Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 76

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 70 ← Archive 74 Archive 75 Archive 76 Archive 77

WP:PROD, WP:BEFORE, and WP:BURDEN.

I've seen a few people recently arguing that WP:BEFORE applies to prod. That is to say, if someone creates an article with no sources, and a second editor wants to nominate it for deletion (even via PROD), the onus is on the second editor to do a search for sources first. I don't think that is the case, but even beyond that, I think that this points to a larger contradiction between WP:BURDEN and WP:ONUS, and I think that the underlying logic behind BURDEN causes some of the problems we're seeing in WP:NPP - when editors can create entirely citation-free articles entirely out of their own head, and shift the burden to doing a search for citations to anyone who wants to challenge their contribution, it results in people creating a bunch of uncited stubs that remain uncited forever because nobody has the desire or incentive to spend time citing them. To solve this, I suggest a simple change: WP:BEFORE should unambiguously not apply to any article whose only substantial edits have been made by a single editor - in that case, the burden is solely on the article's creator to search for sources if they want to avoid removal. When an article has multiple significant contributors it becomes more complex, but when there's only one it seems like a straightforward WP:BURDEN situation. --Aquillion (talk) 19:40, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Can we shift the responsibility even stronger towards people who create articles - prohibit creation of uncited articles? I'm avoiding just saying "yes" to your idea because sometimes editors give up on wikipedia before their article gets to AfD, and their poorly cited articles could get deleted, which seems like what happened with this recent one Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emma Stark CT55555 (talk) 19:48, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
NPP is 90% about wp:notability, and the most common problem isn't zero sources, it's zero wp:notability sources. For example, a one sentence article on a Japanese baseball player sourced only to an on-line database that says that he plays baseball. And so one of the 30 NPP'ers is supposed to search Japanese media in Japanese language and character sets before sending it to AFD. And yes, finding those sources needs to be part of making the article, (by the million editors) not the job of of the 30 NPP'ers. North8000 (talk) 20:06, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Between WP:V, WP:DEL-REASON, and WP:N, I don't think we need to get into the details of BEFORE and BURDEN. Here's the flow chart, which I don't think should be controversial:
Does the article have any citations?
Yes → Does it have enough citations to demonstrate notability?
Yes → no action needed.
No  → Is it notable? (notability is based on the existence of sources, so this determination requires some searching)
Yes → Is it new?
Yes → userfy/draftify
No  → tag or improve.
No  → Propose/nominate for deletion/merge.
No  → Is it new?
Yes → userfy/draftify.
No  → Redirect if appropriate, CSD if appropriate, userfy/draftify if appropriate, or otherwise propose/nominate deletion/merge.
— Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:15, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Well, that summarizes the status quo. My post is saying that the system isn't working (and why) in executing your line 3: ("No → Is it notable? (notability is based on the existence of sources, so this determination requires some searching)") Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:41, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
PROD is for noncontroversial deletion. If you nominate an article for AfD without BEFORE, and other editors easily find sources, you'll be rightly trouted and the deletion will be controversial. This means that it's impossible to predict that deletion will be noncontroversial without doing BEFORE, ergo PROD requires BEFORE. pburka (talk) 21:07, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
But that change would mean that there is no requirement for finding sources when creating an article, not even a suggestion; while there would be a requirement to find sources in order to remove what the article's creator added, even if there's no indication that the creator made any effort to find sources themselves. The creator could directly demand that someone who PRODs their creation demonstrate they performed a search for sources and could even try to drag them to ANI if the prodder declined - that unambiguously violates WP:BURDEN. The burden to find sources for text that someone wants to retain is always on the person who added it or wants to retain it, never on the person who wants to remove it. Reasonably speaking, if I prod something and someone else removes the prod, I'm within my rights to demand that the person who removed the PROD produce sources (that ofc wouldn't justify another PROD, but if they continuously and repeatedly removed PROD tags without any indication that they were trying to add sources, they would be the ones who would be in trouble in ANI for ignoring WP:BURDEN.) If they demanded that I search for sources before prodding, I can tell them to get lost and that I did not, will not, and will continue to prod articles without doing so - and I'm 100% in the right per WP:BURDEN; the burden to do that search is on the person who created the article or who removes the prod, never (not even a little bit) on the person who placed it. --Aquillion (talk) 04:10, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
@North8000 I don't disagree, but I guess it depends on what you mean by "working". A single sentence with a single source that verifies the sentence isn't ideal, but also isn't something that needs urgent action, but if it's a new article then NPP should catch it and userfy/draftify it. I guess the question is what to do if someone decides to move it back into mainspace. There's no policy that prevents that (unless it was formally declined at AfC), but I also don't think it's all that common? Maybe I'm wrong. For older undersourced articles, however, yeah, anyone proposing/nominating for deletion on notability grounds needs to have a good claim about notability based on research, not a gut feeling or the citations in the article. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:16, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Well, first a preface, and then a question. The preface is that it's a math problem, the way the NPP math works, 10 reviewers need to manually review about 500 articles per day. Now, let's say there's an article that needs GNG sources but doesn't have them. Would you say that it's OK / an acceptable practice to userfy/draftify it without searching for GNG type sources and determining whether or not they exist? North8000 (talk) 21:40, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
If a draftification or userfication is challenged (anyone can challenge that move, NPP isn't a formal process), then AFD is the next step in the process and BEFORE is plainly required from the nominator. Iffy★Chat -- 21:41, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes to both North8000 and Iffy. If be curious how many userfications/draftifications are actually undone. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:55, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
@Rhododendrites: I can't answer that. At NPP I haven't been userfying/ draftifying based on needed GNG references not being included IN the article. It sounds like a good idea. North8000 (talk) 14:09, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Given the ongoing village pump discussion this seems rather like forum shopping to me. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:29, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
    Link to the village pump discussion? Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
  • I linked this discussion from there when I created this one, as suggested in the last sentence of WP:FORUMSHOP when creating a spin-off discussion; that discussion is large and unwieldy and focuses on many things, while this is a much more narrow suggestion specific to some of the issues with how people are interpreting WP:BEFORE that came up in that discussion. Spin-offs like that are appropriate. But here is the discussion in question for those who missed it. --Aquillion (talk) 04:13, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
  • In my opinion, anyone prodding a non-new article needs to do due diligence, and to suggest they don't is quite literally astonishing to me. Essentially a prod is an experienced editor asserting that the article would be uncontroversially deleted at AfD, and how can one possibly know that if one has done no homework? The justifications with new material are different, because there's the hope that the creator can be persuaded to let us know where the information came from under the stimulus of move to draft or prod. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:11, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
