Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 75

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 70 ← Archive 73 Archive 74 Archive 75 Archive 76 Archive 77

Opening up flexibility on NACs?

This has been in AfD for almost a month: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles E. Wicks. It's already been re-listed twice, and we are strongly discouraged from relisting more than 2 times. It's a BLP so having the deletion banner at the top is more harmful to a real-life person than if it were the case of a biography of a dead person (BDP) or an article about a fictional character or a type of 14th century shoe. I !voted to keep, but now I'm wishing I didn't, so that I could close the AfD, because it seems to have been neglected by admins. NACs are not allowed when the closer has !voted, which I understand. How about if the !vote was to keep and the close is a "no consensus"? The backlog of AfDs seems to be growing in recent months (I've close quite a huge number of them now, so the backlog doesn't look nearly as big as it once did), but can we perhaps allow a NAC for a case like this? Dr. Universe (talk) 19:49, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Charles E. Wicks died in 2010 according to the article, so it is not a BLP. I'm not sure why a close being a NAC or not is relevant here; that's entirely separate from the issue of an involved close. And your re-listing that discussion only served to ensure it is not closed for an extra week. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:59, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
@Dr. Universe As far as the relist goes, the same concept that says you don't close a discussion that you participated in also says you don't relist one that you participated in. At this point, I don't see how backing out your relist would improve anything, but please don't do that again. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:06, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
@力: sorry I thought it was BLP. But relisting an article does not ensure that it is not closed for an extra week (please, I'd like not to get into an argument about that here, I've seen you often enough in AfDs that you know how it works). Also the point is that I'd like to close this AfD to help defeat some of the backlog, and I can't do it because NACs can't be on an AfD where the closer participated. So I wonder if we could close AfDs in cases where we're not closing it with the reason that we !voted (for example, I !voted keep but would be happy to close it as no consensus). @RoySmith:. Thanks for pointing out that we can't relist AfDs where we've participated, I won't do that again. However, I don't really understand what you mean by "backing out your relist". I saw an AfD today that was closed after no comments were added after the last relist, and basically I'm saying the same thing should happen on this AfD too, because again no one commented after the relist (i.e. no consensus). Dr. Universe (talk) 21:03, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
@Dr. Universe: I am genuinely concerned about your competence. First, how can you have voted (and wanted to also close) an AFD without being aware the person had died ten years ago? Second, what "backlog" are you even talking about? AFD almost never has a serious backlog, right now there are 2 "old discussions" and those have been there for less than 24 hours. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 21:52, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
@Dr. Universe The AfD will get closed by somebody at some point, most likely a few day from now. Until then, just be patient and let the normal process take its course. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:00, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Dr. Universe, while your enthusiasm is great to see, this is not a place that has a backlog at all. We have two AfD's that are 'overdue' by less than one day. Further, you relisted a discussion you !voted in? Not ideal. I tend to agree with 力 that I am concerned you are trying to take things too quickly too soon in this space. There is no crisis here with regards to timings, and due to the declining participation in projectspace, sometimes things need to be relisted a couple of times to establish consensus. There is no deadline. Daniel (talk) 22:59, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Also I just reverted this change, which does not accurately represent the WP:RELIST section of DELPRO, and wasn't discussed. This 'procedural' contribution to AfD referencing the need to PROD something first seems bizarre (and also incorrect).
I think Dr Universe needs to step back from NAC's and his current focus on this non-existent backlog. Daniel (talk) 23:21, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
I agree. @Dr. Universe as Daniel said, your desire to help is very much appreciated, but you need to get quite a bit more experience participating in the AfD process as a participant before you get involved performing administrative tasks such as closing or relisting. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:29, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
@力:,@RoySmith:,@Daniel: The reason there's no backlog right now is because of my efforts. Daniel: you have listed a bunch of AfD close decisions I've made which look to be for the most part very good decisions. I'm very much open to discussion, and also to listening to others point of views, but I would very much like if only one of you were to be a "frontperson" rather than all three of you seemingly ganging up on me at the same time. I found 力's new comment on my talk page to be a bit confrontational and a lot like a threat. I'm taking a break from NACs for now anyway, but please stop mentioning over and over again about a non-existence of a backlog, and the fact that there's only "two AfDs that are overdue" because that was extremely false before I spent several hours on multiple days helping us get there! Thank you in advance if you're able to stay calm and not attack me here :) Dr. Universe (talk) 00:34, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
It was a threat, you are at severe risk of going from "new editor making mistakes" to "not-so-new editor being sanctioned for incompetence and/or disruption". And you are wrong and vain in your assessment of an AFD "backlog"; in my 4 years of experience there has been a non-trivial AFD backlog about twice, and each of those lasted less than a week. AFD will get by without you. If you want to fight actual backlogs, learn how to handle WP:AFC submissions or something. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:38, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
"The reason there's no backlog right now is because of my efforts."
"Please stop mentioning over and over again about a non-existence of a backlog, and the fact that there's only "two AfDs that are overdue" because that was extremely false before I spent several hours on multiple days helping us get there."
Lets talk some facts.
Since 20 July, when you started closing AfD's and relisting them:
  • You have closed 16 discussions and relisted 11.
  • I have closed 163 discussions and relisted 49.
  • Countless other administrators are doing similar volumes as me, if not more.
You are not the reason there is no backlog. Please stop trying to say there is a backlog issue. There isn't. Daniel (talk) 00:45, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
@Daniel: You've in some sense proven my point. You and 力 both mentioned each mentioned (somewhat repeatedly) that there's only 2 overdue AfDs right now. It wasn't exactly 16+11=25 overdue AfDs on July 20th, but it was close to that and the backlog spanned 8 days (more than 7!) if I remember correctly. Furthermore, you're not including the fact that I helped admins make decisions by !voting on a lot of the AfDs that were long overdue and needed help making consensus. I think the number I voted on like this was vastly larger than the number of cases that I closed or relisted. Furthermore I'm not surprised that other admins could close more than me, because NACs are not allowed to be for many types of closures. Finally, by reducing the size of the backlog, I made it easier for others to defeat it. These types of things tend to have a snowball effect. I do appreciate your point that you are closing more discussions than me, and thank you for doing that. I also saw Explicit and Sanstein and Missvain doing a lot of them. I can concede that the lack of backlog right now is not only due to my help, but I disagree that there was no backlog not too long ago. Sure, 力 says that in 4 years they've only seen a non-trivial backlog twice, but how is "non-trivial" quantified? I am consistently seeing a "This article is up for deletion" notice on the top of real people's WP pages for several weeks in many cases. For some people this can look extremely bad even if they were not the ones that created the page (someone else creates the page, then the article's subject gets seen by people who don't understand how WP works, and then the subject looks like a self-promotional person who made a possibly delete-worthy and possibly not-noteworthy page for themselves). Dr. Universe (talk) 01:09, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Faulty deletion nomination

A user nominated a series of articles for deletion within an existing deletion discussion.[1] Velayinosu (talk) 01:29, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I've reverted that edit. It's sufficiently malformed (and lacking in policy-based deletion rationale) that it's not worth trying to fix it; just revert and move on. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:30, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Listing an article for discussion

Hello please could someone list the article Replica 1 for discussion with the following rationale:

I do not think that the sources currently in this article do not demonstrate that the subject passes WP:GNG, and a WP:BEFORE search failed to turn up anything better. The sources currently in the article consist of a link to an apple 1 owners club website which seems to be partially written by the person who made the kit, The website of the company that makes the kit, the website of the assembly language programming environment that runs on the kit, and the store that currently sells the kit. I think that the best potential source in the article is the Computerworld piece currently listed as an external link, But I am unconvinced that a pictorial build guide is the kind of coverage we would be looking for when writing an article, and it's a dead link - the images are no longer available. A search turns up a few passing mentions in articles to the effect of "The original apple 1 is so expensive that people are making replicas now", but no substantial coverage.

Thank you, 192.76.8.91 (talk) 13:13, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

  • checkY- I set that up for you. Reyk YO! 13:32, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Stephanie Barrett not closed after 3 weeks

Anyone have an idea why WP:Articles for deletion/Stephanie Barrett has been left open for over 3 weeks without a relisting? Something seems wrong with the listing (listed July 7, but supposedly in July 8 log - but it isn't). Nfitz (talk) 18:35, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

@Nfitz: If it's not on a log, it won't be listed and thus not closed. I now manually listed it in today's log, which restarts the timer, making it eligible to be closed in a week. Regards SoWhy 18:57, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Ah ... I haven't listed anything for a long time. I hadn't realized it was still a rather onerous manual process (WP:AFD#How to nominate a single page for deletion). Perhaps time for modernization. Nfitz (talk) 19:17, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Those who nominate frequently are likely using WP:TWINKLE, a plug-in that automates that and many other Wikipedia tasks. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:38, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Never used it - never looked straight forward to me. Though I'd hope few are regularly AFDing articles - that always seems to be something agenda-driven in my experience. Should be simpler for regular users. Personally, I've had no problems following the instructions ... but they certainly aren't simple or obvious - or memorable - compared to a Prod. Nfitz (talk) 22:43, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Folks who work new page patrol could do a lot of nomiations. That said, Twinkle does a bunch of stuff, so it is useful beyond AfD. --RL0919 (talk) 23:21, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
If it were up to me, I would outlaw anybody doing manual creation of AfDs, SPIs, DYKs, etc, etc. Any of those fiddly tasks that require you to get stuff formatted correctly and make matching entries in multiple places. Computers are good at getting that stuff right. People suck at it. Twinkle isn't perfect, but it's a zillion times better than trying to do it yourself. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:52, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
@RoySmith: I dunno about that. While it's usually better to use Twinkle or one of the other scripts, I think there's great value in having experience doing AfDs manually so that one has a better idea how to clean things up in the event that the script goes sideways. Not such a problem with Twinkle, but I've seen it plenty with Page Curation. --Finngall talk 00:09, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
If you want people using Twinkle, add clear links to it (whatever it is) from the AFD instruction page. Nfitz (talk) 23:31, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Requesting AfD for Shahrbanou Tadjbakhsh

Reasoning: Does not seem to meet WP:ACADEMIC notability criteria. More than 50% of the references are the person's own work and the rest seem to be typical biography pages on different research institutes' websites describing the person very briefly. In secondary sources, apparently only two trivial mentions (KazInform International News Agency & ABC Nyheter). Article was declined twice for notability issues in 2014. Thank you!! 212.239.136.225 (talk) 09:52, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Daniel (talk) 23:25, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Ohio County (Virginia)

  • The previously published article on the 1778-1787 county, titled "Ohio County (Virginia)", on the NORTH BANK of the Ohio River, with adequate citations from reliable sources, is lost to public view by an automatic link to Ohio County, West Virginia on the SOUTH BANK of Ohio River.
- Created at the American Revolutionary War incursion north of the Ohio River by Virginia militia Major George Rogers Clark, the LOST county article had substantial French-Speaking settlements at Cahokia and Vincennes. These together with Revolution veteran settlement were ceded by Virginia to the Northwest Territory in 1787. Please help to recover and reinstate the information as a separate article. With apologies for my imperfect procedure . . . TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:52, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Louisiana Tech Bulldogs football, 1901–1909 not closed after 4 weeks

For some reason, this month-old AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louisiana Tech Bulldogs football, 1901–1909) hasn't been closed despite not being relisted and majority consensus voting for deletion? Can anyone here please close it? KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 23:40, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

@KingSkyLord: The AfD was never transcluded to a daily log page (step 3), and therefore was never exposed to the AfD !voters at large. I have added it to today's log, though given the consensus so far I doubt the result would change much and it might close quickly regardless. --Finngall talk 00:01, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Duplicate article for Mercy Wanjiku Gakuya

The article Mercy Gakuya is the exact same as Mercy Wanjiku Gakuya. I have proposed for the former article to be deleted.--Emily19911991 (talk) 08:13, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

An admin needs to take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mercy Gakuya. It's formatted incorrectly.4meter4 (talk) 19:01, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

No log

(not watching, please {{ping}} if needed) czar 06:24, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

  • Done. Hut 8.5 07:27, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Paul Merrett

Does anyone want to nominate this unreferenced "article" for deletion? If you do so, I'll vote to delete. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:32, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Moze (surname)

This is an entirely unreferenced article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:14, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

News article from Canadian Broadcasting Corporation about AfD and a woman scientist

Here is a news article from the CBC that reports unfavourably on Wikipedia's AfD process. "Canadian Nobel scientist's deletion from Wikipedia points to wider bias, study finds" Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:48, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

There has never been an AfD for the Donna Strickland article, the impression given in some reporting notwithstanding. The earlier article about her was speedy deleted for copyright violation. --RL0919 (talk) 22:07, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
The overall article still has a fair point on the state of bios of women here, but yeah, that's a rather major omission in the story. --Masem (t) 22:24, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

BEFORE: Key searches

The statement:

should be changed to:


The current statement is very limited, and obviously favours one commercial entity.

There are a number of AfDs which would have in all likelihood never have happened if editors had been aware of relevant information. It is very time consuming, and time wasting, to respond to AfDs which could readily have been avoided. For example, two recent ones are:

There have been many more over time.

The proposed list would go a long way to not only stopping unnecessary AfDs, but also provide a valuable resource for editors in general. Note that the list is not about sources themselves, but how to find sources in the first place.

Aoziwe (talk) 07:31, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

While I applaud the enthusiasm, I think adding an incomplete list to a key policy page is premature. Flesh this out first, and then broach the subject again. Secondarily, I do not think the lack of a good set of search engines is a major part of inappropriate AfD nominations. The vast majority of AfD nominations are made (and considered) based on the content in the article at the time rather than any potential other content, contra, for example WP:NEXIST. Adding another set of search criteria won't help when the ones you would supplant aren't particularly universally followed in the first place. Jclemens (talk) 07:51, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
I agree. The problem is that even these simple steps are followed practically never; adding a longer, entirely new page without some sort of generalised community/admin commitment to holding people to them is likely to lead to them being followed less, not more often. Trove is, while an excellent way of making a careless nominator look like a dickhead, never going to be the kind of source that users who don't know it exists are going to check in the first instance. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:02, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose expanding this. Often articles are nominated at AfD for reasons unrelated, wholly or partly, to sourcing concerns. Even more often BEFORE is used to denigrate and belittle nominators. Reyk YO! 14:10, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
    • I'd like to see some examples of this asserted denigration and belittling. In my experience, when BEFORE is mentioned by an AfD participant, it's most likely because the failure of the nom to a) follow its guidance, and b) explain how they did leads to a reasonable feeling that the nominator has wasted people's time by not doing so. To the extent that comes across as belittling or denigrating, that's certainly within the range of such a nom's subjective interpretation of such feedback, but nothing about that subjective reaction makes it necessarily reasonable, nor the feedback that prompted it inappropriate in light of Wikipedia's purpose and policies. Jclemens (talk) 17:31, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
      • Jclemens, I think Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lionel Brodie and Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Lionel Brodie is a perfectly good example of the hostility and uncivil and inappropriate use of WP:BEFORE which is systemic at AFD. If you actually use the search tools provided in WP:BEFORE in its instructions, and do a search on Lionel Brody very little RS (certainly not enough to pass GNG) comes up. BEFORE if often cited by many people at AFD to attack and criticize nominators, which is ultimately bad for a multitude of reasons based in core wikipedia policies. Personally, I think cautioning against citing BEFORE in AFD discussions themselves is warranted per all the reasons I outlined at Wikipedia:Don't attack the nominator.4meter4 (talk) 17:44, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
        • 4meter4 I'm confused. You didn't mention any BEFORE work, two editors mentioned it, sources were identified, and the nomination withdrawn. I don't see that you were personally attacked, and if there's some reason in the AfD or its talk page (I never look at those unless something calls my attention to them; the AfD page is already a discussion) that you felt denigrated or belittled, I'm unfortunately at a loss to see what it was. Do feel free to educate me. Jclemens (talk) 17:53, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
          • A few points. One I did a WP:BEFORE search, and I didn't mention it in the nom because BEFORE is an assumed practice not typically overtly stated in the nomination. I follow the BEFORE process exactly as written as a matter of course. I'm an experienced editor, so yes I find it insulting when people accuse me of not doing due intelligence. Two, when bringing up BEFORE, the editors in question were referencing materials from searches that wouldn't have come up in a BEFORE search as described in the BEFORE process which only uses specific google tools as a requirement in its guide. Basically, those arguing I didn't follow WP:BEFORE are making demands that go beyond WP:BEFORE which is not only unfair and outside of policy but also shifts the focus of the discussion off the topic of the article onto myself. Inevitably it puts the nominator in a highly uncomfortable and unproductive place which isn't helpful because the discussion is no longer about sources for the article, the article's notability, etc. but about what the nominator did prior to nomination which is entirely irrelevant when it comes to weighing notability in addition to being the target of other editor's personal resentments. Clearly AGF wasn't followed by both editors who brought it up, and clearly both editors haven't actually read the instructions at BEFORE or they wouldn't be demanding the use of specialized search engines or regional news archives (which I take issue with per WP:BURDEN and WP:NOTCOMPULSORY).4meter4 (talk) 18:15, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
      A couple of recentish examples, all from debates where the nominator ended up being correct: [2], [3], [4]. Reyk YO! 20:14, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
      Thanks for those examples. As far as the first one goes... the nominator may have prevailed, but that is an ugly mess of non-policy-based deletion arguments, but that's beside the point. Nothing I can see in the three nominations was belittling or denigrating in any way, and characterizing those as such weakens your position. If I were to wave a wand and correct each of them, I would amend them to say "No evidence that nominator followed BEFORE" as much more AGF and collegial than "Nominator didn't follow BEFORE", but each of those are fundamentally appropriate critiques and none of them represent direct personal attacks that I would expect to be characterized as "used to denigrate and belittle nominators." Jclemens (talk) 21:53, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As the nominator at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lionel Brodie I can say that I did do a basic WP:BEFORE search as outlined in step D before nomination. Some topics, such as Lionel Brodie, don't readily appear in the recommended search tools listed in that step. While I think a basic search is and should be done, requiring something beyond that point in policy at AFD is essentially shifting the burden of evidence off of people adding content onto people challenging content which is fundamentally the opposite of policy at WP:BURDEN and Wikipedia:Verifiability as a whole. Further, it's adding another layer of un-necessary rules and red tape into a policy frequently used to attack nominators at WP:AFD; essentially creating problems against the spirit of core policies like WP:NOTBURO, WP:BATTLEGROUND, and WP:NOTCOMPULSORY. Might I suggest instead that we add a link to WP:BEFORE to both WP:AGF and WP:BURDEN which discourages others from attacking nominators at AFD by citing core policies on editor behavior and the responsibility of those adding content to support it with quality evidence in the first place. Ultimately the big waist of time is not editors bringing articles on notable topics to AFD that lack evidence; it's people complaining about having to participate in AFDS and improve articles by actually doing quality editing that is the big time suck. Just prove your case with evidence and in so doing improve the encyclopedia. Comparing these versions of the Lionel Brody article at the time of the nomination versus its closing shows the AFD resulted in a much improved article. This process was therefore not a waist of time.4meter4 (talk) 15:08, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose I think the better advice here would be something along the lines of "Editors should keep in mind that some topics may require more specialized search engines, such as regional newspaper archives for older topics, which most general purpose search engines do not cover." as well as refer users over to the Wikimedia Library Card platform where as long as they have a Wikipedia account, they can get access to a number of sources for free that serve as these specialized searches. In this way, if someone comes along to AFD a early 20th century American bio claiming nothing on Google, this type of language would be the slap on the wrist for failing to consider the alternate resources. --Masem (t) 16:02, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment. I have written my own essay. See Wikipedia:Don't attack the nominator.4meter4 (talk) 16:33, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
  • If this page was fleshed out more then it might be a useful suggestion to include as a link. Aside from Google it currently only includes items relevant to Australia and therefore isn't very useful. Making consulting such a list mandatory isn't a good idea as it's likely to turn AfDs into debates about what the nominator did or did not check, rather than more relevant topics like the article and subject. Hut 8.5 16:57, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I've often thought there'd be less crapful articles if WP:BEFORE was treated as advice for article creators rather than deletion nominators. Reyk YO! 09:01, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
    • Not at all a bad point; WP:BURDEN does some of that. But we have a collective toleration of people creating stuff with a very low barrier to entry--or at least the WMF really wants to keep it that way no matter what the community might think of that. Jclemens (talk) 04:13, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

