest this, but the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibodies_from_lymphocyte_secretions does not seem useful to me. I am an immunologist by training and had never heard of this assay. I looked up the original paper that described this assay, which is here https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11329444 and it has only been cited a total of 23 times. Given that the paper is 18 years old, this suggests that the method has not been widely adopted. Also the page itself is pretty incoherent. I'd appreciate advice on whether this page should be flagged for deletion. Logophile59 (talk) 00:32, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
I suggest you put a prod on it and see if there is any response. If not, it will go. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:41, 13 March 2019 (UTC).
WP:PROD is the page that details what to do with probable non-controversial deletions. Iffy★Chat -- 08:10, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Deletion sorting cats
Hi all,
I asked a few months ago at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Deletion sorting#cue sports regarding potentially getting a deletion category for cue sports articles (This would also cover articles at WP:SNOOKER), but didn't get a response. There's quite a few dodgy stubs like Billiard Academy Real Break which would fit under such a deletion topic; so it would be good to have something to nominate these articles. Is it something that I could get some help with setting up? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs) 09:24, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
both articles based on the title translation. with such basis we may produce thousands of article for title translation. so must be deleted–2A0A:A541:7239:0:DF2:49D2:C23F:73B4 (talk) 22:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I have nominated this article due to it failing WP:GNG. Elayyan is not notable under WP:NSPORTS and the coverage of him is entirely due to his cause of death WP:BLP1E.
Could someone with an account please finish off the process. 202.172.113.133 (talk) 03:25, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
@Boleyn:@Amorymeltzer: Not sure how this one should be tackled. I would appreciate advice, and an AfD from someone more conversant with procedure if this article requires it. The article's subject may or may not be notable, however the article is copied wholesale from a LinkedIn page written by the article's uploader, (see: here), who indicates strong family links to the subject in Commons uploads, probably why the article is quite spammy. Linkedin (WP:LINKEDIN) is an unreliable self-published (WP:SELFPUBLISH) source, not usable unless the Linkedin page belongs to the subject... not the case here. Linkedin it seems does allow for Creative Commons attribution, but I can't see that mentioned in this case, and the whole thing anyway is complete original and non-sourced research, and is using Wikipedia as a mirror. The same article under a different name was uploaded this month (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ZAHIDMZ), and was deleted on 15 March 2019. This new one is probably an attempt to circumvent process. Acabashi (talk) 15:27, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
also inlcudes @Primefac: Hi, The same editor recreated the page and named the page as Ali Muhammad Gilkar this time and uses Linkedin as the source which is copyvio. My understanding is that it would be tagged CSD G12. Pls advice if my understanding is incorrect. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 06:28, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
@Galobtter:@CASSIOPEIA: I think what is happening here, in a number of identical articles, is, as I say above, trying to circumvent our procedures. This is not now just COI spam, I think we have a case of sockpuppetry. Look at the edit histories of ZAHIDMZ, and Sufiwriting (created 16 March). I suspect they are same the person whose text was linked to and copied from LinkedIn, here. I would like an admin to investigate these two accounts please. Acabashi (talk) 09:39, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Done Both accounts blocked, remaining article creation deleted, and pages salted. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:57, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
@Menjobleeko11: Are you asking that these articles be considered for deletion? If so, see WP:DELETE. If you wish them merged, the procedure is described at WP:MERGE. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:11, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Please help assessing Decouverte du Sushi because my 3rd-degree burn won't let me focus
Yup. If it's stuff I do regularly, I can focus a bit, but all I can do to see if Decouverte du Sushi can be deleted is to ask for your help. The combo of the burn & my unremitting Still's disease has knocked me out. Thank you in advance for your help! I intend to upload my ongoing burn pictures to the Commons later, but right now, I promise nothing! Geekdiva (talk) 02:49, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
After cleaning up the article I added the following in its Talk: "This competition seems to be part of a larger SIRHA Exhibition, which certainly looks notable... see here. A new article for the whole exhibition could be constructed [first], into which this page could be merged, or could be precised [in that article] and linked, and include precises of other parts of the exhibition, such as Bocuse d'Or". This competition is a part of the SIRHA exhibition, and as Bocuse d'Or is part as well, and certainty notable, I suggest the subject of this article is probably just as notable too. I recommend that an article is written for SIRAH, which has multiple competitions. Acabashi (talk) 18:42, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Changing when non-administrative closures are permitted
Editors may be interested in participating in this discussion about what types of non-administrative closures are permissible. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:15, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi an edit war has been going ok for sometime with this article. Chris is a
BBC Local Radio presenter but “occasionally” works for network stations. He / someone else did post a comment in the edits said other continuity announcers should also have their pages removed. I think the answer to that is that others are perhaps better known? I think the case here is that Chris’ article appears to be self promotion. A line on his father has also been included which was removed as he is NN. There are edits which have been made a) via a BBC IP address when Chris has been tweeting and on-air and b) info that the average Joe Bloggs wouldn’t know. His links all link to BBC programme pages. Yes, he did a documentary on 5 Live but this, personally, doesn’t warrant an article as there are lots of people who do these on radio but don’t have articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.233.185 (talk) 10:47, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
It appears this article has been locked meaning nobody can now edit. I'm a regular listener to BBC Radio 3 and occasionally Radio 4 and never heard of Chris. After Googling his name there's not much that comes up other than personal Twitter and Facebook accounts and various BBC programme links (hardly anything for national radio stations). The links for the night climbing direct to info on night climbing and BBC Radio 5 Live. The programme itself isn't even available to listen to. UK Wiki User (talk) 13:58, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
@ UK Wiki User. As you have just joined, it might take a while for your account to be confirmed to start editing protected pages. I have added a 'find sources' template on the article's talk page which may help, but I would tend to agree there is very little of real substance to be found. Acabashi (talk) 14:38, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, looking through the "find sources" tabs on the talk page, there's very little to go by which merits any real suggestion for an article. Looking at the history, it's been disputed many times. Also, looking through the list of stations on the article, hardly any of them mention Chris working for them. Is there any evidence of him working for BBC Radio 3 and BBC Radio 4 and BBC Radio 4 Extra? The music section on his article doesn't denote any proof of this. Many people have awards for their music skills etc. I have also looked at other BBC continuity announcers on Wiki, and most of them have notable qualities. Thoughts? UK Wiki User (talk) 14:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
@UK Wiki User: I have added an 'additional sources' needed banner on the page. The onus for reliable sources in a BLP is seen as somewhat more important than in other articles. There are indications that the subject has stood in for the odd programme on other stations, but whether or not this is notable enough is moot. Let's give the thing a chance and see if anything tangible is added before the protection is removed on 27 March; if you feel that this article is still a candidate for AfD, you could try this after that date. In the meantime you could do worse than editing on other pages to gain confirmed status. However, if you are one of the IP addresses that have been editing this article, it would be wise to own to this. Acabashi (talk) 15:28, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
I've been sitting and watching this edit war going on as I have a keen interest in Radio 3 and Radio 4. That's why I signed up to become involved and wanted to offer my tuppence worth. Over the years I've been listening to these stations I've never heard of Chris Berrow. I've seen a banner go up saying "This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy". Was this not you? UK Wiki User (talk) 15:47, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
@UK Wiki User: Not at all... you can always tell as I properly sign any addition to Wikipedia, always editing through my User account since 2007. An admin can always find out if a User is editing through an IP address attached to a User name, or closely connected multiple IPs and User accounts, especially if that editing is contentious. I came here because I was involved with a Sockpuppet violation in another article/s... see above. I do notice that you signed-up for a User account soon after the page protection. If you were one of the IP addresses involved in the edit war that 82.132.233.185 mentions above, it would be wise to own to any special interest or involvement in this article's topic if you feel inclined to further edit it. Acabashi (talk) 16:36, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Update: the article has just been put up for AfD. You can add your comments there, but again, please own to any connection you have with the subject. Acabashi (talk) 16:41, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
UK Wiki User, I was the one who AfD'd the article, after reading the early parts of this exchange. --valereee (talk) 16:48, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
I have no involvement in this at all, other than what I was about to add. Unfortunately, I was unable to do this as my IP address is currently blocked for something that wasn't even me. It did say something about a shared IP address linked to the mobile network provider. I am now using my office PC, not that it's relevant. I don't care who was making the edits, but Wiki is apparently a friendly community who ask for contributions, so when I give my contribution, I don't expect admins to question whether it was me.UK Wiki User (talk) 17:13, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
UK Wiki User, don't be offended. Realize that you aren't known here yet; all we know is the progression of events. Acabashi was giving good advice, not making an accusation. If it's not relevant to you, that's fine, but in this situation -- with this progression of events -- a lot of editors would simply have provided enough rope for someone to hang themselves with. Acabashi didn't do that; instead they openly gave very good, straightforward advice to potentially prevent a possible bad situation for a new user from developing. --valereee (talk) 17:31, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Understood, I'm actually new to Wiki and never been involved in something like this so apologies for snapping. What is the next step? There are quite a few people on Wiki who don't warrant an article and that comes across as self-promotion, such as this one. That's my point and that's why I wanted to become involved. UK Wiki User (talk) 17:51, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
UK Wiki User, no worries, I understand that it's natural to bristle when you feel you're being accused of something. The next step is the AfD debate, which will happen at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Berrow and will last for seven days. Other editors will chime in with their rationale for keeping or deleting the article, and some will attempt to find sources that improve the article. At the end of the week, an admin will either close the article (in the case of consensus among multiple other editors) or relist it for further discussion.