    • This discussion is generally about new articles (or articles that may technically be old but have seen almost no editing and are still just the initial stub), since if a source has any sources at all then none of what I'm describing would apply. --Aquillion (talk) 16:05, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Lack of citations is a readily fixable problem, as long as sources exist, and we don't delete things that can be fixed. Full stop. It's a core principle going back to the founding of project, not some technicality or oversight. All our deletion processes (except for pseudo-deletion via draft) are designed with that in mind, so yes it applies to PROD (it's in the very first point of WP:PRODNOM), and to AfD, and to CSD, etc. I appreciate the frustration of new page reviewers and the large backlog, but that's no reason to start rewriting core policies, especially when nobody is asking them to deal with unsourced content immediately: the NPP instructions just say check for notability, tag it with {{unsourced}} and move on. – Joe (talk) 12:57, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
" the NPP instructions just say check for notability, tag it with {{unsourced}} and move on." - This, if I'm honest. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:57, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
  • But WP:BURDEN is also a core principle going back to the founding of the project. I understand the desire to WP:PRESERVE things that you personally believe satisfy WP:V, but PRESERVE applies only to things that meet WP:V, and if you believe something meets V then the the responsibility is always and exclusively on you to demonstrate that by producing a source. The first point of PRODNOM means that someone who has a good faith belief that an article fails to satisfy WP:V or notability can tag prod, since that is a valid deletion criteria; that belief alone is sufficient and no further searching or legwork is necessary on their part - they have no burden or obligation to do any work to demonstrate that the article is not verifiable, that would be absurdly onerous and would directly flip WP:BURDEN on its head. Instead, the burden if their assertion is disputed is on the article's creator and anyone who wants to retain it. There is certainly not, and has never been, any requirement to do a WP:BEFORE search for a mere PROD, and I would strenuously oppose any change imposing such a requirement for WP:BURDEN reasons. --Aquillion (talk) 16:05, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
    WP:BURDEN is about text, not articles. There's a fundamental difference between removing text from a live article, where someone can always restore it from the history if they find a source, and deleting the article entirely, where they can't. That's why the burden is on editors who want to delete articles to make a good faith effort to ensure that we're not losing something verifiable. It's not about what they "personally believe" to be verifiable – something is either verifiable or it's not. But verifiability and references are not the same thing. Something can be unreferenced and verifiable (because sources exist) or sourced and unverifiable (because the sources are misused). If you haven't checked that there are sources available—which, let's be honest, usually takes all of a minute—you can't claim to have a "good faith belief" that it's unverifiable and shouldn't be deleting another editor's work based on your hunch. As I've said, that requirement is right there in the first point of WP:PRODNOM: Is there a valid reason for deletion? (lack of references alone is not a valid reason for deletion under the deletion policy) and consider alternatives to deletion like improving the page (i.e. finding a source). And frankly, I think it's obnoxious to start putting demands on good faith editors under threat of deletion when this is a volunteer project with no deadline. If you can't spare the merest of effort to do a quick WP:BEFORE, why do you think you have the right to delete another editor's work? We never ask reviewers to fix problems as soon as they spot them—that's what cleanup tags are for—so why the great rush to impose deadlines on others? I've honestly never understood the desire to make deletion easy. It seems to speak to a lack of empathy. – Joe (talk) 16:36, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Regarding notability, yes there IS a deadline. It sits in the NPP backlog until somebody deals with GNG sourcing where it is required. The question is whether that's the responsibility of the million editors or the 30 NPP'ers. North8000 (talk) 17:03, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes but we're not talking about notability. – Joe (talk) 17:16, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
While it may not be apparent, IMO it's not only a topic, but also the main underlying topic. It's the main invoking of wp:before. North8000 (talk) 19:41, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Articles consist of text. It makes no sense to suggest that someone can add uncited text and then demand other people find sources for them, ignoring the requirements of WP:BURDEN, simply because that text forms the entire article. BURDEN has always applied to everything; and WP:BEFORE does not and has never applied to WP:PROD. Certainly your argument otherwise is unconvincing - lack of notability is a valid reason for deletion; if a prodder has a good-faith belief that an article lacks notability, then that is sufficient for at least a prod. A prod doesn't result in immediate deletion anyway, so the article's creator has ample time to do the source search that is their responsibility alone per WP:BURDEN. And your second quote is even more baffling - a policy that says to consider something is obviously not making it mandatory, ie. it directly contradicts your proposal that WP:BEFORE should be a hard requirement for a PROD. Finally, your characterization of the basic, simple, universal requirement that people who want to add or retain things are the ones responsible for finding sources for them as an obnoxious demand contrasts with the way you try to reinterpret policy to impose the exact same requirement on a simple low-weight WP:PROD. Having your contributions reverted or removed if you refuse to provide sources for them is not some sort of onerous requirement; it is the basic way Wikipedia works and central to how we get people to perform that essential legwork. The idea that someone could add something to Wikipedia, point-blank refuse to find sources for their claims, and then, when it is rightfully removed, try to argue that the person who objected had some obligation to find sources for them is a far more serious problem. And accusing people who disagree with you on a simple point of policy of lacking empathy seems to me to be unWP:CIVIL; the point is (as with our WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL policies) our policies need to be structured to ensure that the essential tasks of building an encyclopedia are carried out. That includes additions, yes, but to produce a usable encyclopedia and not a pile of random text, it also includes curation, reviews, and removals - and most of all it includes finding sources for contested additions, or removing them if sources are not found. The easiest way to ensure that that search is actually carried out is to place the burden for it on the people who want content included. If we shift it to the people who object, what we accomplish, in practice, is discouraging people raising valid objections and from doing the already time-consuming and thankless (but absolutely necessary) legwork of reviewing new articles, while reducing the pressure on people who actually want the new content added to add citations for it. That is simply backwards and results in the flood of uncited poor-quality stubs we are facing now; part of the principle of WP:BURDEN is that we need to put the responsibility of search for citations on the people who have an incentive to actually do so. The purpose of WP:BEFORE, meanwhile, is to avoid the high-weight and time-consuming effort of an AFD that would rapidly fail; it is not and has never been applicable to PROD, where that is not the case. It is certainly not something people who want to create or retain contested articles can use to shift the burden of searching for sources on to others, nor is it something that can be used to make the already-thankless task of reviewing and curating articles even more difficult. (As we have seen on ANI, where efforts to use it to push for sanctions in that regard have near-uniformly failed.) --Aquillion (talk) 08:04, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Finally (since I admit the above may be a bit of a wall of text), I will point out one area where your response suggests that we may have some agreement. You say that you want WP:BEFORE to apply to WP:PROD because if a PROD goes through it is hard to later revert. This is not, however, true for redirects, which anyone can revert at any time. Do you agree, at least, that redirecting a new or single-editor uncited article without discussion does not require a WP:BEFORE search, and that anyone who wants to revert that redirect bears the burden of finding sources and the WP:ONUS of demonstrating consensus as usual? This was one of the policy changes I proposed back in the other discussion. --Aquillion (talk) 08:15, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