pare-then-nominate, or pare-during-AfDs

This month, I've run across three difference AfDs that don't seem to have anything in common other than someone has seriously edited down the article either during or immediately prior to an AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruthanna Emrys, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yuggoth, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional child prodigies (2nd nomination). Were these only edits to prose or uncited sections, this would be immaterial, but in each case, references were removed as well. To my mind, if an editor removes sources from an article, either intending to subsequently nominate it at AfD, or alternatively if an editor removes sources during an AfD from an article someone else nominated, the behavior not only looks bad, but makes it non-obvious for AfD participants to discuss the maximally sourced version of the article under discussion. Am I out of line for thinking that we should try and discuss the best (meaning, maximally sourced) version of an article at AfD? Jclemens (talk) 00:46, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I share your concern, Jclemens. I see this concern was brought up during the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ruthanna_Emrys AFD discussion, where an editor noted the mass removal of references and restored them. Removal of references during an XFD has previously been discouraged; it might be worth adding a mention of acceptable AFD behavior in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Wikietiquette. Or is that not strong enough? Firsfron of Ronchester 19:49, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes, there's a lot of it about. Off the top my head, I recall other recent cases:
  1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ZZ Top equipment (3rd nomination)
  2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional counties (4th nomination)
  3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of vampire traits in folklore and fiction (2nd nomination)
It seems to be repeat nominations which generate this disruptive activity, contrary to WP:DELAFD. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:12, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
It appears to be happening here, as well. Can someone uninvolved take a look? I had added that reference myself. Firsfron of Ronchester 10:41, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Although gutting an article before nominating it for AfD can be poor behaviour it isn't necessarily. It actually is quite common for someone to be doing cleanup work and, after removing all the copyvios, the irrelevant coatracking, the sources that don't mention the subject, and who knows what other useless gunk has accumulated- realise that what's left isn't enough to sustain an article. Nominating at AfD then is quite proper. Reyk YO! 14:10, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
    • This is a good point. I definitely have seen people sabotage articles that they wanted to see gone, but I suspect in many/most cases, what's happened is just as you described... but if the editor doing the trimming has such a divergent view of what the article should be, then by the time it's nominated for deletion, it becomes sort of a WP:FAIT issue, in that the article up for discussion is substantially different than it started. If all changes were uncontroversial improvements, that's not an issue. In several of these, sources were removed that to a cursory inspection appeared reasonable. Jclemens (talk) 05:24, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
  • We don't have a requirement that someone who nominates an article for deletion must refrain from improving the article (which sometimes means removing things), nor that they must have never improved the article in the past. If someone shows a pattern of inappropriately removing content (inappropriate because their reasoning is not in line with our policies and guidelines, not because of an assumption of bad faith that it was to skew an AfD), that can be dealt with at ANI, etc. Ultimately, WP:BRD applies. If you think someone's removal was inappropriate, restore it, but the rationale should be based on that content, not just because it's at AfD. You can always just link to the sources that were removed in the AfD, after all. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:30, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Per this request, I just restored the references removed prior to AFD nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anga area. I take no position on the notability of the subject of the article, but I do not see signs of copyright violations, and at least the first two references seemed appropriate on cursory inspection. Firsfron of Ronchester 18:06, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

    • I would agree that it is bad form to remove sourced content from an article, unless there is a copyvio or BLP issues. Of course, it makes sense to cleanup an article at AfD, which means sometimes removing content. But editors should be judicious about it and generally seek consensus before removing walls of content, unless unsourced. Even then, a search should be completed to see if it can be sourced. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 12:29, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Magali Elise Roques

I just added the AfD tag to the page. I believe the reasons for the previous deletion of the page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Magali_Elise_Roques) remain unchanged and entirely valid.

Then it's eligible for G4 speedy deletion if the issues brought up in the prior AfD have not been addressed. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 11:29, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Please don't confuse the IP editors. CSD-G4 actually says "This applies to sufficiently identical copies, having any title, of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion. It excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version ..." Thus, not solving the previous problem is insufficient to trigger G4; it must not have even made a reasonable effort, i.e., it's a straight reposting (or close to it) of the deleted article. Jclemens (talk) 01:51, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 Done - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magali Elise Roques (2nd nomination). --Finngall talk 23:30, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

PyGopherd

Please complete AfD nomination for PyGopherd. I'd like to nominate it for the following reasons:

Appears to fail the notability, reliable sources and verifiability tests. Nothing suggests it introduced any breakthrough technology or in any way contribute to the development of the gopher protocol or gopherspace, all that we can see is that it is another run-of-the-mill gopher server. The only secondary source mentions it in passing, merely confirming its existence. Good faith search failed to find any other references. The article merely repeats the information already present in gopher (protocol) § server software. The article was nominated for proposed deletion but the nomination was contested.

Thank you. 84.69.182.103 (talk) 13:56, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PyGopherd. Iffy★Chat -- 14:04, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Harlan J. Brothers

Happened across this auto-BLP. Highly concerned that it is of a relatively unknown individual and reads like a vanity article. It has been previously nominated for deletion in 2006, but I think it might be time for a review. Seeking advice here because I have never nominated an article for deletion before.

My concerns are specifically as follows:

  • Clearly an WP:AUTO because its main contributor is User:Hjb, clearly the subject himself. There is a second contributor who makes frequent edits (User:GiantSteps), whom I suspect knows HJB personally. Both means that there is a serious WP:CONFLICT.
  • HJB fails the WP:ACADEMIC notability tests by miles.
    • His mathematical contributions, while impressive-sounding to the layperson, are relatively standard for the discipline itself. His main contribution is discovering a slightly-faster converging sequence for the Euler constant e. Firstly, this result has only been cited 34 times since its publication in 1998. Secondly, there are countless publications describing incremental improvements in algorithms; there is nothing really that special about HJB's work. Instead, he relies on the "wow" factor of working on the Euler's constant, which has pop science appeal.
    • There is a blatant embellishment where the article claims "these methods subsequently found their way into the standard college calculus curriculum by way of two popular textbooks on the subject." This implies HJB's results have become standard teaching. However, if one actually looks in the cited 2010 R.Larson textbook, HJB's series expansion for e isn't listed anywhere. Instead, on page 652, where the Maclaurian polynomial for ex is introduced, there is a footnote encouraging students to see "how to use series to obtain other approximatins for e", with a reference to HJB's 1998 paper. This reference is probably more because the paper contains a lot of known series in its background sections. Larson at no point actually refers to HJB's original research.
    • The page makes a great deal of fuss about HJB corresponding and collaborating with famous mathematicians (one of whom isn't even named, instead referred to only as "a well-known mathematician at Scientific American"). This does not contribute to noteworthiness at all. Should we write Wiki biographies for every undergraduate who does summer vacation research with famous mathematicians?
    • Nor is being an amateur mathematician with no formal training noteworthy, especially when the corpus of one's work is miniscule. Countless academics publish outside their fields all the time. I also don't know why going back to uni to study calculus is a particularly impressive feat.
  • In 2006, when the first deletion discussion was held, a lot of editors suggested to keep because HJB holds patents. This is not a reason for noteworthiness, and is actually not even discussed here in this article.
    • Furthermore, the 2006 editors suggested that a lot more work be done to improve the language and turn it away from being a vanity article. However, the text in today's article is largely unchanged from a 2005 version. Moreover, previous recent edits (such as this one) contained blatantly self-promoting sections, indicating the authors' intentions of using this BLP as a vanity puff-piece.

In summary, I think this sort of autobiography should not exist on Wikipedia. It is of a relatively unknown person, and contains a lot of flaws, including egregious attempts to inflate the subject's importance and contributions to academia. While I do not doubt his passion and the originality of his work, I nonetheless believe we should not encourage spurious, vain articles like this one to exist on Wikipedia. I'm seeking advice about whether I have a solid case to launch a nomination to delete, and if so, should I be quoting any other policies? --LStravaganz (talk) 09:41, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't have much experience with Afd's but FWIW I agree 100% the subject does not meet notability guidelines. My only suggestion would be to add that google searches (as suggested by WP:BEFORE) for "Harlan Brothers" and "Harlan J Brothers" reveal essentially zero secondary source coverage. Danstronger (talk) 17:50, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Page curation toolbar

Is Page curation toolbars AFD not working. I just now tagged an article with Afd but it was not added correctly. Can anyone look into it. Thankyou signed, Iflaq (talk) 14:21, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

adding other language Wikipedias to {{Find sources AFD}} and {{Find sources}}

Sometimes additional useful references can be found for an article at AfD by checking corresponding articles in other Wikipedias. Links to these other wikis are included on the article page, but not in individual nominations. If they were included in {{Find sources}} or some other part of an automatically-generated AfD, more articles at AfD could be saved with the content from the other wikis. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:51, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Could someone list these pages for an AFD discussion please?

Hello, could someone please lise Series 51-59 and Series 201-299 for discussion please (1 combined AFD for the two articles), with the following rationale:

I don't think these disambiguation pages actually perform a useful disambiguation function. Neither of these articles actually disambiguate the title they are associated with, Series 51-59 doesn't include anything that would be referred to as "Series 51-59" - it contains a list of things that are called "series 51" "series 52" etc. which in my opinion are not ambiguous with each other. The ranges chosen seem rather arbitrary, I'm not sure why one page covers 9 numbers and the other 99? I think it would be better to have individual disambiguation pages for each "series X" title that is actually ambiguous, rather than a combined page where half the numbers don't appear and some of them have only one entry.

Thanks, 192.76.8.74 (talk) 00:42, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

  • It sounds like you're suggesting splitting those disambiguation pages into multiple disambiguation pages rather than deleting them. That isn't what AfD is for. Hut 8.5 07:28, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I proposed an article be deleted

I'm just an anonymous passer-by. I was told to post here if I proposed an article for deletion. I proposed Associative model of data, with reasons given on the talk page. It would be good if someone with experience could handle this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.150.69.172 (talk) 00:09, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

"Old AFD" tags on articles about a different subject

I came across an "Old AFD" tag at Talk:Influence (film) that refers to an AFD of an article about an entirely different subject that just happened to have the same title as the current article. As such the tag is misleading and I think should not be applied to such articles. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:17, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Marc Pilcher

I would like someone to look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marc Pilcher. It was created by an editor wanting to keep it citing people wanting to delete it despite nothing suggestive this appearing in edit summaries or the talk page. Rusted AutoParts 01:40, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

It’s been closed. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:21, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Old Discussions not updating

Is there a reason why the last several days of old discussions that are still open are not appearing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old/Open AfDs?4meter4 (talk) 01:25, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Possibly caused by a deprecation of legacy API token parameters meaning Mathbot can’t access the API. I’ve updated the old listings at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old manually for now. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:17, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
There seem to be more old AfDs closed and not relisted, that appear in DELSORT lists but not under the pages for the 'old' (7+d ago) dates on which they were opened. Is this another 'not transcluded' problem? Jclemens (talk) 16:37, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

COIN

Courtesy notice that I've started a discussion at COIN here about cleanup for a sockfarm (likely UPE) that have been active at AfD recently. Giraffer (talk·contribs) 17:11, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Magal Security Systems

Should Magal Security Systems be deleted? Was created 15 years ago. Not much of a page. Had a tag on it for almost 10 years. MaskedSinger (talk) 15:56, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

  • I wouldn't object if you nominated. It certainly needs some work, that's for sure. I would need to examine the sources to see if it meets GNG. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 01:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Hi @Editorofthewiki: thanks for getting back to me and nice to meet you! Can you nominate it for me? I have no idea how to do so. If it's really basic and simple, I'll give it a go. I've never done it before. I really should as there's lots of pages that should go. MaskedSinger (talk) 06:33, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

List of radio stations in Nigeria

I came across this article while correcting cite errors. It would appear to fail foul of WP:NOTDIR, WP:LINKFARM, probably WP:PROMO, the links are all primary and I doubt any of it meets WP:GNG. However I've never nominated an article for deletion, and want to check I'm not completely off the mark. Does anyone have any input? Thanks ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 11:16, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested It's a good idea to bring articles like this here. I think it would attract opinions in broadly equal measure to keep or delete despite the valid points you make. With Nigeria articles I tend to let @Celestina007 take a look at the discussion. They have substantial expertise in that geography.
Others may disagree with me, but I see no harm, except that it creates work, in nominating any article for deletion when one holds a genuine belief there is a justifiable reason for discussion. The key is WP:BEFORE to seek to determine inherent notability.
With lists I am one of those who hold the view that every list member requires a citation to show that it belongs on the list, and that gratuitous links to the entity's web site should not exist. Again, others hold different views.
Should a list have list members that do not, themselves, have sufficient notability to have their own article, or to deserve an article? Again, that is open to interpretation FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 12:45, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
  • According to WP:LISTN, "the entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability...[thus], because the group or set is notable, the individual items do not need to be." For lists, notability is required for the creation of the list, not the items on it, although large lists can be reduced to solely notable items if agreed, as per WP:LSC. But if the group of items fulfill an informational, navigational, or developmental purpose, they should be kept "regardless of any demonstrated notability," as per WP:LISTPURP. This page passes WP:LISTN, and it also gets an average of 164 daily views, has dozens of watchers, and is updated frequently. So I'm not seeing sufficient evidence for deletion. -Tiredmeliorist (talk) 21:16, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
@ActivelyDisinterested, I doubt that the page would be deleted. WP:NRADIO actively encourages the creation of this sort of list as an alternative to having separate articles for all radio stations. If you are dissatisfied with the existing sources, have you tried to boldly improve it? Go to https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org and login with your Wikipedia account. Put radio stations nigeria in the (new) search field at the top of the page, and see what you get. This book (especially chapter 2) should also be useful:
Larkin, Brian. “Unstable Objects: THE MAKING OF RADIO IN NIGERIA.” In Signal and Noise: Media, Infrastructure, and Urban Culture in Nigeria, 48–72. Duke University Press, 2008. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv1220mnp.6 WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:55, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
I literally have thousands of outstanding things to do, and I'm ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 10:50, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
In that case, you should probably act like you were completely unaware that this kind of page even existed. I'm sure it would be a waste of your time to try to do anything about it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:40, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
You right my lack of knowledge or interest in the subject make me a bad candidate to improve the article, as you appear to have both I'll leave it in your capable hands. ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 01:17, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Quadrennium

Could someone please complete this nomination for me?