W/re: other articles that don't warrant an article: you can nominate almost any article for deletion; be sure to read WP:AFD and its linked pages before doing so, as wikipedia very strongly prefers that editors try to fix an article before nominating it for deletion, and if your first few nominations end up as keep, you might be asked not to nominate for deletion again. Be sure you understand WP:NOTABILITY, as notability is the most common reason an article is deleted. --valereee (talk) 18:07, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Chris, I'm sorry if this sounds rude, but there are so many people on Wiki who self-promote themselves. It does also seem strange how all the edits came from a BBC IP address and now you're editing this post from an IP address associated with the BBC. With all due respect, the links you provided above still puts the article in question. Many "minor" broadcasters appear in the Radio Times but they don't have articles as they're not notable enough. Similarly, a lot of community, uni and hospital radio stations attempt to break records but again, not all of them are included here? The link you provided for covering Johnny I'Anson is also not available, but again, many presenters have covered what you refer to as the "All-England Show". Upon doing research, bigger names have covered the show who don't have articles. I'm sure valereee (talk) and Acabashi (talk) will agree that there's still nothing to go by with what you have provided and the article is still in question. UK Wiki User (talk) 09:05, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
@UK Wiki User: Hi. It's not wise to try to co-opt other users to a point of view in discussions. I have added my tuppence to the AfD discussion (suggested below by Iffy), and will look at the links the BBC IP address has provided and add them to AfD, and modify, or not, my personal judgement. Thanks. Acabashi (talk) 11:37, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
These were improvements and clarifications - fairly self evident improvements to the wording. They have been reverted after a few days without any explanation other than they might be a problem. So let's hear what thew issue is exactly. [20]Legacypac (talk) 05:35, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
WP:AFD is specifically for articles, and not for user pages, portals, templates, etc. I don't feel that WP:MFD-style information is necessary or appropriate for the AfD page. Also regarding the changes I reverted, one issue is the wording of "Bundling pages into a single nomination is more efficent for everyone in the discussion", as this appears to entirely be the user's personal opinion. There have also been some complaints lately at MfD about bundled nominations, such as this: diff. Additionally, the change did not take aspects of WP:TRAINWRECK into consideration. North America1000 05:44, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree with NorthAmerica1000. AfD is only for articles, not userpages, redirects, drafts, templates and whatnot. The changes quite implied the opposite, completely changing the scope of "Articles for Deletion" to something else; that's rather huge change and needs explicit consensus beforehand. – Ammarpad (talk) 06:30, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Unclear instructions
Give a reason for the deletion and a category for the debate (instructions are on that page). This is written as part of the instructions. What is that page referring to? I don't know what that page is. And I don't see any instructions for category possibilities.--Wyn.junior (talk) 16:43, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
It refers to the bullet point that immediately precedes it: Click that link to open the article's deletion discussion page for editing. Some text and instructions will appear. – Joe (talk) 17:27, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
@Wyn.junior: Yes, it says The resulting AfD box at the top of the article should contain a link to "Preloaded debate" in the AfD page. If you click that link you are shown this text and instructions. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:19, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
This article was redirected as a blatant violation of SOAPBOX but the creator of the aritcle reverted redirect. This article is violating WP:BLP as it claims the Indian Prime Minister of being a "thief", and that is just an absurd allegation made by his opposition. This is nothing notable since this also happens in many other placed in the world.
For over two years now policy has been to treat AfDs that have little comment as expired PRODs (WP:NOQUORUM). This took place after this RfC. I remember it, because I was one of the non-admins who closed as no consensus without prejudice to speedy renomination, which was a common practice at the time that has thankfully all but disappeared. BU Rob13 really helped lead the effort to get this RfC through, and his essay WP:Relist bias is one of the best written pieces about the issues we face with non-admin relists.
When a non-admin keeps doing these counter-policy relists, it is actually pretty easy to get them to stop: you show them the relist bias essay, and they stop. If they don't, they get taken to ANI and a topic ban normally occurs, because the community wants these treated as PRODs, and has shown this both through the RfC and by sanctioning non-admins for relisting excessively.
This brings us to one of the causes of the problem: the response that is always given when non-admins are asked why they do it is "Well, admin XYZ" does it all the time. There isn't a really good response to this, because we still have many admins at AfD ignoring the clear wishes of the community. I really do believe this is done in good faith, but policy has been clear on this for over two years now, and if we are going to topic ban non-admins for not following it, we should also work on getting admins who work at AfD to follow it as well. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:48, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
It seems like your description shows the solution--show admins WP:Relist bias. If they still don't comply, take them to ANI, and if necessary, topic ban them. Maybe I am missing something here. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 02:37, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Relist bias doesn't apply to admins because they have the ability to delete pages if it meets WP:NOQUORUM. Many are just choosing not to do so despite the fact that both at an RfC, and at ANI since the RfC, have shown that there is a clear community consensus for them to use their discretion to evaluate as PRODs. That doesn't mean auto-delete, but that *does* mean that you'd expect the ratio to be somewhat similar to the PROD outcomes, which it isn't. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:19, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
So is it just that admins are unaware of the consensus? Is it an education issue? --valereee (talk) 12:56, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't think it's bad faith or anything, I just am a bit concerned that we have admins routinely doing something we topic ban non-admins for doing. Part of the reason I raised it here was to remind people this actually is the guideline and clear community consensus and hopefully get admins to follow it. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:43, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
In my opinion, it seems counter intuitive to suggest that an AfD with little or no participation should be evaluated as if it were a PROD. While it wouldn't necessarily be overly controversial for an article at AfD with a good policy-based nomination and no other replies to be closed as soft delete, how would you reconcile the fact that any !vote to keep by someone other than the article's creator would be tantamount to a DEPROD whose AfD equivalent would be to close as no consensus to delete?--John Cline (talk) 17:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
That would require a relist. The point isn’t to ban relist, but to stop doing the ones that are essentially contrary to current policy: an AfD that’s been around 168 hours with one delete or no objections generally should be closed as soft delete. The policy isn’t autodelete it is to evaluate as a PROD, which means if there’s an objection, it shouldn’t be deleted. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:04, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
I understand, thank you.--John Cline (talk) 18:21, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Any admin can theoretically close a relisted discussion at any time. Nothing mandates a relist be given another seven days. I’d recommend just overriding those admins that refuse to apply the consensus at NOQUORUM. ~ Rob13Talk 20:04, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
I have always erred on the side of relisting up to twice, at which point I'd close as "soft delete" if there are no objections to deletion and "no consensus NPASR" otherwise. However I'd be happy to follow any procedure on soft deletion (e.g. after one week rather than three) as long as it is spelled out clearly in the instructions. Here we have a very simple case of an AfD with zero participation, and instead of giving admins the discretion to do whatever, an expected procedure should be outlined, and discretion should be exercised only when deviating from that procedure. Poorly attended discussions that have any opposition though, should be auto-relisted twice, as there is no point in saying "NPASR" and making the nominator redo all that work and ending up with the same result rather than just clicking the relist button. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 03:02, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
@King of Hearts and John Cline:, I don't think anyone is acting in bad faith here. The guideline as it stands now is to treat the discussion as an expired PROD, which means that Wikipedia:Proposed_deletion#Procedure_for_administrators is the existing procedure that should be followed. I've tweaked the guideline to clarify. There isn't a need to reinvent the wheel here. We already have a policy for this: if there is one objection, it doesn't get deleted without consensus. If there is a policy-based rationale for deletion, no one has objected, and it appears non-controversial, it should be soft deleted. If an administrator feels that the PROD policy is not met, it should be relisted, but for simple nominations without comment Generally, this will result in soft deletion according to the guideline and the RfC. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:48, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
@TonyBallioni: Tbh that didn't really make it any clearer; if you think AfDs with no participation after a week should not be relisted under most circumstances, then make it say that it exactly. People can be easily confused otherwise. And when you try to fix it, make sure you don't imply something you didn't intend, such as an AfD with many deletes being treated as a PROD. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 19:14, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