    Yes, redirecting is easy and doesn't require BEFORE (and as you say, can be reverted by anyone). No, restoring an article from a redirect is functionally identical to creating a new article, and WP:BLAR makes clear that AFD is the process for challenging a restored article from a redirect. Iffy★Chat -- 09:35, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
    Aquillion, I 99% agree with your proposal and 90% agree with your analysis/focus. Regarding the other 1%/10%... IMO completely unsourced articles that have "made it in" are not common. But I'd guess that articles with one token "factoid" source are in the millions. And IMO in some areas, some of those are accepted as not being a big problem (I.E geostubs where there's just one database type source). IMO the central crux is not just sources, but wp:notability type sources where such is required (i.e. there's no clear-cut compliance with an SNG). So is this source-search the job of the 30 NPP'ers or the the job of the 1,000,000 editors creating ~800 new articles per day. The immediate problem is that NPP has been collapsing. So perhaps having your proposal start by applying only to new articles would be smaller-scope proposal more easily agreed on. North8000 (talk) 13:03, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Regarding new articles, this is something that has come up when discussing WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS elsewhere - the real dividing line isn't just "how long has this article existed for" but "have enough eyes seen this article for there to be a general implicit consensus that it's fine, sufficient that more legwork or consensus-building ought to be required to say otherwise." So instead of just new articles we might need a general definition that cares about some combination of age, how many edits it has, and how many people have made meaningful edits to it, with the last one being the really important one. (Conversely, if there's some breaking news and a dozen people rush to set up an article for it, that article shouldn't really be considered "new" even a few hours later, at least for most respects.) --Aquillion (talk) 17:31, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
My focus on "new" was a bit structural and a bit pragmatic. The "structural" is that most extant articles have mostly through some type of wp:notability review (usually by NPP) . (although with about 60,000 currently tagged for notability). But if NPP gets broken, articles will be going in with not even that. The "pragmatic" is a concern that many may have that this could trigger a deletion binge by deletionists with millions of vulnerable articles. The third is that the current crisis is at NPP which involves new articles. So maybe having something that (at least for a start) applies to new articles might be a good idea and one most likely to pass. North8000 (talk) 19:18, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
I think we should at least be able to come to an agreement that new articles must demonstrate notability. It's reasonable to expect that the creator of an article actually creates an article, rather than expecting others to create it for them, and it will address the significant and growing problem at NPP. BilledMammal (talk) 02:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Provided there's a congruent agreement that existing (before agreement enaction) articles must have an effective BEFORE before being brought to AfD, and egregious failure of a BEFORE (a la Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Space Hero) is considered a sanctionable user conduct issue, I'd gladly support that. Jclemens (talk) 03:35, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
I could support that - though it would need to be a pattern of such failures, as WP:AGF would still apply. BilledMammal (talk) 14:08, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Here's how I would word the expectation: "If an article is kept at an AfD due at least in part to sourcing brought up in that AfD, the AfD nominator is not permitted to start a new AfD until all the sources raised in the AfD have been appropriately integrated to improve the article." Someone who sticks to articles truly worthy of deletion will never notice it. Jclemens (talk) 04:43, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
That would effectively kill the NPP process, where multiple AfDs are raised each day if/when you're actively patrolling. You're looking at something like a 5-10% AfD/Patrolled run rate (a wild guess, I didn't go counting). And it is surely not incumbent on an AfD nominator to go on a source hunt that the article creator themselves couldn't be bothered with. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:21, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
  • No, absolutely not. This is something I mentioned above, but people are treating our policies as far more rigid than they actually are. Even eg. WP:BLP, probably the most intentionally aggressive policy we have, says only that you must seriously consider not including crimes which someone was not convicted of. Wikipedia policies to not generally place hard restrictions on editors; most things must be decided on a case-by-case basis according to the individual situation. Normally someone who has repeatedly ignored the underlying spirit of the policy in a way that cuts at our core principles and undermines the presumption of bad faith is going to face actual sanctions. "You must precisely do X and Y and Z according to this specific policy, fullstop" is not how we operate outside of extremely high-danger areas like BLP; and for all the heat over NPP and article creation or deletion or the like, this is not such a case. --Aquillion (talk) 18:45, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
That's not possible, per WP:CHOICE. I also think it would be largely absurd to require the editor who nominated an article for deletion to do the work the creator should have done. BilledMammal (talk) 01:17, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
I do think, BTW, that "egregious failure of a BEFORE (a la Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Space Hero) is considered a sanctionable user conduct issue," is problematic. I would still be tempted - at the very least - to tag Space Hero for notability, based on PR Newswire being presented as one source, and the lack of clarity in the other sources, The Smithsonian story is just a rewrite of Space.com - "The show itself will take place here on Earth, with participants competing for a grand prize trip to the ISS on a vessel provided by Axiom Space, Space.com reports. An actual trip to the ISS, however, has not been authorized yet". The space.com coverage follows the lazy interview in Deadline Hollywood which notes an organiser saying, "Today we have started our mission to find our distribution partner and are ready to take it to the next stage and get the world excited about Space Hero.” - but does not mention what Space.com subsequently does, in their piece the year after, headlined "Space Hero' reality show competition signs space act agreement with NASA but it doesn't mean they're sending people to the space station. - and in fact, "However, this agreement "does not authorize a private astronaut mission to the International Space Station," a NASA spokesperson tells Space.com. BTW, the space.com story mentions, "contest claims in an emailed statement" - so we have a source stood up on a press release! The nominator cited WP:TOOSOON and I'd agree. The sourcing in that article is poor AND they don't even have a flight yet!!! There's no source says they have a distribution deal yet!!! (I note CNN in August 2021: "The Discovery Channel is considering "Who Wants to Be an Astronaut" while a competitor, "Space Hero," is hoping to land somewhere else.") That's hardly 'egregious failure' - I'd reserve that phrase for a TV show that has been talking the talk for 2 years and still doesn't have a distribution deal or a flight to offer contestants!!! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:49, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I think that if we just reworded the notability source search part of wp:before to say that it applies to articles created before July 2022, things will work out pretty well overall. Also develop a tradition/norm that draft space is where articles that need GNG (vs. an SNG) to establish wp:potability incubate while they develop their GNG sourcing. North8000 (talk) 13:46, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

