Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 73

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 70 Archive 71 Archive 72 Archive 73 Archive 74 Archive 75 → Archive 77

Wiki Page about Manie Malone to be deleted

Good morning,


Hope this mail meets everyone all right.

This note to ask for the deletion of Manie Malone Wikipedia page.

Actually I am the article subject and consider the path of my career is too young and too new to be notable at this step.

I do thank people who could be interested in my profile and who has created this article-page, I really do, but I do not feel comfortable with having already a wiki page, especially at this step where there are not a lot to write, nor a lot to say. So, as suggested by wikipedia helping service who has been very responsive and efficient in guidance, I'd like to express my will : I want this article-page about Manie Malone (myself) be deleted.

Thank you for your understanding on that request.

I'd like to use the opportunity of this mail to with you a lovely day.

Regards,

Manie Malone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manie Malone (talk • contribs) 14:03, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

@Manie Malone: I have converted the article into a redirect to Viva Riva!, which is the only place I can find independent sources talking about you. I hope that's acceptable; if not, I can open a full deletion debate citing subject requesting deletion, but that might come back with a consensus to retain the redirect. I hope that all makes sense. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:21, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
information Note: Tyw7 has opened an AFD shortly after your redirecting which probably conflicted with your edit. I closed the AFD for now since redirecting seems the correct course of action per WP:ATD-R but if someone wants the redirect deleted as well, feel free to take it to WP:RFD. Regards SoWhy 14:24, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
SoWhy, I was wondering why my XFD notice was posted to the Viva article instad of Ms. Malone's article. It seems that User:Ritchie333's edit and my edit conflicted and confused twinkle. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:26, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Manie Malone, hiya. First of all if you want to edit your article, please read WP:COI first. But Manie Malone was redirected to Viva Riva! --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:24, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
If you've got a spare hour at a London meetup Tyw7, I'll tell you about the time Georgina Downs got COI tag bombed for daring to suggest she might have a better idea of when her birthday was than some newspaper. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:32, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Ritchie333, I am nowhere in London :P
And I doubt you have a Cornwall meetup.
Maybe you can drop a message on my wall? --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:42, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
It waz also where R333 said that because she sued the government she was capable of wring a featured article  ;) ——SerialNumber54129 14:54, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
I have very informal meetups in Cornwall all the time. But probably not the Cornwall you mean. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:42, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Ivanvector, noppa. Cornwall --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:57, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

RFC at WP:Notability (people)

There is a RFC at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#RFC on routine coverage in which participants here may have interest. Otr500 (talk) 18:07, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Lalisom - The Lal Effect

Could someone help create the AFD page for me. Reason is "WP:1E, notable only for one event. Because it is co-founded by a famous actor does not gives it inherent notability. There's no news after the undesirable response for their first show; band likely disbanded." 137.97.100.172 (talk) 07:43, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Belated  Done --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:08, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Myrcella Baratheon

I have tried to open a second AfD for the Myrcella Baratheon article, but I am having difficulty doing so. For some reason, I cannot open the preloaded part of the AfD to actually create the page once the template is put on the article. Could anyone help me with this? Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 01:02, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Aoba47, what's the reason for deletion? --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:30, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
I have created the AFD. Fill up the reason section and sign. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myrcella Baratheon (2nd nomination) --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:32, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the help! I will put the reason in now. Apologies for my confusion. Aoba47 (talk) 01:35, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
    Aoba47, ah no problem. If you are frequently nominating articles, perhaps try installing WP:TWINKLE tool? --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:44, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the link. I will definitely install that. I have heard about it before, but I just never looked it up. Anyway, I hope you are having a great weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 01:48, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Die Achse des Guten

I stumbled upon Die Achse des Guten and it looks like a blatant case of WP:NN if ever I saw one. Only a primary source and that is a blog (so invalid per WP:BLOGS). It was tagged in 2010 as needing improvement: it hasn't shaped up so it should be shipped out. I have never done a WP:AFD before so, before I spend any effort on it, would I be wasting my time? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:54, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

It looks as though it has been nominated for you: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Die Achse des Guten. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:32, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. Is it appropriate to signify support per nom? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:56, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
If you agree with the arguments put forward by the nominator, yes. You may wish to also put forward your own arguments. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:55, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Can someone fix the mess Twinkle has made to my Ken Power AfD?

I tried twice anf failed, - it's shows up both times and the second attempt says, reasonably I guess, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ken Power (2nd nomination)

The first entry at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 July 25 appended itself to Ahimsa Wickrematunge, the second showed up at the top of today's page. Doug Weller talk 17:44, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

A mis-matched [ caused the subst to fail. I've closed the dupe nom. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:50, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll do them by hand until this is fixed. Doug Weller talk 17:55, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
The problem isn't with Twinkle, it's the combination of tags. The subst doesn't work because a [[ tag isn't closed, so the closing }} isn't picked up. Trying to predict what MediaWiki markup does with unmatched tags is almost always painful. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:01, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Linguistic research on AFD discussions

Some of you might be interested in this research presentation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9vvwV5KfW4 (starting at about 27:30 minutes; the first half is on incivility). It includes information about which policies/guidelines are cited the most (WP:GNG and WP:N in general), which types of articles tend to be deleted if they get nominated (we tended to delete biographies, football, martial arts, and athletes; we tended to keep events, locations, history, crime, and architecture), and other information. There is also information at http://www.mandanemedia.com/afd/ with some diagrams. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:44, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Two big things of note:
  1. There's one funky dynamic visual aid that shows how different policies are cited and how their users usually vote (e.g. unsurprisingly, people citing BEFORE usually !vote Keep, but AUTHOR is way more mixed than NFOOTY). Some playing around with URLs shows a few other interesting diagrams. e.g. this one compares Keep vs delete (!)votes and what the outcome was - 2 AfDs with 34 votes, both deletes. But 1 with 30 !votes and was either a merge or NC.
  2. If you want your AfD arguments to be persuasive they need lots of punctuation marks and some emotional, risk-laden, words! On the plus side, both the essay-writers and the pithy staters are equally effective. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:31, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Solomon Eliezer Alfandari deletion

Hi all,

could someone take care of the deletion process for above article?

--37.24.53.157 (talk) 15:07, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:21, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Duplicate log entry

My apologies. Twinkle gave me an error message that indicated my AFD nomination for Christian Educational Consortium had failed. I checked, and there was no listing for it, so I renominated. Now we have two entries in the log Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 July 29. It looks like two distinct entries with the same content, but it's actually two listings of the same AFD. Any edits to one show up in the other so I can't seem to remove the duplication. Meters (talk) 06:50, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Done - @Meters:, I removed the duplicate transclusion from the log's source text. Such extraneous entries happen occasionally - thankfully not too often - when Twinkle breaks down in the middle of AfD processing. GermanJoe (talk) 08:08, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Please complete this AfD for me

Could someone create the AfD page for Mandana Seyfeddinipur? Here's the nomination statement:

--Certainly an accomplished academic/administator, but wikipedia can't have articles about all accomplished professionals. She doesn't meet WP:GNG: the only sources about her appear to be staff pages at the institutions she's worked at. And she doesn't meet WP:NPROF either: of the dozen or so papers she's published, the most cited has 66 citations; she has a somewhat stronger claim to notability as a head of the ELDP program: though an important funding body in this field, this is very far from the scale which would confer automatic notability to its head. --

Many thanks! 2A00:23C4:7C94:0:4591:6138:7923:2D82 (talk) 20:49, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mandana_Seyfeddinipur --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:48, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Please complete AfD

NIOA should be deleted for the reasons on the talk page. Please complete it for me. Ta. 2001:8003:5999:6D00:3D85:37CE:BD1E:B795 (talk) 23:00, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NIOA --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:31, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

List of Once Upon a Time guest characters page for deletion

This page is not necessary as it can be placed on the main characters page (note that it was previously placed on this page before being separated), which includes the main, recurring, creatures, and novel characters. The cast table and the guest section was separated from the rest of the article with no reasoning for its separation. Considering the fact that the show is long concluded and no more characters would be added, it's not necessary to split the the guest section to an article of its own, as the article has existed in its own as a whole for a long time. 175.143.228.68 (talk) 03:42, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

This? List of Once Upon a Time guest characters --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:28, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
@Tyw7: Yes, List of Once Upon a Time guest characters is the page. The same list (the original one) can be found at List of Once Upon a Time characters in the guest section. 175.143.227.185 (talk) 11:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
What's the deletion reason you want me to use? --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:11, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
@Tyw7: Duplicate. All the content in List of Once Upon a Time guest characters already exists in List of Once Upon a Time characters. 175.143.227.185 (talk) 13:33, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Done. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Once Upon a Time guest characters --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:52, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Restricting AfD to WP:Extended autoconfirmed

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is consensus against restricting AfD participation to extended confirmed users. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:15, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

We struggle with issues of undisclosed paid editors both supporting and opposing AfD. Example include User:Sora Sailor.

Some of these undisclosed paid editor accounts do so to try to extort money out of people (for deletion). And others so they can get money from the person in question.