{{subst:afd2|pg=Quadrennium|cat=U|text=Per [[WP:DICDEF]]. The article is basically a dictionary definition and can't conceivably be expanded beyond that. (Similarly, we don't have an article for [[biennium]], though there is a disambiguation page.)}} [[Special:Contributions/207.161.86.162|207.161.86.162]] ([[User talk:207.161.86.162|talk]]) 06:17, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, 207.161.86.162 (talk) 06:18, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Done; apologies for the delay. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quadrennium. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:37, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Benji Levy

Came across Benji Levy and it a nothing of a page. Poorly sourced and the rest of it. Should I put a tag on it? Comment on the talk page? Or just tab it for deletion? MaskedSinger (talk) 14:58, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Editorofthewiki do you have any thoughts here? MaskedSinger (talk) 04:48, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
I wouldn't say it was a nothing of a page. It could use some work, and perhaps the sourcing could be improved, but it appears to meet GNG. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 15:02, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
@MaskedSinger, have you tried improving the page yourself? We have no evidence that putting a tag on a page is going to make any difference. There aren't a bunch of editors sitting around waiting for someone to point out that articles like this need improvement. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:39, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing Fair question. I don't think he's notable enough for a page. I don't believe he satisfies GNG. MaskedSinger (talk) 16:35, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
There are 19 sources in the article, and more than half of them are Wikipedia:Independent sources. That'd be a difficult case to make at AFD. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:33, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing You say 19 because that's what there currently is but how many of them are legit? Off the bat, the first 2 aren't. MaskedSinger (talk) 03:53, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by "legit". The second source is an article in one of the biggest and oldest daily newspapers in Israel. Do you mean that newspaper articles aren't reliable sources? That the specific cited source doesn't support the half-sentence it's meant to support? That the article, considered in isolation from all the others, doesn't single-handedly prove the subject's notability? Something else? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:38, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
That its a press release disguised as an op-ed. MaskedSinger (talk) 03:41, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Why do you believe that it was a press release? Did you find a copy of it at any of the usual repositories for press releases? Or are you conflating saying something positive about the subject with being a self-published press release? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:41, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
I agree that the 2nd reference [5] is an op-ed. I don’t know about “disguised”, it’s pretty upfront with the authorship and how they are connected. Obviously not a GNG source, authored by the article subject. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:24, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Draftify: Village Pump discussion

New discussion topic at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Draftify_as_an_Action_at_AFD. AllyD (talk) 18:52, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Some of the above VPP discussion has been moved here

Should Draftify be added to the list of actions to consider, to codify what is sometimes the practice? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:08, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Unless there is either a strong consensus to make this addition, or a reason not to publish an RFC, I will post an RFC to add Draftify to the options. I am asking first. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:12, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't see the point of adding this option.
    1. If a subject is notable, why would we draftify it? Draftspace is where pages go to die. Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup, and draftification is an especially ineffective method of cleaning up an article.
    2. If a subject is not notable, why would we draftify it? It should be deleted outright.
I therefore oppose this. Delete it if it's not notable, and keep it if it is. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:44, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Draftify is for something that is WP:TOOSOON.
There is also WP:DRAFTIFY (which I wrote, to limit uncontrolled unilateral backdoor deletion via draftification then CSD#G13) and its “some potential merit”, which a proponent has not but might yet demonstrate. If an individual may unilaterally Draftify, then certainly it can be done by consensus.
For someone who doesn’t like their work draftified, try WP:DUD. Draftspace is mainly for WP:AFC, which is optional. Draftspace is also for WP:COI editors who are not supposed to edit on their COI in mainspace. SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:00, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment to User:WhatamIdoing – You ask why an article should be draftified rather than deleted if the topic is not notable. The answer is it is likely that the topic will be notable in the future. A common example is planned movies, television shows, or book sequels. They often do not pass notability at the time of the AFD, but are expected to be released in the future. Another example is up-and-coming performers, who may not have multiple roles yet, and may not have enough significant coverage to pass general notability. You asked a question. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:11, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
    I don't think that we should keep non-notable drafts about BLPs, and I'm not convinced that we should keep non-notable drafts about anything. People can get a WP:REFUND in those cases. Draftspace comes with a six-month timer. If you move a page to draftspace because it might someday be notable, then that page is very likely to be auto-deleted before then. Userification would be a safer option when it's uncertain.
    If you think it's going to be notable in the next couple of months, then we shouldn't bother moving the page, because it's silly and overly bureaucratic to briefly hide a page when the consensus is that the subject will be notable when the movie/television show/book is going to become notable soon. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:25, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment – It appears that there are at least two different points of view. I think that an RFC is in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:11, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Do we have more than one or two examples of someone trying to argue that draftification isn't a valid outcome of AfD? I see people make all sorts of claims about what is/isn't allowed at AfD, but as long as it's just a couple people there's not a need to codify anything. Draftification is a possible outcome of AfD, but it should be extremely rare (somewhat rarer than userfication IMO) so doesn't need to be listed unless we're going to try to brainstorm every possible outcome. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:51, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Assuming that Draftify is a valid AFD outcome, we should also clarify what the proper process for challenging such a closure is. Obviously the 1st step is the same as for any other AFD (Talk page of closer), but what happens next? I think deletion review is the next step if the user thinks the article should have been deleted. If the user thinks the article should have been Kept as is, is submitting to WP:AFC an appropriate way of challenging the result? And what about users who think a Merge or Redirect outcome is appropriate instead? Iffy★Chat -- 09:08, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
    I agree, an AfD consensus to Draftify is a pseudo-deletion and welcome to be reviewed at DRV. However, don’t come straight to DRV if you think you have now overcome an old AfD reason to Draftify. SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:02, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
    If a draft is submitted and rejected, and a user thinks the rejection is wrong, take it to DRV. SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:09, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
    Any auto-confirmed editor is able to move a page out of draftspace. You could end up with this process:
    • Monday: AFD closes with a decision to move the page to draftspace; page is moved to draftspace.
    • Tuesday: Editor looks it over, decides that it's notable, and moves it back.
    It doesn't really matter whether Tuesday's editor was involved in the AFD process or not. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:20, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
    Yes, and this is not a problem. It works in practice of not in theory. We trust editors to respect the consensus at AfD and not move it back without overcoming the problems expressed at AfD. If an editor is being disruptive by ignoring a documented consensus, there is a system of escalating warnings to help them learn. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:53, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
    And what do you do if after good faith effort to improve the draft, it gets moved back to mainspace, but then is sent back to draftspace on the basis that the AFD result is controlling? Iffy★Chat -- 22:27, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
    Accept the result of the AfD. Presumably, it is TOOSOON. Wait for more sources to arise. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:03, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment Just sometimes it is better to leave matters like this fluid and in the hands of the community that arrives to offer !votes at AfD. We do not need to codify everything.
For this reason I am against a proposal to codify the option of draftification, but I am not at all against this being an outcme that is used on a horses for courses basis at the will of the !voting communigty, or of the nominator. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 15:07, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
I agree with @Timtrent. If the particular situation suits draftspace better than userspace, then I wouldn't object to that being the outcome. I don't think we need to codify it, and I especially do not want to see us recommending it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:37, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing the sole use I wish to see of draftification at AfD, or anywhere, come to that, is when a draft has escaped into the wild far too soon to have all the attributes it needs to have a better than 50% chance of surviving a deletion prioress, coupled with potential but not yet certain inherent notability. This is best in the hands of the individual AfD !voting community.
We have far too many rules. Sometimes even typing involves WP:IAR! FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 16:02, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
(1) It is a central idea of AfD that alternatives to deletion should be sought, before we take the drastic step of deleting. As such it's already within the spirit of AfD to draftify if the subject is (probably) notable, but the article isn't currently in a state appropriate for main-space. (2) If someone moves an article they have written from draft-space to main-space, and you disagree, the correct procedure is to take it to AfD, not to move it back again. Recently user:Scope creep got rather harshly dragged to ANI for doing this, when the article in question had very serious problems and definitely shouldn't have been in main space. But if AfD can't draftify, this means that once someone moves an article prematurely from draft to main space, we're stuck with keep or delete, neither of which might be the right outcome. So the rules for handling drafts already assume that AfD can send a premature draft back again. I think it's so obvious that draftification should be a valid outcome of AfD that it's not necessary to put it in writing, but if anyone wants it in writing, I'd totally support the idea.
In fact thinking of Scope creep's dilemma, where he was bound to get yelled at whether he draftified or took to AfD, I wonder whether AfD really needs renaming to Articles-for-removal-from-main-space! (or ideally something a bit shorter meaning the same thing). I.e. it's where you take an article that you think shouldn't be in the main encyclopaedia, so we can decide what to do with it, not immediately tainting things with deletion. Elemimele (talk) 17:55, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Looking at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1081#South al-Mutlaa article deleted by User:Scope creep without following the Wikipedia deletion policy and due process for article deletion, User:Scope creep was guilty of move warring an article to draftspace. If draftification is opposed in any way, you are supposed to go to AfD and argue delete or Draftify. Unilateral draftication, like PROD and CSD, are for where there is no discussion to be had. If there is any discussion to be had about deletion of pseudo-deletion, AfD is the right forum. If an editor opposes something, there is a discussion to be had. Discussions involve mutual learning, they are not simply for making a decision. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:38, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
@Elemimele, maybe it would help if you could describe an article that is (probably) notable but which "isn't currently in a state appropriate for main-space." I'm not entirely certain that such a thing exists, although the idea of hiding imperfect articles would appeal to people who subscribe to m:Immediatism as a value. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:31, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing:, yes, good question. South_al-Mutlaa was a good example. As a new city construction destined to house 400,000 it's already clearly notable, its article contained valuable information, but was hopelessly over-promotional. It needed either clean-up or draftification; keep-as-was and delete were both wrong outcomes. Andrzej_Szpilman is another possible. From what he's done, he seems likely to be notable, but the referencing is abysmal. I suspect if he went to AfD the result would be someone finding some references (AfD is clean-up sometimes!). But these may be rare cases. I feel no formal change in the rules is needed. Elemimele (talk) 09:20, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Your approach in the South al-Mutlaa of Wikipedia:Stubbing the article down to the uncontested content is often a good approach to articles on notable subjects that need major work. I don't see any benefit to moving them to draftspace. If you want them cleaned up, that is significantly more likely to happen in the mainspace. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:46, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
@SmokeyJoe, I'm thinking about move-warring and the PROD rule. Do we have a written rule anywhere that says draftspace is a one-time thing, so that once a page gets moved out of the draftspace, it can't go back? Just like PROD, once it's been moved out of draftspace, the options would be AFD or nothing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:54, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
User:WhatamIdoing, WP:DRAFTIFY says that a page can’t only be unilaterally draftified once. This is the same as PROD. After a PROD, the page can be repeatedly AfD-ed. After a unilateral draftification re-mainspacing, logically it can go to AfD to be re-draftified. I don’t see any fundamental problem.User:WhatamIdoing SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:08, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, @SmokeyJoe. I can't find the sentence in DRAFTIFY that says a page can only be unilaterially moved to draftspace once. Help me out? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:03, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
User:WhatamIdoing, WP:DRAFTOBJECT contains the text. The text seems to change with time, but the underlying assumption, which could be stated more clearly, is: If draftification has been opposed (whether by talk post, or revert, or subsequent re-mainspacing, etc) then it may not be again unilaterally draftified.
If there is objection or resistance to draftification, use AfD to find and establish a consensus.
There is nothing here that limits AfD from establishing any consensus, including to redraftify, and which might well include further conditions, such as time, new sources, or AfC acceptance, before future mainspacing.
An example where I can imagine this occurring might be the Draft:Jakarta 2036 Summer Olympics, which might one day replace or be merged to the 2036 Summer Olympics. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:28, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
@SmokeyJoe, DRAFTOBJECT is not even remotely clear enough on that point. It says:
Other editors (including the author of the page) have a right to object to moving the page. If an editor raises an objection, move the page back to mainspace, and if it is not notable, list it at AfD.
There is nothing there that says your objection today prevents me (or another editor) from re-draftifying the page at a later date. To serve the goal, it would need to say something like:
Other editors (including the author of the page) have a right to object to moving the page. If an editor raises an objection, move the page back to mainspace, and if it is not notable, list it at AfD. A page may only be moved to the draftspace a single time, ever. If anyone objects, it is no longer an uncontroversial move, and the page needs to be handled through other processes, such as deletion, stubbing, tagging, etc. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:40, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
User:WhatamIdoing, I added your text mostly.
I only agree that the limit is to unilateral draftification. I think everyone will agree to that. Anything else is a recipe for move-warring, or intimidation of the newcomer.
However, I don’t think it is agreeable that AfD can’t re-Draftify a page when the AfD has a consensus to do exactly that.
Also, it is not for WP:DRAFTIFY to limit the prerogative of AfD.
It also might be proper for a quiet discussion to arrive at a unanimous agreement to re-Draftify a page. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:24, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
IMO that's a big improvement in clarity. I appreciate you making the change, and I especially appreciate you modifying my quick suggested wording to be more precise. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:43, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Ok yes, don’t “recommend” draftification, it is after all a rarer outcome. But do link to WP:Draftify as a possibility. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:55, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
If we are certain that the subject is notable, we shouldn't be moving it to draftspace. The criteria for getting out of draftspace is that an editor believes it is WP:LIKELY to be a notable subject ("greater than 50% chance of surviving AFD" being the common phrase). When we know that the subject is notable, it's silly to move it into the namespace for potentially non-notable subjects. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:49, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
I do not agree with this idea that documentation is bad. I think documentation is good. Better to clearly tell people what the norms are, rather than leaving them to flounder and guess. There should not be "unwritten rules" for anything that occurs frequently. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:08, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Support, of course. This will very rarely be a first option, but there are times when draftification is clearly superior to userfication (e.g., where multiple editors have touched the article, or where the original contributor has vanished). BD2412 T 18:02, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Support It is already a defacto standard at Afd. I think it has been for a number of years. scope_creepTalk 18:04, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
  • FWIW, I looked at all 16693 AfDs that ran in 2020 and parsed out everything that matched the regex The result was ([^']+). Of those, I found 88 that matched (case insensitive) "draft", so about 0.5% of the closes ended in Draftify. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:23, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
    Thanks.
    I don’t think any bad draftification have come to DRV. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:56, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. It’s already an established outcome of AFDs under certain circumstances (usually when WP:TOOSOON applies but also in cases where an alternative to WP:TNT are sought by editors wishing to improve an article that isn’t ready for main space).4meter4 (talk) 23:20, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. I support any attempt to update policies, guidelines, and documentation to reflect actual practices. It seems to me that draftify is both a valid vote and a valid close at AFD. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:11, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. AfD, as used by deletionists, is a destructive process. Sure a lot of crap is out there and deserves to be deleted, but most deletionists will hammer, unfairly, at marginal (or not even marginal) content in need of maybe more sources or in the perceived quality of sources. Frankly, some arguments to wipe out validity of sources in order to achieve the destructive goal have gone well over the border of ridiculous. Sometimes it takes time for the media to notice and catch up. There should be a more neutral choice to outright destruction of potentially valuable content. Putting the availability of that choice into words helps. There is nothing better than to give content, or management of content by saner minds, time to mature without the salt of a previous deletion. Time heals all wounds or time wounds all heels. It is also good to have this policy discussion in the theoretical space here as opposed to when a specific article is in play. Trackinfo (talk) 05:44, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Support AfD has always encouraged altrnatives to deleting. Draft space was only introduced in 2013, but as Wikipedia:Article Incubator has been part of deletion procedure since at least 2006. The provisions for using draftify or its equivalent as an alternative has always been part of WP policy, though, there's nothingwrong with reaffirming it.-- DGG ( talk ) 07:10, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

John W. Williams (Florida official)

Could someone please complete this nomination for me?

{{subst:afd2|pg=John W. Williams (Florida official)|cat=B|text=I see no indication that the subject even comes close to meeting our notability standards.}} ~~~~

Thanks, 207.161.86.162 (talk) 04:28, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done Elli (talk | contribs) 04:28, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

"Free Speech For People"

This article is almost entirely primary sourced, and its notability is questionable. The sourcing in general is very suspect, which is a sign it isn't sufficiently notable. It's all yellow journalism (Huffpost, Democracy Now) or primary (law cases or self published). Can someone please complete? 2600:1012:B02F:F99B:4476:F577:17B8:8289 (talk) 16:11, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Free Speech For People. jp×g 22:04, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Deletion of articles on Wikipedia

… is currently a DYK. Great work, BD2412. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:23, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

This was very much a team effort. Go team! BD2412 T 02:29, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
This rules. Good work, gang! jp×g 12:02, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Moving a Nominated Article

There is a report and a question at WP:AN concerning a move of an article that was nominated for deletion. The question was whether it is permitted to move an article while there is a deletion discussion, and the answer was that it is not permitted, because it causes problems with the scripts. In the case in point, the move appeared to be a good-faith renaming, which should have either been proposed in the AFD or deferred. I have more often seen attempts to move an article that has been nominated for deletion in a disruptive fashion, by attempting to move the article to draft space and so avoid the deletion discussion. This is sometimes done after the article was moved to draft space by a reviewer, and then moved back to article space by the originator, and then nominated for AFD because it is not ready for article space. That is, the originator first move-wars to put it in article space, but then move-wars to put it in draft space to run away from the AFD. So, we agree that an article should not be moved while a deletion discussion is in progress.

My recommendation has to do with the wording of the template on the article. The template on a page that has been nominated for miscellaneous deletion says not to blank it, move it, or merge it, or remove the notice, while the discussion is in progress. The template on an article that has been nominated for deletion says not to blank it or remove the notice. We should add an instruction not to move the article. Administrators know that an article should not be moved while a deletion discussion is in progress. Single-purpose accounts may not know this. If the template specifically includes such an instruction, it will further clarify that a block may be appropriate. The template should be reworded. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:11, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Never mind an SPA, I wasn't familiar that a move can't be done while an article is at AfD (never considered it as an edge case). Mentioning it on the template would be good. Nonetheless, before blocking anyone for moving the article you should be making sure they know that it is disallowed, or using it only as one piece of evidence in a clear pattern of behaviour (such as the moving to draftspace to avoid deletion—there will likely have been other disruptive actions). — Bilorv (talk) 21:33, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, I seem to recall a couple of AfDs where the article was moved midway through (without anyone seeing it as foul play). If it's obviously being done to stymie the process, that feels like a different thing entirely. jp×g 12:06, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Option_in_twinkle_to_"alert"_related_WikiProjects_when_starting_an_Afd

If you have an opinion, please share. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:49, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Efren Reyes Jr.

Nominate this article for AFd, as it currently fails WP:GNG. 121.185.35.240 (talk) 12:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Don't give orders, Atlantic306 (talk) 03:30, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Something went wrong

Something seems to have gone wrong when I nominated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Normanism.--Berig (talk) 11:51, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Is this something that Cewbot can fix? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 14:00, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
@AleatoryPonderings Perhaps, but I tweaked it with a very small hammer, manually. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 14:32, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
@Berig I have fixed, in basic terms, the nomination page. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 14:18, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Thank you very much :-).--Berig (talk) 14:53, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Rachel McKibbens

Should Rachel McKibbens be deleted? Seems to be a clear example of an article about a person written by the person themselves. They arent noteworthy either, nor does the article provide anything of note. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.174.130.186 (talk) 17:40, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Interwiki links on AFD/Today

Just out of curiosity, is there any reason that there's a group of interwiki links on WP:AFD/Today instead of its Wikidata item? I do notice there is a singular link on the item, so should the other links be moved over? Thanks. Remagoxer (talk) 09:52, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Show "edits since nomination" link on AFDs?

Currently, a set of links like the following are shown on AFD pages:

ArticleName (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

We could add an "edits since nomination" link that would enable easy inspection of if/how the article has changed since the nomination was started.

I've sandboxed an edit for {{Afd2}} which does this, but wanted to check first whether this would be controversial. – SD0001 (talk) 07:28, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Support. It looks desirable. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:21, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
+1. Definitely useful when partway through an AFD that is leaning delete someone makes a massive update. Previous commenters could then more easily decide if they want to change their position. DMacks (talk) 14:27, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
For example, see the closure of the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Becky Sharp (character) AfD. ——Serial 10:44, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 Done [6] – SD0001 (talk) 12:47, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Gerald W. Brown

I do not know how to nominate Gerald W. Brown for deletion and so request someone experienced to initiate that process. Non-notable biography. No reliable published references. The existing references are to internal governmental memos. Thank you. RemotelyInterested (talk) 14:46, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gerald_W._Brown Qwaiiplayer (talk) 15:00, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Can AfD's be RfCd?