  • Comment. @ Aquillion, I personally wouldn't consider WP:BEFORE a Prod policy, as BEFORE is specifically part of the AFD nomination process, not the prod process. However, there are similar policies at Prod which require the same thing as BEFORE. If you read WP:PRODNOM, it directs you to follow WP:DEL-REASON. Criteria 7 of Del Reason, states "Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed". In other words, Prod has always had other core deletion policies in place requiring that attempts be made to find sources to improve an article before placing a prod. As such, there has always been a congruence in deletion policy between WP:PROD and WP:BEFORE. So yes, you should try to find sources and improve an article before placing a PROD per policy, unless of course it fits under a criteria for speedy deletion.As for WP:BURDEN, burden was specifically written as a policy to address verifiability issues within the text of articles not notability issues for the article as a whole. As such, the focus in the policy is different and for good reason (as articulated by Joe above).
That said, I have sympathies with you and those who routinely assist at WP:NPP. It is a never ending job, and it makes one acutely aware of the problems with "an encyclopedia anyone can edit" (which means we accept articles from everyone with the philosophy that the community will work together once its there to make it better if possible). One of the challenges of WP:5P3 is we constantly have submissions from editors with little experience or knowledge of wikipedia's policies, and with a varying degree of editorial and research and writing skills. Inevitably this means that there will always be a backlog at NPP by the nature of what wikipedia is. However, I don't think the system is broken (as evidenced by what we have built as a whole). The NPP backlog is an inevitable part of the project and its broad inclusive philosophy, and there are no "easy solutions" or escapes from the problems of imperfect new articles. Ultimately it is going to largely fall on NPP patrollers and those at WP:AFC to do the work of assisting poorly referenced new content and there is no way around it while maintaining the core philosophies that undergird the project at the Wikipedia:Five pillars. Further, I don't think you are going to find much support from broader community input to make changes to the Prod policy. Inevitably personal responsibility and due diligence are inextricably linked to deletion policy. If the NPP backlog is getting to you, and the constant work is becoming a burden maybe take a break from NPP and try assisting the project in some other ways. I find I can only patrol AFD for short periods of time (a couple weeks) before I need a break. At that point I usually write some articles, or help out at DYK or GA or FA or some other productive area that is more relaxing. The WP:CHOICE is yours.4meter4 (talk) 09:07, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
The fact that NPP is probably in a state of collapsing with what bothers me, and no taking of a break will help that. Various changes over time interact with each other are contributing to this. Most of them relate to the job becoming more difficult and painful. This is a non-issue regarding me. The issue is that that translates into increased per-article person-hours and reduced ability to get people doing the reviews. Conversely, fixes in any of many areas will help it. And one fruitful area would be to develop a more general expectation that a part of starting an article is finding sources. It's not just creating a title. And when you are contemplating building an article for your non-notable paid aspiring actor client in a non-english-speaking country, its your job to find the GNG sources (or give up if they don't exist) not an overloaded NPPer's job to prove that they don't exist. North8000 (talk) 14:06, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
When you feel like you have to do something or the project (or part of it) will fall apart, it really is time to consider a break. NPP isn't going to collapse. We see spikes in the backlog there every year or two like clockwork, usually caused by a highly active patroller stepping back – as happened a few months ago. In the dark days before WP:ACPERM, we used to deal with backlogs of twice what it is now. Nobody is actually asking you or any other NPP reviewer to look for sources. NPP's job is to decide whether a new article can be left in mainspace for further improvement or whether it should be speedily deleted. If you're not sure about notability but don't fancy checking yourself, it's perfectly acceptable to tag it with {{notability}}, mark it as reviewed and move on. – Joe (talk) 14:41, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Something else I just noticed while going over evidence for the recent ArbCom case. WP:BEFORE is, technically speaking, not policy, nor even a guideline; it is just part of the general instructions for ANI. This might not matter, except that there is a relevant guideline, WP:NEXIST, which instead says that Thus, before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility that sources may still exist even if their search failed to uncover any. This is a contradiction that must be resolved somehow; obviously, given my statements above, I prefer the wording at WP:NEXIST and would suggest that WP:BEFORE be tweaked to reflect it, ie. the search should be something that is strongly encouraged but clearly not required; this would also resolve the issue with WP:BURDEN, since the requirement to search would then rest with those who want to retain the article, where it belongs. --Aquillion (talk) 07:45, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
I would not support that. We have editors in the past who have nominated hundreds of articles a day which has overloaded the AFD review process (I believe ArbCom got involved with some of them) BEFORE protects AFD from falling apart and keeps the work load at a manageable level by slowing down the number of deletions. You can only have so many community discussions with active participation simultaneously. It’s a good requirement just from a pragmatic logistics standpoint.4meter4 (talk) 08:10, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
The editor in question has quite successfully proven that without the friction of BEFORE it is possible for an them to rattle off hundreds of Prods and AFDs with very little time and effort. They’ve also proven that this leads to very low accuracy and a lot of conflict when that low accuracy is discovered. Perhaps, as some have argued, BEFORE isn’t a real policy and doesn’t have to be considered - it still seems like minimum effort to make sure an AfD isn’t a foolish effort would be a good idea. Also if BEFORE doesn't do this and editors aren't expected to follow it then that should be made clear on the page. Artw (talk) 08:44, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