In my opinion this probably will be partly helped by limiting these discussions to extended auto confirmed users. French Wikipedia does something similar were they move all comments that are made by an editor with less than 50 edits. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:51, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Support with an exception for the page creator, as there is also the very common use of sockpuppets so this would remove temptation. I wonder if all paid editors, disclosed or not should be excluded from AFD apart from the article creators as the neutrality of paid editors is always in question, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 22:13, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
    Atlantic306, but can we actually do it in the limits of the Wiki software? It might place more burden on the admins and patrollers. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:54, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
    • I don't see a quick check as being much of a burden, and its certainly less of a burden than digging out sockpuppets Atlantic306 (talk) 23:43, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
      Atlantic306, but what's stopping them from creating socks and voting? --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support of course. Amd please let's get a consenus on the RfC statement first, and then discuss the technical details later. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:54, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Sounds like a reasonable idea. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:08, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Question Are we talking about restricting ECP to people starting AfDs (which can be done by protecting the AfD logs, thus preventing any non-ECP editors transcluding them), or from people participating in them? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
    I was going to ask the same question. If you were talking about the same thing, then that would mean administrators have to protect each AfD subpages every time one creates an AfD discussion page. Though the idea itself has merits. Masum Reza📞 15:35, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
    @Masumrezarock100: or use an edit filter --DannyS712 (talk) 15:48, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
FWIW I am amenable to allowing AfDs to only be started by people who sufficiently understand the deletion policy, but I'm much less amenable about shutting out an article creator's right of reply. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:59, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support in principle, provided there is some mechanism to allow the article creator (and perhaps any other editor who had contributed to the page before the start of the AfD?) to participate regardless of confirmed status. Details can be worked out later. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:25, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose any change that makes it more difficult for users to participate in deletion discussions based on the mere assertion of an issue. Iffy★Chat -- 18:20, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
    • On French Wikipedia they move all comments out of the vote! section by editors with less than 50 edits. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:32, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose While often first-timer posters and IPs add more heat than light to AFDs, it still seems to me that AFD is a place where someone of special knowledge who is not a Wikipedia regular may contribute useful insight ("Well, I'm a framistat engineer, and I can tell you that Jenny Okapi's invention of the sublinear framistat totally reworked the field. You can find her mentioned in three articles in the latest Journal of Advanced Framistation and Gardening.") I think the practice of labeling first-time posters, while frowned on by some, is a useful one, and will give the closer sufficient understanding of what is going on in the debate. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:26, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose per Nat Gertler. Some overzealous "regulars" are known to nominate articles that are not in perfect condition for deletion and it falls to the page's creator or other editors with narrow focus to defend the article against shoddy nominations. Any discussion on Wikipedia should be open to all editors, not only "privileged" few, unless absolutely necessary. We don't even ban such editors from discussing adminship nominations after all. Individual AFDs that face problems with SPAs/socks to the point of disruption can be protected on a case-by-case basis but pre-emptively protecting pages is rightly frowned upon by the protection policy. On a side note, restricting starting AFDs to people "who sufficiently understand the deletion policy" (Ritchie333) would require banning a lot of people from AFD, not just those not edit-confirmed. PS: Shouldn't there be a {{rfc}} tag here? Regards SoWhy 19:00, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
    Also, is there any evidence that this is a widespread problem that cannot be handled by protecting the few affected AFDs if this happens? Regards SoWhy 19:02, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
SoWhy, Who are these 'regulars'. If they are not qualified New Page Reviewers, that is a fault of the community who would not let us allow only qualified New Page Reviewers to tag pages for deletion. Look for a solution there, It's common knowledge that maintenannce and noticeboards are a magnet to newbies and inexperienced users. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:09, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Imho, those arguing for a restriction should be required to prove that the restriction is absolutely necessary. But hey, you know me, I'm always happy to oblige, Here's a random set of AFDs by experienced editors (many of them with the patroller and reviwer rights) that should probably never have been opened :
That is but a small fraction of nominations of that kind courtesy of this search and I'm sure you can see a pattern here: If we want to restrict access to AFD to combat disruption, it would have to include banning a lot more people from AFD than just those not extended confirmed. Personally, I'm opposed to either proposal and as I said, I have yet to see some evidence to convince me otherwise (and no, "it feels like a problem") is not really an argument. Looking through the current AFD logs, I see no widespread problems with socks or SPAs. Regards SoWhy 09:17, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
SoWhy, this is a highly disingenuous list. Maybe these are prosecution/defence tactics in a courtroom, but they are not good faith evidence here on Wikipedia. Most of those examples are years old, or not from New Page Patrollers or 'regulars' at all. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:42, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
As I said, these are random examples I grabbed from a search. There is no way to order by date, so I picked the first 20+ I found. However, I do not believe it is disingenuous. It merely proves that this has been a problem for a long time, a pattern that really needs addressing. As for the other claim, at least 9 are started by editors who currently hold the patroller or reviewer right and two by an admin, so that's almost half of them. But just for the sake of completeness and to dispel any doubts about my good faith, here's 15 from this year with the user rights of the nom:
  1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sydney Watson reviewer
  2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Srdjan Vukašinović patroller
  3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derrick Morris admin
  4. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Constitutional hardball patroller
  5. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denicos Allen reviewer
  6. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leni Stern patroller, reviewer
  7. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apothecary to the Household admin
  8. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leader (spark) patroller, reviewer
  9. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mooroo patroller, reviewer
  10. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Replogle reviewer
  11. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HotShot (video game) reviewer
  12. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nikola Tesla Memorial Center admin
  13. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1987–88 Bradley Braves men's basketball team patroller, reviewer
  14. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DWWR 15 admin (at the time, currently banned)
  15. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/War in Afghanistan order of battle, 2012 admin
As I pointed out above though, shouldn't you provide us with similar examples of the "problem" this proposal is supposed to fix instead? Regards SoWhy 18:49, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment GMCmcrow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was extended confirmed, participated in over 50 AfDs in April–May 2019, and has been blocked for UPE a few days ago. How this restriction address the problem? Bri.public (talk) 19:13, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Newbies who created or contributed to the article should be able to defend their work. Anne drew 19:41, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per NatGertler. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:46, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose A radical and extreme suggestion that is not permitted by our protection policy, is a slap in the face of the basic principle that Wikipedia is “the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit” and lacking data to show that there is a problem to be addressed. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:18, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
When that mantra was coined all those years ago it was almost certainly intended as referring to mainspace. It surely wasn't a suggestion that all and sundry should tinker with the back office. Already we don't allow IPs and non-confirmed users to create articles. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:35, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Not to mention that even confirmee editors need to actively request the autoconfirmed permission if they don't want to need an experienced editor to review their submissions. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:19, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Nat Gertler and others. CThomas3 (talk) 05:12, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose AfD is already protected to a degree by a process that is not immediately obvious/intuitive for a new or inexperienced WP editor. And, BTW, some of the madder AfDs and speedy deletes I've been involved in - successfully - opposing have been by highly experienced Admins. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:21, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Sorry, just to add without the right to contribute to these discussions, those mad AfDs would have gone through. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:47, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose people who contributed to articles should certainly be allowed to defend them at AfD, regardless of their edit count. Hut 8.5 06:41, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support as per Kudpung and Atlantic306, I think is more appropriate idea that may keep autocomfirmed that could be all be more inexperienced and even one of these accounts that may be sockpuppets or even meatpuppets. Sheldybett (talk) 06:50, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. I think it is helpful to raise the bar to extended confirmed editors in AfD discussions. This would also be helpful for eliminating sock puppets for these discussions. And, as Doc James and others have said, the article creator would probably be an exception. That individual probably should have the right to defend their article. The "Extended confirmed protection" policy can reflect this any changes if it is supported by consensus, such as what might be developing here in this discussion. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:19, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Firstly, the proposal is not evidence-based. It provides just a single example but fails to demonstrate that there was a problem in that case. The editor in question commented in four AfDs (1; 2; 3; 4) Their !votes were two keeps and two deletes and don't seem to stand out as exceptional or bad faith.
Secondly, the proposal is draconian. ECP was introduced for specific problem areas like the Israel-Palestine topics. Its threshold of 500 edits and 30 days is prohibitive but AfD templates appear on articles to invite ordinary readers to participate. That's how I got started on Wikipedia myself -- by noticing an AfD template and following the invitation. Not many readers do this but that's because our interface is so intimidating. Adding ECP would shut out the general public completely from all types of topic because 30 days is greater than the standard time limit of 7 days for AfD.
Thirdly, the actual problem at AfD is that we have shrinking participation. Numerous discussions are relisted to attract comment and some attract no comment at all. Adding ECP would make this problem worse by shutting off the supply of fresh blood. Such creeping use of ECP might cause the systemic death of Wikipedia. One requirement of ECP is that you have five hundred edits but how are you going to make so many edits if your areas of interest are increasingly blocked by ECP?
Fourthly, the measure would be counter-productive. If ordinary editing is increasingly restricted so that there are significant barriers to entry then who is going to be motivated to overcome those barriers? The people who are most likely to put up with tiresome restrictions are those who are paid to do so. The more that the general public is shut out, the more influence that the paid editors can wield by mastering and overcoming the restrictions.
Andrew D. (talk) 08:49, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Davidson. I can't on principle support a measure that might "partly" solve a problem unproven to exist at the expense of excluding new editors. Above this thread we have an IP who already needs their (probably sound) nomination completed; I can't see further exclusion to have quantative benefits at this time. For the record, I piss on paid editing, metaphorically, I just see this tool as too much a blunt instrument to address it. ——SerialNumber54129 09:01, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per SoWhy. This is a solution looking for a problem. If people are making disruptive AfDs and not following WP:BEFORE, take them to ANI and topic ban them. I don't really want to name names, but an AfD topic ban for TenPoundHammer drew strong community support and I'm pretty sure I have spoken to Zackmann08 (who started several AfDs on SoWhy's list above) about frivolous deletion nominations in the past. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:15, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Moral support I basically agree with Kudpung that more work should have been put into the RFC question, but I can't see this proposal passing at this point. Sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry are definitely problems at AFD, and requiring a large number of edits beforehand (basically banning all accounts created after a specific AFD was opened from commenting on that AFD) would definitely go a long way in solving it. Yeah, we can blank and/or ignore sock !votes, as recently happened here, but sometimes there's more sneakery afoot and the offending parties manage to cause enough confusion to get a "No consensus" (de facto keep) result. I don't buy the argument that since the project is becoming harder and harder to enter for good-faith volunteer editors (what good faith volunteer editors immediately jump into AFD!?) we would be making it easier for undisclosed shills, and that's the closest thing to a reasonable argument the oppose !votes have made so far. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:02, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Deletion decisions should be made on the basis of evidence and policy, not the count of heads. The relevance and validity of arguments is independent of who makes them. Disruption and contentious editing are not restricted to new editors. If people are closing discussions based on head counts they are doing it wrong, and should stop. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 05:09, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Partly for the four reasons elucidated by Andrew Davidson and partly because I have certainly seen reasoned arguments by COI, IP and non-autoconfirmed editors and there is no analysis about how many innocuous editors would be kicked out by such a rule. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:55, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support in principle, oppose as structured: If we're talking about using technical means to prevent non-ECP editors from posting on AfDs, then in an enormous number of AfDs the article creator won't be able to post. That seems unnecessarily BITEy to me, and moreover, article creators are often in the best position to provide sources in response to an AfD notice. Sure, they could still post them to the AfD talk or the article talk, but I think it'd be too easy for participants to just miss those new sources and the article could get railroaded. That said, I think some means of limiting inexperienced editors' participation at AfD is desirable, particularly to restrict the disruption caused by how disorganized such discussions often become. I don't know how to achieve that, whether it's by automatically striking/indenting !votes by disallowed editors, or by modifying the AfD page framework to have more structure—like a section for comments by the article creator, comments by "experienced editors" and comments by "other editors" (sort of like the framework used at WP:AE). —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:03, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:ANYONECANEDIT and WP:NOTAVOTE. We already have enough retention problems with new users complaining that their work is deleted too quickly, now we're not even going to let them comment on the discussions? I completely agree that paid editing and sockpuppetry are issues with deletion discussions, but they're issues with all discussions on content. This is a very poor approach to that problem. Also what Nat Gertler said, that's a phenomenon I have witnessed myself quite frequently, and making it so that subject matter experts can't comment is stupid definitely more harmful to encyclopedia-building than sockpuppets trying to brigade a deletion discussion. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:41, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose if this is a chronic problem I have not seen it. Problems are dealt with relatively well now by checkusers and admins. It seems counterintuitive that everyone can edit, but not everyone can participate in AfDs. The majority of AfDs lack participation as it is... Evidence of that: Most AfDs are re-listed at least once, and some AfDs get re-listed up to three times waiting for participation. Lightburst (talk) 20:22, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Benjamin (talk) 13:52, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Per @Andrew Davidson:'s detailed reasoning. As much as I detest the thought of COI and paid editor's interference with the Wikipedia process I have seen that editors have been noting when an SPA suddenly appears and !votes. I had seen some closings where the confusion made a difference but more lately it seems that those types of !votes get discounted at closing. I consider a thanks should be offered to any editors that monitor this and call attention to it. I have seen that blocks or bans are handed out in some instances. If a closing is "close on a call" I think the admin can use discretion whether to look into any potential SPA, COI, or paid editing concerns, to determine if the !vote is valid. Looking for solutions is never bad and "Support in principle, oppose as structured" because I feel this is the wrong direction creating unintended collateral damage. Otr500 (talk) 18:45, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support, and require fingerprints and retina scans as well.Jacona (talk) 21:41, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
    Lol. Masum Reza📞 21:55, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Andrew Davidson points out many issues, as does SoWhy. The biggest issue with AfD is low participation, and this proposal would make that worse, not better. Pointing out that French Wikipedia restricts to editors with at least 50 edits is largely irrelevant, since ECP is a ten-fold higher barrier. Risker (talk) 06:29, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. WP:Extended autoconfirmed was introduced for some specific, otherwise intractable, problems, and I'm always wary when measures like that are seen as a handy tool for dealing with something unrelated and have their use extended beyond their original purpose. The proposal might help deal with drive-by COI/PAID/SPA editors, but it will also keep away good faith editors who are simply not yet far enough up the greasy pole. I don't think that's a price worth paying unless the COI/PAID/SPA thing becomes a significantly more widespread problem, and I'm not seeing evidence that it is - the vast majority of AfD's I look at are fine, and those with COI/PAID/SPA infestations are quickly spotted and dealt with. I find the opposes by Andrew Davidson and SoWhy compelling too. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:29, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per Nat Gertler and Andrew Davidson, I certainly don't support barring all good faith participation all for the sake of a few COI/SPAs, Pages created by newbies/IPs should also be allowed to defend their work. –Davey2010Talk 11:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Closers generally ignore SPAs in AfDs. One of the easiest way to detect nefarious editing (socking, COI, etc.) is AfD participation by low-edit accounts. At present they do little harm when participating, and it is fairly easy to mark when in a particular AfD there are several of them. Icewhiz (talk) 12:09, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose as while some new users may not constructively contribute to the discussion, and also the problem of undisclosed paid editors/COI editing, the process should still remain more open per WP:ANYONECANEDIT and WP:NOTAVOTE. Also per latter, if an SPA does not seem to have good intentions with !votes, we would take their opinion with a grain of salt. Furthermore, there could also be problems if an auto-confirmed good-faith editor who is not yet x-confirmed creates an article (IIRC only "autoconfirmed" status is needed to create an article, not extended-confirmed) but their article is put at AfD, this would lead to them being unable to voice their opinion, and the viewpoint of the creator may be one of the most important in a deletion discussion. SemiHypercube 01:09, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
    The proposal does actually allow the creator of an article to comment at the AfD - it's modified by some responses to early comments, up there somewhere ^ Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 02:54, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per WP:ANYONECANEDIT and WP:AGF ~~ OxonAlex - talk 09:14, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We can't change all our rules based on the single issue of paid editing. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, and anyone should be able to participate. Gamaliel (talk) 22:04, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose for reasons articulated by User:Andrew Davidson, reasoning of Jo-Jo Eumerus. User:Mendaliv has pointed out the structural and policy reasons why this is a bad solution, which will have unintended, unfortunate and structural consequences for Wikipedia. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:32, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose as massive overkill. Paid editing is a large systemic issue that won't be fixed from banning non-ECP editors from AfD. We are the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. This proposal would prevent a large proportion of good faith editors who have an article nominated for AfD from defending their contributions or providing further sources. Let's not forget that 500 edits is an absolutely monumental barrier for most editors, who don't usually use any of the methods (e.g. AWB) by which longer-term editors spam thousands of edits, and have to make many lengthy searches for places where they can begin to help out before they can work out how to amass 500 edits. Also: AfD is not a vote and if we know that an editor is paid then the closer should take this into account. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 15:46, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose editors have to start editing somewhere; there's no reason to prevent feedback from new users who may have expertise on a topic. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:54, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There may be other newbies involved in an article, not just its creator. AFD is not a vote, and SPAs can be ignored without prohibiting people from commenting. And of course, it is fundamentally un-wiki. —Kusma (t·c) 18:29, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose per Malcolmxl5, Bilorv, OxonAlex, SoWhy and others.   —  Hei Liebrecht 05:12, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Kusma an d others - overkill. Agathoclea (talk) 05:23, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose participation, support creation - in effect, I'd agree that AfDs should only be started by people with more experience, but I don't think limiting the participation in them is wise. While it's rare I've seen helpful content from non-EC participants (including not just by the article creator). Limitations on wiki-participation need firm justification with limited collateral damage, and I don't believe that is satisfied. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:26, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:IPHUMAN. There is no reason to lock out potentially valuable insight from IP editors or newcomers because of a few disrupted AfDs. We can deal with disruptive, paid editors on a case-by-case basis, striking their comments or blocking them if necessary. ComplexRational (talk) 20:44, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support WP:DP is complicated enough. We don't need less experienced editors potentially muddling up deletion discussions. This isn't about whether or not new editors are "privileged" enough to take part in such discussions. It simply streamlines the process by making it easier for sysops to read through the !votes without having to weed out non-policy based comments from inexperienced users. Besides, extended autoconfirmed is an inevitable user permission. It's not like we're restricting this to a group that only a select few can join. Everyone will get there with enough experience. --PuzzledvegetableIs it teatime already? 21:24, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
    @Puzzledvegetable: Some of those inexperienced editors prefer to lurk around. My point is here that edit count doesn't signifies an editor's experience. Masum Reza📞 21:32, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - these problematic situations should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis instead. Raising the bar for AfD voter requirements really would create more problems than it would really solve to be worth it, as many users have elaborated on above. --letcreate123 (talk) 01:20, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
  • (Summoned by bot) Oppose per Nat Gertler, SoWhy, ComplexRational, letcreate123 and probably most of the other opposers. Thryduulf (talk) 09:51, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support, and then further restrict all project forums, and eventually every single page on the site, to extended confirmed users just so we can stop those pesky sockpuppets and/or editors with a conflict of interest. Because that totally follows Wikipedia's fundamental principles as an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, right? </sarcasm> Geolodus (talk) 11:22, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. If someone creates an article, he or she should be able to explain why it should be kept. Keep in mind that 500 edits is a lot for someone who edits infrequently; it took me several years. HotdogPi 12:36, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Democratic Foundation of Chameria

The Democratic Foundation of Chameria, is an article about a ghost organization whose the leader enspouce extremist and nationalist views (its leader illegally declared himself as President or Prime Minister of a non-existing Republic of Chameria and has expressed irredendist views against the territorial integrity of foreign states, particularly Greece). Furthermore, the leader of this ghost organization was recently found dead in Netherlands. The Dutch Police revealed that he was involved in serious money-related crimes such as fraud, and that his death was related to these crimes.

Looking thoroughly in the article, one can easily see that there is serious WP:OR issues, and a complete absence of reliable sources to WP:VERIFY the article's subject, the Democratic Foundation of Chameria. The only sources cited about the subject, are dead and broken, and appear to refer to the foundation's website, which is inaccessible.

The only reliable (and accessible) sources found in this article are about its leader's death (which should be moved to their own article about the person instead) and the Cham issue. Which means, any reliable sources found in the article, are not about the article's subject (the Foundation) at all, which is a violation of Wikipedia's rules, and instead, are about other subjects already covered in other articles.

To me, it clearly looks like the article falls into WP:ADVOCATE and WP:OR and WP:NATIONALIST territory and I am about to propose its deletion. What are your thoughts? --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 11:54, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Please complete nomination

Please complete the nomination for deletion for Pro Wrestling Women's Alliance. Explanation is on the talk page. 2001:8003:5999:6D00:39ED:AF0C:516:142E (talk) 02:45, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done--see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pro Wrestling Women's Alliance. --Finngall talk 04:45, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Deletion talk, revisiting Taleeb Noormohamed

This article is in poor shape. I suspect that may be because it was never notable in the first place. Now may be the time to revisit. It was proposed for deletion in 2011 and seems to have received a borderline Keep. He has recently been nominated as a candidate for the 2019 Canadian federal election, so improvement or deletion is a bit more urgent perhaps. The article contains buzzwords, reads like a resume, has WP:POV issues and relies predominantly on dead links. I have tried to discuss this on the talk page and on the Canada project talk, but I expect a wider discussion is warranted. My concerns are namely:

This article was previously proposed for deletion about eight years ago. Editors elected for a borderline keep. It does not seem the article has improved since. It relies predominantly on dead links, primarily to promotional and other WP:ROUTINE coverage. Usually, candidates for office and prior unsuccessful candidates are not notable per WP:POLITICIAN. Notwithstanding that, a politician may be sufficiently notable if they meet WP:GNG. Of course, usually routine coverage does not count against towards that. I note that this article includes buzzwords, and has been marked as reading like a resume since February 2017. If the community agrees it does not meet our general notability guidelines a redirect to the relevant list of 2019 candidates may be appropriate.

Wherever the discussion goes, I think it is worth having. I find these sort of discussions, seem to come up every election cycle.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:14, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erin Mendenhall

I erred on the side of conservative and nominated Erin Mendenhall for deletion, instead of deleting it myself under G11. That might have been a mistake. There are quite a few speedy delete votes in this AfD and the article appears to have WP:SNOW chance of being kept. It's been less than a day, but I do not believe that this AfD should run the full seven days. If an uninvolved admin would come in and close this, I would appreciate it. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:53, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Muboshgu, I think the speedy tag will attract an admin sooner or later. Usually one comes along within a day to look at pages tagged with that template. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:50, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Request: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Wow! Wow! Wubbzy! songs

We don't need this list that has zero sources and which songs have absolutely no notability. 2407:7000:A2AB:D00:9037:D5EF:126E:4EBC (talk) 07:31, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done SD0001 (talk) 10:55, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Deletion talk, Paul Polansky page

It's time to revisit the discussion of deletion for this page: Paul Polansky. Questionable notoriety is the main reason. 1.Most of the links for sources are dead. For example, the "Czech Historical Research Center" supposedly started by the subject is apparently nonexistent. 2.Sources for the books lead back to the author's own (deleted) website and many of the books seem to be self-published. 3.The "Kosovo Roma Refugee Foundation" (KRRF) is also practically nonexistent source-wise except for old secondary references; there's almost zero direct reference to the NGO to be found, making it appear to be another one-man project set up by the subject. 4.The fact that several of the subject's books were published by KRRF, supposedly a refugee support organization, also makes the NGO sound dubious at best & the publishing by KRRF seems to be another self-publishing project. Delete.Localemediamonitor (talk) 09:32, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Localemediamonitor,  Done. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Polansky (2nd nomination) --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:07, 14 August 2019 (UTC) Updated by Localemediamonitor (talk) 08:25, 18 August 2019 (UTC) ping User:Tyw7

Daily page generation and lint errors

How are the daily pages, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 August 13, created? These pages have two Obsolete HTML tags lint errors, viz:

<font color="gray">&lt;</font>
<font color="gray">&gt;</font>

these should be

<span style="color:gray">&lt;</font>
<span style="color:gray">&gt;</font>

Will someone please fix this at the source, to stop the propagation of these errors? —Anomalocaris (talk) 06:01, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

The page is initialized by Mathbot. Its operated by Oleg Alexandrov (talk · contribs). – Ammarpad (talk) 06:45, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Mathbot, Oleg Alexandrov: Please fix it. —Anomalocaris (talk) 18:02, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Request: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valin Shinyei

Non-notable child actor that doesn't meet WP:BIO. Most sources do not have him as the main topic and those that are (e.g. IMDb) are not reliable. 2407:7000:A2AB:D00:42A:8418:5749:69F9 (talk) 06:36, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:56, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Please complete the AfD nomination

Please complete the AfD nomination for Senzu Collective. I've noted the justification for deletion on Talk:Senzu Collective. Thanks, 153.215.33.162 (talk) 09:44, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

  • checkY I have finished that nomination for you. Reyk YO! 09:59, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Approx deletion rate for established articles

Are there stats anywhere for the number of established articles deleted each day (i.e. not via WP:AfC/WP:NPP). I've been able to find stats for the number of newly created articles that are deleted (meta:Research:Wikipedia_article_creation), but not for established articles. Any rough useful, detailed stats a bonus! T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 13:49, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