@King of Hearts: But it does say exactly that: If a nomination has received few or no comments ... treat the XfD nomination as an expired PROD. We don't relist expired PRODs. You say you'd follow a procedure to soft delete after one week, but we already have that procedure, and you don't follow it... – Joe (talk) 19:29, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
@Joe Roe: The problem is that "soft deletion" can also be used on an AfD of an article which has been previously PRODed and then relisted several times with little discussion and no objections to deletion (per the second section); because of this distinction people have said that "The rationale for a soft deletion is similar to the rationale for a PROD, but the process is not the same and does not have to follow the same rules." That is why I consider that clarification necessary. I've been active in the whole discussion over no quorum/NPASR/soft deletion since 2010, so if I don't understand what is being meant, then I'm sure many others also do not. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 19:38, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
@King of Hearts:I updatedWP:RELIST in November 2017 to make it consistent with WP:NOQUORUM and the early 2017 RfC that updated it to make soft deletion the default. The discussion at WT:NAC also makes clear that the community wants admins to consider deletion before relisting to the point that it's very likely to strongly suggest that non-admins not be allowed to relist at all. The only reason for doing that is if deletion of no participation or low-participation AfDs was a viable option, and on at least three occasions the community has sanctioned non-admins for relisting, a big part of which is the NOQUORUM issue ([21], [22], [23])Anyway, since at least November 2017 WP:RELIST has stated Discussions where there is minimal participation should be evaluated by the closing administrator as an expired PROD before deciding whether it is appropriate to relist. If there is a way to further clarify this, I'm open to it, but I don't know how much clearer it can get: the community wants us to check to see if this meets the PROD deletion criteria first before deciding to relist, and is willing to sanction editors if they just keep relisting. If we're sanctioning non-admins for this, which we have on at least three occasions, admins should take that as an indicator of how the community views this. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:43, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
A bit of history is necessary to understand why this may be confusing. In the Golden Age of Wikipedia editing (approx. 2006-2008), AfD participation was always very high, so very few discussions needed relisting and whatever relisting policy existed was treated mostly as an afterthought. In the next few years, AfD participation declined, and as existing policy at the time was to keep relisting indefinitely until a quorum was reached, the 2010 RfC was called to solve the problem. The main points of what was agreed on: 1) no hard limit on relists, but a soft guideline of two max; 2) treat AfDs with no participation as uncontested PRODs; 3) treat AfDs with little participation on a case-by-case basis. The closing statement did not explicitly state whether AfDs need to be relisted before soft deletion, but the proposal was quite clear that the answer was yes: "If an AfD has reached its relisting limit and still has no !votes other than the nominator, close as 'delete,' but anyone is free to recreate the article (i.e. treat it as an uncontested PROD)."
The policy stayed this way until late 2016, when a new RfC was called. As the "Clarification: Minimum number of relists" section showed, many people (myself included) did not understand what exactly was being proposed. It was closed with a "consensus is for treating this type of AfD discussion like a PROD" but with "requests for clarification on details (e.g., number of relists) ... to be addressed in the normal WP:BRD cycle." The main problem with this statement is that "like a PROD" can mean different things to different people, because the first RfC used it to mean "soft delete after three weeks," and leaving the number of relists an open question also didn't help. As an admin active in deletion I follow all major discussions but you can't expect me to notice a change you made nine months after the fact, and a quick review of 2018 logs shows admins doing it both ways in similar numbers. It's not your fault, but an interpretation which is obvious to you may not be obvious to others. Anyways I can tweak NOQUORUM to make it more clear, if no one objects. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 01:59, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Ah, fair enough. Yes, go ahead and make the clarifications. Sorry for any confusion on that: I think I probably made the change to RELIST to reconcile the two parts of the guideline after someone pointed it out to me that they appeared not to be in line with one another. I think the fact that we just sanctioned someone for this is fairly indicative of where the community is on the matter in light of the 2017 RfC close. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:57, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
To "actually follow NOQUORUM" the ability to ascertain if the article has ever been declined for proposed deletion in the past is imperative. Please describe the technique a closer will ostensibly use to satisfy this requirement? I am not aware of an effective means and believe that none currently exists. If I am correct, following NOQUORUM will necessitate creating this means. I should disclose that I have initiated a related discussion here with the hope of developing such a means but admit that the problem's solution exceeds my limited technical ability. Thank you.--John Cline (talk) 17:38, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Well, I'd think the short answer is that for most articles on the chopping block, the page history is not usually so extensive that you can't figure it out just from that, but I see your point on pages with more history, it could take quite a bit of digging to be sure on way or the other. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:13, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
It would be really helpful if a bot could do these "previous PROD" checks for us and post a comment in the discussion, especially when it looks like the discussion will have little participation and is close to closure. (not watching, please {{ping}} as needed) czar 20:50, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Update: Submitted a bot request here. czar 21:13, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
The difference between this discussion and that one is that, in the interim, we have developed a guideline that explicitly states how many relists are expected in most cases when there is no opposition to a nomination. That number is zero. ~ Rob13Talk 01:57, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
This ole timer does ramble on upon a time 'bout the good ole days... Beeblebrox (talk) 03:31, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm a bit late to this discussion, but I disagree entirely with Tony's initial assessment. There is a major difference between an admin and a non-admin relisting: the admin has a choice to delete or not, and the non-admin does not. The proper solution to the problem of non-admins referencing admins relisting is not to tell admins to not relist, it is to remind non-admins that they cannot delete, and thus are not able to properly choose between options. Closing low- or no-participation discussions as delete is not, has never been, and hopefully will never be a requirement. ansh666 04:45, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Ansh666, I think you misunderstand me: I'm not saying it is a requirement to delete, and I've relisted low/no participation AfDs: it is just like PROD, if the admin is not convinced by the rationale, then they shouldn't delete it. What I do think, however, is that the community did make clear in an RfC that we are to treat these as PRODs, which means that we do need to look at them and determine if they would qualify for deletion under that policy. The issue here is that it appears that many admins are not going through that process. There is a major difference between admins and non-admins in making this choice, but if the community is willing to sanction non-admins for this and then admins do the exact same thing without going through the process that the community wants us to go through (i.e. see if it is eligible for PROD) then there is no real difference.Said another way: I agree with you it is a choice, but if we are routinely relisting three times it looks to outside individuals as if that discretion is not ever being used, even when the community does want us to use it (that goes both ways, in deciding when to delete and when to relist). TonyBallioni (talk) 18:31, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I believe that this article should be nominated for deletion. There has been a discussion with the creator. The chief problem is that once the WP:SYNTH is removed, there is nothing of substance to salvage. The article is built on narratives of persecuted heretics who were connected, hundreds of years later, to pandeism, which had no name or formulation during their lifetimes. Then, the commentary from official Catholic Church sources consists of condemnation of deism and pantheism. Those Catholics analyzing pandeism include a priest with a couple of sermons and a radio host. Since the term emerged in the 19th century, there is so far nothing substantial for the Catholic Church to say about it; historical analysis of the "relationship" amounts to revisionism. 2600:8800:1880:FC:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 23:45, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Note, please, above IP is now blocked for misconduct. See Talk:Catholic Church and Pandeism for well-participated consensus this article is fine as it is. Hyperbolick (talk) 22:37, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
I have nominated this article for deletion and explained my reasoning on the talk page. Could someone with an account please complete the process. 2601:3C7:200:7020:D8AF:7093:FBD4:C796 (talk) 08:02, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Right way to do it, I think. Hyperbolick (talk) 14:45, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Proposal: Removing non-admin closures at AfD
Currently, there are Non-admin closures should only take place in discussions where community consensus needs to be reached, but in most circumstances the close would be better off by administrator, but since the delete button has not been included no admin should be clerking AfDs/MfDs except for SNOW keeps after 7 days and procedural closes where the page has already been CSD deleted. But that is not always the case, it seem that non-admins closing/relisting AfD's are disruptive by the point.