I do think it's dangerous to set policy potentially impacting many, many thousands of people based on the actions of a couple of mavericks. NPP by its nature throws burden on AfD (and I do try and do more at AfD than I send there, which is quite a bit, and I do try not to patrol too many articles a day, when time permits, for that reason, too), and I do note that participation in AfDs is already a little patchy - but there's little else to do with articles that are simply inappropriate for inclusion in WP. Draftify can't be used for articles older than 90 days (maybe we need to set THAT one to indef as well as NPP indexing!) and PROD is for totally uncontroversial nominations. Borderline fails of WP:GNG and even wholesale fails of WP:GNG get to go to AfD - and there are an awful lot of 'em out there. Relaxing the weight of WP:BEFORE as per Aquillon above would be very, very handy for NPP. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:46, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
NPP does not seem to be the source of any problems, nor particularly unsourced articles. It's editors seeking to rack up a kill list targeting articles from times with laxer notability requirements, articles with decayed sourcing, articles of types they don't care for, articles they have some innovative new rule reason for deleting, etc. Artw (talk) 08:53, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
If the only purpose of BEFORE is to limit the rate of AfD nominations then it isn't effective; for many articles the requirements can be met in just a few minutes. Instead, if the desire is to limit the rate of nominations, then we should create an actual limit, but if we do that we also need to create a similar restriction on article creation, or require new articles to demonstrate plausible notability before they can be moved to article space. In addition, we need to find a way to deal with the current backlog of non-notable articles that need to be taken through deletion processes. BilledMammal (talk) 09:07, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
To a certain degree that's already in hand, with the proposal that new pages will not be indexed/searchable indefinitely before they have been through New Page Patrol. That seems to have been accepted by the rarefied beings knows as the Devs and that ensures no article is googleable until it has been patrolled. The backlog, well, that's another thing... Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:16, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Unfortunately, that doesn't address the problem; it helps with spam and promotional articles, but not with the mass creation of articles on subjects that aren't notable. In addition, NPP is currently struggling; they are unable to get their backlog under control, and to handle non-notable articles they need to use the same processes, with the same restrictions, that the rest of us use. BilledMammal (talk) 09:32, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
I suspect I would have far, far fewer complaints about indiscriminate Prods and AfDs if editors really were able to do a good faith BEFORE in just a few minutes, because many of those would just get fixed and I wouldn't have to worry about them, and the ones that did get through would be actual legitimate nominations.
Sadly that is not where we are at right now, so maybe an artificial limit IS a good idea since the burden has all been passed onto the part pf the process that comes with a time limit.
(As mentioned above page creation is largely irrelevant as far as I can tell - the problems all seem to be with established pages) Artw (talk) 09:27, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
From what the New Page Patrollers have said, there is an issue with page creation. However, if we address that problem, and if we can address the current backlog of non-notable mass-created articles, then I would be willing to support an artificial limit. BilledMammal (talk) 09:38, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Part of the issue is automated stub creation. If one editor can create ~94,000 stubs automatically using a script, with no sources (or woefully insufficient sources) for each of them, and then demand that anyone who wants to tag them for deletion do a separate source search for every one of them, then it is effectively impossible to challenge their actions, turning it into a WP:FAITACCOMPLI. Perhaps part of the underlying issue is that editors should seek consensus before creating large numbers of articles on the same topic; it's fine to be WP:BOLD when creating one article, or ten articles, but automatically creating tens of thousands of articles on the same general topic with no discussion goes beyond what's reasonable and is part of what has led to the current situation. --Aquillion (talk) 18:15, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Rate-limiting isn't the only reason for WP:BEFORE, or even the main reason. The main reason is to avoid time-wasting nominations of articles that don't stand a chance of being deleted (some recent examples from my AfD log: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Assyriologists & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jean-François Persoz). Plus the general principle that you shouldn't nominate something for deletion unless you have a good faith belief that it meets the deletion policy, and if you haven't done a basic search for sources you can't really claim that. – Joe (talk) 09:55, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
I mean, part of this people who are applying BEFORE to PROD; at the very least that shouldn't cause vast overhead. But the underlying issue is that people can currently create hundreds (or thousands) of articles a day using automated scripts. Without some mechanism to challenge that action, it becomes a WP:FAITACCOMPLI and our notability / content / WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE policies become meaningless, as do WP:ONUS and WP:BURDEN. It is possible to lump them all into one AFD (I think?), but I think that per ONUS / BURDEN one solution might be that, for mass-created articles that were recently created and have only had a single meaningful editor, such mass-AFDs default to delete on a WP:NOCON outcome, since there is relatively little to be lost (if the situation changes they can just run their mass-creation script a second time.) This fits the principle that WP:BOLD actions should be easy to reverse. --Aquillion (talk) 18:23, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
@Aquillion: With the exception of WP:ARBPOL, we don't codify the instructions for using a maintenance process as policies or guidelines. I think it's just generally accepted that, if you want to use a process, following the instructions is good wikiquette. WP:BEFORE is preceded by the words "please be sure to" and I think is best interpreted as a request to do certain things that, based on years of experience, the community has found makes AfDs go smoothly. If you choose to ignore the request, nobody is going to block you or procedurally close the AfD. But somebody has to do those checks and, if you pass the buck on it, you're probably going to get some sharp words about the lack of courtesy. I don't think that's unreasonable and I don't see any contradiction between one page saying "editors are strongly encouraged to do X" and another saying "please do X". – Joe (talk) 08:54, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Re the New Page arguments, I did a quick look through the 25 latest AfD and their created dates to see how it compared to my gut feel about them.