There are some great stats at meta:Research:Wikipedia_article_creation, suggesting approx an 80% deletion rate within 30 days, but I still can't find an equivalent for articles older than, say 180 days. Even an order-of-magnitude estimation would be useful. I'm trying to make a slide summarising the general internal error-checking processes in Wikipedia (AfC, NPP, AfD, GA, FA etc). T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 05:54, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello, Evolution and evolvability. The problem is determining what are actually "established articles". I do not think "older than 180 days" or older than any other arbitrary time is particularly useful. I sometimes run across articles about obscure topics that have remained almost untouched for several years or more than a decade. A better definition of "established" would include articles that have several substantial content additions or modifications by several different human editors; the more the better. This would exclude bot edits and minor gnome style edits. A strict definition would need to be agreed upon and some computer routine would have to be written that tracked the deletion outcomes of established articles as opposed to those that aren't. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:09, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
@Cullen328: Thanks! You're probably right that subsetting by better definitions of "established" would be good, though I'm hoping that the deletion rate ends up being relatively similar once it's more than 6 months old and that initial scrutiny wave has worn off. The meta:Research:Wikipedia_article_creation page quotes a high survival rate of AfC published articles (~96%), but I'm not certain how that's derived. It's seem to indicate that for en.wp to be gaining pages per day, there would need to be approx 3000 articles created, 2300 of the new articles deleted, and 100 older articles deleted. But those numbers seem a bit off compared to looking at the raw Special:Log/delete. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 06:52, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of professional wrestling matches rated 5 or more stars by Dave Meltzer

This nomination was not opened properly, and the discussion has been open for 20 days. Could someone please help? Thank you. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:39, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I've relisted and added the AFD to today's log. Iffy★Chat -- 14:59, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:07, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paras Tomar

As some of you may know, consensus was just established "against restricting AfD participation to extended confirmed users". However, I'd be interested in a softer emergencies-only restriction for the very few AFDs (not all of them) that are tainted by recruited SPAs and IPs to an extent that may warrant a restriction to WP:XCONs. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 00:36, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Requesting input from the four good-faith users involved in the AFD: @Praxidicae, Harshil169, Usernamekiran, and Helloimahumanbeing: FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 00:38, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Praxidicae, I do not think that pinging the four experienced editors who commented on the AfD constitutes "mass pinging". You do not have to reply if you don't want to. FoxyGrampa75, the standard practice is to tag SPAs, whether IPs or fresh accounts. The closing administrator will ignore input from socks or fans who offer a "keep" rationale that is not based on policies and guidelines. It would be a very rare and extreme situation that would call for semi-protecting an AfD. Make your request at WP:RFPP. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:57, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Cullen328 I reverted my edit because I had misread the whole thing (while on mobile. ugh.) Praxidicae (talk) 11:49, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @FoxyGrampa75: sorry for the delayed reply, and thanks for initiating this discussion and the ping. Like Cullen said, usually SPAs are tagged, and/or "canvased" notice is inserted on the AfD page. I would have added the tags, but I was in a very remote area with only my mobile phone available. But I added the comment about "one more vote from an account" in the hopes that there would be a "keep" from a fresh account, and I would have taken it right to SPI. I found out later that they are already at SPI here. —usernamekiran(talk) 22:43, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Please complete the AfD nomination

Please complete the AfD nomination for August_Wesley_(wrestler). I've noted the justification for deletion on Talk:August_Wesley_(wrestler). Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.103.228.94 (talk) 21:46, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done. --Finngall talk 22:25, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Move protect by default

Hello. Today, I was thinking that AFD discussions are highly visable pages, and may be moved by New users. I was thinking that since these factors are true, that a move protection should be a default. Please put support or oppose below if you think this is a good or bad idea. Thanks! --Wyatt2049 | (talk) 14:57, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Can you provide diffs of where this has been a problem? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:15, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Viral drink is one recent example. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:27, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Jo-Jo Eumerus, the OP referred to ‘AFD discussions’ rather than the articles themselves but they have been CU blocked so I guess this is as far as it goes. :) --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:23, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Eh. I don't think that move protecting AFDs would make sense; disruption by AFD move is not common. Move protecting the article for the duration of the AFD might make sense through as it often creates confusion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:14, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Please complete Ann-Sophie Qvarnström deletion nomination

Hi, per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_nominate_a_single_page_for_deletion I should ask somebody here to finish the deletion nomination of this article for me (i.e. I've done step 1, but can't do step 2 & 3), since I don't use an account and can't do it on my own:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann-Sophie_Qvarnström

The reason I think it should be deleted is because there's obviously not any significant coverage of her all. Her claim to fame is to have made maps for Swedish role playing games in the 1980's, but she's not received much coverage/mention outside of the occassional blog or forum post. Thoug the article might look well-sourced at a first glance, the only sources that seem to meet RS guidelines (a handful of articles that supposedly appeared in local newspapers) are not formatted properly and not verifiable, i.e. "Nya Kristinehamnsposten, 13 July 1990", "Kuriren, 3 July 1984", "Bergslagsposten, 2 July 1984" and "Jönköpings-Posten 12 July 1993". It's impossible to determine if whatever coverage she might have received in these articles would classify as "significant" - my guess is not. There's plenty of references provided as evidence that Former Deputy Prime Minister of Sweden Maud Olofsson often wore jewelry designed by Qvarnström but none of those actually mention Qvarnström but merely depict Olofsson wearing jewelry (supposedly made by Qvarnström), which obviously isn't relevant. I was able to find only one verifiable RS (not included in the article, but from Google News) where she is very briefly mentioned:

https://www.expressen.se/nyheter/inloggad/bland-mutanter-drakar-och-demoner/

"Den frilansande illustratören Ann-Sophie Qvarnström, i dag silversmed, anlitades ofta av för att rita främst kartor. Hon var också en hängiven spelare.

– Man måste komma ihåg att det här var långt innan datorerna slog igenom på bred front. Rollspelen gjorde att vi kunde bygga egna världar utan begränsningar. Det var så långt vi kunde komma på den tiden utan datorer, säger hon."

Google Translate:

"Freelance illustrator Ann-Sophie Qvarnström, today a silversmith, was often hired to draw mainly maps. She was also a dedicated player.

- You have to remember that this was a long time before computers broke through on a broad front. The role-playing games allowed us to build our own worlds without limitations. That was as far as we could get at that time without computers, she says. "

All in all this article seems like a vanity project.110.165.186.42 (talk) 06:01, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ann-Sophie Qvarnström. --Finngall talk 14:42, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you.110.165.186.42 (talk) 15:42, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Please complete the deletion nomination of Svante Thunberg

Per WP:AFDHOWTO, I'm requesting help with nominating the Svante Thunberg article for deletion (since I don't use an acccount). My motivation for the nomination is that this article seems to fail the basic criteria. There doesn't seem to be any significant non-trivial coverage of Thunberg. I checked on the Swedish Wikipedia page and even there, all the links are just "databases" proving he's appeared in this or that stage show/movie/TV show, or articles about either his wife or daughter (both who are clearly notable). He's appeared in some productions but it's not clear to me that the roles he played in them were "significant" (per WP:NACTOR). I tried looking him up on Google and while I get hits for several news articles where his name appears even before Greta became famous, they all seem to be trivial mentions as "Malena Ernman's husband"). A google news search for

"svante thunberg" -"greta" -"malena"

set to "before august 2018" (when Greta started her school strike) receives no hits. 110.165.186.42 (talk) 08:20, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I have removed your tag, you need to learn how to properly format an AFD which means having a discussion not just tagging the article! When you have elarnt how to do this you can tag the article but you musn't tag the article and not have a discussion. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 08:25, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi Richard. I did make a small mistake in that I posted my motivation for the deletion here instead of on Svante Thunberg's talk page. If you read WP:AFDHOWTO though you'll see that you are not required to have an account to nominate pages and having a discussion beforehand isn't required either (though there are actually 2 such discussions on the talk page already), and that I've otherwise followed the instructions. I'll repost my motivation for the nomination to the right place and reinsert the deletion nomination.110.165.186.42 (talk) 08:30, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
To the volunteers: I've noted my reasons for the deletion nomination on the talk page. Thank you. 110.165.186.42 (talk) 09:59, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
To the volunteers: I've fulfilled step 1 but I've been reverted 3 times already by 2 different users who refuse to accept an incomplete nomination.110.165.186.42 (talk) 11:12, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
RichardWeiss, we have previously opened AFD on behalf of IP users. See these:
just to name a few. Please look at the archives for more examples. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:41, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

The AfD was completed by User:Andy Dingley. Thank you.110.165.186.42 (talk) 13:35, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

The AfD - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Svante_Thunberg - was withdrawn by the same user after I suggested he should withdraw his vote, which he didn't take kindly to. Can somebody possibly reopen it? Said user wasn't really the nominator, now was he? He was merely acting on my behalf, supposedly. Or do I need to make a new nomination? It seems a little ridiculous and a waste of everybody's time (a couple of people had responded to the AfD already).110.165.186.42 (talk) 15:29, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
I have created the AFD. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Svante Thunberg (2nd nomination) --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:24, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Please restore Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Conaghan

Hi everyone. I found references for this article and I was going to make a keep argument but got an edit conflict when I tried to post. Could we please unclose this AFD so the discussion can continue? Thank you.4meter4 (talk) 01:22, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I left a message at User talk:RL0919, but I'm not sure if they are still active at the moment.4meter4 (talk) 01:24, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Developmental dysfluency nominated for deletion

... but I apparently did not do it correctly. I listed the reasons for the nomination at Talk:Developmental dysfluency#AfD: Nominated for deletion. I apologize for my confusion and error.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 18:06, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Developmental dysfluency — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:54, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Request: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moody Margaret

(multiple bundle, also Perfect Peter) No reliable sources, only source is main topic itelf (in-universe referencing), definitely does not have a cult following. Best deleted. 109.228.137.207 (talk) 06:25, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Done.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moody Margaret
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Perfect Peter
I thought it would be best to split it so each can be discussed separately. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:59, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Help

Hi is there any way I can get someone to finish this of for me plz Chooike (talk) 08:17, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Finish what? Is there an article that you believe warrants deletion? If so, what article and why?Nigel Ish (talk) 08:28, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

John_Mark_Dougan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Mark_Dougan was put up for deletion rather hastily in my opinion. Could you point out the steps I can take to appeal that decision. Also there is a policy somewhere (I don't remember where) in which I can request the delete article. Could you send me the delete article please? Thank you in advance. :) Moscowdreams (talk) 22:49, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdali Medical Center (2nd nomination)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdali Medical Center (2nd nomination) is still open, and listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 September 27 - doesn't seem to be listed as active on any current day's list, but isn't closed. Can someone close or relist? Nfitz (talk) 02:01, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

See also Special:Diff/921208460 -- RoySmith (talk) 02:05, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

BEFORE

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

I am assuming it is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hackergotchi as the AFD in question. There are several points: You did not itemize what you looked for for that term. Did you just use Google, etc? It is best to explain (to offer a good BEFORE rationale) what you searched, which may or may not be sufficient for the topic in question. Second, just because a source is behind PAYWALL or is in a foreign language does not invalidate them, though for notability purposes, someone needs to at least verify them as reliable sources. PAYWALL is harder, but you can always Google Translate to get a rough idea of a foreign-language source to know what it is saying, if we're talking a one line mention or a full blown article. Basically, if you want to say you've done the BEFORE work you need to be very clear what you actually did, otherwise the nom is challengable. --Masem (t) 22:07, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
I never invalidated them. SL93 (talk) 22:09, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
BEFORE actually doesn’t state that I need to list everything in my nomination - just to do it. SL93 (talk) 22:10, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm slightly confused here. Did you find those sources or not? If didn't find them, then perhaps this was reasonable given how difficult they were to find, I'm not sure. If you didn't find them, I don't really understand what you're trying to say taken your comments here and there. If you were unable to properly evaluate those sources and so couldn't reliably conclude whether or not the article met the GNG, it was likely reasonable to mention them in the nomination. You said "I found no notability". You didn't say, "I found these 2 sources, and it's possible the subject meets GNG since I could not properly evaluate them but I don't think so because X". Whatever BEFORE or any other guideline says, if you cannot be sure whether an article is notable because you were unable to properly evaluate the potential sources you found, it seems fair enough that people may expect this to be mentioned. Nil Einne (talk) 14:18, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Don't stress about WP:BEFORE. Although it's purportedly there to improve the quality of deletion nominations, it is more often used just to attack the nominator. Reyk YO! 06:48, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Reyk, I've often seen it used when someone found an obscure source. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:00, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
...yep, and then it's a lot of snide, condescending commentary about how a mention in an out-of-print book in another language proves the nominator is a blithering moron who can't even use google. Reyk YO! 15:39, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
One easy way to head off this type of comment is putting some of the sources you found in your nomination and explaining why they don't illustrate notability. Enterprisey (talk!) 01:14, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Church of God in Divine Order

Hi, can someone please fix this AFD discussion, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 21:47, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done Iffy★Chat -- 22:36, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Malformed AFD - please help

I have tried to fix a malformed nomination with this edit after the nominator appears to have missed step III, but it appears that other steps were missed as well as the log is not showing the title or the intro links. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:11, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done I've added the AFD2 template to the nomination. Iffy★Chat -- 11:21, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Help needed for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ecobranding

Hi, a new editor nominated Ecobranding for deletion and set up Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ecobranding, but must have missed a step as it isn't listed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 October 28. I don't know how to fix it. Schazjmd (talk) 20:23, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done I've added the {{afd2}} template, and added it to today's log. Iffy★Chat -- 20:33, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Daily page generation and lint errors

Mathbot, Oleg Alexandrov: Your attention is required to this matter. Please address it. Un-archived discussion follows. —Anomalocaris (talk) 19:11, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

How are the daily pages, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 August 13, created? These pages have two Obsolete HTML tags lint errors, viz:

<font color="gray">&lt;</font>
<font color="gray">&gt;</font>

these should be

<span style="color:gray">&lt;</font>
<span style="color:gray">&gt;</font>

Will someone please fix this at the source, to stop the propagation of these errors? —Anomalocaris (talk) 06:01, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

The page is initialized by Mathbot. Its operated by Oleg Alexandrov (talk · contribs). – Ammarpad (talk) 06:45, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Mathbot, Oleg Alexandrov: Please fix it. —Anomalocaris (talk) 18:02, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Will be Wikipedia's downfall

Whoever decided and came up with the policy about having a cabal of self-righteous inquisitors working for the holy mother Churchipedia needing to approve new articles or embark on a hunt constantly deleting what they have no idea about should be the person you blame for its certain decline.

As communist economics has demonstrated, it's simply impossible to centralize and plan wide distribution networks - especially of knowledge. Patrick Bet David is just another one of many names I've googled to find out more about only to discover the remnants of an archaeological virtual dig on Wikipedia where someone created a page and then has one of you Stalinists rush to exercise the little power you have in your lives to declare that page irrelevant.

The VERY reason why I ever liked Wikipedia was because it was relevant, new, and had articles about topics SOMEONE knew about and wrote about, no matter how abstract and out of the mainstream. This made it better than the centralized and censored information of mainstream encyclopedias, because anyone coudl create and update page which allowed wikipedia articles to have much more than the others.

But in the day and age of butt hurt people some idiot has decided they should have God's censor power to decide what is relevant and isn't, irrational and egotistical, centres of the universe.

Meaning for the first time since Wikipedia has existed, I am googling things and not finding articles on the Wikipedia page but going elsewhere. Nice job - you will kill every company, organization and society. Off with their heads, quick, someone out there is creating a page you weren't asked permission to create and haven't heard about before - quick, delete delete lest it offend your sense of superiority. Canlawtictoc (talk) 10:32, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Canlawtictoc, totally irrelevant rant, I'm afraid, and in any case in the wrong venue. All Wikipedia rules and policies are decided by consensus of the Wikipedia editing community which is very large, and such discussions are generally subscribed by users who have an experience far greater than only 170 edits. Thank you for your time. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:40, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • The article on Patrick Bet-David was properly deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Bet-David. Patrick Bet-David is an entrepreneur, and as such he is associated with promotion. This is difficult for Wikipedia, because Wikipedia strives very hard to not be another venue for commercial promotion. The answer is a strict adherence to demanding the existence of independent secondary sources that cover the subject directly. Using non-independent sources would mean reworking promotion. If you want to make the case that an article should exist, see WP:THREE. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:56, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more that this will be the Encyclopedia's downfall. I just became aware of this trend by a serial deleter who flagged a stub three minutes after it's initial creation, even though it had a cite. Just crazy.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smoothswim (talk • contribs) 02:30, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the ruination of Wikipedia. The introduction of deleting articles. Because it's such a brand-spanking new aspect of the site, right? --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:51, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Well, nuking of in-progress articles, that already have citations, only minutes after their first draft is obviously an issue (and one we've had some community discussions about before, especially at WT:CSD). This also relates strongly the unnecessarily ranty and unfocused – but not entirely unclear – OP's central point: an intense prejudice, if you will, against articles on companies and other organizations (and their products, services, programs, etc.). I think they're really the same problem, since it's again CSD (not AfD) that is zapping them too often before someone's had adequate time to finish fleshing them out and sourcing them at least to reasonable stub stage. And CSD is implemented/interpreted on-the-fly by individual admins; it's a much looser process (i.e. more prone to poor decisions, or biased ones) than AfD and its lengthy multi-party discussion. Userspacing or draftspacing many of them is probably a better idea, unless there's absolutely no doubt the topic isn't notable/important within the applicable guidelines/CSD rules. But by the time something gets to AfD, it should already be past that stage, and will likely be further subject to various editors' attempts to find some baseline sourcing before bringing the triage knife out. PS: I'm saying this as someone who leans deletionist; I often nominate things for deletion that end up being (just barely) kept because there are enough inclusionists around they'll go to extraordinary lengths to keep an iffy article (especially entertainment-related).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:54, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Editing archived discussions just for HTTPS

Is it acceptable to edit archived deletion discussions, such as this one, to insert HTTPS and make the links secure? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DemonDays64 (talk • contribs) 02:39, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Calgary French and International School

Hello, I was going through articles that need copy edits and came across this article, Calgary French and International School. It's already been flagged for multiple issues. Reading through the article, it is pretty clear it was written by someone working at the school- at some points the article says "our school" or "in our school", etc. A routine google search for articles about the school returns only mentions and not enough to make the school notable enough for Wikipedia. It seems to be it would be better to delete the article than to also flag it for more violations (like conflict of interest and notability). However, I am new to Wikipedia so I thought I should discuss it here instead of starting the process myself. Does anyone have any thoughts on it? Nightsurfer21 (talk) 18:17, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Nightsurfer21, I've already nominated it for deletion. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Calgary French and International School. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:09, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Request to update AFDFORMAT

@HighKing, Northamerica1000, Softlavender, and Floquenbeam: pinging everybody who seemed to be involved in this previously; feel free to add anybody I've missed.