Hi! I'm wondering if an AfD can be RfCd. I recently started one where the two other editors involved have previously had many discussions with me on related topics and I worry that (regardless of conclusion) if it's basically only us 3 discussing over and over it might not be indicative of community consensus. I wonder if adding an RfC to the AfD is possible as a good way to get more neutral and uninvolved editors to give their opinion on a discussion. Santacruz ⁂ Please tag me! 09:47, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Have you exhausted all WP:ATDs. If it is a binary keep/delete, a week with relists is enough. When it’s more complicated it’s probably not a straight AfD decision. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Idea - Editor can't leave Article wizard until notability requirements are met

I am trying to reduce the number of New Editors that leave. A new Editor that gets a revert on their first edit has a 50 % chance of leaving within 2 months and does less edits over that period. I don't know the numbers on AfDs

The idea below would obviously reduce down the number of AfDs on new articles. But would the articles that passed this still have a high chance of AfD tag and Failing AfD for notability?

Problems and Possible Solution Time spent.

  1. Solution. We don't let them spend time until they satisfy nobility. The aim would be that new Article stay in the Article Wizard and draft mode, until an editor passes the below. The article is to be hidden from google and be untouched by bots or tools
  2. Confirm independence
  3. Choose a main category (and a subcategory in some cases)
  4. Meet the requirements of the category. (They find references and these are checked using the NPP page curator cite seeker. I would prefer they have to add a reference to an outside database for things like companies, charities, etc .
  5. Choose a category relevant for diversity/women category/non-ESL. So can choose to provide help,
  6. If success they get out of the wizard, the category is added, Info box, and section are added

Emotional Investment in the article

  1. Solution. If they can't get past this hurdle they are
  2. Advised of alternates and offered a download of their data
  3. They can have the article added to the article for creation list
  4. I don't think it should be an option to add to the AFC list until the Article Creator has satisfied the limited notability above, but they advise that 80 % fail because of notability
  5. Show a counter that shows days before deletion of draft (say 30 days since the last edit) Then bot delete.

Perceived Fairness - (clear procedures, helpful comment from NPP, and whether they feel the process is "fair"

  1. Solution. They don't understand our procedures, and the learning curve is too high. They need guided assistance.

Other benefits. If we can work out a way to make the success rate high, then we can add more of the NPP tools, grammar checkers, and a way of assessing whether an item is stub or start - so they cant publish until they have a start. Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 10:39, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

If you delete this you’re deleting history and more importantly you’re deleting the truth

Don’t bend to the will of political extremists and delete this just because they seem to think it is inconvenient to their cause. Seek to tell the truth at all costs. 2600:8804:1F0A:7100:7D67:FC85:3994:2F6D (talk) 22:00, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Huh? Santacruz ⁂ Please tag me! 22:23, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps they are referring to their own post here. BD2412 T 23:12, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm thinking there's an article presently at AfD they support and think an AfD can be short-circuited this way. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 00:51, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
I take it as a compliment that the IP thinks we have the psychic power to read its mind and determine which one, then. BD2412 T 00:55, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
But surely, as admin you have such unfettered access to The Truth where it becomes a simple logical derivation, BD2412 /s. See also: one such admin and an active RfA. Santacruz ⁂ Please tag me! 09:40, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Well agreed. MaxSolar0713 (talk) 15:26, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Moving of Nominated Articles (more)

Articles that have been nominated for deletion are sometimes moved while the deletion discussion is in progress, for at least two reasons. First, the user moving the article is acting in good faith, possibly because the move is an alternative to deletion. In such cases, the move is almost always reverted by an administrator, because moving the article complicates the process of tracking the AFD. (Moving the page can be an alternative to deletion, but AFD should not be used as a Request to Move.) Second, the user is the originator of the article, and is attempting to move the page into draft space to avoid the deletion discussion. This sometimes happens after the article has already been draftified by a reviewer, and the author has move-warred the page back into article space. Regardless of whether the move is in good faith or bad faith, it is not helpful, and the instructions should state that the page should not be moved. There may be other reasons, but in general moving an article during an AFD is not useful. If the AFD decides that the article should be moved, the closer will move the article when closing the AFD.

I am starting the RFC on the AFD talk page and not on a template talk page only because of the complexity of the AFD template. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:25, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Deletion statistics

Hi, where might I find statistics? GreenC 18:56, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

What kind of statistics? – Joe (talk) 19:53, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Well, any kind I guess, depending what exists. Some ideas would be user-specific participation in AfD; AfD stats (articles deleted, no-consensus, keep); PROD stats. -- GreenC 01:16, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
There are some relevant statistics at User:JPxG/Oracle * Pppery * it has begun... 02:16, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
That's awesome, noted. I found Snottywong's old AfD stats tool but it's not working. -- GreenC 05:06, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

RFC: Add Draftify to Options on AFD

Should Draftify and Userfy be added to the list of options on a deletion discussion? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:54, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Please enter Yes or No in the Survey with a brief statement. Back-and-forth discussion may be conducted in the Threaded Discussion. Suggestions for any guidance on when Draftify or Userfy are appropriate can be entered in the section for that purpose.

Survey: Add Draftify to Options on AFD

  • Yes as discussed in above sections, and to reflect existing practice that these dispositions are sometimes !voted and sometimes closed. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:55, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes. I support any attempt to update policies, guidelines, and documentation to reflect actual practices. It seems to me that draftify is both a valid vote and a valid close at AFD. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:00, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes, but only in clearly defined situations. Draftify and Userfy should only be used when an article meets GNG but is in such bad shape it is not yet ready for main space (i.e. as an alternative to WP:TNT); or if its a subject that doesn't currently meet GNG but is likely to meet GNG in the future..4meter4 (talk) 02:19, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
  • No; draftification should be an uncontroversial process. If someone (including the page creator) disagrees about draftification, the page should be moved to the mainspace, discussed at AfD, and stay in mainspace if the subject is notable. Draftification is often misused to enforce non-existing quality requirements for articles about notable topics, and as a lazy alternative to AfD by reviewers uninterested in properly evaluating the notability of a topic. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:39, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes. See also my previous analysis of how often this is actually done. 4meter4 clearly explained the situations where it's appropriate. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:11, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Huh? – Where is this list you want to add to? I didn't know there was a closed set of options for these discussions. Dicklyon (talk) 05:08, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I didn't know there was a list of possible outcomes (and I don't think that any list should claim to be complete), but I would say that yes, draftification is an acceptable result per 4meter4. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 18:42, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes, no reason not to list it, but we don't need an outcome listed directly in order to execute it when there is consensus. — Bilorv (talk) 21:29, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Not codified as an option Draftification is one of the de facto outcomes, but should not be codified as part of a list of possible outcomes. It should be a matter of the discretion of nominator and of participants alike. We do not need to codify all posisble outcomes because we are all grown up enough to make choices. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 21:36, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes. I assume the "list" is the Alternatives to deletion paragraph at WP:Articles for deletion#How to contribute, given both are valid and frequently proposed alternatives to deletion (for the situations stated by 4meter4 above) it makes perfect sense. Cavalryman (talk) 02:38, 10 November 2021 (UTC).
  • Not as an option for nominations. We can continue occasionally turning a deletion into a draftification when someone at the AfD requests it and other discussants agree that it is an ok candidate for that, as we have already long been doing, but it should not be the initial choice (that's not the sort of thing AfD is for) and I don't see a need for any kind of codification as a formal option. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:24, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
  • No draftify, yes userfy. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:43, 10 November 2021 (UTC).
  • Yes. Same as explained at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Some of the above VPP discussion has been moved here above. Sometimes, a topic is TOOSOON, it will surely be notable in the near future, but is not yet, and it has a proponent who is pushing it to mainspace. As this is a pseudo deletion, AfD is the right forum. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:09, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
  • No per ToBeFree and the statistical results below. It is an exceedingly rare outcome that (as ToBeFree notes) is just kicking the can down the road. If something is not notable, delete it; if it becomes notable, get it back at WP:REFUND; if it is notable, keep it. Unless the author or a participant actively wants to work on it in draft or user space (which can be done unilaterally without an AFD discussion) there's no point in doing so. Documenting it as an option makes it seem like it is used or useful, and that is almost never the case. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:04, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
  • No per Timtrent; there are occasions where "Move to draft" is the correct outcome, but having as a more high-profile option may lead to it being used as back-door deletion. "Procedural close" is another example that is a permitted outcome, but does not need to be prominently listed. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 20:09, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
    That’s crazy, calling it back door, when it’s just gone in the front door to the main chamber of AfD. Back door is when it is draftified and auto-G13-ed with no AfD. Most draftifications I’ve looked at are obviously the right thing (TOOSOON and not speediable), and the author always has the right to WP:DRAFTOBJECT. Where else do you think the DRAFTOBJECT dispute should be resolved? SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:10, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes. This is clearly an option and therefore should clearly be listed as an option. BD2412 T 01:06, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes - they aren't already? I've seen quite a few !votes/closes/cases where these are the preferred/chosen options, so they should be listed as such. Remagoxer (talk) 09:41, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
  • No need, per Dicklyon above and Thincat below - there is no exhaustive list of permissible outcomes anywhere, only examples of common outcomes. There is no need to extend this list of examples to include every possible outcome. It will make no difference whatsoever in practice whether or not "draftify" and/or "userfy" are listed on this page. ansh.666 18:53, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
    I will also note that they are already both present on Wikipedia:Deletion process#Common outcomes. ansh.666 18:09, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
  • No - The list of outcomes at AFD is not closed and there is no need to list every possible outcome. Draftifying will be the appropriate outcome in certain conditions, and inappropriate in other conditions. It should be noted, though, that draftifying an article should not simply be treated as a half-measure solution or one where we kick the can down the road rather than making a decision on the article by e.g., draftifying an article whilst sources are found or the lasting effect of an event becomes clearer. Unfortunately some people seem to think it should be used that way, but it is a very rare outcome at AFD and should remain so. We should not encourage "deciding not to decide", and more prominently suggesting the option of draftification will encourage this. FOARP (talk) 19:18, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments on Guidance

Threaded Discussion

We could make the list of bold words longer still but I'm not sure we should. I sometimes !vote close when things are hopeless (and they sometimes do just get closed!). AFD stats seems to observe Speedy Keep, Speedy Delete and Transwiki (but don't some sites reject transwikis from here? Very sensibly in my view). Thincat (talk) 09:38, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

I see hints of transwiki from time to time in documentation (e.g. NPP flowchart), but I have not observed it used in practice yet. Seems that it is very uncommon. Perhaps too much work, and as you say other wikis aren't always receptive to it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:59, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Yet? Transwiki is from the very old days. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:08, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
I hadn't realised until reading this discussion that it's been years since I've seen a transwiki, but I'm sure I used to see them mentioned sometimes for newly-created articles by new editors that were simple dictionary definitions. In most cases the outcome would be soft redirection, as Wiktionary would have a page on it already. I guess now most of our sister projects are sufficiently developed that it would be rare to find content (a) high-quality enough to transwiki that (b) the sister project didn't have something written about already. — Bilorv (talk) 21:29, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
As the result of some discussion a couple years ago, transwiki is deprecated as a process as far as deletion discussions are concerned (and probably in general as well). ansh.666 19:00, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
My analysis software currently parses AfDs into twelve categories: still open, speedy keep, keep, merge, redirect, delete, speedy delete, withdrawn, no consensus, transwiki, userfy/draftify, and undefined (usually an unaccounted-for variant phrasing of the above, but it also includes procedural closes, which I plan to put in a separate category in future versions). You can see some more about this in the comment I've left below (transwiki is indeed the rarest by far). jp×g 21:55, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Must we have rules and regulations for everything? Once we had Wikipedia. Into that we created a mind numbingly complex bureaucracy, yes, even with Bureaucrats. We have stewards, administrators, arbitrators, clerks, drama boards, processes for creation, processes for deletion, processes for complaining about our fellow editors, processes for praising them. We have proved beyond any doubt that Wikipedia editors adore copmplexity and bureaucracy.

Every last thing does not need to be ruled, regulated, discussed to death, codified, listed, published, promulgated, appealed against. Let's leave a little joy in the unregulated! FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 21:43, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Statistical analysis

All AfD outcomes from 2005 to 2020, stacked

Per above discussion, I think it warrants mentioning that I've performed an analysis of all historical AfDs (from 2005 to 2021) with the Oracle. You can see a total of percentages there (and in the graph to the right) over time. A very small number of AfDs close as "userfy" or "draftify": a mere 0.257%, making it the second-rarest close ("transwiki" being the rarest at 0.072%). That said, 4.3% of closes are "undefined" (usually because they use a very uncommon variant of the close phrasing that the script can't parse), so some may be included there. Nevertheless, this may prove useful information for RfC participants, so I'll include it here (as well as a link to the more detailed analysis at User:JPxG/Oracle/All). jp×g 21:52, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

(Beautiful graph by the way, and good to see there's always been very little corruption at AfD :P) — Bilorv (talk) 19:18, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
I think the graph is beautiful as well. (And I am also impressed by the classification/tagging that is done by all the AfD users(
Is there a chart that shows the outcomes for New articles - how many go to AfD, are flagged by NPP, deleted for vandalism, sent to AfC, or... )
I am trying to work out ways to reduce the New User decline, which if they were done and were successful would Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Idea_-_Editor_can't_leave_Article_wizard_until_notability_requirements_are_met Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 10:47, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Also there is no subscribe option on the topic ?? Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 10:49, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

twitter

"I'm never sure when is a good time to share that I made up a person on Wikipedia sixteen years ago and he is still there" https://twitter.com/aobate/status/1466101687773503493 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.172.30.176 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Henry Farrow -- GreenC 04:41, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

MSNBC producer Irene Byon Wikipedia

I don’t think the story of Irene Byon trying to have one of her producers follow a jury bus should be deleted! Why would you delete the truth of what happened. If you delete this your trying to censor the truth and you shouldn’t look to users of Wikipedia to donate any money to support you. 2604:3D08:7777:BF00:64BD:3B3A:18BB:D7E9 (talk) 08:37, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Threats like that do absolutely nothing except virtue-signal. If you want to weigh in on whether the article should be kept or deleted, make your case on the AfD itself. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 11:00, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Hey anon IP,

Coming on here and screaming is useless. We have a very democratic afd process. Also, we work off of facts and not emotions. Go read the actual AfD.Super (talk) 19:59, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

You are attempting to deny history

If you delete the article about mass killings under communist regimes, you will in effect be trying to deny it ever happened. Whether you like it or not,it is well documented these mass killings happened. Whether it is convenient or not to the current leftist narrative here in the States, it is well documented these mass killings happened. Mass killings are still happening in communist countries, whether you are willing to open your eyes to this fact or not. You can try to say you’re deleting it because it isn’t neutral ground, but that doesn’t change the fact it happened. You should be allowing articles like this to be published on your site instead of bending knee to the brainwashing of the leftist regime. 216.186.234.203 (talk) 04:34, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

I thinknyiu are totally missing the argument they were making. Im think its good it was kept. That said, there point was never that its didn't happen.Super (talk) 20:03, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Andersonville Theological Seminary

I have never nominated an article for deletion do I have a few questions. First question, would be is this a good article to nominate for deletion?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andersonville_Theological_Seminary

This article is nothing more than an advert for the school. Also, as far as I can tell the article helps them gain students and is the purpose behind it. A school staff member has been editing it for years. There are nothing real about the school I can find other than lots of students. It appears to be a diploma mill.Super (talk) 19:46, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

It certainly reads like an advertisement. That isn't necessarily grounds for deletion though, depending on whether sufficient independent sources could be found to meet Wikipedia notability criteria. If it isn't deleted though, it will certainly require a substantial rewrite. As for those behind the article, I'd say that there were good grounds for suspecting a CoI, too. It might be better to raise that matter at the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard first, to see if what other people think. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:58, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Thank you AndyTheGrump. I will follow you advice and bring it up there.Super (talk) 20:12, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

An AfD that didn't make it to the log

I found this AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Getachew Jigi Demeksa (2nd nomination) and it looks incomplete. It's not on the log Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 December 4. I have no idea how to fix it. Can anyone fix this? (I just wanted to !vote on it.) Platonk (talk) 05:08, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done Added AfD template and added the AfD to the daily log. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:22, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Delete article 'Finn Hartstein'

I do not want that sensible data about myself is published in a wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A04:4540:640B:8900:C825:10A6:2269:7A58 (talk) 22:33, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Nominated article for deletion on "Notability" grounds

I have nominated the following page for deletion on grounds of notability and possible self-promotion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jana_Amin

Please provide feedback about completing the process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.31.13.129 (talk) 05:13, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Listing a page at AFD

Hello, please could someone list the page MediaWiki extension for discussion with the following rationale:

I am unconvinced that the topic of MediaWiki extensions has any independent notability outside of the topic of MediaWiki. The article sourcing as it stands is in a terrible state, I did a WP:BEFORE search and was unable to find much better. Over half the references here to primary sources, mostly other WMF wikis. We have comments in WP:TFD Discussions, bugzilla reports, random pages on Meta, Mediawiki Categories and the Mediawiki manual all being used as sources here, all of which are both primary and user generated sources. Almost all The remaining sources seem to consist of papers where a developer is writing about a specific extension they have written for Mediawiki, again I'm fairly sure that most of this would count as primary sourcing (because it's the developer writing about what they've done) but more importantly these are only examples of specific extensions, there doesn't seem to be much, if any, discussion of the extensibility of Mediawiki as a topic. Perhaps it would be sensible to selectivley merge some of the content on specific examples of extensions to MediaWiki#Extensibility? 192.76.8.80 (talk) 00:08, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, 192.76.8.80 (talk) 00:08, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Per WP:AFDHOWTO, please complete step 1, note the justification for deletion on the article's talk page, then re-open this request so that an editor may perform steps 2 and 3 for you. Cheers! —Sirdog (talk) 01:35, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
@Sirdog: Done, though I don't understand why you're making me waste my time copying and pasting this to different talk pages for the sake of bureaucracy instead of just nominating the page for deletion. It may not have been in the right place but everything you need to start the AFD was listed right here. 192.76.8.80 (talk) 01:46, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 Done The requested AfD can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MediaWiki_extension. I am not familiar with the process of submitting AfD's, and so I thought that you completing step 1 was required for me to know everything necessary to submit the nomination by proxy successfully. I now see that is not the case. It was not my intention to make you go through bureaucracy needlessly, and so I apologize for the inconvenience. Having had this experience I will be capable of fulfilling similar requests in the future without needing to request such a thing. I wish you well! —Sirdog (talk) 02:10, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
@Sirdog: Thank you. Those instructions could really use an update, they're probably about 10 years out of date. In my experience these days it's easier for the editor listing the page for deletion to just copy the article title and rationale into WP:Twinkle, which then creates all the pages, log entries, and notifications automatically. 192.76.8.80 (talk) 02:14, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Ya know, retrospectively, as someone who has Twinkle and RedWarn that probably would have been the smart thing to do here. Well, ya know what they say about hindsight... —Sirdog (talk) 02:18, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Why does the site not have the capability to deal with vast canvassing?