My notes:


So 12 from this year, 5 from this month, 3 from the last couple of days. So it does seem right that NPP is making up a proportion of those, but not the majority. Also they don’t tend to be the kind that kick up much controversy re: BEFORE. Artw (talk) 17:00, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Looking at 24 June prods…
So out of 23  that’s 6 this year, 5 very recently. This does not seem to support that Prod is being used to deal with a flood of new article. Some of these are in fact VERY old and established. Artw (talk) 18:44, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
The Prods of the 26th look a little closer to what has been described: Out of 15 7 are from this year and 4 are from this month, the bulk of those added by MsSnoozyTurtle who is clearly doing patrol work. Still not what I would expect to see if Prod was the primary tool for battling an influx of hundreds of articles thus justifying the use of it without due diligence, possibly the case for that has been overstated? Artw (talk) 15:48, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Sources and influences on the development of Dungeons & Dragons

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sources_and_influences_on_the_development_of_Dungeons_%26_Dragons is a meandering, poorly written, unsourced mess that looks like a TVTropes page, and has been marked as OR for 12 years. The contents of it, when even worthy of mention, should be noted in the respective relevant pages and not in obsessive fanboy fashion here.

Will someone with an account please do something about this abomination of a web page?2601:1C2:5000:1472:8806:86F:2C7C:5D28 (talk) 10:14, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

My two pence:
  • You are familiar with Article N[1], which is absolutely going to come up in any deletion discussion, and probably torpedo it.
  • If you think Gygax underplayed Tolkien when talking about D&Ds origins probably bets to find sources to that effect and add it.
  • Used this way "Aspie" reads like a slur[2], probably don't do that in edit descriptions.
Artw (talk) 14:32, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
I've nominated it for deletion on your behalf: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sources and influences on the development of Dungeons & Dragons – Joe (talk) 14:54, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Request

Two discussions about this on two different talk pages with same parties is unnecessary. Deletion discussion created. Ease up on personal accusations and suspicions. WikiVirusC(talk) 16:31, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@United States Man, TornadoLGS, Elijahandskip, and ChessEric: Please finish the AFD nom for Midwestern U.S. floods and tornado outbreak of June 2021. 47.23.40.14 (talk) 22:24, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