Under WP:AFDFORMAT, we say: Nomination already implies that the nominator recommends deletion (unless indicated otherwise), and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line. I propose we clarify that to make it clear that the bullet per-se, is not the significant thing.

In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdali Medical Center (2nd nomination), my original misclose was based on two things. First, HighKing's bolded Delete (albeit without a bullet) looked like a !vote. Second, User:Makeandtoss, while arguing to keep, did not actually say Keep anywhere. The end result was I took a quick look at this, saw the nomination, two more deletes (apparently in addition to the nomination), and no keeps. This led me to believe it was 3:0 and I didn't bother to read more closely. Had neither of those minor mis-formattings occurred, it would have been obvious that it was 2:1, and I would have invested the time to read it more carefully.

The point of stylized formatting is to make it more obvious what the writer's intent is. Our guidelines on how to format a nomination are clearly not doing the job, so they should be updated to make it more clear. I propose we make the bullet point simply, Nomination already implies that the nominator recommends deletion (unless indicated otherwise), and nominators should refrain from repeating this. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:28, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

  • I think you meant to ping someone besides me? None of this sounds familiar. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:37, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks Roy. I think you should be more explicit if you want to avoid a bolded Delete as part of the nomination text. I suggest Nomination already implies that the nominator recommends deletion (unless indicated otherwise), therefore nominators should refrain from repeating this or beginning their nomination with the word Delete. In my opinion, I think the bolded Delete is a better way of making a nomination as all too often, the nomination and reasoning is overlooked and in some cases, I suspect is not even counted. (Edit: P.S. I responded to your comment at the Afd) HighKing++ 17:29, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
What makes you think nomination statements get overlooked or discounted? Do you have some examples? -- RoySmith (talk) 18:47, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
I have seen it from time to time when contributors are "counting" !votes and they'd say something like "there's 5 !votes to Keep and only 2 !votes to Delete to consensus must be to Keep" and of course (excluding the incorrect logic) they would not have counted the nom. In fairness, I can't recall any closing that specifically overlooked or discounted the nomination. HighKing++ 20:25, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
  • It seems pretty clear that consensus is that the AFD nominator shouldn't be putting a bolded delete in their nomination. Might as well clarify the text to reflect consensus, practice, and common sense, so that it doesn't create unnecessary confusion. Nfitz (talk) 03:58, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Really? That's a bit of a climb-down for you to admit that, in fact, I wasn't in breach of AFDFORMAT. Thank you. As to "consensus", this discussion has hardly gathered any comment, certainly not enough to amend the text. HighKing++ 21:26, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
      • You were clearly in breach of the spirit of it. I don't think anyone anticipated that anyone would actually do what you'd been doing. I simply think that the text should be beefed up, for the benefit of those, who have difficulty comprehending context - not that there's anything wrong with that, I've been caught on the opposite side of consensus before, despite being literally correct. Nfitz (talk) 03:02, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
        • Well, no. It doesn't make sense to say there was any breach (even of "spirit") when it is clear that the guidelines were only concerned with the nominator *adding* their own !vote to the discussion (as a bulleted point). There is nothing in the guidelines about placing a bolded "Delete" in the nomination. HighKing++ 14:41, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
          • I disagree - the intention was clear, let alone the spirit. Nfitz (talk) 17:02, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
            • You're welcome to your own opinion but when you're wrong and you've been shown to be wrong, maintaining that you're right "in spirit" with no evidence whatsoever is just being petulant and is in breach of the "spirit" of AGF. HighKing++ 17:32, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
              • I'm not aware of where I am wrong, or that I have shown to be wrong! The text currently says "Nomination already implies that the nominator recommends deletion (unless indicated otherwise), therefore nominators should refrain from repeating this ...". By using the world delete, let alone bolding that, you are clearly violating the spirit of WP:AFD, if not the words! Simply dropping the bullet doesn't change. It appears that you've been told not to do this on previous occasions, including by Admins. See January 2018, September 2017 and October 2019. I can understand the confusion, if one treats the policies and guidance as rules, rather than following the immutable requirement that principles and spirit matter more than literal wording. You've been made aware that this is not how it's done, but not only continue to do so, but try and pretend that others are wrong. Please stop violating the a clear Wikipedia fundamental principle of taking things too literally. Nfitz (talk) 18:51, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
                • I find your picking and choosing which guidelines to follow (e.g. "NCORP is irrelevant") and how to interpret the wording in the guidelines as very odd and petulant when you are clearly wrong on both. You started off saying I was "in clear breach of the guidelines at WP:AFDFORMAT". You've since been shown to be wrong and climbed down from your original incorrect interpretation but rather than maturely accepting your were wrong, now you're ranting about the "spirit" (which is nothing to do with "spirit" and everything to do with your desire to push your preferred interpretation and be "right") and condescendingly saying you can "understand the confusion". There is no confusion. You were wrong and are still wrong. Your selective quoting above omits that part of the sentence which proves you wrong. The full quote ends with "and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line". (my bolding). Please keep reading the bolded piece until comprehension finally sinks in. Then give it a rest. Also, try reading the full discussion on my Talk page from Sept 2017 and you'll see not only was Softlavander being a complete dick, that Northamerica1000 clarified and agreed that "it's all right to have the word "delete" in bold in the nomination header" and that Floquenbeam said "but I also agree that NA1000 knows their stuff regarding AFD, so I defer to their judgement completely". Finally, the purpose of Roy's posting here was to discuss whether we should change AFDFORMAT and not to hijack the discussion to push an opinion/argument down people's throats. HighKing++ 14:32, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
                  • No one has mentioned NCORP here - you are using a strawman argument. Elsewhere I (and others) correctly noted that if GNG is met, that NCORP (or any other notability guideline) becomes irrelevant. For example, if particular athlete has extensive in-depth international media coverage, the fact they don't meet NATHLETE doesn't matter. You are in clear breach of the guidelines of AFDFORMAT - I don't know why you think I've backed off this. You are violating WP:5P5 by taking the text about bullets far too literally, and ignoring the bit that says that a delete vote isn't necessary ... not adding a bullet doesn't change that! You've been told this repeatedly by multiple editors, and even some admins. And you continue to demonstrate a lack of competence, by insisting you are correct. Is it time to consider a topic ban? Nfitz (talk) 21:51, 20 October 2019 (UTC)≠
                    • I note you don't comment on the discussion on my Talk page where NA1000 said I wasn't in breach. The only person who says I'm violating any guideline or policy is you, so with respect, you should take a long hard look at the amount of time you're wasting banging on about being in "breach of spirit" when it is clear (to anybody paying attention any more) that your interpretation involves taking a point about not adding a bulletted !vote and then leaping to the assumption that, not only does the spirit of this tangentially related point apply to the formatting of the nomination itself, but also that every other editor should interpret the guidelines strictly according to your interpretation. It's a pathetic argument that isn't shared by anybody else (once they actually read what is written). So just give it a rest. You've made your point. You are wrong. Live with it. Also, from the the 5 pillars - "sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions" so I wouldn't be in a hurry telling other people that they're in breach of anything because you're now 0/3 for your interpretations of any policies/principles/guidelines you're tried on me. HighKing++ 12:32, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support I agree that the example presented looks misleading and RoySmith's evidence demonstrates that it can cause disruptive confusion. We should therefore clarify the wording so that nominations don't appear to contain a separate supporting !vote. The key issue is the bolding rather than the bullet and so we should make this clear. We should also hear from Uncle G who usually avoids giving a bold !vote when he comments at AfD. Presumably his position is that these are supposed be discussions not votes and so we should act accordingly. Andrew D. (talk) 22:11, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • With respect, three of the closing admin's responsibilities are to deal with trivial procedural mistakes, to ignore double votes, and to ignore empty votes. The nomination here was the first, and your close turned into the last two as well. Your blunder does not justify making the already-unconscionable instruction creep here even worse. It's true, though, that it hasn't ever been practice at AFD for the nominator to put their goal in boldface like it is at RFD and CFD, so I suppose I'm not opposed if you can squeeze it in without increasing the wordcount.
    Also, counting bolded words is perhaps helpful in choosing which discussions to close, but not in actually closing them. You owe it to the participants to read what they say. Even skimming, this doesn't look like unanimity to me. —Cryptic 16:14, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Yes - I have to say that the closing of that AfD makes a mockery of requiring references to support notability. And there's a cabal of editors who !vote to Keep 99% of articles knowing that there are a fair number of closing admins that just do a simply count rather than actually reading the discussion and ensuring that policies/guidelines are being upheld. HighKing++ 14:41, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
I was curious after reading this User:Cryptic, how much creep there has been - but to my surprise, the length has been pretty static for a couple of years, around 38.5k. If anything it's down a bit from 2 years ago. And other than adding in a section about non-Admin closes, it was stable for years before that. What instruction creep are you seeing in WP:AFD - and how is it unconscionable? Nfitz (talk) 23:11, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
You don't think 38.5k is creepy? The WP:AFDFORMAT subsection alone is almost a thousand words - more than five pages on my (admittedly ancient and smart-in-name-only) phone - and at least three quarters of it is either shibboleths or repeating something that's in the previous subsection or following section. It's good that it hasn't gotten much worse recently, but that's not reason to cease vigilance. —Cryptic 00:34, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
No I don't. WP:AFD as a whole is quite succinct. Lots of ways to make it simpler though. The bullet in question says Nomination already implies that the nominator recommends deletion (unless indicated otherwise), and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line. Removing the last 5 words should suffice. Also could remove the word and and replace the comma with a semi-colon. Nfitz (talk) 17:02, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Do you think that addresses the formatting of the nomination? I don't. Your suggestion simply says that the nomination "implies" that deletion is recommended. But why should a nomination have to "imply" anything? Are there any actual reasons why the nomination can't bold their recommendation? HighKing++ 17:32, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
If you aren't supposed to repeat your recommendation, why worry about whether it's bolded. You are reading it too literally, and not focusing on the principles and spirt, which matter more! Nfitz (talk) 18:51, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Saying don't read the guidelines "too literally" makes no sense. We write guidelines so that people understand what to do. Going on about an intangible and undefined "spirit" would make sense if the guidelines mentioned something about the formatting of the nomination (and perhaps an example) but it doesn't. The point you're quoting and referring to spirit has to do with not adding another bulleted !vote. HighKing++ 18:40, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Read WP:5P5. It says don't read things too literally. And it trumps everything. Your complete failure to comprehend and apply the standard practices being applied here is troubling. All you had to do is say "I guess no one else does that, and it can confuse people, so I shouldn't do it either" and move on, rather than choosing this mountain to die on! I fear there are competence issues here. Nfitz (talk) 21:51, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
That's a real stretch, even for you. But again, you're wrong. You seem to have missed the (very famous) bit that says sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions which is odd given that its the second part of the same sentence you've quoted above. But I suppose why let accurate quotes get in the way of shoving your incorrect interpretations down other editors' throats. Seriously ... give it a rest. HighKing++ 12:32, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Please be civil User:HighKing - another pillar. I really don't know what "for you", "give it a rest", and "shoving your incorrect interpretations down other editor's throats" are referring to, as I don't think I've ever encountered you before, anywhere, before participating in the AFD which lead to this discussion. Nor am I aware of what I'm "trying to push", that isn't in the current text at AFDFORMAT. Is there something here I'm missing or forgotten? Have you mistaken me for someone else? Apologies are accepted with no prejudice! Nfitz (talk) 16:27, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and made the change. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:57, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Response Hi RoySmith, just though I'd check back to see how this discussion was going and I note that you've cheekily decided to go ahead with the change you suggested. Please explain. Are you making the change because you believe there's a consensus or because you are being Bold? HighKing++ 12:35, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
    • There was clear consensus to accept my change. You were the only person who objected. I think you need to accept that the rest of the community disagrees with you and move on. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:14, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
      • RoySmith, that is just plain wrong. I didn't object at all. I support making a change to avoid bolding the Delete in the nomination and I made some suggestions on how to make it even clearer - check the top of the discussion. My only "objection" here was one editor in particular following me from another page saying that bolding the Delete was already against the guidelines (which is plainly wrong). So while there is support for a change, I expected a little more discussion on the wording. I don't see how your change makes anything clearer and certainly does not make it clear to avoid bolding the word Delete in the nomination. HighKing++ 20:07, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Question about Salisbury Hare AfD / AfD stats

Hello everyone. I have a pretty random question about Wikipedia:AfD stats. The following AfD was closed as a deletion, but on my AfD stats, it is marked as a keep. I had voted for deletion, but given that it is marked as keep in the AfD stats, it says that my comments do not match up to the final result. I was wondering if there was any way to correct this so that my AfD stats are more accurate? Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 21:53, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I would guess it's being mislabelled because the closing statement contains the word "keep" in bold: "The result was Delete. It's not gonna be any less of a hoax if we >>>keep<<< discussing it for several more days." Reyk YO! 21:57, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Pinging @Enterprisey: and @Σ: to make them aware of this. Reyk YO! 21:58, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation. It is not a huge deal, but I was just curious about fixing so the information could be more accurately represented in the stats. Aoba47 (talk) 22:52, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Interesting case here. I suppose I could make it only count the first "vote-ish" word (e.g. Keep or Delete) that it sees. I can't think of any cases that would make that strategy give the wrong result - any thoughts? Enterprisey (talk!) 06:07, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
I think that makes the most sense. I also cannot think of any way that this would give out the wrong result. Thank you for the prompt response and for correcting it! Aoba47 (talk) 21:45, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
I can't think of a way for this to give a surprising result either, except possibly for closes saying something like "The result was not to delete. Opinions are split between keep and merge, which should be discussed on the talk page". I don't know of any like that and it seems a bit contrived. Reyk YO! 22:00, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Funky Valley

Someone, please make a discussion page there, with my following delete argument: that show doesn't look notable and the page only interests a certain audience - it's only talking about characters. Nothing but characters. No episodes, sources, and coverage. 77.125.107.43 (talk) 00:24, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

  • checkY- I set that up for you. Reyk YO! 07:06, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Pangborn

For anyone interested, please review Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Pangborn and its discussion and close, and then please see the recent edits to Castle Rock (TV series) and the discussion at Talk:Castle Rock (TV series)#Alan Pangborn concerning an editor changing the location of the merge as described in the AFD's closing. Thank you. -- /Alex/21 13:19, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Requesting assistance nominating this article for deletion: Where-to-be-born_Index

I do not have an account and am therefore unable to carry out parts II and III of the deletion nomination process described here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_nominate_a_single_page_for_deletion. I'm requesting that someone else carry out the remaining steps. 216.160.67.169 (talk) 00:32, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm on it. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:38, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Done. You'll need to fill in your own nomination argument at WP:Articles for deletion/Where-to-be-born Index. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:43, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

TimTheTatman, Tfue and especially Scump

Hi, we all know wikipedia is not for promoting non notable streamer, can someone pls create an AfD discussion on timthetatman, tfue (which someones nomonated it also) with my following arguement: the topic has only few reliable sources and many of them are unreliable sources which is not notable and the notability template was already placed for a long time and no improvements yet, thank you. While on scump is the same reason that ive placed on prod. You can remove the prod on articles once done creating afd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.148.2.133 (talk) 12:31, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Done. See:
  • Does software prevent an IP address from creating an AFD? Is there any rule about this at all? It not we really need one. A new editor decides to just try to delete three articles, and then two now blocked sockpuppets show up at each of them to vote delete right away. Dream Focus 14:00, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
    Dream Focus, well as you can see above, we usually complete nomination on behalf of IPs. However, there are no concrete rule that editors are barred from acting o requests from single-use IPs. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:08, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Nominating three articles at once for an ip was overdoing it. They should only have one article listed at a time until it is resolved due to problems like this occurring where the ip nominator is highly suspected by an admin of being a sockpuppet, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:27, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
    Atlantic306, but the IP didn't have any tags that they were under investigation or is a suspected sock. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:38, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
    But it's still best to be cautious as this is a situation easily exploited by sockpuppets Atlantic306 (talk) 20:43, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
    I agree. I don't think we need to be vetting people as possible sock puppets just because they're IPs. My practice has usually been to set up the AfD if the nomination statement is somewhat plausible, which it almost always is. Socks can be dealt with by our usual processes. Reyk YO! 20:49, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Request for AfD Nomination

As an anon without an account, I'm posting a request for support to complete the subsequent actions in the AfD nomination process for the following page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_Richardson Preliminary justification for request has already been added to the talk page on the article. 14.207.5.104 (talk) 02:22, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done - See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taylor Richardson. --Finngall talk 04:26, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

AfD seems to have gone to the dogs

Folks please take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dudheshwar Mahadev. It seems that the quality of participation on AfD has been deteriorating very fast.DBigXrayᗙ 18:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

As long as we have good admins, there is still hope for Wikipedia. Kudos to User:Jo-Jo Eumerus for ending the misery of this prolonged AfD after a month. --DBigXrayᗙ 19:02, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Resolved

6 days old AfD seems never to have been properly listed?