However, what is clear to me is they should non-admins only to have click Speedy delete/keep button, either is from deleted through WP:CSD or WP:SNOW from AfD. Your thoughts? Sheldybett (talk) 00:57, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
@Sheldybett: your participation at AfD is currently under discussion at ANI. It's fine to ask a question here, but I've removed the RfC tag from this conversation so as not to confuse the situation. Bradv🍁 01:24, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Sheldybett, I see no reason to forbid non-admin closures (if that is what you are suggesting), and such closures are not inherently disruptive. It is *your specific closures* that have been disruptive, enough to provoke a topic-ban proposal for you. There is no need to change policy affecting everyone just to address your personal poor closes. (I hope I'm understanding you correctly - I find the "However..." sentence incomprehensible.) The proposed topic ban looks certain to pass, and all you need to do regarding AFD closures and relisting, Sheldybett, is stop doing them. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:22, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Okay, I agree with you. If I was topic banned from AfD and other deletion areas, I would move on to somewhere else such as WP:AIV, WP:UAA, and WP:RFPP for a change or I just shall quit Wikipedia for good. Other than that, I’am embarrassed to see my AfD closures/relistings to be discussed to put a topic ban on me at stupid ANI. Why people do that to me? Because, you make me hurt my feelings. Sheldybett (talk) 11:53, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Sheldybett, you named three admin areas. AfD is also a mostly-admin area. I'd recommend not clerking any area at all; perhaps you would like to edit articles about a subject that interests you? Vermont (talk) 12:07, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
I'll just note that there was a recent fairly well participated discussion about that topic. In that conversation there was consensus (though not without some disagreement) that non-administrative relisting at AfD is an issue (and to some extent so is administrative relisting). There is some sense that keep closures at AfD also present concerns but there is not not as much agreement on this. There is a feeling that NAC have not been a problem at some other deletion forums (TfD and RfD being the two specifically named). There is now some discussion about the right next step happening for those who are interested. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:05, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
I attempted to nominate this, but apparently I don't understand the system, and I made a hash of it. Could someone clean up my mess? Sorry and thanks.Adoring nanny (talk) 01:32, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
@Adoring nanny: I added the {{afd2}} template to the nomination page. WP:AFDHOWTO is a useful step-by-step guide, for future reference. Bakazaka (talk) 01:40, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
@Lamberd: As you are the article creator and no other editor has made any edits, you are free to request speedy deletion (per WP:CSD#G7) by replacing the AfD template with the {{db-author}} template. An administrator should then be along shortly to delete the article. --Finngalltalk 00:40, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
This was nominated for deletion but the PROD was removed. It was then re-added and removed again as per WP:PROD. The only references, sources and links on the article link to the BBC programme pages. Perhaps now WP:AFD as it doesn't meet the requirements of notability? UK Wiki User (talk) 07:15, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
@UK Wiki User: {{not done}}, your account is autoconfirmed, so you are able to nominate pages for deletion yourself. See the guide at WP:AFDHOWTO for how to nominate pages for deletion. Iffy★Chat -- 08:43, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Done ... I think? UK Wiki User (talk) 09:03, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
I've fixed the formatting (for future reference use {{afd2}}) and added the AFD's to the log. Iffy★Chat -- 09:12, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
This is another BBC presenter with hardly any reliable sources and references. Another WP:AFD article? UK Wiki User (talk) 07:52, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
@UK Wiki User: {{not done}}, your account is autoconfirmed, so you are able to nominate pages for deletion yourself. See the guide at WP:AFDHOWTO for how to nominate pages for deletion. Iffy★Chat -- 08:43, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Done ... I think? UK Wiki User (talk) 09:03, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
I've fixed the formatting (for future reference use {{afd2}}) and added the AFD's to the log. Iffy★Chat -- 09:12, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm not registered and won't be for reasons, but I'd like someone to create the nom please. Reasoning: Little to no secondary coverage. Can confirm he's contributed articles to CNN but can't find any independent sources stating that much. Trimmed much unsourced fluffery and what's left is pretty paltry. Article has been contributed to by IPs that are pretty obviously either the subject or associate(s) of his (one is geolocated to his old law firm, others are from the DC area). Might even be a CSD candidate. Thanks for your consideration. 199.247.45.138 (talk) 06:51, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't think its a CSD candidate. Doing... --DannyS712 (talk) 07:53, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
It seems from your comments that you have read the WP:GTD, and you are already participating in the deletion discussion, so I fail to see the purpose of this additional thread here. This page is for discussing the articles for deletion process generally not for re-arguing specific deletion debates. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:18, 21 April 2019 (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.
I'm the editor who created the article and is adding content. I think the editor who nominated the article has no reason as described by policy for nomination but has proceeded to nomination in any case.
c.f. Of the 14 listed reasons in WP:DEL-REASON, the article doesn't fulfill any of the 14.
The process of discussion currently is no different to the worst type of tyrannical court proceedings that I read about in some newspaper where some innocent guy is brought before a court and condemned.
For example the first mention of the article in the nomination is without any grasp of the article to actually commence to criticism of it : a bucket list (This is a bucket list with a weird and incoherent mix of things which have caused human death) indicates the editor Tagishsimon, doesn't actually understand the article he has nominated.
"When to use the deletion process? Articles that the community feels cannot improve, or are unlikely to improve, are often deleted.
"When to not use deletion process? Articles that are in bad shape – these can be tagged for cleanup or attention, or improved through editing. Articles we are not interested in – some topics are of interest only to some people, but since Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, articles that interest some people should be kept. Articles on topics you wish didn't exist for personal belief reasons – Wikipedia contains information on all topics, not just those which any person or group agrees with.
deletion is a last resort. Deletion nominations rarely improve articles, and deletion should not be used as a way to improve an article, or a reaction to a bad article. It is appropriate for articles which cannot be improved.
& WP:DEL-REASON: Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to, the following (subject to the condition that improvement or deletion of an offending section, if practical, is preferable to deletion of an entire page)
Of the 14 listed reasons in WP:DEL-REASON, the article doesn't fulfill any of the 14.
I can't see how editors preferring deletion have adhered to the criteria for deletion as described in the the two page Sederecarinae (talk) 16:46, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
WP:AFD If you want to nominate an article, the Wikipedia deletion policy explains the criteria for deletion, and may help you understand when an article should be nominated for deletion. The guide to deletion explains the deletion process. If an article meets the criteria for deletion and you understand the process, consult the instructions below. If you are unsure whether a page should be nominated for deletion, or if you need more help, try this talk page or Wikipedia's help desk.
Similar walls of text have been posted in response to most of the delete !votes in the AfD. ReykYO! 17:14, 21 April 2019 (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.
Radio personalities for deletion
There is currently an ongoing battle involving a radio personality who some believe is enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. There are so many people who are on Wikipedia who appear on the radio. As mentioned by an admin, this doesn't automatically allow them to have an article if there aren't enough notabel sources. I would like to give a few examples, Jason Rosam, Jonathan Vernon-Smith, Adrian John, Martin Ballard, Natalie Wheen. These are a few examples. Discuss. 132.185.160.127 (talk) 16:25, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
It seems you are yet another BBC IP address getting involved in what you call this "battle" over, obviously, Chris Berrow; please add your comment in the discussion above and/or the Berrow AfD page. I have looked at these articles, and some, not all, have reliable sources outside radio station primary sources, some along with dubious sources. You might be right about lack of notability here, so you should think of adding any of these to its own AfD. However, just because other articles fail, logic doesn't dictate we have to accept more that fail too, such as Berrow. Acabashi (talk) 15:56, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
(Copied from here). This page (Jonathan Vernon-Smith) has been proposed for deletion - but the PROD was removed. Looking at the links, none of them appear to be about JVS himself. The majority of them are programme pages? UK Wiki User (talk) 08:18, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
ARBCOM applicable to AfD?
I was having a read through the ARBCOM rules on Palestine/Israeli, I imagine it will apply to the india/pakistan area now as well
The relevant line being "All IP editors, accounts with fewer than 500 edits, and accounts with less than 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. "
As it's any page, not any article, does that mean that any page within this remit would also be prohibited editing grounds for any AfD that arose on it? Obviously this could be a feature not a bug, but I was wondering if the issue had come up before (it being a faff to go and actually ask ARBCOM the question)? Nosebagbear (talk) 16:07, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
That is correct, "page" implies in any namespace. ansh666 18:05, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
I think that's the current stance of policy: all pages, and that includes AfD pages for sure. It's just matter of implementation. Seemingly there's no evidence of enough problem to warrant preemptive protection of such AfDs, but I believe when issues arise at individual AfDs, the pages can be extended protected per policy; I have actually seen that, though I can't quickly find the AfD now. – Ammarpad (talk) 19:32, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Automatically watching every AfD
Is there a way to automatically add every past, present, and future AfD to one's watchlist? It's fairly tedious watching all of the WP:DELSORT pages and monitoring every addition manually, and it would be useful to auto-watch every page beginning with "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/". I would guess that it's possible with a script, but I've never created or run one. —烏Γ(kaw)│ 20:16, 07 May 2019 (UTC)
You can see all changes to currently open AfDs here if that's any help. Hut 8.5 21:21, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. That is helpful, and I'll start using that, though I'd prefer a way to integrate it into my watchlist proper. —烏Γ(kaw)│ 23:44, 07 May 2019 (UTC)
Twin Towers (San Antonio Spurs)
Should the “Twin Towers (San Antonio Spurs)” page be deleted? I’d like some feedback from the Wikipedia community. The reason why I ask is because the subject of the page seems to lack the notability required to have a Wikipedia article. Most of the references are box scores/game reports, or biographies of one of the two players. None of the sources even have “Twin Towers” in the title. It’s certainly a notable concept in the world of sports, and especially the world of basketball. But for Wikipedia, it doesn’t seem to have enough of its own unique notability; there’s very little content in this article that can’t simply be added to the articles of David Robinson, Tim Duncan, and the San Antonio Spurs. Please give me your thoughts and opinions if you have any. Thanks Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 04:36, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
@Mrbeastmodeallday: If you think it should be deleted, nominate it for deletion. A discussion on that should happen there, not here. This talk page is for AfD in general, not specific articles. —烏Γ(kaw)│ 05:33, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Proposal: No more WP:GNG delete proposals should be allowed without evidence of WP:BEFORE
Good faith proposal but consensus is strongly against it and there is no realistic likelihood of that changing. Time to move on. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:49, 24 May 2019 (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.