Why not only have commentators who have clearly not come from another site be able to comment? While tabloids' owners can't just use their money to get an individual to manipulate content, they now know that they can get their entire audience to flood every future controversial 'discussion', and one doubts if there will be any result in the future which goes against their desires... if this process isn't fixed... 88.109.68.233 (talk) 13:31, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Having anyone able to edit does make Wikipedia susceptible to promotional manipulation, but it also allows an open and transparent consensus to be reached by not censoring anyone. Editors are encouraged to be vigilant in making sure articles maintain a neutral point of view. Editors with conflicts of interest are required to disclose them, and rather than making edits directly, are asked to submit edit requests for review by a neutral party. See also Wikipedia:About#Strengths, weaknesses, and article quality. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:56, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
I don't mean articles generally, AfDs specifically, with a recent one being the obvious example of how tabloids are able to get the result they want. 88.109.68.233 (talk) 14:14, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Can you link the example? Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:27, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
[7] 88.109.68.233 (talk) 21:35, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
(Redacted), this again. Isn't there a discretionary sanctions regime that applies here? —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 21:38, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
I think you saw how the process did deal with it. No way would have a consensus to delete have occurred either way. And it was closed as "no consensus" despite the canvassed "votes" putting the count deeply into "keep" (BTW I did not weigh in). North8000 (talk) 21:56, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
If I recall the close rationale correctly it was because the canvassed "votes" skewed so heavily towards Keep that they closed it as no-consensus, bearing in mind they disregarded the majority of them for not presenting any real argument. (To the IP: Note that "votes" is in quotes; AfD runs off of strength of arguments and not headcount, and so a bare "vote" with no argument or rationale explained is afforded less weight than a detailed argument, doubly so if there's evidence of canvassing. Articles for Deletion is a debate, not a vote.) —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 22:28, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
No idea what you want that's discretionary, but I doubt swearing was necessary. And sure, it's theoretically not a vote, but tabloids mass canvassed and got their way... point is, I doubt the deletion discussion system is structurally sound to resist any future tabloid brigading, and it not being a vote remains a hypothesis at that point too, as it was here. 88.109.68.233 (talk) 09:56, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mass killings under communist regimes (4th nomination) has one of the best AfD closing rationales I have ever seen, and hence this is a poor example of any perceived problems. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:24, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Ritchie, I agree the close was comprehensive and tried to address the negative effects of canvassing, but if there was actual canvassing, I do think it's still a problem we need to address. Any editor who was canvassed to an AfD from somewhere offwiki should at minimum be disclosing that. —valereee (talk) 10:43, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
No comment on the close because it's partially mine. But yes, "we know this discussion was canvassed to hell and back but since we can't tell how much of it was canvassed so we can't tell whether there was a consensus and thus declare it as no consensus" is a sign of a problem if outside campaigning can make it impossible for a discussion to conclude. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:03, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
That is why I thought the process doesn't function in the first place, though... and how, if nothing is done... a repeat is more than inevitable. No consensus isn't a fix, to be sure... and practically, in the eyes of the tabloids, it's clearly equivalent to their canvassed support for no deletion, which will only encourage them further if indeed the process' structural foundation isn't somehow repaired (and nominally discounting canvassed opinions isn't that repair, at all... while the process is on-going they inevitably affect other commentators e.g. - so the leak needs to be closed at the source, and while no one can stop external sites from doing similarly, a wiki should surely still have safeguards against such intense brigading... without waiting until the end). 88.109.68.233 (talk) 11:17, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
IP, I went looking to try to figure out what tabloids canvassed people to that AfD, but it's too long and no one seems to have used the word 'tabloid' in the (unexpanded) page. Can you clarify where people were being canvassed from, with a link if possible? —valereee (talk) 10:39, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
It's in its AfD talk page under "This discussion has been mentioned by multiple media organizations"... quite a long list. It was practically an army of canvassed readers, and I don't think (Ritchie333) the close rationale was even consistent (as I mentioned previously) due to both saying it discounted the canvassed opinions, and then promptly claiming it doesn't... which is why I'm wondering how a process such as this is even workable, and how in the future this could at all be avoided (and I don't think it really could, not unless the AfD is at least prevented from being edited by absolutely everyone... it might not seem to be in the spirit of wikis to do that, but the majority of the people brigading a discussion didn't even know what it was about, let alone considered any spirit of good faith whatsoever... with the tabloids, of course, being the vanguard of bad faith accusations). 88.109.68.233 (talk) 11:11, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, I'd missed that there was even a talk. Quite the Who's Who of the batshit right. —valereee (talk) 12:28, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Also, I do not agree that the close was inconsistent with respect to its treatment of canvassed !voters. The key point is that we can't gauge how much was canvassed and how much was non-canvassed input. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:03, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
I agree that it can't be gauged, which is why it can't really be discounted after the whole process is complete... which is the reason I think it's a hole in the process that needs to be patched. As it is it can't really be said to be an honest discussion when a regular of the process/site/article comes onto a page already full with e.g. 100 points all in the same direction... there's no way, under the usual psychological, human impressions, that that 1 will go against 100 already there, and while external sources might be late to these pages... even within a few remaining days, with their millions of readers, they could easily overwhelm the tide of opinion... I'm actually surprised they haven't noticed this 'hole' before now, but after knowing that with their combined sites they managed to get the longest discussion in all these years, and to go their way... this is the problem I'm trying to highlight. After this they're surely aware that they can sway consensus. 88.109.68.233 (talk) 13:16, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Burden of Proof and Expertise

It seems that the burden proof that an article should not be deleted is upon the author and not the one proposing that it be deleted. This is a high bar as it can be difficult to prove that an article is worthy of continued inclusion - especially for less well known topics. Furthermore, I've seen that people proposing deletion may have no apparent expertise in the subject area in question. I propose that anyone who nominates a deletion should demonstrate their expertise in the subject area at hand. Bryan MacKinnon (talk) 22:51, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

On the same principle, why not ask that people demonstrate their subject-matter expertise before they can create articles in the first place? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:42, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
The burden of proof always moves back and forth, generally falling on the party which is more capable of showing evidence if their side is "right". For example, the nominator has an initial responsibility for giving a policy-compliant rationale for why the article should be deleted, usually because it fails GNG. Then the burden is on the "keep" side to present sources purported to satisfy GNG. Once that is done, the burden falls back on the "delete" side to argue why those sources fail to meet GNG. If neither side is clearly stronger, then the "keep" side "wins" via a "no consensus" close because the burden was on the "delete" side at that point. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:12, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Great response /summary North8000 (talk) 14:47, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
I don't think you should have to prove your expertise in a topic to nominate an article for deletion, but I've felt that there was a slight burden of proof that the article should be deleted, such as a BEFORE search. Though I like King of Hearts explanation as well. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 01:38, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
However, in that situation (where the nominator claims failure to meet the GNG), we do expect the nominator to have done some work to see if sources clearly exist, per WP:BURDEN. To what degree this is necessary/valid is context dependent, but the onus there is on the nominator to show that sourcing doesn't likely exist. This may be difficult for topics that are pre-2000s (before the Internet) and in parts of the world not regularly covered in English sources, where it may be actually necessary to search local print archives for the topic. --Masem (t) 01:50, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Botho von Wedel

This article has no sources for 7 years. But recent edit in 2021, and reverted as unsourced material. --49.150.112.127 (talk) 05:15, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

AfD log page issue

Why is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 December 2 in Category:AfD debates (Science and technology)? It looks like a debate-sorting template is improperly transcluded, but all the listed AfD's are closed and the category contains no closed AfD pages. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:07, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

@LaundryPizza03: It's coming from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020 Kamchatka earthquake, specifically this edit [8], which added the category to the page. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 18:22, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Requesting a page for AFD

The page in question is Paloma Dawkins.

Provided citations are mostly of low quality or from a website so obscure it isn't rated for reliably, from a quick glance at least one seemed to be written by apparent friend of Dawkins and therefor counts as a massive COI, none really establish the notability of Dawkins as a person and most are about Dawkins' projects rather than themselves. Article is a total of three sentences, has had no significant edits in several years, is unlikely to receive any in the future and has been orphaned since it was written.

Probably should be deleted, a previous deletion proposal undone by the article author which isn't allowed from my admittedly limited understanding. I haven't gone through the first AFD step of tagging the article because I want to see if anybody else agrees first. 109.78.131.54 (talk) 18:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Have a question

I am a user who creates articles (redundant, perhaps), which sort you can infer by my name. I chose to use the AfC process for one article, worried that I didn't have enough refs, but this was later not the case as I was able to find some. it was too late, as I chose to submit to the review and consultation process.

Many of these articles are stubs or *starts*, similar to the one rejected but have not been afd'd.

So... from this the question, is the AfC process tighter than the AfD process? Bokoharamwatch (talk) 12:06, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Link to specific article?
Speaking generally, AFC is a bit stricter than mainspace. For example, we require at least some references before we will approve an article.
Keep in mind though that just because an article of yours in mainspace hasn't been AFDd yet, isn't necessarily an endorsement of it. Mainspace reviewing (by WP:NPPs) has a backlog of up to 3 months. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:15, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
(To answer the question: Draft:gombe kidnap attempt, Bokoharamwatch (talk) 13:30, 8 January 2022 (UTC))
Seems like those reviewers gave reasonable feedback. One said the article should be merged into another, the other said that it violates WP:NOTNEWS. I agree with their assessments. If a kidnapping is only covered for one news cycle, it fails WP:PERSISTENCE. It can still be covered on Wikipedia, just not in a standalone article, but rather as a sentence or paragraph in a parent article somewhere. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:05, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
The process should not be stricter than AfD—a threshold often used by AfC reviewers is "does this stand a 50%+ chance of surviving an AfD?"—but in practice you will find strictness depends on the reviewer a lot, both at AfC and New Pages Patrol (NPP). In my opinion, the nature of the processes can lead to unconscious biases towards the easiest action: at AfC, the easiest thing to do is decline and point out a flaw, but at NPP the easiest thing may be to tag the article with content problems and leave it in mainspace, or to draftify it. The AfD process, which mandates that a reviewer do a thorough BEFORE search (even though this is not done by many reviewers), is the most time-consuming action at NPP. — Bilorv (talk) 13:06, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
My view is that AfD asks "should an article on this subject exist in mainspace?" and AfC asks "should this version of the article exist in mainspace?". This is sometimes not true (WP:TNT, reviewers at AfC who strip out promotional content from a draft and then accept it, etc) but I think it's a pretty useful heuristic for what will/won't be kept. Rusalkii (talk) 20:36, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion on Notability ground

Hello, please could someone list the page Andrew Onraet for discussion on notability grounds as outline on that page's talk section? Thank you kindly — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7E:3438:AD00:A9C0:5E81:5251:4075 (talk) 10:19, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Done Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:09, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

No consensus

Why are articles kept when the vote is "no consensus?" If there is no consensus to delete an article there is also no consensus to keep it. Surely the burden is on the keepers to show why an article should be kept. TFD (talk) 04:16, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

"No consensus" means "no consensus to change the current state of the page". Which for an article at AfD is "the page exists". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:59, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
No consensus is only used when there was a split between keep and delete votes, and neither side had a stronger policy based argument over the other. If you feel there was a stronger policy based argument that was ignored, you can always challenge the closer’s decision at deletion review. Best.4meter4 (talk) 14:45, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I need help to stop delatation process

"Arfius Al-din" page need to improve please help.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arfius_Al-din — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dadu1212 (talk • contribs) 10:42, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

The place to comment is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arfius Al-din. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:04, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

On the fence about this one

I'm not sure that List of last descendants of notable individuals is a worthwhile article. It borders on WP:NOTCATALOG, it's extremely broad, and it seems like a magnet for fancruft & trivia. There's also a lot of uncited material in there. But there might be some value in it, which is why I'm putting this here to see what other experienced editors think. Thanks, all. - Special-T (talk) 14:30, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Besides being insanely broad and sometimes inconsistent with its own description, it doesn't seem to satisfy WP:NLIST since none of the sources actually talks about the topic of the list. They are all either about specific people or tangential matters. So if you are asking whether it deserves an AFD nomination, I'd say yes. --RL0919 (talk) 21:04, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks - I just AFD'd it. - Special-T (talk) 15:10, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

John R. Drake (California politician)

I am an inclusionist on Wikipedia and, especially in the realm of politics, I believe more articles is better. However, I have been troubled by the sudden creation of a badly put together page for a young political candidate: John R. Drake (California politician). This candidate did not receive more than 1% of the vote in their only election, has not received notable news coverage outside of that race, and has never held any public office.

When the page was flagged for possible speedy deletion, the notation was removed and no further action has been taken. I want the consensus of the Wikipedia community on this: should the page be flagged for deletion? It has just a singular source, and it was a source that I added.

In the meantime, I will continue to work to improve the page. I believe that more Wikipedia pages overall is better for our community, and I know the pain well of creating a page that gets taken down. Want to prompt a discussion here. PickleG13 (talk) 08:51, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:NPOL does not presume notability of candidates unless they meet GNG. Found some local sources in the San Luis Obispo Tribune and Sacramento Bee (paywall) but I wouldn't say that's enough to meet GNG. Starting an AfD would be appropriate as there's no obvious evidence that this subject meets notability guidelines. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:29, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:XFDcloser § RFC: Priorities for XFDcloser development in 2022

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:XFDcloser § RFC: Priorities for XFDcloser development in 2022. Evad37 [talk] 00:14, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Second article added later

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caffeine (data page) (Jan 14), I have added a 2nd article Butadiene (data page) on Jan 15. For this I did subst {{Afd2}} and then manually removed its extra code (such as ==-header), looks fine. But what with {{afd3}} in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 January 15? Not done so far, so announciation in there is missing. Any corrections (there) or clarifications (for me)? -DePiep (talk) 12:29, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

RFC: Add Instruction Not to Move the Article

Should the instructions on the template for an article that has been nominated for deletion be expanded from saying "do not blank the page" to "do not blank or move the page"? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:25, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Please enter Yes or No in the Survey with a brief statement. Back-and-forth discussion may be conducted in the Threaded Discussion.

Survey: Add Instruction Not to Move the Article

  • yes. Page moves during the AfD confuse the AfD. Also, a page move frequently impacts the scope of the article, impacting the AfD, and possibly even making the AfD nomination rationale moot. If there is a consensus for an important immediate rename, an admin with experience both in RM and AfD should close the AfD and perform the move. I’d suggest a minimum week or two before a fresh nomination at AfD, even if the rename does not seem to speak to the deletion rationale. During the AfD, unimportant title fixes (like dashes), should not be done, but noted and done after the AfD close. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:14, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes Draftifying in the midst of an AfD debate is disruptive. Other valid moves can take place right after an AfD is closed "Keep". Cullen328 (talk) 04:42, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes as moving templates just makes the process more difficult than it needs to be and may lead to a disaster even before the AfD is closed. 172.112.210.32 (talk) 16:34, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
  • No I think it should be discouraged, but there are a few cases where a mid-afd move has been beneficial, e.g. Crucifix of San Marcello. If someone makes a page move that disrupts the afd discussion just revert it, at worst that means a request at WP:RM/TR. Further while I respect the concerns, I don't think this is a wide-spread enough problem to warrant such a blunt solution. Nor do I think this would resolve the issues raised. Most of the people that make disruptive page moves are also the ones that don't read the instructions on the template anyway. Regards, 94.50.213.120 (talk) 04:44, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
  • No I have done this a very few times, it has been beneficial in re-framing the topic in certain rare cases. For example a BLP about someone who appeared in a meme video fails 1 event. That's true, but simply rename the article to be about the meme video, which is notable. If you have to wait for the BLP to be deleted then recreate the article from scratch with largely the same content because of a bureaucratic no move rule, it adds a lot of overhead and wasted time for everyone voting to delete the BLP. -- GreenC 01:35, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
  • No. I see no reason that an AfD should preclude the closure of an ongoing move request; page moves to improve the title of an article can be sometimes handled separately from the question of whether the subject of the article is notable. Additionally, if the title has clear policy issues that need to be speedily addressed (such as BLP issues), then there should not be a reason to think twice about moving it. An instruction along the lines "do not unilaterally draftify the article during this discussion" might be worthwhile, but I don't see a reason to expand that to all page moves. — Mhawk10 (talk) 01:42, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes, this happens much too frequently. If it is a minor problem like a typo, that can wait till the AFD is over (if it survives). If it is something substantive, like a repurpose, the AFD should make the decision to do that and not be pre-empted. That applies to the BLP1E example mentioned above. Having said that, it shouldn't be an absolute hard rule. There can always be edge cases, like a slanderous title, which can't be left in place, although I can't say I've ever seen anything that couldn't wait. SpinningSpark 17:10, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion

  • I'm not sure. Moving a page during an AfD can be a bad idea in some situations, but what if the move is just to correct an error in spelling or capitalization? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:57, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
    As above seconds ago, note the correction and do it later. Checking page logs at AfD is already complicated, and a mid-AfD page moves makes the log links break, and very confusing. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:16, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
  • There have been rare times when it helps in spite of the problems. How frequently is this being done? DGG ( talk ) 05:20, 27 November 2021 (UTC) .
  • User:DGG - Most of the times that I have seen an article moved during an AFD, it has been by the originator, to draft space, after having move-warred to get it from draft space into article space. That is, the originator (typically either with a COI or an ultra) has first pushed it into article space, and then, when challenged there, has tried to run away into draft space. Someone always moves it back, but putting "Do not move" on the template would provide a clearer basis for partially blocking the disrupter. That is, moving an article during an AFD is usually a form of gaming the system. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
    • I think draft/userfying is an attempt to game the system. It always fails, is never more than mildly irritating, and won't be stopped by the template because people who are trying to game the system don't care what the template says. If they move-war, block them for move-warring. If they're spammers, block them for spamming. If they're just generally being disruptive, block them for disruption. We already have the policies and procedures needed to deal with these situations without unnecessary WP:CREEP. Regards, 94.50.213.120 (talk) 04:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Tangential to the discussion so far: Some closing admins need to take more care to check that a move has occurred during the discussion period. XFDCloser is a nice tool (I’ve used it myself for a few NACs), but lately I’ve had to G6-tag a fair number of articles for which a) the result was delete, b) the article had been moved mid-discussion, and c) the closing admin hit the buttons on XFDCloser without taking a closer look at the article history before doing so. --Finngall talk 17:20, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Expanding on comments

I don't think the exhortation If you want to expand on your own comments, add further text to your existing comments in preference to creating a new section is actually a good idea. Editing one's previous comments can make a mockery of subsequent discussion. This is especially true if it is done in response to a valid criticism. If the problem is no longer there, it leaves people baffled by what the later editor is talking about. This can make someone look very stupid.