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JaiHind TV, from 23 November, seems not to have been posted to the daily list. Anyone knows how best to proceed? Posting it now to the listing for the 23rd seems unfair (could then be closed tomorrow, even if it only appeared for only one day). Fram (talk) 10:13, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

  • I replaced the AfD tag with a new one, pasted the original deletion rationale, and put it on today's listing. I think that was the best way to proceed. Reyk YO! 10:31, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Please nominate Apple Sabine character set for deletion.

I'm not sure why this was ever added to Wikipedia in the first place. It was just someone's hobby project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.82.12.118 (talk) 23:44, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Article nominated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apple Sabine character set --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:55, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Please nominate OrgaNext for deletion

I believe that OrgaNext fails WP:CORP. I could not find significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources, and the company seems to be defunct. Its website does not work, and Google Maps marks its trading address as "permanently closed" (although I don't know how it decides that).

The article says that the company has not (and presumably will never) produce a product, although that is by the by. This is just another small, non-notable company. 85.238.91.41 (talk) 03:33, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

  • @85.238.91.41: I was the only substantive contributor to the article and I agree, it can be deleted. I did another source look and found that there's essentially nothing out there, meaning it never hefted above the foam. Note that just because a company is defunct does not mean it is not notable; there are many articles for closed companies here on Wikipedia. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:50, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Categorisation of AfDs

Currently, when an AfD is closed, it becomes categoryless. Would it be of benefit if all AfDs were categorised by the month they were first listed in? Obviously a big job, but nothing a bot couldn't handle. Mjroots (talk) 13:16, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

This seems like a good proposal. Do you know anyone who could create a bot to do this? ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 02:07, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
This seems like it would be trivial to do, but I'm not seeing the value. How would people make use of Category:AfDs listed in December 2019? -- RoySmith (talk)
The nom Mjroots is asking the same question, "would it benefit" ? I am not seeing how it would benefit. The AfDs are anyway listed on the article talk page. Without a reasonable benefit, it makes no sense to do this. --DBigXrayᗙ 07:12, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
The point I'm making is that once the AfD is closed, all those AfDs become categoryless, hence the suggestion of a category which would remain after the AfD has been closed. Mjroots (talk) 08:29, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Mjroots, is there any downside to closed Afds being categoryless? —Kusma (t·c) 08:36, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
It makes them harder to track. For example, an editor might remember something raised in a previous AfD and want to reference that issue, but be unsure of which AfD it was in. If they had a rough idea of when the debate took place, categorisation would make it a little easier to find said AfD. Mjroots (talk) 09:04, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
OK, I can imagine that this is useful to some people, as an additional method to find/classify AfDs that works slightly differently from the approaches we have through daily logs and contributions links. Can't see much harm, so why not? —Kusma (t·c) 21:43, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Kusma, indeed neither much harm nor much benefit.
  • Mostly if people need to recall their AfD votes, they refer to AfD stats tool. If they remember the article/topic, the AfDs are recalled by retracing the links of past AfD discussion posted on the article talk page. In both these cases, these proposed categories are redundant.
  • Secondly, There are close to a hundred AfDs everyday. So unless the user remembers the exact date of the AfD (very unlikely) he has to browse through a large number of category items, that will waste time.
  • Thirdly, by some charm of luck, if the dates of AfD can be recalled they can be found at the AfD logs (e.g. Log 2019_November_16).
  • So Overall I am not convinced that this should be done. However if others feel that there may be more benefits to it, that I may have not discussed above, then the implementation is not very complicated. The Twinkle tool can be edited to include a category, AfDs initiated on YYYY MMM DD.The AfD closer can also be updated to tag it as AfDs closed on YYYY MMM DD. DBigXrayᗙ 15:23, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
    DBigXray, I'm also not too convinced this is particularly useful. Anyway, technical questions include whether the category should be noinclude'd and how this should interact with relists (most AFDs do not end up not on the daily log page where they started). Maybe there should be a proper use case before this idea is implemented. —Kusma (t·c) 22:16, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Mjroots states that"an editor.. want to reference that issue, but be unsure of which AfD it was in. If they had a rough idea of when the debate took place, categorisation would make it a little easier to find said AfD" If the editor is unsure of the topic of the AfD it is safe to assume they also dont know the exact date of the AfD. One can test this assumption on yourself as well, how frequently do you remember the date of the AfD but not the subject of AfD, I doubt you will have any example. A rough idea of just 3 dates is quite expensive to look into. Just to do a brute search in 3 dates would require the editor to look through 300 AfD names in the category. Which again is not an easy task. Hence the use case so far has not been convincing to me. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:06, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Honestly, the fact that it is such a great effort to find a specific old AfD makes the case that this might be a good idea. What's the downside, anyway? ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 14:09, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
The downside is that it needlessly adds to the complexity of Wikipedia and adds another step to the AfD closure process without actually improving anything. Wikipedia has accumulated systemscruft and rulescruft and that is best avoided. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:04, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

It would be useful if we had some real-life use cases. My suggestion to the people who want this, is to go about your normal editing work, but be alert to capture use cases, and document them. A powerful argument would be: "I was searching for .... I tried X, Y, and Z to locate it, spending [amount of time] on the job. I eventually [found/didn't find] it. My job would have been a lot easier had the old AfD been in Category:whatever". -- RoySmith (talk) 14:32, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Request for AfD Nomination

As an anon without an account, I'm asking for this to be deleted. It does not pass notability test. It was deleted earlier in 2017 and is back https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Edobor

  • checkY- I set that up for you. Reyk YO! 08:27, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St Thomas More's Catholic Church, Leicester

Hi, can someone please fix this page as it seems malformed, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:36, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justine Joli (3rd nomination)

Can somebody fix the AfD so the closure displays properly? Some template in it seems to have gone a bit haywire. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:43, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

please look into pcgamesn for deletion as i do not have credentials required

please look into pcgamesn for deletion as i do not have credentials required — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.98.252.251 (talk) 09:39, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done--see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PCGamesN. --Finngall talk 16:17, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 January 3

Hello! Not sure where to go with this, figured I would go here. Can someone look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 January 3 and figure out what us making the text gradually diminish in size as one traverses down? It has something to do with the addition of these 5 entries to the log. All of them make use of "small" tags to note listings in project-space but I cannot spot the problem. ValarianB (talk) 16:54, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Small tags are not closed. --Masem (t) 16:57, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Have fixed but all appear to be from the AFDs from @WalkingDisks: - not sure what method they used to add the Delsort cat but they were clearly missing the closing small tags. Should be careful in the future. --Masem (t) 16:59, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Thankyou sir, I did not realize these worked like old style html tags that needed a /close type of ending. ValarianB (talk) 17:37, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Please complete my nomination of Skytree, Inc

Can an autoconfirmed user please complete my nomination of Skytree, Inc. I'm nominating it per WP:NCORP, in particular the requirement for WP:SIGCOV. Most of the references are press releases or similar about the venture capital investment. I couldn't find any RS coverage (there are a couple of interviews).

Thanks 94.21.10.204 (talk) 01:04, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done--see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skytree, Inc. --Finngall talk 02:24, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Question: where can I view ALL current AFD discussions??

Hi. is there a page where I can view ALL Active discussions for Articles For Deletion, i.e. on a single page?

I am asking this because WP:Categories for discussion does have a page like that, at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/All_current_discussions. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 14:58, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

@Sm8900: Well, similarly, there's Category:AfD debates. All the best, ——SN54129 15:10, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Please complete the nomination of Nicholas Harold Phillips

Hello, I wonder if a user with the necessary credentials could complete the other two steps on this article? Nicholas Harold Phillips is notable only for two things- his ownership of the Luton Hoo estate, and his descent from several notable people. His ownership of Luton Hoo is a bald fact with little else to mention; per notability guidelines, 'Being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person'. The article itself makes clear its lack of purpose with its opening line: 'he was a British landowner in Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire with royal connections. As a descendant of Sophia, Electress of Hanover, he was in the line of succession to the British throne.' The article consists of two sections, 'Life' and 'Ancestry', and the 'Ancestry' section is longer than the 'Life' section, which itself consists mainly of details of and links to Wikipedia articles about his aristocratic mother, his sisters' aristocratic marriages, and his own Austrian aristocrat wife. Phillips's ownership of Luton Hoo ended due to what were widely reported in reliable sources (see the article) to be severe financial problems, and his consequent suicide. The manner in which his financial problems, death, and the family's loss of Luton Hoo interrelate makes it pointless to attempt to obfuscate the facts reported, but a user (see the article talk page; apparently a family member) is repeatedly excising the reliable sources because they don't want the article to mention suicide, and claim to 'know' it wasn't. Despite explanations of the nature of Wikipedia sourcing being given to this family member on the talk page, they silently return and remove the information, having previously made a vague threat and been slapped on the wrist for it. The family's views of the matter are understandable, but at his death was more-or-less the only time Phillips was ever of sufficient note to appear in the media, and lacking any detail (along the lines of 'Phillips died in 1991', which is at least preferable to the unencyclopaedic tone of their previous statement on the subject- "Contrary to some fabricated and slanderous allegations, Nicholas died in 1991. He is remembered for being a kind, hardworking and thoughtful Gentleman") leaves the article a self-indulgent list of notable people from whom he descended. With this trivial edit-warring and his evident lack of notability in mind, Phillips would surely suffice as a subsection of the Luton Hoo article? He himself did nothing notable, nor was he in any way apart from the genealogical links so extensively delineated in his article. Many thanks for your assistance. 78.144.71.64 (talk) 16:58, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Please complete my nomination of 2005 Diyarbakır speech

See the article's talk page for the rationale. -90.232.66.157 (talk) 18:40, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Done See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2005 Diyarbakır speech--Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:44, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Deletion nomination Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Kennedy (programmer)

Please nominate Adam_Kennedy_(programmer) for deletion. Every open source contributor does not require an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.143.16.103 (talk) 11:13, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Please complete nomination of Avani Soni

Please complete my nomination of Avani Soni. See the article talk page for the rationale. — Preceding AjayBhatt comment added by 106.66.52.178 (talk) 10:50, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Deletion nomination Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smallant1

Please nominate Smallant1 for deletion, Thank you. No reliable sources has been presented and it fails Notability for youtuber. 58.121.22.165 (talk) 00:32, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Done! --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:32, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Please complete deletion nomination of Auksė Miliukaitė

Can a qualified user continue this process for me? I've looked at the sources cited in the article, and searched Google books and generally online, and there just doesn't seem to be anything justifying this individual as the subject of an article. The fact that the lead specifies her to be "emerging" is borne out by the fact that she doesn't seem to have done anything that would make her really "notable" per the Wikipedia:Notability (people) guidelines. The only real achievements presented are that she had an exhibition at the Rooster Gallery, Vilnius, which is specifically for young Lithuanian artists that aren't established, and won a minor prize (unnamed) in 2007, since when it doesn't seem she's increased in notability at all. The other sites cited seem to be all based on the "young artists that may be big in the future" (collectgoodstuff.com claims to be "an inspiring platform and marketplace with a curated selection of emerging artists, new talents and unique art-related products. Our mission is to discover promising talents, work with outstanding artists on new collaborations and provide collectors with compelling artistic contents", i.e. promotion of works for their art sales site; art-bites.com gives a very similar spiel); since she hasn't yet reached that stage, nor is there any particular reason to assume that she definitely will, it seems to be putting the cart considerably before the horse to give her an article, certainly at this point. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.65.128 (talk) 20:30, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Done Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Auksė Miliukaitė --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:15, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Completion the nomination of Aditya Gadhvi

Dear editors, I request to complete my article deletion nomination of Aditya Gadhvi. Not a notable person to have a wiki page. 2402:8100:39A4:E52A:9E9A:6AD7:51EC:7EC8 (talk) 06:47, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Done. Yunshui 雲水 09:25, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Daily page generation and lint errors

How are the daily pages, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 August 13, created? These pages have two Obsolete HTML tags lint errors, viz:

<font color="gray">&lt;</font>
<font color="gray">&gt;</font>

these should be

<span style="color:gray">&lt;</span>
<span style="color:gray">&gt;</span>

Will someone please fix this at the source, to stop the propagation of these errors? —Anomalocaris (talk) 06:01, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

The page is initialized by Mathbot. Its operated by Oleg Alexandrov (talk · contribs). – Ammarpad (talk) 06:45, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Mathbot, Oleg Alexandrov: Please fix it. —Anomalocaris (talk) 18:02, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Unarchived by Anomalocaris (talk) 18:35, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I put a fix. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 January 30 with the new style. I can be reached my faster by writing on my talk page, as that triggers an email. Notifications are good only if you visit the site often and keep track of that bell thingy. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:08, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Oleg Alexandrov: Thanks, and keep track of that bell thingy! —Anomalocaris (talk) 18:04, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Please complete my nomination of page Why Cue

please look into this page Why Cue for deletion as I do believe it doesn’t meet wiki notability requirements and does present references in reliable sources 67.81.121.57 (talk) 10:22, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Done Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Why Cue --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:12, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Tele-ressources an employment agency

this looks like an ad for the agency, please look into it Leela52452 (talk) 09:59, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Leela52452, the article had already been nominated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tele-ressources --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:16, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Please complete my nomination of Nusrit Shaheen

Please may a registered editor complete my nomination of Nusrit Shaheen. I am nominating this article for deletion on the basis that its subject is only notable for being the longest known survivor of her medical condition, and while that is certainly notable enough to be mentioned on the article for the condition itself (which she is), a standalone article is not warranted, and I don't believe it can be vastly improved, or that sources can be found to do so, so this should be discussed. 185.61.90.64 (talk) 12:48, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Somebody had already done that for you Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nusrit Shaheen --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:56, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Please complete the nomination of Clyde McKnight

Please complete the AfD nomination of Clyde McKnight. I've noted the justification for deletion on Talk:Clyde McKnight#AfD nomination. Thanks, 118.8.88.129 (talk) 13:53, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Done. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clyde McKnight --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Moves during DRV

I added deletion review in the etiquette part about moving pages for clarity, something that I recently did and was reverted as "disruptive". —PaleoNeonate – 15:11, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

King Richard (film)

Can a editor please complete the nomination for this article because of redirects?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.94.1 (talk) 17:11, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Reason? --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
It appears the current is a redirect to the tennis coach... if you are writing an article about the film (as you are in draft space), then when your article goes live we can change the redirect... no real reason to delete the current article... - Adolphus79 (talk) 18:08, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
... and considering that the upcoming film (currently in draft space) is about the tennis coach, I don't think any deletes will be necessary, only changing some rediects... - Adolphus79 (talk) 18:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Adolphus79, done. See Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_January_31#King_Richard_(film). Add your reasoning above mine. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:35, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

@Tyw7: the IP was simply acting out of impatience, or annoyance i took this version of the page that was created prematurely and moved it into the draftspace. It was simply to wait for filming to begin per WP:NFF. Rusted AutoParts 18:55, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Quora?

Should an AfD require a quorum of at least some agreed number of editors before it can be seen (either way) as "consensus"? Is there really any validity in (as we have at present) two editors and a nominator calling "delete", opposed by another editor or two, and ten claiming that just three people are enough to delete what might be a sizable article? Is this better or worse if a still-small handful are !voting to delete across a large swath of a subject and we're removing many articles on that basis?

Editor engagement generally seems to be falling at AfD (and of course, we're losing active editors at some terrible rate, Signposts passim). As a result, I'm no longer seeing AfD as really representative as it needs to be, given its impact. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

So far I've been using 3 participants as a quorum. Less than that we often do "soft deletes" or relists. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:52, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
It depends on the arguments given. If the nomination is "corporate spam!" and is accompanied by two IPs saying "delete - spam", that's a soft delete. If the nomination clearly lists attempts to follow WP:BEFORE and the other two delete !votes explain why the subject doesn't quite meet the threshold for a standalone page, then that's a straight delete. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:57, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm glad this discussion is taking place, as there seem to be varying standards among closers. Over at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red#BBC_100_Women, @Sandstein: said that if there is one delete !vote plus the nominator, and no arguments to keep within 7 days of discussion, he will close it as a straight delete. I'm also noting in the WiR discussion that some article creators are not inclined to be persistent when it comes to defending an article. Personally I think Jo-Jo Eumerus's criteria make sense - The point of AfD is that it's supposed to get more minds involved than the speedy deletion process does. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:15, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
There is no need for quora. Limited participation can hinder deletion as much as help it. If we have one "delete" nomination and one "keep" opinion, the article is kept for lack of consensus. If we have a "delete" nomination and one "delete" opinion , the article is deleted (always assuming everybody makes reasonable arguments). That outcome seems correct to me. If after a week nobody opposes deletion, and two people agree with deletion, we can reasonably assume that this reflects the view of the community at large. If we have a 1:1 split , the community cannot make up its mind because of apathy, and we do not have the required consensus in favor of deletion. In both cases, the outcome may not be as informed as we would like it to be, but we have to work with what we have. After all, deletions are not final, and any article can be recreated if the problems identified at AfD are addressed. The alternative would be to drastically curtail our ability to remove corporate spam, autobiographies and other problem articles that are not quite speediable. Sandstein 19:22, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
I would support a 3 or 4 person quorum. Anything less is not really consensus. I've seen AfDs closed with less than 3 participants, when IMO it should be relisted. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 19:37, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
@Sandstein:, I hear you on the autobiography and spam issue. Would you consider soft-deleting articles that have only 1 delete vote in addition to the nominator? Otherwise, the bar to re-create articles that have been previously deleted at AfD is quite high. I'm seeing editors working hard to make sure Draft:Swietenia Puspa Lestari, which IMHO should never have been deleted, doesn't just immediately get deleted again. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:00, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Clayoquot, no. AfDs do not have "votes", or if they do, they should be disregarded. We close AfDs based on strength of argument. If there are two reasonable arguments for deletion in 7 days, and no (valid) opposition to deletion, I think that there is every reason to assume that the article does in fact merit deletion, and no reason to treat its deletion differently from any other. There will always cases where AfD gets it wrong, but in this case the article can normally be recreated with a reasonable amount of effort. Sandstein 21:09, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Cap on AFD/PRODs in a given period of time?