We keep seeing delete proposals being made on notability grounds without any evidence that the nominator did even the most basic check to see whether the subject of the article is notable. This is no surprise because the process of posting the delete proposal does not require the nominator to confirm that they actually did the necessary checks before positing it and they may not actually realise that they should have done this.
My proposal is that in future when a nomination for deletion is made, the nominator should have to state whether the nomination is on grounds of notability or not, and whether they did WP:BEFORE or not. No proposals should be allowed where the nominator wrote "yes" for deletion on WP:GNG grounds and "No" for having done WP:BEFORE. I think this can be implemented by creating suitable fields for entering this information in the AFD nomination template.
Whilst this would not stop people from simply lying about whether they had done WP:BEFORE, nor people simply missing stuff in the WP:BEFORE process, it would stop the worst cases where people nominate articles on lack-of-notability grounds without even thinking about checking them themselves to see whether they really did lack notability. FOARP (talk) 12:55, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Oppose- previous experience has shown that WP:BEFORE is used more often as a means of attacking deletion nominators than ensuring quality in deletion debates. Making it mandatory has been discussed several times before and has always been rejected. ReykYO! 12:59, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Are there examples of it being used as an attack? FOARP (talk) 13:00, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Oppose impossible to police or enforce, with no result guaranteed other than making an already occasionally emotionally-tense venue even more emotionally intense. I assume that's not intended to be part of the nomination... ——SerialNumber54129 13:02, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Not proposing any kind of ban of editors per se, more of a Nudge theory solution where you have to say "yes" thus prompting you to actually do it. FOARP (talk) 13:39, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Oppose quite literally impossible to prove a negative, which is what you are asking for. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:09, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
My proposal is that the nominator should have to state that they did do WP:BEFORE, which is easy to show. Sure, some may lie, but at least the ones who don't even know that they should do it will be caught. Defintiely not asking anyone to prove a negative. FOARP (talk) 13:41, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
I Wish! Unfortunately, Tony's right. I also wish that most nominator's idea of BEFORE would change so that they would look for offline or at least archival sources on subjects whose notability occurred before 1995, and that they would do something - !anything! to verify a non-English subject before they just nominate it for deletion because they haven't heard of it. I think it would be great if we could establish a competency hurdle for AfD and do something to discourage sloppy nominators. It's hard to see how we could make that work. Jacona (talk) 13:16, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Support AfD was originally designed to be laborious so as to discourage frivolous nominations. The trouble now is that Twinkle has subverted this by automating the process and making it just a matter of punching a button. The result is that a deletion nomination is now so trivial that it gets used as the easy option rather than being a last resort. It's not just looking for sources that is neglected; we also see that sensible alternatives to deletion are not considered because Twinkle doesn't provide for them. The answer is to upgrade Twinkle so that it leads the user through a structured workflow, rather like the processes used for article creation and file uploads. The user might be asked whether they have searched for sources themself. If not, they could be offered a search result and invited to comment on it. If they fail to respond the process could either abort or annotate the nomination accordingly. Andrew D. (talk) 13:25, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Yup, this is my idea - not trying to enforce a competency hurdle (impossible) or conclusively prove that WP:BEFORE was done (also impossible) but nudge the nominator into doing it. FOARP (talk) 13:43, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
@FOARP: Your proposal made no mention of Twinkle, whereas Andrew's comment is all about (supposed?) abuse of this relatively obscure tool. I don't see how you can say your ideas are the same.
My idea is that the template should include a field on it - Twinkle is simply a tool for generating/populating the same template. FOARP (talk) 15:57, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
@Andrew Davidson: Your comment seems to relate to a very specific type of AFD nomination. I for one have never used Twinkle and I can't even recall the last time I've seen it discussed. This proposal reads to me somewhat more like a rehash of the "teeth" proposal that was made on this page almost exactly a year earlier. How about you make a separate proposal at WT:Twinkle that applies only to (ab)users of that tool and stop pretending AFD isn't complicated enough for the rest of us as it is?
Twinkle isn't obscure; it's the norm. For example, on the most recent full day for AfD (30 April), about 60% of the new nominations were added by Twinkle. Andrew D. (talk) 16:01, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
So ... you're not going to respond to the substance of my question? Anyway, 60% on one randomly selected day is hardly "the norm", and in fact if the problem is, as you claim, deletionists running on Twinkle "sprees", then surely a lot of those 3/5 were all done by the same one or two users, no? The remaining 2/5, which apparently required a much greater amount of work per nominator per AFD, were no doubt created by a much larger number of users. You're proposing a change to policy to combat what, even if we assume you are correct in talking about "sprees", is clearly a small minority of AFD nominators behaving disruptively. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:26, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Oppose per WP:CREEP. The process works; if WP:BEFORE is actually only conducted after, or/and by a different editor, the AfD closes as keep if that process identifies coverage that justifies the keep. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:01, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
True, but tremendous time waster. Improvements such as suggested by Andrew D. above would be welcome.Jacona (talk) 14:04, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
No opposition, of course, to Twinkle improvements such as those suggested by AndrewD. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:22, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Oppose per several above: but it should be reminded that if you are an AFD nom, you will likely gain more traction to support it by listing out what you've tried to do to source out the article. Similarly, if the nom did not do this, and its clear that a casual internet search is not sufficient, you can argue that a more thorough search may be needed. But neither of these should be mandatory -it is part of how to gain consensus for your !vote in the AFD. --Masem (t) 14:08, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Oppose this proposal is unenforceable and I don't think asking all AfD nominators to add some boilerplate text will improve things. You can't tell whether someone has actually done the research asked by BEFORE. Often people in the AfD claim the nominator hasn't because they found evidence of notability, but there are plenty of good faith reasons why the nominator may not have found that source or may not have considered it evidence of notability. I don't think there's any advantage to making everybody add boilerplate text to otherwise valid nominations and it will make the process even less accessible to less experienced editors. Hut 8.5 17:32, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Oppose as per above, and I agree wholeheartedly with Hut 8.5 -- Unoc (talk) 22:47, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Support. The viability of the process depends on it, and most do it, or learn to do it. Allow a leeway of a user’s first ten nominations, then begin with gentle correction, then chiding, then TROUTing. Don’t go overboard. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:51, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Oppose - inexperienced editors starting an erroneous nomination need polite advice and guidance through Wikipedia's sometimes labyrinthine processes. Experienced editors, who neglect WP:BEFORE repeatedly as shown by clear evidence, need a clear warning and a trip to ANI if all else fails. Neither case is helped with even more bureaucracy and procedural hurdles. I am not opposed to clarifying guidelines or the Twinkle UI though to reduce the probability of mistakes (for example: WP:BEFORE should be briefly mentioned as vital preparation in the AfD selection screen). GermanJoe (talk) 00:44, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Great analysis, GermanJoe! I would also like to see some sort of throttling as part of a wish list on improving twinkle: I've seen editors discover AfD and nominate dozens of articles. If they were somehow advised by the software not to nominate more than x per some unit of time, at least until they learned the process, they would better learn how AfD works before causing much time-wasting disruption.Jacona (talk) 13:05, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
oppose encourage admins to close more discussion early where GNG has obviously been met, in preference to pile on keep opinions. Gnangarra 01:13, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Oppose for reasons already stated above. Besides, the burden should be on the editor(s) creating the article to show notability. Often, a lengthy WP:BEFORE search is not sufficient to prove non-notability, as there may obscure sources that are difficult to find that if found clearly prove notability. That's happened with some of the articles I nominated for AfD that I had done a substantial WP:BEFORE search, and later agreed were notable and/or withdrew. In other cases, everyone can agree there is WP:RS about the subject, but the discussion is not about whether the WP:RS exists or not, but whether the material found in the WP:RS makes that person notable or not, e.g. recent discussions about beauty pageant contestants. Despite being generally an inclusionist, this additional requirement on anyone proposing an RfC is unnecessary and seems to oversimplify the multiple reasons that articles are submitted for WP:AfD, including things like WP:PROMO and the desire for a result of WP:TNT, or the possibility that a marginally notable article might end up as a WP:MERGE. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:58, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Oppose What constitutes "evidence"? 90% of the time BEFORE is invoked by a keep !voter, the deletion rationale isn't actually based on GNG, which is a near guarantee that this would be abused, and AGF (which, again, is ignored by most BEFORE !votes) trumps such arguments anyway. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:33, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