Also, what is meant by "creating a new section"? It is not normal to create sections within an AFD anyway. Surely it means "adding a new line". SpinningSpark 17:20, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Mass deletion request - Category:Lists of National Football League draftees by college football team

  1. ) This seems to be a WP:NOTMIRROR violation (nearly all the pages cite this as their sole source)
  2. ) Is also a WP:NOTSTATS violation (as nearly all of the pages contain no prose whatsoever)

What would be the most effective way to deal with this? Large nominations are not unheard of for categories and category trees, but this many pages for an AfD is not something that is often seen. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:59, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Mass nominations are usually a bad idea because editors are likely to perceive differences among the specific articles. For example, they might think this list (about a handfull of draftees from an obscure school) is not in the same situation as this list (a featured list about hundreds of draftees from a school with numerous championships). --RL0919 (talk) 22:20, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Agree, a mass deletion of these is not a good idea. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:26, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Both of these pages fundamentally look the same. Half of the Oklahoma Sooner's prose is just plain generic and could be copy pasted to all of the others:

Each NFL franchise seeks to add new players through the annual NFL Draft. The team with the worst record the previous year picks first, the next-worst team second, and so on. Teams that did not make the playoffs are ordered by their regular-season record with any remaining ties broken by strength of schedule. Playoff participants are sequenced after non-playoff teams, based on their round of elimination (wild card, division, conference, and Super Bowl).[6] Before the merger agreements in 1966, the American Football League (AFL) operated in direct competition with the NFL and held a separate draft. This led to a massive bidding war over top prospects between the two leagues. As part of the merger agreement on June 8, 1966, the two leagues would hold a multiple round "Common Draft". Once the AFL officially merged with the NFL in 1970, the "Common Draft" simply became the NFL Draft.[2][3][7]

Otherwise, whether the school has numerous championships or not doesn't justify multiple WP:NOT violations. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:36, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
I think you may be missing the key point of the advice: "editors are likely to perceive differences". If you mass nominate a group of articles that includes both of these, you will probably not get the result you want. --RL0919 (talk) 22:47, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
This. I don't think I've ever seen a nomination with more than 2-3 pages succeed. I know they exist, but there's like an inverse log relationship between the number of articles per nomination and the chance of a delete outcome. Jclemens (talk) 01:12, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
@Jclemens: I've had success with up to half a dozen to a dozen (ex. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Italian presidents by longevity) when the issue like here is not truly failing GNG but also failing NOT. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:21, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
I do think a batch of six is OK, especially if the batch is selected for similarity of the pages. No one is saying you can't nominate these lists for deletion individually or in small batches. We're just discouraging a big nomination – personally I would say keep it to single digits, but different folks will have different ideas about what is a reasonable maximum. --RL0919 (talk) 17:33, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Procedural close needed

I am requesting a procedural close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ernie Toshack with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948, which was nominated by me. Hopefully this is the right place to ask? It's gone way off the rails and I'm tired of hearing "speedy keep, inappropriate nomination". Thanks. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:09, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Done. SpinningSpark 16:47, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Please help complete AFD

I want to nominate After_the_Rain_(Michael_Jones_album) for deletion. Michael Jones was a terrific artist, but that album is just one of many and is not notable by any stretch. Deleting this article should also mean that it deletes the category to which it belongs, as it is the only article in that category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.86.46.50 (talk) 00:29, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Afd req

Can someone nominate Pudding (Space Channel 5) for afd. The reason is the article was full of ref bomb and :: One of the WP:THREE articles looks to be an interview (primary, not secondary), another primary source, HG101 (not WP:SIGCOV), and the GamesRadar article (not specifically about the subject). I'm convinced that a complete source review at AfD would fail, therefore I'd really evaluate whether this page passes notability or if you're simply wrong about the GNG. I'm keeping the prospect of magazine sources open, but if there are any, they're more likely to concern Ulala than Pudding. Thanks. 118.15.104.28 (talk) 22:43, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

listing sources at AfD instead of just fixing the article?

Today I stumbled across yet another AfD where a participant had listed under their Keep argument more than a dozen sources to prove notability but made zero attempt to fix the article with those sources. I've seen multiple AfDs where this has happened before and no one ever bothered to fix the article. The AfD ends Keep, but remains in the same sorry shape that led to the AfD in the first place. I am baffled by this. It must have taken at least as long to come up with those sources and make a list of them as it would have taken to just fix the article and then go vote "Keep, I've fixed it." I kind of feel like this isn't okay, but OTOH I don't want to discourage people from finding and listing sources if that really is the best they think they can do, like maybe they aren't comfortable writing in English or something? (Although in this particular case, that's not the problem.) —valereee (talk) 13:56, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

It's standard practice that as long as sources have been identified (and verified as appropriate) such as at the talk page or the AFD that that is considered sufficient for the sourcing purposes. Yes, they really should be added to the article, but it would be silly to AFD the article again knowing those sources exist from the last AFD. Of course, one can review those sources and see if they are actually good ones and if they are weak or just passing mentions, challenge them again via AFD. --Masem (t) 13:59, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I know that it's enough to show sources exist. But why would anyone write this instead of fixing the article? And shouldn't we be discouraging spending that amount of time and effort on the argument instead of the actual fix? —valereee (talk) 14:02, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes, it would be far better for that to be added directly to the article, particularly with the effort that it seemed to be given, but we can't force that. --Masem (t) 14:05, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, I know we can't force it. And it would likely be counterproductive even if we could. But can't we at least find a way to encourage it? Or to encourage the closer to at minimum copy those sources over to the talk page? I mean, our culture here should value fixing the article rather than winning the argument. The next person to come across that article, think it needs AfD'd, but notice there was a previous recent AfD that ended Keep might have no idea that, hey, go check that AfD, maybe someone added 14 sources there but didn't bother to add them to the article or the article talk. If I hadn't come along, rolled my eyes, and fixed the article, all that work could have just basically been wasted.
Sorry, I don't mean to be arguing with you. I just find this frustrating, and more so because I know goddamn well this probably happens regularly: someone focuses on winning the argument rather than fixing the article. —valereee (talk) 14:20, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
"someone focuses on winning the argument" Exactly why I don't edit when it is at AfD. SusunW (talk) 14:27, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
There's enough "politics" on AFD to understand why some will just dump a lot of sources to make sure articles are kept but have no interest in actually working them in. There's other cases where editors may be worried that adding the sources to the article may be disruptive to those that regularly edit it. And I can see a multitude of similar reasons. The only case that doesn't make sense is that if one is a routine editor of the article and are the one that identifies sources that those don't get added is just being lazy (but there can be good reason that doesn't happen immediately, such as due to being real-life busy to not have the time to do it properly.
What we should encourage is that if there is a source dump and !voters agree these are good sources, someone should drop a note on the article's talk page to wave a big flag "Lots of sources at the AFD!" so that regular editors of the page (who may not necessarily watchlist the AFD) know where more sources are. But basically per DEADLINE, once sources are identified, we just simply cannot force them to be included at any time. --Masem (t) 14:35, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
A source dump, lol, I like that. Yes, exactly. Just something to prevent those sources being completely overlooked. —valereee (talk) 14:43, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
The far bigger problem at AFD is the lack of WP:BEFORE searching done by nominators, often they just assert "no sources" because they don't like the quality of the sources in the article. Iffy★Chat -- 14:14, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Long story short, unless WP:TNT applies, if sources show that the topic is notable, it is allowed to remain in whatever sorry shape it is, although various maintenance templates including Template:Notability (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (to be used on topics where notability is not apparent from the article) can be added. Listing sources at AfD and not fixing an article is common and not bad - not everyone has time to fix it. I'll however note that some editors do list bad sources (WP:GOOGLEHIT results...), and a few make a habit of this - and recently one or two of such offenders got topic banned from deletion for, among others, this offense. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
No, you can't tag an article for notability if it has survived an AFD just because its notability is not obvious from the current state of the article. I'm sure you can remember that the last time you tried insisting on doing that the resulting RFC went against you. SpinningSpark 07:49, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict):::Valereee I can only speak for myself. I always have a list of articles I'm working on. For the last year and continuing into this one that is women's nationality. Thus, time is the constraint, as I cannot finish my own commitment if I am drawn into others. I rarely go to AfD and when I do it is because something randomly came across my radar. I am unlikely to edit an article while it is at AfD, mainly because those discussions are often heated and it seems likely that editing during that period is likely to spill over to editing the article. I have done it, but it makes me extremely uncomfortable. If the topic is a living person, it is unlikely that I will do more than list sources in my rationale, especially if they were easily attainable. If, however, it is kept, the person is deceased, and if the sources were difficult to come by and I know my training in research will allow a complete article, when the AfD closes, I will edit the article and add those sources. SusunW (talk) 14:16, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

@SusunW, and I do get that there could be any number of reasons someone prefers to just pull up sources. I'm more concerned that once the AfD ends, those sources don't just get left buried in that AfD. Even just adding the sources to the talk page would be useful. —valereee (talk) 14:30, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Totally agree. SusunW (talk) 14:33, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes, I know that it's enough to show sources exist. But why would anyone write this instead of fixing the article? And shouldn't we be discouraging spending that amount of time and effort on the argument instead of the actual fix? – this is regarding an edit I made to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dog bakery. Here is more context about why I do not always fix the article.

    someone focuses on winning the argument rather than fixing the article – I have been discouraged from rewriting articles from my past AfD experience. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin L. Tan, I spent two hours finding sources and five hours rewriting the article. I was accused of having a conflict of interest, and the article was deleted. I had no conflict of interest with the subject and had no prior involvement with the article until I had commented in the AfD. If I had focused on "winning the argument" rather than also "fixing the article", I would have wasted only two hours on the AfD instead of seven hours.

    At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Little Cleo (2nd nomination), I searched for sources (which took two hours) and rewrote the article (which took at least three hours). I do not always have five hours to spend on an AfD I find sources for. I may have external commitments, other AfDs I want to participate in, or other articles I want to write.

    If I remember and have time, I do add sources to articles that need improvement after the AfD has been closed. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Novemthree Siahaan (3rd nomination) was closed on 14 December 2021 and I added sources on 30 December 2021. Cunard (talk) 15:16, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

    I apologize, @Cunard, I didn't mean to use the thing as anything more than example. I didn't come here intending to criticize you. Finding all those sources is definitely an unmixed very good thing. I've just stumbled across total crap articles that were closed as keep, and when I looked at the AfD, I found a bunch of sources no one had bothered to add to the article or even copied to the talk. It's infuriating to see that amount of work just go to waste unless it gets stumbled across because someone was curious as to why such a crap article had closed as keep. —valereee (talk) 17:11, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
    No worries, thank you for the clarification. You make very good points. When an article is in a very bad state as was the case at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Novemthree Siahaan (3rd nomination), I try to add the sources either during the AfD or after the AfD though I don't always remember or have time to do that for every AfD I comment on. Cunard (talk) 00:28, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
If trying to save an article it is tactically wise not to add references to the article before the AFD has been closed but only to list them in the discussion. If you add references to the article and it goes on to be deleted (maybe without anyone considering the new references) any subsequent recreation is vulnerable to WP:G4 unless even more references are found. Some (many) admins judge G4 against the state of the article at the time of AFD closing. References added to the discussion do not prejudice recreation. Thincat (talk) 16:54, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Exactly, adding references to an article is time-consuming if it is done properly instead of just dumping them in anywhere and if the article is still deleted it will be a waste of time and enable G4. It is as much the responsibility of the nominator and the other AFD participants to add the references and extra information they contain as it is the person who completed due diligence. Also to the OP see WP:DIY Atlantic306 (talk) 08:42, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
@Atlantic306 if you had bothered to check, you'd have seen I did do it myself, and before I came here. I also added the sources, some of which I couldn't get to during the fixing process, to the article talk, which I then mentioned in the AfD. Look, all I want from this is that these sources not get buried when the AfD is closed. I'm saying the closer or the finder of the sources or some other participant at AfDs should make sure that doesn't happen. —valereee (talk) 17:04, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
I find it completely demoralizing that we have to consider strategy at AfD. Seriously that just sucks. FWIW, I've done some WP:Heymann work and have not had that experience. —valereee (talk) 17:12, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Ugh, yes. -sche (talk) 22:27, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
It takes a LOT longer to edit the article properly, incorporating the sources that have been found, than it does to simply list them in the AfD discussion. People who moan about this are usually editors who nominate articles without carrying out a WP:BEFORE search, who invariably think it's someone else's job to fix the article. Even if sources are added to the article, it doesn't guarantee that it will be kept, so surely it's understandable that editors would be reluctant to spend the extra time fixing the article only for it to be deleted anyway? Editors who find and list sources in an AfD discussion are simply doing what the nominator should have done before taking the article to AfD, so maybe any frustration should be directed at the serial offenders when it comes to lazy AfD nominations. --Michig (talk) 11:45, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
@Michig, but how long does it take to copy those sources to a talk section to make sure they don't get buried in a closed AfD? Five seconds max? —valereee (talk) 17:14, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
There will be a link to the AfD discussion on the talk page anyway. --Michig (talk) 20:41, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
If I am highly confident that I can save an article that's at AfD, then I will add references, add content and so on. If the viability of the article is borderline, then I just link to the sources at AfD and see how things shake out. Cullen328 (talk) 20:57, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
I have seen instances where an editor advocating for deletion of an article contests (and reverts) the addition of sources to the article, sometimes based on rather flimsy rationales for removal. BD2412 T 21:49, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
I've also seen that. But that is crossing the line into one of many types of really bad behavior.North8000 (talk) 22:04, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, if someone objects to high-quality sources being added to an article at AfD, that person shouldn't be working at AfD, period. That's behavior that should get a warning at user talk. —valereee (talk) 13:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Y'all missed the most obvious explanation. It's about 10 times easier to just link to a source at AFD than to integrate its contents into the article as incorporate it as a reference for the material.North8000 (talk) 21:25, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I can attest to that behavior as well. Which is why I think it makes sense to have a "strategy", if you will, at AfD. Of course it is a god idea to add sources to an article and clean it up, but it makes sense once the AfD is over so you don't waste your time. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 00:39, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Only thing I can think of (short, obviously, of a guideline directly requesting anyone who pastes sources to an AFD to also paste them to the talk page, which seems unenforceable without having the effect of discouraging people from making keep !votes at AFD lest they be trouted/sanctioned for mentioning sources without copying them over) is to have a guideline that closers should copy sources over to the talk page before closing the AFD, so the AFD stays open until someone has time to do that copy-paste operation as part of the closure, but.. this would only seem to have any useful effect if people also stop deleting talk pages when they delete articles; otherwise, the sources are less accessible on a deleted talk page than they are on the AFD page, which is at least kept around, no? -sche (talk) 22:27, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Comment. @ valereee Many editors who regularly locate references at AFD are themselves primarily invested in contributing at AFD (i.e. patrolling AFD as their primary editing contribution). I often contribute relevant sources to AFD discussions as I patrol AFD. I don't comment on AFDs without doing my own searches for sources. I often do add those references to the articles in question and take time to improve them, but not always. This is particularly true for topics I find boring, too complex/ beyond my scope of expertise, or controversial/have a history of edit warring (i.e. likely to run into conflict with other editors). I also may not add sources to articles if I am busy with other projects both on or off wiki. Regardless, I don't see this as a problem as the sources remain available to the community through the archived AFD for those interested in editing in main space. Lastly, WP:NOTCOMPULSORY is our guide here. We can not force people to edit articles or add sources, nor should we add further policies at AFD per Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep. In short, accept that we can not control how people contribute per core policies. Adding sources as evidence in an AFD discussion is valuable to AFD and the encyclopedia even if those sources do not immediately translate to edits in mainspace. @-sche I'm not sure copying sources from AFDs is a wise idea, because bad sources are often presented as evidence at AFD. Putting a blanket copying policy would create problems. I wouldn't feel comfortable asking closers to evaluate sources either as that would increase their workload and potentially multiply the AFD backlog. Best to leave the process as it currently stands.4meter4 (talk) 22:33, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
    I don't think there's any need for written policy. I do think it needs to be part of our culture at AfD: if you believe these sources are actually good ones but don't have time or interest yourself, it's best practices to copy them to the article talk so that people who aren't as familiar with our processes can easily find them. I copied those sources to the talk, and then I made a comment about that at AfD. Et voila! I've just indicated to a dozen other people that, hey, this is a helpful thing you can do if you think the sources presented here at AfD are useful. —valereee (talk) 12:48, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Sometimes, not hugely often but often enough, the "sources" dumped into an AfD will be garbage and the reason they don't make it into the article is that they're actually useless for that. The purpose there is not to improve the article but just securing a "keep" result by throwing shade at nominators and delete !voters who are so bad at BEFOER they didn't see all these blog posts, advertising pamphlets, inaccessible google snippets, and partial text matches to some of the words in the title. Reyk YO! 22:41, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Here's a real solution: If an article is nominated for deletion, appropriate sources are identified (speaking to Reyk's reasonable objection, above), and the article is kept after the discussion, then the nominator must incorporate those sources into the article in question before opening an AfD on any other article. Since very few articles are kept at AfD, this shouldn't be a burden on any nominator who does any amount of WP:BEFORE work, should it? Jclemens (talk) 04:35, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
    That seems punitive and probably counterproductive. I've seen sources added at AfD that were absolute pure junk. If seen others that were inaccessible to me online. And some nominators may not feel competent to write. I could totally see some editor pulling up fifty bullshit or inaccessible sources just to make a nominator they think is too much of a deletionist stop nominating future articles. We don't want to chase away well-intentioned nominators. —valereee (talk) 12:57, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Well, if we're just going to make up rules here, no, the burden should not be heaped upon the nominator to evaluate a participant's data dump for possibly useful citations. Let's place that onus on the data dumper, in that they may not weigh in on another AFD until they utilize their new sources to improve the current article enough to raise it one notch on the quality scale. ValarianB (talk) 13:01, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Both of you fail to note that your objections mirror Reyk's, and that my proposal already addresses it: appropriate sources are those which sway the consensus at AfD to keep. If there is some anomaly, a DRV would be appropriate, but my experience is that a raft of inappropriate sources is rarely found compelling in AfD. If I'm wrong, I'd welcome counter-examples. Jclemens (talk) 20:05, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
I feel like I'm channeling an inner Tom Holland's "oh, we're using our made-up names" Spider-Man in asking, but, were we supposed to treat your proposal seriously, or as something pointy? ValarianB (talk) 20:58, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
First, proposals aren't pointy; actions are. But yes, I am serious about this as being a process improvement. Right now there is no formal consequence for a stupidly pointless AfD nomination that ignores BEFORE and if unchallenged by other editors would damage the encyclopedia, or if challenged ends up wasting a lot of people's time. There is nothing wrong with well-thought out deletion nominations--the ones that do and document BEFORE and propose ATDs are a relative pleasure to deal with, even if I disagree. I'd like to highlight Piotrus' recent work in this area: even if I disagree with some of the nominations, he has been setting the stage for intelligent discussion on the sources that are available. On the other hand, some nominations are so bad that a simple Google news/newspapers search yields plenty of usable and reasonable sources. The goal is neither inclusion nor deletion, but optimization of both the coverage of the articles we do have and editor time invested in actually improving the encyclopedia vs. stupid back-and-forth in XfD's, right? So if a nominator who blatantly fails to find easily found sources is assigned the responsibility for adding them to the article he or she nominated, thus following up on the work of those who found them, then that serves to both preserve the effort made in finding the sources, and guarantees an investment of the nominator in actually improving the article they found wanting. Of course, if they don't want to clean things up, that'd be fine... but with the natural consequence of them not getting to start future AfDs until they do.
But the relative excellence (in my well considered opinion, at least) of this idea is entirely separate from the likelihood that it ever will be adopted, which is low. I mean, sure, it might take on some life as a template "Since the article you nominated was kept, you might consider adding sources found in the AfD..." but that would fail to shame those at whom it would be targeted and would likely be construed as incivil. If this serves as the genesis of a discussion on a more community-supported way to give AfD nominators "skin in the game" for poor nominations, I'll consider it a worthwhile thought experiment. Jclemens (talk) 00:50, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Lets not punish the source finder or the nominator, adding the references to the article is best done by someone with an interest in the subject and with a competence in assessing reliable sources, adding references and expanding articles, Atlantic306 (talk) 15:24, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
As a matter of policy, I agree. As a matter of shaping behavioral expectations, I believe my proposal has merit in encouraging BEFORE work and discouraging nomination of articles that have potential for improvement. Jclemens (talk) 20:05, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