Forgive me if this has been addressed in the past and I'm just not aware of it, but has there ever been any discussion about setting a cap on the amount of articles a user can nominate for WP:AFD or WP:PROD in a given period of time, say like a week? I ask because I've noticed in recent weeks/months there are individual editors who seem to do this multiple times a day, every day, in certain subject areas. (I'm specifically talking about articles related to fictional content, though I'm sure it's possible it's happening in other areas too.) I'm sure these nominations are in good faith and I'm all about having a debate about whether an individual article warrants deletion, but when there are so many deletion attempts being made all at once in a short amount of time, it becomes extremely difficult for editors who might otherwise wish to improve/expand those articles to establish notability. The AFD/PROD obviously puts an immediate deadline on such improvement efforts, and most editors are already working on other things and perhaps can't dedicate the immediate time to those efforts, so inevitably some of those articles that might otherwise have been improved will fall through the cracks. It takes time and effort to improve articles, and almost none at all to attempt to delete them, so when multiple articles in a given subject area are deleted all at once it can have a discouraging chilling effect on editors who might otherwise be inclined to contribute to the encyclopedia. I'm not sure how a policy change like this would come about, but I'd like to at least see it discussed here... — Hunter Kahn 14:55, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I might support this if we also capped the number of articles a single editor could create in a day to an equal amount. Levivich 15:07, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  • That would be possible too, for much the same reason. Except that there doesn't seem to be any need for such a restriction.
The point presumably is that both actions, creation or deletion, should take effort and careful thought. But as it is, AfD is just a click away. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:53, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Hunter Kahn, PROD doesn't put a deadline on improvement efforts, because PROD must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected, and the flag can easily be removed. Vexations (talk) 15:25, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Vexations True enough, though in my recent experience I've found when I've removed the PROD flag and added sources or expanded the article, the nominator immediately nominated it for AFD afterward anyway and the deadline began. Though perhaps a more reasonable solution would be to cap the AFDs but not the PRODs? — Hunter Kahn 15:43, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
There is no hard limit and as Levivich, we also don't have a limit for creation, so it would be improper to set one. There is some subjective guides. WP:FAIT suggest that if one is nominating too many related articles at AFD as to overwhelm other editors that would be generally responsible for that content, that would be improper. What that number is, there's no exact one, but certainly on the order of 25-50 a day is too many. The other factor to consider is how many of the noms for the AFDs have appeared to done enough work to avoid nominating articles that clearly should be kept due to proper notability/etc. metrics. That is, if a nominator is putting up 10 AFDs a day, but of these 5 are closed as snow keeps for obvious notability allowances, that's a problem. I am aware of the number of fiction articles being nominated, and I definitely do not thing the latter case is appropriate (the nominators are doing their homework to avoid suggesting obvious keepers) and while they are border on where FAIT may apply, keep in mind that one of the editors doing those nominations was the subject of an ARBCOM case where FAIT originated from, so is well aware of what the practical limits are. --Masem (t) 15:50, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, I will support putting an upper limit (per day as well as per week) for an individual. In rare circumstances, where this limit needs to be breached for valid reasons, a consensus must be reached for the same at the respective Wikiproject talk page. DBigXrayᗙ 16:53, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support If there is some great crisis as to why many articles all need to go immediately, then that can be bundled into one AfD, because I can't think of any reason except a shared problem (maybe a single editor copyvio) why they have to go at once.
But otherwise, yes. I've seen these scattergun fiction deletions (Tolkien, most obviously) and they're a very effective technique for deleting at least some of those articles (it doesn't matter which, so long as we get the article count down) because it's so much easier to call for deletion than to argue against that, or to fix an article (which shouldn't even need to be done!) so that it survives. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:57, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Our criteria should be quality, not quantity. We often fall back to quantity because it's easier to measure, but that doesn't make it right. If somebody is making bad nominations, they need to be educated about how to make better ones. Imposing some numerical rate cap isn't going to improve the quality all by itself. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:29, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Wouldn't "quality, not quantity" be an argument for this proposal, rather than against it? I.e., it would be better to have a smaller amount of AFDs from a single nominator focused on articles where deletion is truly warranted, rather than a huge quantity of blanket AFD nominations whose sheer number discourage efforts by others to attempt to improve the articles? — Hunter Kahn 18:34, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose- This proposal doesn't suggest a specific number of AfDs one would be allowed to start in a given time, so it's a bit vague. I suspect that, if this proposal succeeds, that figure will later be set to such an absurdly low number that it would impede meaningful cleanup efforts. We shouldn't cap deletion nominations to a rate lower than awful articles can be created, which is actually quite fast. And I don't think the point about overwhelming article defenders with too many AfD nominations is the whole story. What we saw with Transformers product listings, substub cricketer "biographies", and now D&D plot dumps is that the defenders were able to survive a few disorganized AfDs years ago (usually by yelling at the nominator) and then kind of believed issues regarding verifiability and notability were settled for all time. Well, no. Ignoring legitimate concerns doesn't cause them to go away, they just sit and bubble for a while and then come back with greater force. It isn't that people are suddenly having to scramble to do proper sourcing; they had years and chose not to. Reyk YO! 20:07, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Strongest possible oppose for a variety of reasons, largely the lack of detail and this seems to be a solution in search of a problem. If someone is disruptively prodding or afding articles, ask them to stop and discuss it. If it continues, ask for a restriction at ANI. Putting a blanket restriction on all editors because a handful are causing minor problems is absurd. Praxidicae (talk) 20:22, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. PRODs can be denied simply by removing the notice (or requesting undeletion after the fact, since you're still objecting to the PROD); people tend to notice when someone is spamming AfDs, particularly without sufficient cause, and take them to one of the dramaboards. This is an answer whose question has no reason to be asked. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Onward to 2020 20:29, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "dramaboards" You see the problem? They're about drama, and politics, and self-supporting cliques. We've lost most of our channels for improving the work here.
I don't know which AfDs the OP is referring to here, but just try a search for Tolkien across the WP & talk: namespaces over the last few months. A lot of people have been unhappy over this, but it's constitutionally unarguable that "Just not notable" is sufficient reason for a deletion. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:01, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - My thoughts prior to this proposal was to require a certain number of new articles created before you could PROD/AfD. Perhaps there could be a requirement the other direction too, one needs to delete an article before you create more. The idea is to remind people about the issues associated with both. I think it can be an order of magnitude easier doing a PROD/AfD compared to creating an article, although I haven't done a PROD/AfD. Looking at the Women in Red Project, it makes me think we need to create many more articles. While there are many garbage articles constantly being created which need to be flushed (WP:SPEEDY), there are many that are on the fuzzy line which are being deleted which could have been improved and kept. I would certainly like editors spending more time on creating/improving than deleting. StrayBolt (talk) 02:13, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
  • If as one editor says quality not quantity is the issue, I think we should look at quality. I could support a proposal that an editor be put on pause for afds for a month or two, for example, if he exceeds a 50% failure rate in a series of ten or more AFDs. --2604:2000:E010:1100:44B3:845D:4F0A:84D1 (talk) 08:52, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support a limit on both deletions and creations respectively to about ten a day (including AfDs and prods but speedy deletions remain unlimited) so that it gives more time for improving articles nominated for deletion and regarding new page creation slows down the generation of sub-stubs. Cases for a larger deletion such as a large bundled AfD could be raised at WP:AN, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 17:56, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
    A per-editor-per-day limit on creation and deletion might be a good idea; it would limit the workflow for other volunteers (NPP reviewers, vandalism patrollers, AfD !voters, AfD closers, etc.). 5 or 10 seems like a pretty reasonable limit to me. But that's not really what's being proposed here, and any such proposal should probably be listed at WP:CENT. Levivich 18:32, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I could support an informal cap of about 5-10 per day. Users could maybe apply for exceptions to the rule if there is reason. But we don't need 15 AfDs per day of the same area, especially if there is the possibility of some being kept. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 18:37, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Stats? Is there some data we can look at to see the problem more clearly? Is it a few individuals or a larger issue? Where do the bad articles come from? Where do the bad noms come from? Should the correction come at some other stage of an articles life? What percentage of PRODs turn into AfDs (with or without improvement)? StrayBolt (talk) 08:32, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose putting caps on either AfDs or creations. I could see scenarios where a large volume of either could occur. There are certain users who may warrant limits on either based on their behavior, but why limit everyone over a few cases. I particularly have an issue with limiting article creation - what if I am a retiree who has taken writing well-sourced articles of notable subjects as my main pastime? Why would you want to limit that because some other guy spams a bunch of one-line stubs? Rikster2 (talk) 17:38, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I don't think a blanket cap on deletion (or creation for that matter) is going to help anything, for all the reasons listed above, but mainly because it would limit many good users, myself included... when I'm creating new articles for missing communities, I could create 10 or 20 new little stubs in a day, and I imagine someone could do the same with prodding or AFD'ng a group of tiny useless articles they come across... I understand the idea of user specific limits being set as mentioned above for people prodding or AFD'ng large numbers of articles out of spite or misunderstanding, or creating large numbers of truly useless articles (hoaxes, spam, general vandalism, etc.), but those issues can normally be fixed by talking to the user, warnings, and/or a block if they don't get the clue... - Adolphus79 (talk) 18:39, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Bot for soft deletion eligibility; potential for bot task to post article history within nomination text

Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 80#A heads up for AfD closers re: PROD eligibility when approaching NOQUORUM

There is a bot request in its later stages for a bot that will post "soft deletion" eligibility information on potentially eligible noms in the last 24 hours of their listing to save AfD closers some time. So FYI on that, if you have any input.

But additionally, the bot op has the ability to post the article's history of merges, moves/renames, deletions to the nomination text. I think this is outside the scope of the simple "soft deletion" eligibility task, but would it be useful to have a separate task that posted some of this background information within the discussion? I could see part of that being useful but haven't thought through all the implications. Anyway, not pursuing this latter part for now, but if you're interested, please start a separate thread in the discussion linked above. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 16:50, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Deletion nomination Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ignazio Ciufolini (2nd nomination)

Dear Sirs, I am Ignazio Ciufolini (the Wikipedia staff verified my identity) and I am asking to delete my biography on Wikipedia because I have found that the page is being used for libelous statements. For some reason the page provides an unbalanced point of view, giving undue attention to controversies and lawsuits, while information concerning my research accomplishments has been removed without reason.

It seems that in the past years my page has been a magnet for editing wars resulting in unwanted attention on the libelous attacks against me instead of on my academic works. I do not have time and will to watch and to correct further personal attacks on my biography page, therefore please cosider to delete it.

Prof. Ignazio Ciufolini

University of Salento and Centro Fermi (Rome, Italy) Ignazio.Ciufolini (talk) 18:45, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Reading the article right now, I do not see any immediate bias, POV, or potentially libelous statements... and looking at the edit history, I find it hard to believe it is much of a target for any attention at all with less than 30 edits in the last 5 years... and none reverted as vandalism or POV, and no signs at all of edit warring... as far as your comment about having the time and will to watch and correct it, unless you have been using multiple accounts, this account is less than a month old with zero edits to the article in question besides the deletion request, how much time have you spent trying to fix the alleged issues? - Adolphus79 (talk) 20:24, 10 February 2020 (UTC)


Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Priashevshchina

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Priashevshchina.

IMHO Some fresh opinion will help the discussion on a political newspaper. --DBigXrayᗙ 06:57, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Help

I accidentally using the XFDCloser closed a discussion. Can someone help me out? Thanks. Minecrafter0271 (talk) 03:06, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Minecrafter0271, It appears to me that User:S. M. Nazmus Shakib has already reverted your edits. DBigXrayᗙ 08:05, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ravi V. Melwani

Hi, can someone please fix this malformed AFD, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:49, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. The idea is that it takes something like

  • John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

I'm still expanding coverage and tweaking logic, but what's there already works very well. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:23, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Bug/edge case in XFDcloser tool

By the time Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/İkinci Ərəbcəbirli closed as "speedy keep" the page had been moved to Arabdzhabirli Vtoroye "per WP:NCGN."

When Buidhe closed it using the XFDcloser tool, it put the {{Old AfD multi}} template at the top of the redirect page, breaking the redirect.

I removed it from the redirect and added it to the renamed page.

This also brings up some issues about renames of pages that have undergone survived:

  • If the page under discussion is renamed during the XfD, should the XfD discussion page be renamed? Should the text of the nomination be altered? Should there be any formal requirement to mention the rename at all?
  • If the page is renamed after the discussion closes, should the discussion page be renamed? Should a redirect be made pointing to it under the "new" name? What if such a page already exists? Should notes be made on the page below the archived section of the XfD mentioning the rename? Should such notes be made on the XfD's talk page? Should adding such notes on the XfD or talk page for moves that happen after the XfD closes be "recommended practice/if it's not there please add it" or "merely optional/no need to do them but no need to revert them if they are there"?

Remember, many of our templates like {{revisions}} detect XfD pages but only if the XfD page starts with the same name as the page itself. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:20, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia talk:XFDcloser#Possible bug. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:28, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Request: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Night Before Zipsmas (Jungle Junction)

No sources, notability, whatsoever. Even some individual TV episodes that don't have articles here would be more notable. Looks like it contains a lot of fancruft. Thanks. 118.148.83.181 (talk) 02:08, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

checkY- I set that up for you. Reyk YO! 10:32, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Request re: Ayşe Gülnev Osmanoğlu

Can a qualified user continue this process for Ayşe Gülnev Osmanoğlu? There doesn't seem to be anything at all justifying this individual as the subject of an article. The lead establishes her to be nothing other than a member of a family "descended from the Sultans who ruled the Ottoman Empire from 1299" to 1923, and descendant of Sultan Murad V; not uninteresting as it goes, but hardly enough to make her "relevant", surely? Online searches indicate nothing further to support her notability per the Wikipedia guidelines to which I referred.

The talk page has a 2011 notice that "References and evidence have been added to address notability issue", but the article itself fails to make clear why exactly she is notable, apart from there being an article on the Osmanoglu family and that her husband, Nicholas Sutton, has his own article also. The majority of her article (including virtually all the "Biography" section, the separate "Family Tree", and an "Ancestry" section, all of which combined give the strong impression of a self-aggrandising vanity article) is genealogical information, with her listed achievements being: a degree from the University of Exeter; a master's degree from SOAS, Univ. of London; spending "twenty years building up a property investment and development company alongside her husband"; and "now working on researching and writing historical novels on Ottoman history" (with a distinctly third-rate 'Daily News' source cited) Two similarly less-than-excellent sources are cited for the fact that they live in Sussex and she "spends the summers near Bodrum, Turkey".