I discussed this - it's a self-reported "yes" on the template to the question "did you do WP:BEFORE?". Sure, people may lie or simply do a bad job, but at least the ones who are honest will realise that it should be done. FOARP (talk) 12:56, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Doesn't change the fact that your proposal is an answer looking for a question. The "worst cases" as you describe them are perennial noob mistakes that get speedy-closed as keep; the actualworstcases are those where a good-faith AFD nominator presents a well-reasoned, nuanced, policy-based argument, which is quickly met by several "Keep! GNG! BEFORE!" comments that look like their authors didn't even read the nomination, and the discussion gets NACed as "keep" on the basis of a simple ballot count. Hijiri 88 (聖やや)
Those "perennial noob mistakes" are still things that would be better off addressed before they get to AFD, not least because there's always the risk of those nominations resulting in deletion if no-one bothers to check whether it was actually done. I don't pretend this is a total solution to people not doing WP:BEFORE or (apparently) just throwing the job of WP:BEFORE on to other editors, but it might help with the noob problem. FOARP (talk) 15:54, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Can you point to an example? I already have linked several concrete examples of AFDs where your proposal would have mademan already bad problem worse, while you seem to be relying on unrealistic hypotheticals, either because you know the examples you could list are cases where your proposal would either not make a difference or make it worse, or because you have no experience of what you are talking about and are just assuming there must be a problem that your proposal would fix. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:43, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
It was this AFD that triggered it. The nom refers only to the sources referenced in the article. FOARP (talk) 08:31, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
It is far better quality of argument to expect that a good nominator will describe the level of effort of BEFORE rather than checking off a box, that gives either a point to be argued in support or against the nom, whereas just a simple checkbox will likely have editors begging questions about the level of BEFORE effort. --Masem (t) 01:52, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Oppose. Unneeded boilerplate text no one will pay heed to. We already have a throttling/enforcement mechanism - AN/ANI (or AE in some topics). Editors who consistently do bad nominations - can be TBANNED from deletion (or deletion nomination, or restricted). Icewhiz (talk) 16:43, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Oppose The perennial proposals to force what the WP:ARS wants on everyone else. This proposal would do nothing. BEFORE has long been used as a bludgeon by radical inclusionists, formalizing that would not be a good idea. Misuse of BEFORE is a good part of the reason for ARS' fall from grace to the lowly state it is now. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:53, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
@Beeblebrox: FWIW, as problematic as I have found ARS as recently as lastmonth, this appears to have next to nothing to do with them; FOARP does not appear to have ever edited any of the ARS project pages, and according to his AFD stats he !votes "delete" three times for every four times he !votes "keep" or "speedy keep" -- sure, manipulating those stats by finding AFDs where any idiot can see it's going to end one way or the other is not difficult, but the one time I can recall interacting with him directly (here) he definitely came across as much more reasonable than pretty much anyone I've interacted with who identifies with ARS. Yeah, it's a little weird that essentially this same proposal was made exactly a year earlier, but FOARP had apparently only edited two AFDs prior to last September, so he can hardly be blamed for that. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 17:12, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
As we are supposed to do, I was responding to the proposal itself, not who posted it. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:18, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Just to back up what USER:Hijiri88 said, I have never had anything to do with WP:ARS, indeed I had no idea who they were until I read your comment, and do not agree that there is a need for a such a grouping in Wiki. My proposal is not the same as the previous one, since I am not proposing any punishment of editors as such, just that editors who use WP:GNG as a delete rational should have to answer "yes" to a template-field asking whether they have performed WP:BEFORE. I have no views on the mis-use of WP:BEFORE, except to say that mis-use of anything is normally bad. But performing WP:BEFORE when proposing an article for deletion due to failing WP:GNG is essential and we should do more to encourage it. FOARP (talk) 12:49, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Support, but only on a second-in-same day Twinkle generated deletion nomination. The first one could be the way it is now, but this could be a throttle feature to help head off sprees.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 00:27, 24 May 2019 (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.
Article for deletion (long explanation)
Just under a week ago, I nominated the article Frédéric Motte for deletion. For some background, Motte is listed as the composer for a number of small games (by small, I mostly mean games ranging from obscure Amiga titles to Nintendo DS shovelware). Outside of being in one barely notable demo group in the late 80s/early 90s called Sanity (note: I say barely, because at first glance, it seems like this group itself may not even be notable enough for Wikipedia), this is the extent of his notability.
The subject simply is not notable under WP:NOTE (I did my due diligence and tried to find reputable third-party sources).
Almost the entirety of the article was written by the subject himself (note: the username of the article's creator is 'Conkrete' and the subject's recording studio, as listed in the article and the subject's website, is 'Conkrete'; moreover, Conkrete has only edited that article), and the article originally had no references whatsoever. Moreover, most of the substantial edits after the article's creation were made through IP edits by him – the contributions made by the IPs in question consist exclusively of the article Frédéric Motte and/or articles relating to the subject (such as games he'd composed for); I'm confident beyond a reasonable doubt that the second and third top contributors (after Conkrete), IP 82.66.31.21 and IP 78.243.79.107, respectively, are the subject himself. Whether or not these IP edits were undisclosed deliberately is anyone's guess, so I'll default to saying it was an accident in good faith.
As the article was an autobiography and the subject wasn't and isn't notable, almost the entire page is completely unreferenced, and the small portion that is uses non-notable sources that consist of two interviews with the subject.
It's very likely that the article was created for self-promotion, as the subject places numerous links to their own webpages in the article, including several links directly to their Myspace page in the 'Discography' section. This could have been good faith, but due to the article's flagrant disregard for Wikipedia's guidelines on autobiographies (WP:YOURSELF), I'm inclined to doubt this.
To me, this seemed like a reasonable PROD. As I said, I feel I did my due diligence for WP:NOTE, and the fact that it is a largely unsourced autobiography which was likely created for promotional purposes simply exacerbates this issue.
However, this PROD was reverted on the seventh and final day by an IP editor who had – at the time – two total contributions, with the following explanation: "An 11 year old article with many edits by third parties shouldn't be summarily deleted without normal process, even if the original stub was possibly self-promotion. Subject is arguably notable as a musician in the demoscene as well as video game industry." I feel this reversion is completely unreasonable, and I outlined why on the IP's talk page. In summary, I contest that '11 year old article' and 'many edits by third parties' are red herrings (and that the second one is wrong), that I went through the "normal process" (see: WP:PRODNOM), that the article was likely made for promotional purposes, and that the subject was not noteworthy per WP:NOTE.
Under WP:CONTESTED, it is stated: "If you still believe that the page should be deleted, or that a discussion is necessary, list it on Articles for deletion or files for discussion." Because it is against Wikipedia's guidelines to reinstate a PROD regardless of the circumstances it was removed under, I came here for help or advice. I still emphatically believe that this article has no place on Wikipedia, and I would be grateful for help resolving this issue. TheTechnician27 (talk) 16:04, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
@TheTechnician27: Hi, you're in the right place; AFD if the correct process for taking this dispute further. The instructions for creating a deletion discussion here are at WP:AFDHOWTO. Iffy★Chat -- 16:42, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
@Iffy: Maybe this is a dumb question, but I originally used 'subst:proposed deletion'. Does this mean I should use 'subst:afd1' or 'subst:afdx|2nd' for this one at the top of the article? Also, thank you for your help. :) TheTechnician27 (talk) 17:03, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
@TheTechnician27: It's {{afd1}} that goes on the article you want deleted, then {{afd2}} on the AFD page (which is linked from the AFD1 template), then {{afd3}} on today's AFD log page. Iffy★Chat -- 17:10, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
@Iffy: Sorry for the late follow-up, but I went ahead and did that earlier; thank you again for the help. While nobody has replied to my nomination, at least it's up now. TheTechnician27 (talk) 21:20, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
I highly recommend installing WP:Twinkle, which can automate all of these processes. ansh666 18:44, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
@Ansh666: Thank you for the suggestion. I wanted to do this one manually as a learning experience, but I may look into WP:Twinkle in the future. TheTechnician27 (talk) 21:20, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
MultiAFD question
The supporting text for WP:MULTIAFD discusses how to bundle pages for an AFD but it doesn't touch on what a commenter on any of the bundled articles should do. There is currently a Multi-AFD for Miss Multinational and some ancillary pages but comments/!votes don't seem to travel between them all. Does this mean I need to put a !vote on five different AFD?