(A) I don't exactly know how to do that and (b) I'm hesitant about working with IP address after the whole ArbCom fiasco that I experienced in April. Someone else will have to do this. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 22:47, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
I am not willing to start the AfD. (1): I have responded to you on the talk page mentioning the section above yours which explains why the event can be notable. As discussed, it needs improvement, not deletion/merges. (2): It got accepted through AfC. (3): Why start an AfD when the article never had a PROD before? Elijahandskip (talk) 23:50, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
@Elijahandskip: I couldn’t find that many news articles on it, hindering notability. A damage total of $1.8 billion doesn’t automatically mean it’s notable. Significant expansion isn’t always possible so I don’t think WP:GNG is met. You also have a tendency to create poorly thought out flood articles, especially from January 2022. 75.99.8.58 (talk) 15:46, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
I didn’t create this article my friend, so I do not see how anything from my past editing history 6 months ago is relevant. Also, an IP editing with 3 edits knowing that is slightly suspicious. Well, either way, I still will not complete it. Elijahandskip (talk) 16:02, 3 July 2022 (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.

something's wrong

my apologies but Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pascale Guiton does not appear on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 July 3 like it should. must have messed something up. Biosthmors (talk) 22:44, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Fixed, it was there but it wasn't easily visible because you didn't use the {{afd2}} template when creating the AFD page. Iffy★Chat -- 22:50, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Nominating college-related articles en masse?

There appears to be a glut of Harvard-related articles, unparalleled by any other university, that almost certainly do not meet notability guidelines, numbering maybe over 100 or so. These are mostly student organizations—pretty much every a capella group has an article, and there exist numerous articles on student comedy groups, publications, administrative/faculty positions, events (McCloy Viennese Ball???), fellowships, etc. that have only primary sources listed. Will it be possible to bundle these together for an AfD, or will I have to go to every single page one by one and nominate them? Hawsriggs (talk) 21:03, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

See: How to nominate multiple related pages for deletion. It suggests starting with one article to see what the outcome is likely to be for the others. TFD (talk) 21:16, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
@Hawsriggs: I urge you to revert your addition of speedy deletion tags (and will be removing some myself). Many, if not all, of your nominations do not fall within the scope of WP:CSD#A7 – it specifically does not apply to educational institutions, for example. Instead, I recommend using WP:PROD if you believe their deletion to be non-controversial, and to send them to AfD if contested, though a mass nomination would almost certainly be a WP:TRAINWRECK. ComplexRational (talk) 01:53, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Request to list a page at AFD

Hello, could someone please list the page AC polarity inversion for discussion with the following rationale? Thank you! 192.76.8.85 (talk) 18:04, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

A very confusing article that is entirely unsourced, this appears to be largely original research/synthesis. This started out at the title Phase inversion as a dictionary definition of what phase inversion is, which was then expanded with what appears to have been a load of original research. Chunks of this article don't make sense, e.g. the claim A polarity inversion is neither a time shift nor a phase shift, but simply a swap of plus and minus is wrong in at least a significant number of cases, for a sine wave a swap of sign, 180 degree phase shift and a time delay of 1/2 cycle are all the same thing, and this claim directly contradicts the only sourced version of the article [3] , which claims that this is the Introduction of a phase difference of 180°. The phrase "AC polarity inversion" itself appears to have been invented by the wikipedia editor who moved the page, it does not appear in google scholar, all the google hits appear to be wikipedia mirrors, and it does not appear in google books. I don't see how Phase inversion applied to electronics is a distinct topic from phase inversion applied to other areas of physics, they appear to be the same thing. 192.76.8.85 (talk) 18:04, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AC polarity inversion WikiVirusC(talk) 18:52, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Need help completing AfD - Articles created by some sock obsessed with the Van Leer family

Don't have an account so can't complete the steps.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Wayne_(1699%E2%80%931774)

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

Probably more articles out there too. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 10:28, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