Shoehorned in at the bottom is a section on the alleged increase in attention in Ottoman families, which seems to be intended to justify the article's existence despite the fact that the only relevance this has to her article is that she is from such a family. A documentary is mentioned in which, from the information given, she does not feature in any meaningful sense, as is the funeral of the last head of the Imperial Ottoman family (whose connection to the article subject, if any, is not stated). Many thanks for your assistance. 78.144.68.161 (talk) 17:21, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done--see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ayşe Gülnev Osmanoğlu. --Finngall talk 16:41, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Request- Selim Süleyman Osmanoğlu

This individual is, per the article, the sibling of the two individuals in the preceding two AfD entries; nothing notable per guidelines, poor article consisting of 90% genealogical information and the same irrelevant "Resurgence of interest in the Ottoman dynasty" section as in the two preceding articles. It was created by the same user (as what appears to have been an enthusiastic series of vanity edits?), and was, on 11 August 2011, redirected to Osmanoğlu family based on decision/ precedent at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Orhan_Murad_Osmano%C4%9Flu, unilaterally reversed by user 93.108.251.207 on 6 July 2013, with no evidence that such was agreed upon, followed by a few minor edits that, again, failed to prove notability per guidelines. Redirect to Osmanoglu subsequently restored by user StudiesWorld on 3 May 2019, and that again removed, by user 2001:818:d958:3200:dcbb:c0dd:bd99:5c77 (the same individual as removed the redirect on the above Orhan Murad Osmanoğlu article). This article follows the exact same format: too-extensive genealogical detail, the repeated "Resurgence of interest in the Ottoman dynasty" section, nothing on the actual individual save (completely unsourced and at any rate not evidence of notability): "Selim Süleyman holds a Degree in Business and Economics from Kingston University, in London, Greater London, Middlesex, and is a Fellow of the Chartered Insurance Institute, a Chartered Insurance Broker and a Fellow of the Institute of Risk Management and has had a career in the Insurance industry in the City of London and is now employed by the multinational insurance brokers AON in Muscat, Oman." Thanks for your assistance (and with full appreciation that this runs the risk of becoming repetitive! Fortunately this is the last of these siblings.)78.144.65.61 (talk) 14:35, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Selim Süleyman Osmanoğlu --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:52, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Request- Orhan Murad Osmanoğlu

Can a qualified user continue this please? This article does not pass notability guidelines at all, with the individual being described as "a member of the Osmanoğlu family. The family members are descended from the Sultans who ruled the Ottoman Empire from 1299 until the establishment of the Republic of Turkey in 1923. Orhan Murad is a descendant of Sultan Murad V" and with nothing else to distinguish him. This article is 90% genealogical detail and contains the same general section on "resurgence of interest in the Ottoman dynasty" as on that of Ayşe Gülnev Osmanoğlu (nominated for AfD as above), both having been created by a user several of whose articles were merged with the Osmanoğlu family article due to lack of individual notability. The article on Orhan Murad Osmanoğlu was subject to AfD procedure in August 2011- see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Orhan_Murad_Osmano%C4%9Flu - with the decision to merge. On 8 July 2013, however user 193.136.149.253 restored the entire article with no evidence that this was agreed upon (nothing on talk page etc). It seems to have flown under the radar for the next several years, with minor edits being made that have, to date, in no way impacted upon the lack notability of the subject and involved a period of edit warring between a user and a sock of G.-M. Cupertino. On 3 May 2019, user StudiesWorld restored the redirect, summarising "Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orhan Murad Osmanoğlu and WP:NOTINHERITED, these are non-notable and redirected." However, on 9 June 2019, user 2001:818:d958:3200:dcbb:c0dd:bd99:5c77 (whose only edits took place on this day and involved articles on similar individuals) removed the redirect with no evident approval, since which time the article has again flown under the radar. Having looked into the articles contributed by the user who created Ayşe Gülnev Osmanoğlu (which I suggested for AfD on notability grounds), suspecting a similar standard, I came across Orhan Murad Osmanoğlu and noticed the lack of notability/ sources as outlined in the 2011 AfD and StudiesWorld's restoration of the redirect. I therefore concluded (given the lack of anything indicating otherwise) that the redirect had been unjustifiably removed and restored it, but unfortunately another user misinterpreted my attempt to correct the matter and despite my explanation on his talk page left the article restored without the redirect. Many thanks for your help. 78.144.65.61 (talk) 12:38, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Apparently it's been merged by User:Praxidicae. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:53, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

AFD page moved to new title

I nominated a page for AFD using Twinkle (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S.W. Randall Toyes and Giftes), and a keep !voter later moved the AFD page to a new title. Now the "old AFD" link on the article talk page points to the current AFD instead of the prior AFD; the article main page tag points to a redirect; and I'm not sure if delsorting or any other transclusions/listings are affected (it still appears OK on the delsort list so I think it's OK). I don't have PM and can't move the page back–I'm not sure if moving the page back is even a good idea. Wondering if someone who knows about these sorts of things could review this and confirm whether it's fine the way it is or whether anything needs to be changed? Thank you, Levivich [dubious – discuss] 17:46, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Uh oh, error alert.

The log for March 7 still says it has an open discussion, but the discussion is closed. Analog Horror, (Speak) 00:43, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Badly opened discussion

The page WP:Articles for deletion/Multiplicative calculus has been badly opened. In particular, it does not appear in the project page. I do not know how to fix this. Could someone with more knowledge or more rights fix this. Thanks. D.Lazard (talk) 12:21, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I've added the {{afd2}} template. Ideally, the nominator would shorten their wall of text so anyone who isn't a subject matter expert can understand their argument for deletion, but they don't have to. Iffy★Chat -- 12:34, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
I agree, and this appear in the coment that I have added before seen that this was badly opened. D.Lazard (talk) 13:09, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Requests

Hi.

1. Can someone please complete the AfD listing process, per Wikipedia rules, for Armenian Evangelical Peter and Elizabeth Torosian School, with the reason for deletion discussed at Talk:Armenian Evangelical Peter and Elizabeth Torosian School?

2. Also, can someone please complete the AfD listing process, per Wikipedia rules, for Vera El Khoury Lacoeuilhe, with the reason for deletion discussed at Talk:Vera El Khoury Lacoeuilhe?

Thanks. --2604:2000:E010:1100:41F:9F06:5896:638 (talk) 20:09, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: Another editor minutes later removed the AfDs awaiting completion, as here, but I have restored them. 2604:2000:E010:1100:1D33:366:E59:3EAC (talk) 23:18, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 Done for both. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armenian Evangelical Peter and Elizabeth Torosian School and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vera El Khoury Lacoeuilhe --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:44, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Help?

It's been several days since I posted the following, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of highest-grossing kaiju films (2nd nomination). A consensus has been reached amongst editors. How can I now get the nominated page deleted and AFD closed? Armegon (talk) 07:33, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Jungle Junction (series 1) and Jungle Junction (series 2)

Could someone please open up a deletion discussion for both of those pages? Two episodes of the show have already had their pages deleted for fancruft and lack of notability, and just like what someone mentioned in their deletion discussions, I don't think it's best to redirect them, which I could have done right now, because they wouldn't be useful for redirects anyway. They also just repeat what's already on the main list of episodes. Thanks. 118.148.82.63 (talk) 23:47, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jungle Junction (series 1) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jungle Junction (series 2) --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:55, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Request

Hi, can someone help create AFD page for Veena Nair? The reason is: "Non-notable person, fails WP:BASIC. Her acting works are all trivial background roles, and no coverage for the dancer, comedian, and TV presenter descriptions. Article is cited with interviews, which are WP:PRIMARY sources and the remaining are non-RS references.". Thanks in advance. 137.97.89.139 (talk) 13:22, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Veena Nair --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:20, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

AFD page request

Can someone please create an AFD for the page Jazla Madasseri – "Clearly fails WP:BASIC and WP:ENTERTAINER, a non-notable social activist and TV personality. Her only coverage is as a contestant in the reality TV show Bigg Boss (Malayalam season 2) (WP:1E), no achievements as a social worker, and the flashmob thing was a run-of-the-mill news. There's nothing notable to write about her." 137.97.113.23 (talk) 11:44, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done by RoySmith Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jazla Madasseri --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:48, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

AFD page request

Can someone please create an AFD for the page Nikita Dragun - Clearly non-notable youtuber with unreliable sources presents. 103.103.98.170 (talk) 04:01, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nikita Dragun --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:40, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Consensus to get rid of an article but not on whether to preserve some of its content

OK, this is perhaps not the ideal place but pending a better one I'll put my query here. From time to time I encounter AFDs (the most recent one is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barnet Borough Arts Council) which show a clear consensus that an article should go, but no clear consensus on whether to preserve its content somewhere. I've closed them sometimes as delete, merge or redirect depending on the discussion, but sometimes there are not many specific arguments so I wanted to know what folks' feelings is on appropriate closes of such discussions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:17, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

  • As long as nobody tries to claim, "Consensus was split between delete and redirect, therefore no consensus, therefore default to keep!" I think deleting is fine, and if you're open to restoring if someone asks to merge previous content then that's even better. Reyk YO! 10:29, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I'd be tempted to close as Redirect if the title isn't a silly search term. AfD isn't a great venue for deciding whether to merge something and any decision about a merge made there can be changed later as part of the normal editing process. A redirect gets rid of the article and allows a merge if someone cares enough about it (and if editorial judgement allows it), but doesn't force the issue. Hut 8.5 10:36, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
    • The problem with redirect is WP:R#ASTONISH when the target shouldn't mention the topic. At best one could ping editors who wanted to do something with it and offer to copy this to their drafts, through generally they had plenty of opportunity to do something with the article during the AfD. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:30, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
  • If a reasonable redirect target has been mentioned, nobody's explicitly argued that a redirect would be harmful, and no strong reason to hide the content (WP:BLP, WP:COPYVIO, etc), I'll almost always close as redirect, as a nod to WP:ATD. If it seems appropriate, I'll mention in the close that the history is still available if anybody wants to merge something. My view of AfD is that the only important thing we're deciding is whether we need an admin to hit the delete button. If I'm not going to delete it, then a result which leaves editors the most latitude going forward seems like the right plan. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:29, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
      • I generally favor a redirect if its a valid search term. I don't see much reason to delete the content, especially if an article can be written at some later date. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 15:07, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

AFD page request

Can someone please create an Afd discussing for the page The Hungry Syrian Wanderer - Clearly non-notable youtuber, and lacks of content. 92.37.129.176 (talk) 08:24, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Hungry Syrian Wanderer (2nd nomination). Regards SoWhy 08:33, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
It will be my last edit, I just recently updated it. Thanks User:SoWhy, I just moved it to another column to avoid confusion. 92.37.129.176 (talk) 08:36, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Request Rogue Fitness

Can an experienced editor please take a look at this article and put it up for AfD? Article fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. The article was tagged in September 2019 for relying too much on primary sources but still has not been improved. I have carried out WP:BEFORE, and from my research, I can only find passing mentions, adverts, and unreliable sources. Could someone also look into a possible WP:COI? Many of the ads and unreliable sources seems to centre around this Bill Henniger person and his social media platforms. He is apparently the founder/owner of the company. Thanks.78.105.200.199 (talk) 23:42, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Yeah, the article is pretty spammy, and could use some TLC, if not WP:TNT. But, my gut feeling is they're a notable company. I found some good sources[1][2][3][4]. Inc and Men's Health look really solid, PopSci seems pretty good, Columbus Underground marginal. But, I think that's enough to get by WP:NCORP. Disclaimer: I'm a customer of theirs. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:06, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Agreed it could use better sourcing on the page itself, but a proper WP:BEFORE shows over 6,000 G-News hits (and take out the blogs and CrossFit-specific pages, you still get over a thousand such as this one from a few days ago). As to your accusations of COI – are you accusing an admin of 12 years (Jauerback, the main contributor and article creator) of being Henniger? Seems like a stretch. The second highest contributor was the one who tagged it in 2016, followed by myself — but mostly in an anti-vandalism and MOS capacity. I see no mention of Henniger's social media platforms anywhere on the page, with the odd exception of a LinkedIn profile on the company itself (which probably is not needed to verify it is American). Yosemiter (talk) 00:41, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
  • The sourcing could definitely be improved. I haven't given much thought to the article in a few years, so as pointed out, there are definitely more up to date and independent sources even now from when I first wrote it. As to the claim of WP:COI? That's amusing. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 17:42, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "How This Air Force Vet Tapped Into the Lucrative Business of Making Super Heavy Things for Gym Rats to Lift". Inc.com. Retrieved 29 March 2020.
  2. ^ "How Rogue Fitness Founder Bill Henniger Built His Company". menshealth.com. Retrieved 29 March 2020.
  3. ^ "Massive Rogue Fitness Facility Starting to Take Shape in Milo-Grogan - ColumbusUnderground.com". ColumbusUnderground.com. Retrieved 29 March 2020.
  4. ^ "Building a barbell for 1,000 pound deadlifts takes careful engineering and lots of testing". Popular Science. Retrieved 29 March 2020.

AfD essay/guideline?

It seems like the nominations are getting more popular each year, so I was thinking that it wouldn't be a bad idea to have something that gives some dos and don'ts. I started this - feel free to add or edit it. I don't want to stop the nominations or anything, just try to make them a little less disruptive, since this year it seems like some are adding speedy and PROD tags to articles. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:46, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

User:ReaderofthePack, well we have WP:APRIL which probably has more eyes and could do with beefing up? ——SN54129 13:58, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I think it can. It seems like there are more people placing things in live articles, from what I've seen and heard. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Predicting AfD outcomes

This paper is pretty fascinating particularly in its analysis of AfD outcome prediction:

Mayfield, Elijah; Black, Alan W. (November 2019). "Analyzing Wikipedia Deletion Debates with a Group Decision-Making Forecast Model". Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 3 (CSCW): 206–1–206:26. doi:10.1145/3359308. ISSN 2573-0142.

via Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2020-03-29/Recent research (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 01:08, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

A really interesting paper. Highly recommended. I wonder if some conclusions about "how to succeed at AfD" could be drawn from it. Vexations (talk) 12:30, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Wow I never would figure the AfD process would be the subject of a scholarly article! It would be interesting if we could draw some useful suggestions about how to succeed, echoing the above editor. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 18:21, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
I think we would all benefit if people stopped thinking about "winning" an AfD. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:37, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
You are correct. I was thinking more in the sense of why AfDs are successful or not, from a scholarly point of view. Particularly contentious ones and their closes. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 02:40, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
turns out that that the best predictor of the result is the !vote count for keep vs. delete. But the real interest of the paper is in trying to analyze the other factors. DGG ( talk ) 04:34, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Help complete deletion nomination AfD

Hi there, can someone help complete the AfD nomination page for the subject Maurice Kremer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.150.87.242 (talk) 17:24, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Help complete deletion nomination AfD

Hi there, can someone help complete the AfD nomination pages for the subjects Milton H. Biow & Joy Silverman? 217.150.87.242 (talk) 17:36, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Help complete deletion nomination AfD

Request afd

Requested Move Relisted

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Wikipedia talk:Archived deletion discussions#Requested move 1 April 2020, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, OhKayeSierra (talk) 08:43, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yonmara

Hi, can someone please sort out this malformed AFD. The article itself has been speedy deleted, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:53, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Ugh, what a mess. I'm looking at it now. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:47, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
The nominated article has already been speedied by Drmies as vandalism. I've deleted the AfD as well. It's possible I missed some links to it; if you find any, let me know and I'll clean those up too. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:53, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Roy. Drmies (talk) 03:16, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for sorting it out, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:54, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Request to nominate Adherents.com for speedy deletion

Adherents.com was once a statistics website, apparently, but now it's a payday loan website. This website features as the prominent source for List of religious populations, although the website does not seem to have any reliable information. I think its presence in that article might be a scam to bring traffic to the loan website. Please look into deleting it as fast as possible and fixing the list of religions by population page. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 04:49, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

@IronMaidenRocks: I have nominated it for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adherents.com. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:09, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

AfD request

Please nominate EnergyTeachers.org with the rationale being "This website might fail WP:NONPROFIT. 5.153.218.57 (talk) 18:06, 16 April 2020 (UTC)". Thanks, 5.153.218.57 (talk) 18:06, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Done -- RoySmith (talk) 18:06, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

New article revision note template

I've created a new template for notating an article has been substantially edited since it's nomination. Intended for AfD, it could be used elsewhere as well. See {{Nominee edited}} for more information. I've used it once so far, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crik Nutrition. Regards --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:40, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Deletion nomination MeisterTask

This app is simply not notable, and the page simply lists information like one would find on the company's website. --2003:CD:7F10:DC00:B49D:B97C:97D2:8A01 (talk) 10:44, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

AFD Completion

Please create a page containing the below. 