By the way if anyone knows, how can you provide a link to the AFD rather than the page itself? ogenstein (talk) 19:08, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I was hoping that there would be an abbreviated method, something like wp:afd:Miss… inside some brackets. But thanks for clarifying. Now I don't have to fret over it or search for more linking docs to crawl through.
Any ideas on voting across a multi-AFD? ogenstein (talk) 20:14, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
This isn't a MULTIAFD, it's several AfDs, each for one article. The box in the upper right corner shows other AfDs that start with the same title (i.e. Miss Multinational), which is intended to list out "(xth nomination)" but unfortunately catches "Miss Multinational 201x" as well. The best course is to deal with each AfD separately. ansh666 18:43, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. They are all part and parcel so it seemed natural to me. I've done as you suggested. Thanks again. ogenstein (talk) 00:29, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Previous AFD
Merjen Ishangulyyeva - can someone look at this. It seem the article was deleted months ago. But today, a new version that had been in Draft space was moved to main space. And the next edit was apparently a cut/paste of the deleted version back complete with the AFD tags which lead to the closed discussion. I'm not quite sure what to do with this. MB 20:39, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
It was a soft delete, subject to WP:REFUND so really anyone wanting to recreate it can. Not a problem. I am deleting the AFD tag. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:25, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
But the "new" version is better referenced with 12 refs, so I don't know what the real intention here was. MB 21:56, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
AfD Statistics Tool
I haven’t been able to get the AfD statistics tool to run for about a week. Has anyone else used it recently? Is this a known problem? Mccapra (talk) 06:45, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
No link to discussion in app
When an article that has been listed at AfD is viewed in the Android app, there is a message "This page is being considered for deletion on accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy."
The only link is to Wikipedia:Deletion policy, and there is no easy way to find the discussion.
I don't have any way at the moment to work out why this is happening. Awkward42 (talk) [the alternate account of Thryduulf (talk)] 20:11, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Adding an alternative: Ask the relevant WikiProject for advice
I'd like to see something like this added to WP:BEFORE. If you aren't sure whether to nominate an article for deletion, you can ask an editor with an interest in the topic. For example, it may be difficult for you to assess the notability of an academic journal if you don't have access to the indexes and databases that can help assess notability. Ask at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Academic journals
Restored this deleted request (see history - a "bad faith" allegation with zero evidence is no reason to delete other editors' messages). No stance on the request. Someone uninvolved should look into it please. GermanJoe (talk) 22:50, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
And restored again. I have no opinion on this case either, but he IP should not be deleting this post and the talkpage posts. Meters (talk) 23:12, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Not done Bad faith nomination. University established as notable and not fake as alleged in others edits here and here seeking to delete the article that way. This AfD request is no different. (Happy now, you two??) 2001:8003:594A:6800:E548:78F9:A5F7:C787 (talk) 23:51, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
I don't see any valid reason for a speedy deletion (I cannot see the deleted versions so I cannot verify that this version is substantially different from what what was previously deleted, but the author claims it is an independent article). Questioning the organization's notability is not sufficient for a speedy. The article makes a credible claim of notability, and that is all that is required.to avoid a speedy on notability grounds. I disagree that all of the independent sources are non reliable. They are not great sources about the organization, but that's a matter for AFD, not speedy. And a degree mill, if that's what this is, may indeed be notable if the sources exist. Notability has nothing to do with whether any organization is respected, or liked, or successful, or non-fraudulent. Meters (talk) 18:37, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi, someone at the Teahouse suggested I come here to ask if the article Part Time should be deleted. He also said "Personally, I think the article should be deleted." I agree. Anyone else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.125.177.124 (talk) 16:16, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Have you read through WP:BEFORE or WP:DEL-REASON? And specifically around musical acts, WP:NMUSIC. Ideally, it would be best if any rationale for deletion could be articulated using policies and guidelines, and we don't know at this moment whether the article couldn't be improved with better sources.
At a quick glance, I can't say that it looks like a good article. Most of the search results I found ended up containing quotes of the WP page, and the others were blog posts, promotional in nature or were completely unrelated to the subject. p.s. when commenting on talk pages, etc… try and remember to sign your posts by typing four '~' characters (or click the button in the editor). ogenstein (talk) 00:05, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
I took a look and to me there are obvious issues that I addressed on the talk page. That would be the location to address issues and seek solutions, or request comments that might include seeking an AFD. Otr500 (talk) 02:54, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Discussion was subjected to an early close because there is overwhelming consensus against any change. Otr500 (talk) 03:08, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Alternatives to deletion
Several times I have run into AFD discussions closed with an Admin admonishment that AFD is the wrong venue for merge proposals. AFD is a venue for discussing if an article should have stand alone status on Wikipedia. This project, in the opening paragraph of the lead, explains: "Common outcomes are that the article is kept, merged, redirected, incubated, renamed/moved to another title, userfied to a user subpage, or deleted per the deletion policy.". There is a sometimes overlooked fact that any option decided on except "Keep" is a delete of that subject as a stand alone article and any option other than "Keep" or "Delete" is an al
While most cases of potential merging should and can be handled through the normal merge request there may be reasons to seek AFD. When certain policy issues are involved like What Wikipedia is not then this should be considered paramount to "Merge doesn't belong at AFD", that is simply not correct.
Other reasons could possibly involve local consensus or possibly even project consensus, not being in-line with a more broad community consensus. A main issue is that consensus is not a vote but many times is equaled to one. If there are 2 delete !votes and one editor feels the article does not deserve stand alone status, but may consider a merge a better option as an alternative, a merge !vote will likely result in a "Delete". The same can happen in the reverse when "Keep" is decided on because "AFD is not for merge discussions".
What brought me here was a Article for deletion discussion (pinging those involved) that even included an admin weighing in for "Merge". We could attempt to psychoanalyze if the Nom actually changed his\her mind, opting for an alternative, or just trying to use AFD for cleanup. I am not disputing the closing, that could have been handled by contesting it, but the confusion that an essay brings to the table results in a mixture of decisions possibly not supported by policy or consensus. I do believe that what could amount to mass nominations either way, that might include deletion but also alternatives, can be handled at AFD. Otr500 (talk)
Is merge an option at AFD?
If merge is a viable option to deletion, as seems apparent by the above links that include policy, then using the rationale of an essay to squash clear consensus seems detrimental to the process and needs far more clarification. Otr500 (talk) 11:14, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
AfD is a venue for discussing whether articles should be deleted. If a nomination to delete an article is made and a consensus to merge subsequently emerges from the discussion, that’s fine. Nominations that propose a merge are not fine, these belong on the article talk page. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:42, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Malcolmxl5, I included the article since I wasn't sure of the target. Also, it was borderline GNG to me so it can be merged or redirected. Or even deleted. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:10, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
This seems to be a consistent source of disagreement, as for many years different policy pages said different things. The last time we discussed it on this page, there was a clear consensus that AfD is an appropriate venue for discussing contested redirects, and the policy pages were updated accordingly. I think we can apply the same logic to merges. – Joe (talk) 13:29, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
No we can't, merge disputes are classic content disputes that keep the article around, whatever the result. If nobody wants the page deleted or redirected, then AfD is not the next step in resolving that dispute. Iffy★Chat -- 13:50, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Making "AFD" From "Articles for Deletion" to "Articles for Discussion" (as to include merge, split and other things) is a WP:PEREN. The rationale is that any of the other options do not require the admin bit to execute, whereas deletion does. --Masem (t) 13:55, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
I don't believe that an AfD should be open as a merger request, we have procedures for doing that which are IMHO preferable. But yes, merge is an acceptable outcome instead of deletion or keep. Doug Wellertalk 15:55, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Doug Weller, I had a feeling AFD is used where the target of the merger is unknown but the article doesn't pass GNG. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:23, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Tyw7 in such cases it's still a deletion discussion, with merge being an option only if someone finds a suitable target. If you know a target you should start a merge discussion. Doug Wellertalk 16:56, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
@Tyw7: Merge !votes are not inherently counted as keep !votes or as delete !votes. Also, AfDs are not a vote count, the closer in the AfD you link to could have treated the Keep !voter's argument with more weight than the merge arguments. Iffy★Chat -- 18:05, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Iffy, well the closer says "The result was keep. There is clearly no consensus to delete this, even from the nominator. AfD is the wrong forum for merge proposals. Please use article talk."