The real fix to this and several other issues would be to base notability decisions on what is in the article. Another one of the problems that it would solve is the hugely asymmetric workload / burden on volunteers at AFD and NPP. It takes about one minute to create a bad title ("article") and then about an hour of volunteer time at New Page patrol and AFD to "prove a negative" to get rid of one that should not exist. Finding sources should be part of creating an article. North8000 (talk) 14:29, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, although I doubt there would be enough community support to make that change.4meter4 (talk) 14:46, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, but that's a terrible idea which would see many articles on encyclopaedic topics deleted for want of a little time spent adding sources. I would support putting more onus on article creators to source their articles properly though (as we already do for BLPs). --Michig (talk) 16:41, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Don't you mean article titles deleted? :-) North8000 (talk) 17:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Michig is correct, but doesn't go far enough. WP:NOTHERE applies to those who aren't bought into WP:IMPERFECT. Jclemens (talk) 20:05, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
  • hi Valereee, mea culpa most of the time, i find it is a lot quicker/easier to list at afd then do that and improve the article, for example at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annetta Kapon, getting the info together for my "keep" took around 10mins, adding it (properly referenced of course:)) to the article took over 50, fortunately i was listening to decca's scenes and arias from la boheme so the time kinda flew. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:53, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
    Hey, @Coolabahapple, I think the general feeling in this section is that most people think if you also add those sources to the article talk, you've done what's required to keep the sources from being lost. None of us has unlimited time, and no one should be blamed for not rewriting an article they have zero interest in. But don't just let the AfD close without getting those sources in front of more eyes. valereee (talk) 17:06, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
thanks, will try and remember to do so in the future. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:37, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
I don't think it's such a good idea to dump a raw list of sources into an article. If you are not going to fully incorporate them in the article then the talk page would be better. Some are going to be more useful than others; they might duplicate sources already in the article, some will be more authoritative than others, some might not be usable at all because it is the wrong sort of information for us etc etc etc. SpinningSpark 08:16, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
We aren't talking about dumping into the article, only listing them in a 'possible source' section at the article talk. valereee (talk) 12:03, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion re: !vote

Just a comment from someone new to Wikipedia and AfD. The !vote phrasing appears all over the place in AfD discussions and while I now think it means 'just a comment, no vote' I have not found that described anywhere in the documentation. DaffodilOcean (talk) 21:49, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

A description of the jargon can be found at Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion § Not-votes. (In short, most often it means "although this comment is formatted like a vote, the overall discussion is not a vote, and so won't be concluded solely by counting votes.") Hopefully at least one person using the term in a given discussion will link to the description. isaacl (talk) 23:24, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, this is helpful. DaffodilOcean (talk) 11:12, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
It comes from one way of symbolically writing a logical negation, which is typable unlike the more common overbar. It's all a bit tounge-in-cheek. SpinningSpark 15:03, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Promotional article that evaded everyone's radar

Please see Wikipedia:Big Man DJ Kim, and check whether the subject is notable or not. If not, please nominate it for deletion. 182.1.126.105 (talk) 00:53, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Bump. How few people are watching this page? 182.1.75.79 (talk) 13:24, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
1,834, but probably ony 174 actually reading it. SpinningSpark 13:37, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm very curious how you got such a specific number! Theknightwho (talk) 13:42, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Did you not follow the link I provided? SpinningSpark 13:44, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

AFD request

Cordwood Pete looks like a single-source advertisement for a roadside attraction. 97.126.8.83 (talk) 10:15, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

THE AFD process is described at WP:Articles for deletion. You appear to have done part of it, but not all 3 steps. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:52, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Another editor has completed the process. The deletion discussion can be found here. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:07, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

AFD request

Hi everyone,

I would like to nominate the article Irfan Aziz Botta for deletion; here are some of the reasons.

  • First, a lot of the references only make passing mentions of him, not covering him in detail.
  • Secondly, I can't even find his birth year online. Is he so notable if we cannot even find his birth date?

Also, as a side note, the English in this article is not very good IMO. Note also that some of this user's previous articles have been declined due to not being notable enough.

Regards, 98.179.127.59 (talk) 02:06, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Seems that someone has made the page already; now I have nominated it. Closing. 98.179.127.59 (talk) 15:54, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Does this circumvent a deletion outcome?

At Community Consolidated School District 15, an editor appears to have circumvented a deletion outcome by awkwardly recreating "Plum Grove Junior High School"--redirected via this AfD--within the school district article. Not just a line or two about the school; the entire deleted article. I would appreciate if an editor experienced in article deletion could comment at Talk:Community Consolidated School District 15#Plum Grove section. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:17, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes it does, and I've commented there, FWIW. SN54129 19:46, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

AfD request

This article, Rhys Toms would fail to meet notability per WP:NMUSIC, WP:GNG, and some poorly sourced from a lack of unreliable sources. --2001:4452:490:6900:A139:1E38:3608:AEF9 (talk) 01:37, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Interesting article in Input about the AfD process

Rather than put this in The Signpost, I thought AfD page stalkers would appreciate. Article about Wikipedia AfD process TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 23:28, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Request

Can someone put July 2009 Mid-Atlantic tornadoes for deletion? The prod was contested but it should still be deleted. My reasoning is”because it doesn’t meet the notability guideline. Tornadoes in the mid-Atlantic in July aren’t particularly rare, this was just 5 tornadoes, including two Ef2s, and is covered fine in the section where this tornado article doesn’t really add much. “Thank you. 108.170.68.186 (talk) 20:49, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@Spinningspark: Can you set one up maybe? 108.170.68.186 (talk) 20:28, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Why are you asking me in particular? I've had nothing to do with this article and don't have a view on it either way. The procedure to follow for unregistered users is at WP:AFDHOWTO. SpinningSpark 17:00, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

How to cleanup a second AfD written over a previous one?

Given all the automation for AfDs, I thought I should ask. --Hipal (talk) 16:40, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

It needs a history split – working on it. SpinningSpark 17:53, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Should be sorted now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naveen Jain (2nd nomination). Note this had not been transcluded so it should run for seven days from now despite being nominated on 6th Feb. SpinningSpark 18:35, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Listing a page at AFD

Hello, please could someone list Northern Reflections for discussion for me with the following rationale? Thank you! 192.76.8.77 (talk) 20:09, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

This was originally prodded by Bri with the rationale that it failed WP:NCORP, which was contested by an IP due to the blogto source. There was then a bit of an edit war where a newbie tried to get it deleted by repeatedly re-prodding it. I think that there is a legitimate discussion about notability to be had here, because looking at the article I tend to agree that this is an WP:NCORP fail with only one of the sources in the article coming close to being usable (and even then its not great in my opinion).

  1. The first source here is blogto. I'm not convinced this is a reliable source, it seems to be a cross between a blog and a news portal, and its terms and conditions page states that it accepts user generated and sponsored content. In my opinion this source is at best "meh" quality.
  2. The second source is a two paragraph announcement in a local newspaper that the brand is opening a store in a local mall. This is a completely WP:ROUTINE piece of business coverage.
  3. The third source is a trivial mention - it's a detailed article on another clothing retailer shutting down which includes a throwaway remark that the holding company behind the retailer also owns Northern Reflections.
  4. The fourth source is a trivial mention - it's a local newspaper reporting on a charity fashion show that includes a thanks to Northern Reflections for donating the clothes.
  5. The fifth source is a business directory, again routine\trivial coverage
  6. The sixth and seventh source are the same thing, a press release about the company getting a loan.

I think that at best we have one 6 paragraph long "Meh" source here, so I don't see how this company passes WP:NCORP.

 Done AfD can be found here. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 20:24, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Request

Can you finish the process for nominating Tornado outbreak of August 24, 2016 for deletion? 173.251.82.226 (talk) 20:55, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

AtYourGate

I ran across this company a few months ago and was intrigued, saw it had gotten a fair amount of coverage so I created the article. Since then it has been PRODed, tagged for notability, and unilaterally draftified twice, all with no comment on the Talk page. I continue to believe that it passes WP:NCORP but at this point it's clear that various others don't. Doesn't feel right for me to AfD it myself since my own BEFORE has led me to consider it still notable, but maybe that's best at this point. Anyone care to weigh in? Retswerb (talk) 03:49, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Request

Can someone finish up nominating March 2014 nor'easter for AFD? 209.201.121.4 (talk) 16:13, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Is it time to amend BEFORE?

Now that Proquest and a variety of other collections are available to all Wikipedia users, is it time to amend D. Search for additional sources? We could include both The Wikipedia Library (here) and Proquest (which can be quickly searched from the link at the results of the former). Time and time again I'm seeing AFDs, particularly for individuals only active last century or earlier, that come to a quick end, once Proquest is searched. Nfitz (talk) 20:02, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I am all in favor of adding all the sourcing/searching tools to make life as easy as possible. I don't see much of a downside. Jclemens (talk) 20:19, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Actually, we probably should update the templates, verify that they're working and that people are consistently finding them useful, before we mention the tool in a policy page. Jclemens (talk) 21:12, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Which templates? Template:Proquest and Template:Gale work well for me. Nfitz (talk) 23:19, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Good idea! 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:36, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, missed this Nfitz. I was thinking Template:Find general sources. Jclemens (talk) 04:20, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Are the instructions incorrect?

After going through the steps for nominating an AfD, I noticed an automated process (Cyberbot I) added a note to the AfDs discussion page [9] that the AfD was not correctly transcluded into the log, referring to step 3 in this article. I made the log addition by copy-and-pasting the text {{subst:afd3 | pg=NominationName}} from the page here (and I believe I changed 'afd3' to 'afd2'). So is a direction to use "subst" instead of transcluding incorrect? Or did I manage to do one of the steps wrong? signed, Willondon (talk) 19:47, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

It needs to be {{subst:afd3 | pg=NominationName}} not {{subst:afd2 | pg=NominationName}} The afd3 template is used for the log whereas the afd2 template is used for the AfD page itself. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 20:29, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. I guess with it being a 2nd nomination, I was being too clever. signed, Willondon (talk) 21:28, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Will of God

WP:Articles for deletion/Will of God was relisted a month ago and has been left open ever since. I think something went wrong with the relisting since it doesn't seem to be transcluded in any daily logs. Could somebody please close or relist this? Relisting would be preferable if it wasn't properly transcluded the first time. Thanks. Dan from A.P. (talk)

 Done Had to relist it manually, but it's now in the daily log for March 14. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:15, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Tweak to the AfD template ouput

There's currently an AfD-related discussion taking place at WP:ANI. Per that discussion, would it be possible to tweak the AfD nomination template so that a permalik is created to link to the version of article at the time it was nominated for deletion? Mjroots (talk) 14:00, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

The context is the question of whether it's okay to gut an article and then submit it to AfD, meaning that the casual AfD contributor may be misled into assessing the article in its current state, rather than the state before the AfD nominator gutted it. In an ideal world, Mjroots' link would be to the pre-gutting version, though I'm not sure how easy that would be to do. I am heavily in favour of a link. Elemimele (talk) 09:59, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
It's often not the nominator, but someone else, in mid-discussion. Johnbod (talk) 15:04, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
IMvHO, editors that gut and nominate should admit they have done so, and give their rationale for the gutting. It may be that there are valid reasons to gut and nominate. Being open about it is better than trying to hide the fact. The permalink is aimed at countering the "nominate and then gut" method. Mjroots (talk) 10:12, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
I agree with the concept as I have seen a number of articles modified to remove a high (i.e. over 90) percentage of the page as it was lacking citations which then can then leave people with a bias (subconscious or not) towards WP:TNT. Perhaps a modification to the AfD template to allow the requestor to link to specific previous versions? This would help show the progression of the development of the page and help those who want to improve the article during the AfD process. Gusfriend (talk) 11:18, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
  • In favour of the template change, and also amending the instructions to discourage gutting. In my experience the people who do it tend to self-righteousness, and brush off complaints. As I said at the other discussion "Often the material removed is essential to notability, and could quite easily be properly referenced, but many editors at Afd are just not in that game, nor even tagging for inadequate referencing." I regard this as a clear breach of process, but at the moment the instructions don't cover it. Johnbod (talk) 15:04, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I think this would be a useful change. When closing discussions, I do try to take into account whether the article has changed during the course of the discussion, sometimes giving less weight to opinions that refer to earlier versions of the article. I don't think there's anything untoward about substantially refactoring an article subject to a deletion discussion, if that refactoring improves the article. Mackensen (talk) 03:56, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Discussion on improving our management of geostubs

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) regarding improving our management of geographical stubs. The thread is Future discussion on improving our management of geostubs. The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:Permastubs. Thank you. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 11:42, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I thought I'd add a notice here as usually the topic of this discussion comes up frequently at geo AfDs. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 11:42, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Assistance listing HD 84406

Hello! I wonder if anyone could be so kind as to use their powers of logged-inness to list HD 84406 for deletion with the following rationale:

--

This article is a blatant failure of WP:NASTRO as well as WP:GNG. Twice I attempted to redirect this to the appropriate section at James Webb Space Telescope, but both times was reverted without explanation. An extremely similar situation has already taken place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2MASS J17554042+6551277, in which the result of the discussion was a consensus to redirect similarly. So, here we are. The WP:NASTRO failure is pretty clear -- a WP:BEFORE search of the scientific literature pulled up one or two brief mentions of this, in massive lists with no other relevant discussion. And WP:GNG is similarly skimpy. While there are lots of mentions of this due to its role as a calibration target for JWST, there's no significant, in-depth discussion of the star itself. Any information about the star's role as a calibration target should be (and already is) at the JWST article. Notability is not inherited, and thus I suggest a deletion followed by a creation of the redirect I attempted in the first place.

--

Thanks in advance! 35.139.154.158 (talk) 14:43, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done AfD can be found here. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 15:36, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Imroperly relisted AfD

The AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annie Moore (immigrant) was relisted by the nominator, Fakescientist8000 (talk · contribs), less than 5 hours after opening it, and without removing the nomination from the initial log page. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:19, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I think that user had done by mistakely as we need to remind or to give some suggestions to that user and on what basis he had done this. Thank you! Fade258 (talk) 04:41, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Pear Deck

Pear Deck should be deleted, see its talk page for my reasoning. As an unregistered user, I can't continue the AfD process. 209.82.165.136 (talk) 18:17, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done AfD can be found here. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 18:57, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Pghbridges.com

Pghbridges.com, only has one source, should be deleted. 209.82.165.136 (talk) 16:37, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Possibly, but you haven't set up any of these correctly. Don't notify every Afd nom here please. If you're going to do loads of these, then register. Johnbod (talk) 17:00, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
I've done these for now, but I agree with Johnbod that swamping the system could be seen as disruptive; at best, you'll alienate those you need to help you. Whereas, of course, if you reg'd, no one would know. SN54129 17:21, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

W3Schools

W3Schools should be deleted because it has no rep. refs. 209.82.165.136 (talk) 16:12, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done by Serial Number 54129. AFD here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/W3Schools (2nd nomination). SoWhy 16:28, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
SoWhy Thanks for this. SN54129 16:30, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Fact Monster

Fact Monster is not notable and should be deleted. 209.82.165.136 (talk) 16:20, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done by Serial Number 54129. AFD here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fact Monster. SoWhy 16:29, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
Ditto  :) SN54129 16:30, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the...