{{subst:afd2 | pg=Apogee Electronics | cat=O | text=Does not pass [[WP:NCORP]]. The only [[WP:CORPDEPTH|significant coverage]] found during a [[WP:BEFORE]] is the single [[Mix Online]] reference. Other references are either unreliable or mention the organization in passing without providing any detail. There must be multiple independent reliable secondary sources providing SIGCOV for an article to satisfy the guideline's criteria. [[User:2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D|<big><span style="background-color:#FFF; font:Verdana; padding:0 5px"><span style="color:#000;">S</span><span style="color:#F00;">p</span><span style="color:#FFA500;">e</span><span style="color:#FF0;">c</span><span style="color:#0F0;">t</span><span style="color:#00F;">r</span><span style="color:#6F00FF;">u</span><span style="color:#3F00FF;">m</span></span></big>]] {{tl|UV}} [[Special:Contributions/2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D|2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D]] ([[User talk:2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D#top|talk]]) 23:06, 20 April 2020 (UTC)}}

And then add 

{{subst:afd3|pg=Apogee Electronics (2nd nomination)}}

to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 April 20. There's no reason to notify the author, who only edited to create the article and has not edited since. thanks for the help. Spectrum {{UV}} 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 23:06, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

AfD: Toyota A platform

I have listed the Toyota A platform for deletion since the article contains references for Daihatsu New Global Architecture, but no supporting references regarding the "A platform" itself. This article possibly contains original research. The corresponding Japanese Wikipedia article also has this issue. Can someone complete the process? (link to talk page) 182.30.133.131 (talk) 04:38, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

request early close of AFD

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rathoa Haryam Bridge was opened by a deletion nominator who has since been blocked, permanently, for sock-puppetry. The AFD has only one vote, "Keep", by me, with quite strong statements how horrible I think the AFD is. I went to the deletion nominator's Talk page to maybe apologize about being harsh in my comments, as well as to ask for them to withdraw the AFD, only to find they are blocked. It is a really bad nomination, IMHO. Could someone please put it out of its misery? I don't think multiple conscientious AFD editors need to come consider it. --Doncram (talk) 03:52, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:58, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Request: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rhymes with Coop and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack in the House

Please for the same reason for both of them: non-notable TV show episodes with no sources. 118.148.103.13 (talk) 06:59, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done. --Finngall talk 14:39, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Pausing an AfD

What is the best way to "pause" an AfD? At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ain Jalut there is an edit war at the article to block new content and an edit war at the talk page to block it being added to WikiProjects/ARBPIA. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:18, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Every once in a blue moon, an AfD gets put on hold, but that's exceptionally rare and typically because something major just happened in the real world and people want to see how that shakes out before making a decision. I've never heard of it happening just because there's an edit war going on. I'll keep an eye on the AfD just in case things get totally out of hand. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:31, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
To add, if the article has been drastically changed in the meantime, the closing admin can always close it as WP:NPASR "no consensus" or relist it to give people time to check the changes and change their minds. Regards SoWhy 16:08, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Request to delete a subpage in my user space

Hi, there's an obsolete page that people still visit for advice. I don't know which template is appropriate to request deletion. User:Tony1/Beginners' guide to the Manual of Style. Tony (talk) 08:03, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Greetings, Tony1. The normal way of doing so is to put {{Db-u1}} on the page. I've done the deletion here (but with the wrong rationale...). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:21, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Ah, thank you, Jo-Jo. Tony (talk) 08:25, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
@Tony1: Do note that I didn't delete the talk page as I wasn't sure if you needed it independently from the main one ... and now you can test out db-u1 yourself there if you are so inclined. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:50, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks: posting the db-u1 right now! Tony (talk) 08:52, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
@Tony1: Was that one of the practice pages? I see some are still available at your main user page. We previously linked to it from the Help:Intro series, but it was just removed. Could you add a link back if there is a more appropriate one? The practice exercises are extremely useful! (Evolution and evolvability has suggested integrating them directly into the series as a module at the bottom of pages, which I think would be a good idea.) {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:56, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Request to nullify two AfDs

It appears there are no delete !votes other than the nomination yet, so asking for speedy action on this. These two AfDs were initiated by an account found to be a sock of a blocked advertising-only editor. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:27, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Any good-faith editor can re-nominate if they disagree with the speedy keep. – bradv🍁 23:35, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Goodbye (Billie Eillish song)

I was hoping someone could assist me with regards to an AFD discussion for Goodbye (Billie Eilish song). The article fails WP:NSONGS and should be redirected to the album article When We All Fall Asleep, Where Do We Go?. I previously nominated it for deletion, but withdrew it immediately because I felt it should be redirected and not deleted. I am unfamiliar with how to proceed in such a situation and was hoping someone could assist me? Thank you. Cool Marc ✉ 10:48, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

SpongeBob in RandomLand

Not sure if I nominated it for deletion properly... did it through Twinkle, but no discussion page link given in the deletion notice at the top of the page. Magitroopa (talk) 04:00, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I see now... I did 'PROD' in Twinkle rather than 'XFD'... most likely fine either way, the article is pure copy/paste from Wikia/FANDOM and the episode is not notable to warrant an article. Magitroopa (talk) 04:06, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

RUBEN XYZ

I nominated RUBEN XYZ for deletion, noting the justification for deletion on Talk:RUBEN XYZ#AfD nomination. Could someone complete the AfD process? Thanks. 122.25.51.56 (talk) 23:03, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:13, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

New, fully automatic, deletion sorting

I've just created WP:AFDSORT (User:SDZeroBot/AfD sorting) (surprised to see the shortcut hadn't been taken up). This sorts all current AfDs to topics predicted by ORES machine learning software. I've also integrated short descriptions and an extract of the nomination statement in the listing. The bot will update the list every 4 hours.

Hope folks find this useful. Cheers, SD0001 (talk) 11:07, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Revisiting a move discussion

I wonder if anybody finds this page useful: Wikipedia:Archived deletion discussions. There is also a request to move it to a different name. Comments are welcome at Wikipedia_talk:Archived_deletion_discussions#Is_this_page_useful?_Should_it_be_moved?. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 18:26, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

help.

i have made a deletion discussion. but whenever i try to add it to the log page it messes stuff up. please help. it is the discussion about the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cagayan Heritage Conservation Society (2nd nomination) Clone commando sev (talk) 04:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Clone commando sev, you should have created the AfD page with the template {{subst:afd2|pg=PageName|cat=Category|text=Why the page should be deleted}} ~~​~~, as shown in section II of WP:AFDHOW, which would have created all the necessary headers. Are you aware that the article you're nominating has already been kept at AfD about a month ago? Unless you have substantial new information, that means the page will likely be speedily kept. Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:19, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
i have just used twinkle to make the nomination so that i dont mess it up again. Clone commando sev (talk) 21:43, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Clone commando sev, that works. I use Twinkle and just follow the steps. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Afd Help

can someone nominate this MaximilianMus into Afd as this is a non-notable youtuber, and unlikely to pass notability. 136.27.38.4 (talk) 13:08, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Done. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MaximilianMus --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:17, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

two article afd

I need help to nominate Pull Up (KSI song) and Cap (KSI song) as they are not notable and doesn't meet WP:GNG. 222.117.233.122 (talk) 12:38, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Seeking recommendation - where should new users go to discus deletion?

Suppose that a new user or WP:SPA wants to discuss their deleted article.

Is there a single place to which we can direct people who want to post their thoughts? Typically people using such a process would be those whose articles were deleted with correct application of Wikipedia AfD guidelines. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:29, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

The Teahouse, maybe? – Joe (talk) 15:11, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Joe Roe, Yeah, I typically direct people to WP:TEA. I'm assuming that the people who frequent the teahouse are those who are the most enthusiastic (and least burned out) about giving help to new editors. Many other forums are more about enforcement, and tend to be less than welcoming to the 3000th person in a row asking, "How can I get my coi/auto/band/promo/upe/spam published?" -- RoySmith (talk) 16:30, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Page Mixup

Please note that parts of the page are appearing in the middle of Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Bands and musicians, which started happening early on May 27. Can anyone help? ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:25, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

This has now been fixed by the folks at the Help Desk. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Sons of Azrael

I tried to nominate this article for deletion as it fails WP:Notability and seems more like a vanity page for the band. They have no commercial success, nor are they signed to a major label. In addition, according to the page, the lead singer is deceased. Are they even active anymore? The deletion request was rejected because it was previously nominated in March 2020 with a "no consensus" result {Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sons of Azrael (2nd nomination). However, there was an earlier deletion request in October 2007 that ended with a "delete" result (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sons of Azrael).

My question is, how is an article that was designated to be deleted in 2007 still exist 13 years later, and why have attempts to delete it since then all failed? What can be done to remove this vanity page? Thank you. Donaldd23 (talk) 18:22, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

  • AFD is not permanent as articles are allowed to be rewritten if they are different from the original. In this case it is different because the lead singer and other members died since the 2007 AFD. The April 2020 AFD takes precedence and to delete would require another AFD. In such an AFD I would support keep as they have coverage in reliable sources not in the article and it is not really a vanity page as the main members are deceased and the band has broken up, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:20, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Requesting Arthur Read for deletion via AfD

Hello. I nominated the Arthur Read page for deletion, but I cannot create the nomination page. Reason why I am requesting deletion: “I believe it is not notable because it does not say why. Notability also counts on sources, and there are few sources.” Can you create the AfD page please? Thank you. 2601:8B:C300:4A70:5C23:24AB:A241:C247 (talk) 12:35, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I strongly suspect that this will be an easy "keep" verdict, but I've gone ahead and completed the nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Read. --Finngall talk 17:09, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Requests

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drive-In Me Crazy Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jimmy Two-Shoes episodes

The first is for a lack of notability, no sources, really shouldn't be here in the first place. The second can (actually, should) be merged into Jimmy Two-Shoes. 2407:7000:A2AB:D00:8009:9047:4715:9308 (talk) 09:26, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

  • I've redirected the first one. For the second one AfD isn't the recommended way to suggest that something be merged, see WP:MERGEINIT. Hut 8.5 12:42, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

@Hut 8.5: I have done the first necessary steps on merging the latter. 2407:7000:A2AB:D00:8009:9047:4715:9308 (talk) 19:34, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

duplicate AFD

Can someone please fix Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Omni Interlocken Resort (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Omni Interlocken Resort - both created after Twinkle did not finish the first time. Both are listed in the log, but Omni Interlocken Resort links to the 2nd nomination. MB 05:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

2020–21 United States network television schedule

I want to nominate 2020–21 United States network television schedule for deletion, as well as vrsions of previous years. The reason is:

  • This is a television guide and not encyclopedic content. It totally fits the description of what Wikipedia is not. Furthermore, it's not neutral, as it only advertises the content 5 networks.

I attempted to start the regular process of discussion, but my attempt was inmediately and boldly reverted after a couple of minuts under the pretext "We've been making these articles forever, and you're going to make a request to delete it now after all this time?" which is obviously a not valid reason. I don't want to do warring just to initiate the discussion, so I post it here.SFBB (talk) 11:58, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

  • You put a WP:PROD on the article, which anyone can remove for any reason or (more typically) no reason. Nothing is stopping you from going through WP:Articles for deletion though. Reyk YO! 12:02, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Ok. Thanks.SFBB (talk) 12:52, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Lehman Alternative Community School

I nominated this article for deletion because it has no sources cited which means it can't be as reliable as we want. 50.93.104.254 (talk) 18:40, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lehman Alternative Community School --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:42, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

VPP discussion about requirements for creating and/or participating in AfD

Note: this is not a proposal, but a discussion to see if a proposal makes sense.

It is time to place greater restrictions on AfD? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:25, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion - Assistance / Guidance needed

Hi Everybody, i need help in getting the following articles deleted due to 'A7. No indication of importance (people, animals, organizations, web content, events)' . In this case i am talking about the following people who i guess have no or very less importance to have a separate dedicated article on them. They all are common members of the movement Pashtun Tahafuz Movement.

[[1]] [[2]] [[3]] [[4]] [[5]] [[6]] [[7]] [[8]] [[9]] [[10]] [[11]]

I would appreciate if somebody can guide me on how to nominate them for speedy deletion Kami2018 (talk) 07:02, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Contesting draftification

Users may be interested in contributing at Wikipedia talk:Drafts#Contesting draftification? Eddie891 Talk Work 00:17, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Wayne C. Doty

I nominated this article for deletion because it is a not notable person. pls complete the AFD process, thank you. 188.187.61.14 (talk) 03:47, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wayne C. Doty --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:20, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Tion Wayne

Help complete AfD, as this is a non-notable person. 200.104.247.250 (talk) 02:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tion Wayne --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 07:04, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Summit1g

I would like to ask somepne to create afd for this article, as this is a non-notable streamer with poor sources available. 118.223.144.122 (talk) 09:53, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Summit1g --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:51, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Scapegoat (band)

can someone pls nominate it into afd as this is non-notable band ever. 213.251.204.42 (talk) 04:08, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Requesting deletion of Media coverage of Bernie Sanders

See Talk:Media coverage of Bernie Sanders#Possible deletion of article. Essentially, the media coverage debate for this issue is not particularly notable. 107.194.194.207 (talk) 13:11, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

There have been three such discussions already:
You're welcome to start a fourth one, but the chances that it goes anywhere are exceedingly slim. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:15, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Please, not again. KidAd (talk) 21:12, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
  • You posted on the talk page of that article "I have been watching this page and noticed that most of the biased editors have left by now". So you want to try to delete it now that you think you'll get different results. That's gaming the system. A very large number of people participated in it last time, and again at the deletion review for it. Dream Focus 21:52, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Kattuedaiyar

I've never done an AfD before, but I stumbled upon Kattuedaiyar, and it does not seem to meet Wikipedia:Notability nor Wikipedia:Verifiability. I've looked for references and there's very few of them. Do any of you have an opinion? If so, can you start an AfD discussion. Thank you, Philotimo (talk) 00:47, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Philotimo, if it can be verified to exist, it meets WP:GEOLAND, which states "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low". Best wishes, Eddie891 Talk Work 21:56, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Creating a flowchart

I think we should create a flowchart that will take the instructions at WP:BEFORE and put it into that section of the article. I would like to know your thoughts on this. Interstellarity (talk) 13:08, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Interstellarity, would it be along the lines of File:NPP flowchart.svg? I'm having a hard time visualizing what this would look like, but it seems like a good idea based on the fact that adequate before searches are often what nominators struggle with. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:59, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
@Eddie891: Yes, it would be similar to the flowchart. Interstellarity (talk) 01:12, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Minor celebrities major cleanup Afd req

Im requesting for someone to nominate afd on this articles on Andre Tiangco, Zaijian Jaranilla, Victor Basa, Lito Pimentel, Tom Olivar, Oliver Aquino, Wendy Valdez, Alice Dixson, Lloyd Zaragoza, Joseph Bitangcol, Kier Legaspi, Pen Medina, Krista Ranillo, Bobby Andrews, John Medina (actor)‎, as they contain too few sources or single source that its too far to be notable. 70.113.36.219 (talk) 11:12, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done:

--Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:32, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks User:Tyw7, but still misses Tom Olivar, Oliver Aquino, Wendy Valdez, Alice Dixson, Lloyd Zaragoza, Joseph Bitangcol, Kier Legaspi, Pen Medina, Krista Ranillo, and Bobby Andrews. 70.113.36.219 (talk) 12:34, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Whoops I missed but I think I will nominate those once the aformentioned actors AFDs have finished. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:55, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Requesting so many AFDs at once is an abuse of the system, if you want to delete so many you should register and sign up. Note this editor has only six edits, the first being vandalism and the next five being this AFD request, Atlantic306 (talk) 18:33, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Atlantic306, fair enough. I was assuming good faith with the IP but I think nominating so many in one go is pushing the boundary. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Could these nominations be quickly closed as keep? Those are all notable actors/actresses. I see IP's act as disruptive. HiwilmsTalk 14:28, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Hiwilms, well a lot of the articles have received mixed "delete" and "keep" votes so "speedy keep" is not an option. Plus, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andre Tiangco is currently receiving more delete votes than keep. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:38, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion started on increasing participation

I started a discussion at WP:VPIL#How to jumpstart AfD? -- RoySmith (talk) 18:14, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Movies.com deletion

The Movies.com article isn't so much an article about an entity, as it as an article about a domain name—specifically detailing its history of changing hands.

Opting not to push this through myself, because I don't like process overhead, and I'm not exactly a deletionist, anyway. But the task is there for the taking if anyone is up for it. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 19:45, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Gualtiero Galmanini

Can someone complete the process of nomination for deletion? Unregistered users can not do this. --212.178.219.27 (talk) 11:18, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gualtiero Galmanini Greyjoy talk 11:28, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Shaaban Khalil

Can someone nominate this article into AFD as the editor has connection with the article and probably non-notable person. 184.22.70.110 (talk) 10:18, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shaaban Khalil --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:00, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Sujeeth

Request the community to complete this AfD. 1.186.179.232 (talk) 12:31, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sujeeth --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:47, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Aisha Chaudhary

Request the community to please complete the AfD. 1.186.179.232 (talk) 12:41, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aisha Chaudhary --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:12, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

requesting AFD

since the last nomination was ended with one remaining only. I would like to nominate this articles on Tom Olivar, Oliver Aquino, Wendy Valdez, Alice Dixson, Lloyd Zaragoza, as this are too far to be notable and written like fandom or by a fan. 87.228.1.89 (talk) 09:39, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Done for Oliver Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oliver Aquino --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:43, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Emilio Pucci

Please review the sources. If researched meticulously enough, many are inconclusive and not backed up. "WayBackMachine" is used for a lot of sources, however sources are not found on the real websites. My suspicion is, that this persons deeds are made up or overinflated in order to attract customers/promote to listed website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.199.86.19 (talk) 12:37, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emilio Pucci --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:20, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

IP nomination

I cannot create an AFD nomination because I am an IP. Help. 122.60.80.64 (talk) 06:06, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Follow the steps at WP:AFDHOW
Only a registered, logged-in user can complete steps II and III. (Autoconfirmed registered users can also use the Twinkle tool to make nominations.) If you are unregistered, you should complete step I, note the justification for deletion on the article's talk page, then post a message at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion requesting that someone else complete the process. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 06:08, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I am nominating Snowboarder (film). AFD template is on page, reason for deletion is in Talk:Snowboarder (film). 122.60.80.64 (talk) 06:33, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

@Tyw7: Pinging 122.60.80.64 (talk) 06:33, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snowboarder (film) --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 07:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

help complete two afd

can someone pls nominate both article of Baka Prase and Mudja as they have unreliable/spam sources and has zero reliable sources. 59.10.232.165 (talk) 12:28, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done for Baka Prase Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baka Prase. Mudja has a speedy tag on it already. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:52, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
I've placed, if the speedy delete was remove by someone, pls send both to Afd, these are spam sources. 59.10.232.165 (talk) 13:01, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Same reason as above? --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:05, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 Done for Mudja too Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mudja --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:07, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
same reason. I'm not hating the creator, just those sources are loads of spam, Thank you for doing it. 59.10.232.165 (talk) 13:10, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Tell me when the Speedy are removed for these article and I will send to XFD for the same reason, --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:13, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Tyw7 I will withdraw now the 2 previous afd since everyone agrees that politika is reliable. 95.70.9.107 (talk) 10:31, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Archive_73&oldid=1205216957"