So it's obvious that the admin counted "merge" as "keep". --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:12, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
You can always contact the closure on a case like this and say "Do you feel the consensus was for a merge?" or other similar questions. Hopefully, they would agree, amend the close message, and thus give you the appropriate start to BOLDy merge as necessary using the AFD or the closer's add'l comments as the reason. We would want closures if they see something that is like a merge or redirect, or other similar non-admin post-close action, to be clear if there was consensus for that in the close, but that doesn't always happen. What I think I am trying to say is if that if it is clear the AFD backed a merge option as consensus, you shouldn't have to initiate a merge discussion on the article's talk page, but should be able to rely on the AFD closure to spell that out. --Masem (t) 18:19, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
@Tyw7: if I think an article isn't notable but can be merged I vote "Delete and merge". That makes it clear. Doug Wellertalk 18:31, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
’Delete and merge’ is rarely an option because the history of the ‘merged-from’ page is required for attribution purposes. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:07, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
I wish I was more modern on the comment indention. I so like the possibly archaic "same author same indention" for: 1)- the ability to identify the respondent, 2)- so the page doesn't float to the right so fast.
I like the solution per Doug Weller ("Delete and merge") but it seems a redundant patch solution considering the realization that even the newest editor to AFD should have read the lead. Then again, I have run into AFD closing admins that either missed this and champion that any move to mention merge is not relevant to AFD, OR per Tyw7, that a merge consensus could be considered a keep. I don't argue that a merge can not be construed to be more close to a "keep" than "delete" because any "too close to call" should be "no consensus.
Since consensus can change it seemed irrelevant of past decisions, since practice can actually lead to change that causes policies and guidelines to be outdated. I think the proper procedure would be to seek such a change through the proper channels but bureaucracy sometimes slows things and necessitates periodic discussions. This is not just for clarity of current policies and guidelines but determine if "change" has in fact occurred and the several pages affected need updating to reflect this, or that consensus by silence ends when the silence is broken as contested.
As far as I understand, the entire concept of Wikipedia revolves around consensus. An argument as presented by User:Iffy was negated by the closing statements that "AfD is the wrong forum for merge proposals. Please use article talk". As far as I understand in closing procedures an "admin will determine if consensus exists, and if so, what it is". The leaning towards some idea that mergers can only be handled by a merge request or that consensus cannot determine a result at AFD is not policy based. I agree that AFD is not the place to start a merge discussion but as evidenced above, unless changed, merge does show to be one option in a deletion discussion. That is the issue and is also the question of this sub-topic. Otr500 (talk) 05:59, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
I chanced upon this - on watchlist but don't usually read unless I am involved. I need/want to nominate a permastub/GNG/Geoland failure for merge to a long-standing list article created exactly for the purpose, but the originator is traditionally hostile; it's been mentioned at Talk two years ago, and I need an admin-weight presence to mitigate any potential hostility (meat puppet and racist allegations against me, for instance, again years back). So anticipating more of the same (a tirade ensued at Miscellany for deletion in April). Therefore 'fresh eyes' are needed, so AfD with preference for redirect is the way; avoiding canvassing to obviate allegations of meatpuppetry; if few editors are/would be involved in an article Talk/merge, a venue outside of the 'norm' is needed.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 21:14, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
@Rocknrollmancer: I have not seen anything on what you are commenting on. Nobody seems to have commented and without diffs I would have to explore. A problem is the implications of drama. Unsubstantiated allegations of meat puppet and racist allegations would be serious on my part either requiring a total solution or the more extreme of finding something else to do with my time. A step towards assuming good faith would be not having concerns of what happened in the past, and if it arises again, not being drawn into any drama web but seeking a final solution. I do not have near the edit history of some, but I have been around a little while, and suppose I have been blessed or lucky, or maybe just good at avoiding drama. There has certainly been some trying incidents but I have not had a bad experience. As far as "avoiding canvassing" that is not hard because those with opinions from both sides of the isle are required for true consensus. I certainly can live without encountering anyone "traditionally hostile" and feel Wikipedia is not the place for any "hostilities". 14:43, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
I can understand it's difficult to absorb when outlined as an abstract example; this (absence of detail) was deliberate, to highlight that an article Talk page suggestion for merge may not be adequately controlled at that location, and to give a reason why. A final solution would be desirable - that is a topic ban for the defiant, hostile individual (actually WP:SPAs - note plural - got away with it!); there was a block-threat regarding the 'racist' aspect and other rants two or three years ago. This is historically a bad faith individual who gets away with it, and wants me blocked. I have to avoid interaction with this editor - almost a self-imposed Iban. I cannot be more specific, publically. I'm also seeing some other concerning posts (eg., see WP:FRAM, "I have taken a look at several conflicts you’ve had over the years with other community members as well as Foundation staff, and I have noticed increasing levels of hostility, aggressive expression—some of which, to the point of incivility...). Again, I chanced upon this as I have BU Rob 13 Talk on my Watchlist, but don't understand any of it (or similarly this), and it will take all my time to try to grasp, considering the verbosity. I hope that from these examples that you may be able to infer why I have to be vague? Hostility is IMO endemic and escalating within WP, and this is just one reason why I seldom now submit much in the way of prose - the potential risk for time-consuming 'drama' is unacceptably high. Which was the point I was trying to make - a deletion-venue, mooting a preferential merge discussion, as potentially a more-policed sequence, with un-involved individuals, rather than those with an interest in the dedicated topic-area only, at article Talk. I hope I haven't made things more unclear, but I suspect I have.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 00:50, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Things can seem abstractly tragic and I am glad that ARBCOM does not appear to be afraid of some kind of reprisal that you seem to fear. This is above my proverbial pay grade but I think transparency is important in politics no matter if in the real world or the Wikipedia editing world. Otr500 (talk) 03:22, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Nominator unwilling to notify users who monitor AfD discussions about nomination for deletion
As the Nominator for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saint Thomas Anglicans will not complete step 3 of the nomination process despite being reminded of it, could someone kindly complete step 3 (Notify users who monitor AfD discussions)? I would have tried to do this, but the irony is that, I believe this nomination is ill-conceived and argue for keeping this article. Regardless, it is irresponsible to leave the article tagged forever without notifying anyone about it.--Tharian7 (talk) 07:06, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Done, I've added it to today's AFD log. Iffy★Chat -- 08:56, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Please complete nomination
Please complete the nomination for deletion of Paweł Urban. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.177.1.164 (talk) 15:28, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
I would like to nominate the page for AFD. Could someone please help create AFD. Reason: "WP:1E, notable only for one film. There's no guarantee that she would continue to appear in notable roles in future. For now, it WP:TOOSOON". 137.97.73.32 (talk) 12:10, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Please complete the nomination for deletion of Club X: In May the PROD was disputed by Michig claiming obvious notability, and I found the first and only reference for an upgrade from {{unreferenced}} 2011 to {{refimprove}} 2019. That's in essence all that happened since 2011, and in a quick WP:BEFORE plausibility check today I only found two references confirming NN as successor of Network 7 or The Tube:[24][25] –84.46.52.138 (talk) 06:17, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Please nominate Napoleonland for deletion, it is about an idea that gained some media attention at the time, but never went anywhere and Wikipedia should not be having articles about every oddball proposal by a politician. 146.198.136.44 (talk) 11:24, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Y- I've set that up for you. ReykYO! 11:29, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Nomination failed
I tried to nominate Kevin Falk today with Twinkle, and it failed with a "CSRF token" failure. It looks like the article is tagged and but the discussion did not get created. Can someone please straighten this out? My reason is: "Tagged for addl sources since 2010. Searching turns up little. He was a member of a few bands for a short time, but there is not enough coverage to meet WP:GNG or any criterion of WP:NMUSIC." MB 16:43, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Done See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chronicle (UK TV series) Hhkohh (talk) 14:54, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Not done You are now auto-confirmed so that you can do it yourself now! Hhkohh (talk) 14:56, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Done. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:59, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Not an issue for Articles for deletion. Referred elsewhere
Done
Fixed — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:11, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Already done by Galobtter. (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elm Guest House claims and controversy) Iffy★Chat -- 14:15, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Resolved
Doing... --DannyS712 (talk) 07:28, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Not done Bad faith nomination. University established as notable and not fake as alleged in others edits here and here seeking to delete the article that way. This AfD request is no different. (Happy now, you two??) 2001:8003:594A:6800:E548:78F9:A5F7:C787 (talk) 23:51, 24 June 2019 (UTC)