What is the easy/correct way to "include" an afd after the fact? The specific case is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christoph Steidl Porenta. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:59, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Request to list a page at AFD

Hello, please could someone list the page Flag waver for discussion with the following rationale? Thank you! 192.76.8.70 (talk) 17:40, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

A strange page that seems to be something of a cross between a DAB page and an article. In recent years this has been trimmed down to make it function more like a disambiguation page, but all of the entries are invalid because they fail WP:DABMENTION - only one of the linked pages mention Flag wavers and that's in an external link. Going back through the page history it becomes clear that this page used to have more article like content [10], but this is just a WP:DICDEF, a page that lists off a couple of definitions of the phrase. This page doesn't work as a DAB page and doesn't work as an article, so I think it should be deleted. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 17:40, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done AfD can be found here. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 17:51, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Soft delete

Recently I've seen a fair few AfDs that have been relisted when they could have been treated as a proposed deletion and closed earlier, so I thought I'd gently remind other closers that this option exists. – Joe (talk) 09:28, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

MASN deletion request

I have nominated Moving Anthropology Student Network for deletion. This is a request to check it out. See the talk page for my reason. If you think it doesn't warrant an AFD, that's fine. 100.7.36.213 (talk) 16:28, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Request to list a page at AFD

Hello, please could someone list the page Ismail Shabanov for discussion with the following rationale? Thank you.

I came across this article a weeks or so ago following a complaint aw WT:BLP. As it stands this is a BLP with woefully inadequate sourcing. This article currently cites two sources, an interview with Zavtra, an extreme right newspaper, and a piece by the Strategic Culture Foundation which is predominantly about something else but repeats some interview quotes by Ismail Shabanov from another source. Both of these sources are way, way below the level of reliability we should be using in a BLP, and both of them do not count towards notability as they are simply interviews. I tried to do a WP:BEFORE search but was hampered by not speaking Russian - there is the possibility that I missed some coverage in reliable sources somewhere else. Over its existence this article has been BLP prodded once, normal prodded twice and tagged for A7 speedy deletion, so it's probably time this came to AfD. 192.76.8.71 (talk) 19:29, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ismail Shabanov WikiVirusC(talk) 19:55, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

{{LatestAfD}}

I made this template six years ago to provide a quick link to the most recent AfD of a given article, for articles that have had several AfDs. Now it's nominated for deletion, for apparent lack of use (although I can't tell if maybe it's being substituted). Would anyone here find such a template useful? If so, can you think of a good place to make its existence known? Thanks! —swpbT • go beyond • bad idea 19:50, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:Article for deletion § RFC: Add Instruction Not to Move

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Article for deletion § RFC: Add Instruction Not to Move. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:26, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Commentator Deletion Request

I nominated List of College Football on NBCSN commentators for deletion. Can somebody check it out please? I forgot to put in the "AfD: Nominated for deletion" message as seen on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_nominate_a_single_page_for_deletion, but I don't think a simple slip of the mind would lead to a big issue. 100.7.36.213 (talk) 23:39, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

I've created the discussion page for you: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of College Football on NBCSN commentators. Mackensen (talk) 11:58, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Request afd for Kunimitsu (Tekken)

Reason:Non-notable character. 2001:4455:68F:F600:CDBD:EA6C:545F:B409 (talk) 06:49, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Proposed limit on number of AfD's started per editor per day

I've started a proposal that editors should be restricted to 5 AfD nominations per day, with a view to avoiding AfD getting flooded, and improving the quality of BEFOREs. Please feel free to comment, agree, disagree, suggest alternatives. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Limit_on_number_of_AfD/PROD_nominations_made_per_day. Thank you! Elemimele (talk) 22:59, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Delete redirect

I used to know how to do stuff but now…help?

I would like to blank this redirect page which results in a circular loop between the neighborhood article and the city page.

Blair Hills, Culver City, California 2603:8000:A442:1700:ECB9:C151:D7D5:9F55 (talk) 04:52, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

The redirect is fine, it's still a reasonable search term and is used on a few pages. I unlinked the circular redirect at Culver City, California to stop the loop. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:37, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

WP:AUTHOR is two decent book reviews enough?

What's the consensus on how to apply WP:AUTHOR? I've seen a few times recently that I may be !voting against experienced editors due to my interpretation that anyone who writes a book that has two decent reviews meets WP:AUTHOR specifically criterion 3. I think the point where I may be being too generous to the subjects is my understanding of "significant or well-known work" - the way I see it if there are two reviews in mainstream news, that makes it well known. I've recently seen myself disagreeing with User:Bearcat on this and !voting at AfD in the opposite direction of User:Beccaynr.

Am I making a defendable position on this, or am I being too generous?

Quoting the guideline here, and adding my own bold emphasis:

The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series); CT55555 (talk) 17:00, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

IMO, if the only thing they have regarding wp:notability is passing that one SNG, I would apply it strictly / expect that it would be applied strictly. If there are lot of other notability-contributing factors, I'd apply it less strictly. North8000 (talk) 17:15, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

For important additional context here, the disagreement between me and CT55555 on this pertained to a draft about a writer whose two sources entailed one piece in the local media of the city where she lives, and one piece in the weekly hyperlocal of a small town where she had previously lived, and thus the coverage of her writing is sourced entirely to local-interest coverage of the "local woman does a thing" variety rather than strong evidence that her book is nationally or internationally "significant or well-known" in any meaningful sense. With the added bonus that neither of the pieces are actually "reviews" of the book at all; they're both just local human interest pieces about a present or former resident of the publications' own local coverage areas, which isn't enough coverage all by itself.
If she could claim to have a major literary award nomination (like the GG for children's literature) under her belt, then that would be enough coverage, because the significance of the award nomination would override any quibbles about the volume of media coverage she did or didn't have — but it takes a lot more media hits to make a person notable on "WP:GNG fulfilled because media coverage exists" grounds than it would take to make a person notable on "nominated for a major national literary award" grounds. Bearcat (talk) 17:17, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
That was one example (although it actually has three news articles about the book). But also I voted differently than Beccaynr here. This is less about any individual article and more me seeing a pattern of me maybe being too generous and checking what the norm is. This is a genuine wider question than any specific article. CT55555 (talk) 17:22, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
WP:NAUTHOR leaves a lot open to interpretation, so I don't think there's a clear right or wrong answer here. Personally, my view is that the guideline contains two separate requirements: the "significant or well-known work" requirement, and, "in addition", the "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" requirement. If multiple reviews were always enough to make something a "significant or well-known work", then the guideline wouldn't include the "significant or well-known work" criterion at all because it would be redundant. I don't have an ironclad definition of what makes something significant or well-known, but some examples might be: the book won a notable award, it introduced a novel concept, it's frequently cited in the relevant literature, or something like that. In other words, it's a different animal entirely from the multiple reviews requirement, in my view. Something else to consider is that if a book received multiple reviews, then the book is clearly notable under WP:NBOOK. If the author is only known for that single book, then the best choice is often to create an article about the book and merge the author's article there, where you can discuss both the author and the book in context. This probably belongs at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people), for what it's worth. Best regards, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:23, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
I agree with Extraordinary Writ, there are different interpretations. As with all guidelines and policies, IMO, context is everything and common sense applies. It isn't necessarily true that in all cultures numerous independent reviews are available or that they exist on all topics. If I find one (or two) strong reviews on for example a Caribbean writer, combined with other sourcing that indicates the impact of the work, I am usually okay with that primarily because there is one major university in the region. It is also an indicator of the work's notability if the review is from outside the region, so for example if a Finnish-language work is reviewed by a British scholar, because it shows the impact was broader than local. Ditto if the topic is something like say a work on a specific type of music, which is part of a traditional culture rather than the mainstream culture of a society. The narrowness of the field may determine how many scholars are likely to review it, so it becomes critical not to look at the number of reviews but the expertise of the reviewer. I'm not saying don't try to find numerous reviews, but weigh the context. SusunW (talk) 17:27, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Extraordinary Writ is right, the "primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" bit is a necessary but not a sufficient condition. To actually show that a book is a "significant or well-known work" I would expect to see evidence that the book was widely read, it was influential on other books, it is cited as one of the main examples of a genre or some literary trend, it was nominated for a major award, etc. Simply getting reviewed just means that somebody took notice of it, that doesn't make it significant and certainly not well known. Hut 8.5 17:39, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Comment - clearly there are different perspectives on this, but mine is that there is no particular threshold beyond Notability employed by the phrase significant and well-known work - so the Notability of books per WP:NBOOK is sufficient for authorial Notability.

On the other hand, from the perspective of the encyclopaedia, there isn't much to be gained at the margin, for an author with one Notable book and who does not meet NBASIC, by having an additional article about the author as opposed to a redirect from the author's name to the notable book (particularly since the redirect can be used to populate the category system).

For authors with multiple Notable books, however, there is not only an NAUTHOR pass but also clear encyclopaedic value in the biographical entry - which is why I typically employ NAUTHOR as an argument when the person has created multiple Notable works. Newimpartial (talk) 17:46, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

In most of the examples I am thinking of, they are mildly/borderline notable for other things too. The examples above, one is a bit of a gender-inclusion activist, and the other is a finance person who is probably better know for financial stuff, but that's harder to pin down. CT55555 (talk) 17:52, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Comment. For an author of a single notable book, I think there's rarely enough material to justify articles on both the author and the book. But we should have a page for the author or the book, and arguing over which one is preferred, especially at AfD, is often counterproductive. pburka (talk) 17:57, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. As a general rule, I'd say for fiction cover the book, and for non-fiction the author. the article should keep the two somewhat segregated, not least in case they write another notable book. Johnbod (talk) 18:05, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. This wasn't exactly the decision point (book versus author) for any examples I was thinking of. This was an author article (authors arguably notable for writing and others stuff) or nothing in all examples I was thinking of. CT55555 (talk) 18:07, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
  • I would say in general if the only sources we have on a writer are 2 "decent" book reviews on one book, than we should just redirect to that one book. We need to either have that level of sourcing for other books, or additional sources that meet GNG to justify having a free standing article. There might be a very rare exception somewhere, but I think we have under used redirects and over used free standing article in the past.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:54, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
    • I don't disagree, but the exception that comes to mind for me (came to my mind when I was writing above, as an edge case) is when an author has written one clearly Notable books and other books that are not clearly Notable - in that case, I see some encyclopaedic value in a (non-redirect) bio entry even of the person doesn't meet NBASIC. But otherwise I agree. Newimpartial (talk) 19:00, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
    • Again, a fair comment. But doesn't answer the question for situation where there is no article on the book(s). This is a question about creating an article about authors or not, not a question about book versus author. CT55555 (talk) 18:57, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
      • Sometimes it can be best to do what we did at this AfD, which was to create a new article about the book and merge the author's article there. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:01, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
      • Well, CT, I think the relevant question here *is* book versus author. If we have NBOOK sourcing for a work, then the encyclopaedia ought to cover that subject with very limited exceptions. In some cases, it may be better to cover the work in an article about its author - in the case where the author is clearly Notable and better-known than the work, for example - and in other cases it may be better to cover the author in an article about the work (where the author has only one work and is not otherwise Notable or even interesting). But the two-review threshold in NBOOK drives the necessity of encyclopaedic coverage, whether in one format or another. Newimpartial (talk) 19:05, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with what everybody has said, with there being no absolute right or wrong answer. It sounds like that the specific case is where there is nothing bolstering notability other than two local reviews so no "way in" other than the discussed SNG paragraph. In that case my advice was "follow the SNG strictly" which would end up as a "no" because besides the two reviews it also requires that the book be a "significant or well-known work". Or, to put it even shorter, the author SNG does not say "2 reviews is all that you need". North8000 (talk) 19:45, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Square roots

Would someone mind listing Square root of 6 and Square root of 7 for deletion with the following rationale

--

There's no point in having separate articles for square roots of 6, 7, etc (we do already have 2, 3, and 5, which is more than enough). There's almost nothing of relevance here beyond basic cookie-cutter information that isn't specific to these particular values. What is specific is still pretty trivial though. NASA has a picture of the day from 1994 that's a calculation of the square root of 6 to a million decimal places...okay? You found some old textbooks that had exercises for computation of the square root of 7...again, so? This doesn't rise to the level of WP:GNG, especially for small numbers, which are bound to pop up all over the place.

--

Thanks in advance. I thought it would make more sense to list them together, but if it would be easier to do them separately, that'd be fine too, and I can just tweak my rationale after the fact. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:22, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Done: map(afd, n) for 3 <= n <= 7 -- RoySmith (talk) 00:28, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Santadas Kathiababa's editing is important.

Why are you repeatedly deleting the important edit of Santdas Kathiyaba. He was one of the important saints of Hinduism. He is the leader of the Nimbark community of Hinduism around the world and the spiritual leader of the Hare Krishna movement. This edit is important to Wikipedia. His life was discussed in various media. So please make an edit of Santdas Kathiyababa on Wikipedia. Srabanta Deb (talk) 10:36, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Srabanta Deb. This person is covered in Nimbarka Sampradaya. Cullen328 (talk) 00:37, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Requesting to create deletion page

Article:Yoga Narasimhar Temple, Velachery Reason: Absence of reliable sources and WP:GNG. 51.161.131.66 (talk) 18:20, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I draftified the article to give the author another chance to find sources; hope that's alright. If the article returns to mainspace and is still problematic, let us know and we'll AfD it for you. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:38, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Experienced reviewers needed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dario del Bufalo

I would appreciate broader input at this discussion, particularly those familiar with our notability policy language. All opinions are welcome.4meter4 (talk) 03:56, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Sorry to not have more time to delve into this, but I would look at the notability of his published works. Finding a notable object in my mind is only notable in that object’s article. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 06:49, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Requesting a closure of an AfD that I can't withdraw

An editor at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dagfa House School is going on and on about me using deletion as cleanup due to a source that was posted there 5 days later. I'm annoyed at the assumption of bad faith when it's just that I can't withdraw it due to the merge votes. I'm seeing if an admin or non-admin can close it as keep per consensus and it has ran the full time. SL93 (talk) 22:23, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done --RL0919 (talk) 22:32, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
RL0919 Thank you. I was thinking of doing an IAR close, but I didn't want backlash for it. SL93 (talk) 22:33, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Not doing an IAR close was a good move. It's really bad form to close a discussion that you've participated in. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:58, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Meh, a non-admin involved close against the outcome one had originally proposed and in line with numerical consensus, after a full length discussion? Not going to get a lot of hate for that, certainly not from me. NACing a close in your "own" favor, despite certain persons thinking it to be OK, is an entirely different story. Jclemens (talk) 03:30, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure what that snide smuggery was about, but I can certainly understand why it frustrated you. Reyk YO! 23:42, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
I was hoping to finish the issue by closing the nomination. Not bring the discussion here. Though I will say "smuggery" is wrong. I was only frustrated and the editor wasn't getting the hint. Now hopefully the matter can be dropped. SL93 (talk) 23:46, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
FWIW this discussion showed quite a bit of opposition to the idea that being a Grade II listed building was enough to make something notable. (There are about 350,000 of them.) Hut 8.5 07:46, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm perhaps nitpicking here, and it's now a moot point, but I feel it's worthwhile making the distinction between withdrawing your nom and the early close that usually happens along with it. You can withdraw your AfD nomination whenever, even if there are like, 20 deletes or something, it just won't be eligible for early closure as keep in those cases. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:43, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Anomolous situation re merge proposals from AfD and introduction of templates to address this

I have recently started acting on the basis of what I hope will eventually become policy, by notifying targets of proposed mergers arising within AfD discussions that a merger has been proposed, as should happen per WP:Merge but almost never does when AfD is the route to merger. I posted my idea more than 6 months ago at WT:Deletion Policy: to avoid forked conversation, please discuss the matter there. Kevin McE (talk) 07:00, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Kevin McE, this is not a clear notification of what is actually being discussed and why it matters. You should title the heading something like "Proposal to implement new templates at AFD related to merge arguments", because that would actually draw interest and bring people to the discussion. You should link to the templates themselves in the notification, and succinctly state what their purpose is and why they are necessary. That should be done both here and at the linked discussion (which is also not succinct and unclear). My suggestion would be to archive that original discussion (because it is rambling, unclear, and has a tone likely to turn others off) and start a new one which is more focused, respectful, and to the point (on the implementation of the templates and requiring notification). One reason you have had little response is you haven't been clear about the issues and what you are proposing up front, and you've allowed your frustration to color your comments. Keep it short and to the point in a proposal format with a neutral tone. Best.4meter4 (talk) 18:09, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
I see no merit in making a fork from the discussion signposted above, and the policy talk page seems to be far more appropriate for discussing an intended change in policy than here. I will change the header (and correct a typo while I am at it...) Kevin McE (talk) 18:18, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Kevin McE, I agree that the policy talk page is the place for discussion. I was saying that the long rambling comments you have made at that current discussion are counter productive and are not likely to bring people to the table to talk and craft policy. It would be better to start over and create a short "policy proposal" that is just a couple succinct sentence. Such as, "proposal to require merge notifications at involved articles when a merge proposal is made in an AFD discussion". Link the templates, and then succinctly (two or three sentences at most) state why the policy is needed. A wall of text, isn't going to help. Then wait for comments and discuss. Ultimartely, this is going to need to go to an WP:RFC. Best.4meter4 (talk) 18:26, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
OK, but I make it clear there that this is about starting the discussion, not making a formal proposal (yet), so one needs to seed the discussion, in discursive tones. But I have done some TLDR bullet points if you think that will help move things along.Kevin McE (talk) 18:49, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Requesting to create AfD for Pressterror

Subject has no notable sources online, except a brief mention in a Vice article and deleted (possibly hosted on streaming services) Vice TV spot. 70.163.208.142 (talk) 04:22, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 04:24, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Archive_75"