another https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Van_Leer
the pages for the battles he was in don't even mention him, mostly just fluff about who is is related to. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 10:43, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
a cabin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Leer_Cabin
anything possibly relevant about the actual person himself sourced to a page about a headstone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Clark_Van_Leer
more fluff about relatives https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Wayne_Van_Leer
was president of a no-name community college, claims of founding a community college are false https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryly_Van_Leer_Peck
more irrelevant military nonsense https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_P._Van_Leer
more family fluff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Van_Leer 50.45.170.185 (talk) 11:40, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
military nonsense, text doesn't fit citations, mentions Batman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blake_Wayne_Van_Leer
a house https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Leer_House 50.45.170.185 (talk) 11:50, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
If you want I can nominate them on your behalf, but you need some deletion rationale. Created by some sock obsessed isn't valid reason by itself, as they were created before the ban and not in an attempt at block evasion. Some of the ones you added have at least some rationale, but others don't or need more. Did you want a bundle AfD or individual ones?
Please do a WP:BEFORE for each page and then either post a rationale for a bundled nomination here, or individual rationales for individual nominations here (or on respective talk pages w/ a {{ping}}), and I'll help you out. WikiVirusC(talk) 19:30, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
@WikiVirusC Thanks for the offer. I initially wasn't going to take you up on it because it might be a lot of work, but that slithering snake sock came back on a new IP and posted the most snakey thing ever to my talk page so I'm gonna do it!
But first, I'm just going to post a single rationale for a single article to make sure I'm doing it right, that way I know before I do it for all of them. I've only been editing for a week so apologies in advance. Let's start with Isaac_Wayne_(1699–1774).
Okay, so is it necessary to basically go through every source listed? Though I think there might be some repeating patterns to the citations so maybe this won't be as bad as I think... Let's see, first we have
http://dla.library.upenn.edu/dla/pacscl/ead.pdf?id=PACSCL_SMREP_HW01 This is a document about a house. Isaac is mentioned in it, in passing. What are we supposed to make of the relevance of this document? Or the information about Isaac inside of it?
https://vanleerarchives.org/the-wayne-family/ Then we have this one, someone already marked it as a self-published source. Does anything else need to be said? "The archives were established in the 1940s by Ella Lillian Wall Van Leer [...] The archives are now managed by various Van Leer family members."
https://hsp.org/blogs/archival-adventures-in-small-repositories/mad-anthony-wayne a blog post, so therefore not a great source right? It doesn't mention Isaac anywhere anyway.
https://books.google.com/books?id=KlQVAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA1 Perhaps the only good source (right?) ... He is mentioned actually doing stuff in this one, but this being the only good source and the things he did don't seem to have any significance. So I would say AfD...
Thanks 50.45.170.185 (talk) 16:21, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
You would need to give a rationale such as "I don't think XYZ article is notable, because it doesn't pass WP:GNG or (a WP:SNG like) WP:BIO". Analysis of current sources is a start. But doing a BEFORE means looking for other sources yourself. A Google Books search founds a lot of mentions, but a lot of those in relation to family. If it was a newly created article I would probably just redirect it myself to Anthony Wayne, not to say that that can't still be done now. Anyways, for individual articles, for discussion/analysis of sources, take them to the respective talk pages, better to keep those discussions there. WikiVirusC(talk) 16:53, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
@WikiVirusC So was doing all that work necessary? I could've just said "I don't think Isaac_Wayne_(1699–1774) is notable because it doesn't pass WP:BIO." then? And yeah, I did the same searches as you. Basically Anthony Wayne, a founding father of the most powerful country on earth, is just such a honking big deal that authors wrote about places he lived and people that lived in those places and whatnot. They all seem to fall under WP:BIOFAMILY.
Is that enough to create an AfD now? Or a redirect? (Are those the same thing kinda?) 50.45.170.185 (talk) 17:56, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Yes doing the work is necessary. Yes you could have said that rationale, but you still have to the the WP:BEFORE/all that work first. You can do a redirect yourself just by blanking page and replacing it with #REDIRECT [[Anthony Wayne]]. If you don't want to just do that, or if it gets reverted, place the exact wording of your nomination on talk page and I can do it for you after/depending on conclusions of the current ANI discussion about these deletions. WikiVirusC(talk) 18:34, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
So far the only conclusion reached from the ANI discussion is that my edits to the Sugar Bowl stuff was good, and an admin said my endeavor has merit. I'm currently still discussing Maryly_Van_Leer_Peck's status on her talk page but that's about it.
I'll go ahead and add the above to the talk page, and blank it to the redirect. Thanks WikiVirusC! 50.45.170.185 (talk) 19:24, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
@WikiVirusC Hi could you possibly make a bundled AfD for these? They're all very similar to the one I did above. Main source of information is VanLeer archive, self-published and maintained by the VanLeer family. Other sources either don't mention them or only mention them in passing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bernardhus_Van_Leer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Isaac_Van_Leer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Carlos_Clark_Van_Leer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_P._Van_Leer
This one seems to be a bit more contentious but maybe still worth an AfD to discuss it
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Samuel_Van_Leer
Thanks! 50.45.170.185 (talk) 20:59, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Like I said, not doing anything until after the ANI discussion is done. Also still need the rationale for the bundled deletion. You can wait til after the ANI is done, but write the exact wording of nomination you want with the rationale you want. Rationales are all similar/same on individual talk page, but split up, and explanation you gave above mentions comments that won't even be listed on nomination. The fact that three of the four talk pages internally had identical rationale including mentioning Bernardhus Van Leer instead of respective target pages is reason enough to just wait until admin closes the ANI discussion. WikiVirusC(talk) 23:23, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, yeah, the rationale is really pretty much the same for all of them. I suspected that it would be when I started. I did copy-paste the rationale around, but it's honest, and I went through the sources and did a quick search on the names for each of them. That's just kinda how it is when a single source just lists names of people that lived in a house, or the main source is the VanLeer archives which doesn't count. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 19:26, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
For procedural reasons, I don’t think these should be bundled together. Some of the family members have more sources available than others, and it would be too difficult to give each the proper due attention in a bundled nomination. These should really be nominated individually, if at all.4meter4 (talk) 06:10, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment. Some of these have significant coverage in the articles and would clearly pass WP:GNG. The Van Leer Cabin is on the National Register of Historic Places and would therefore pass WP:NBUILDING (incidentally there are multiple structures owned/built by the Van Leer family on the register). There does appear to be multiple sources on the family in independent references (both books and academic journals), so it's possible that we could merge some of these into an article on the family as a whole as opposed to having many articles. That would probably be better achieved through a merge discussion by an editor willing to take on the project. Best.4meter4 (talk) 20:09, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
    I agree, there seems to be a lot in articles to indicate there is notability. There's a lot more out there than just these articles, and before discovery of a sock, there wasn't concern for deletion. WikiVirusC(talk) 21:01, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Yes, and just because a sock added content doesn't mean that content was inaccurate or not in line with policy. The articles should probably be combed through for errors or exaggerations in relation to the sources. I spot checked the articles in places and they appeared accurate to what was stated in the cited materials but we should really look at everything carefully.4meter4 (talk) 21:09, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
The people had no significant roles in anything, many of the claims aren't found in the sources. Sources are either dead, WP:PRIMARY and/or only superficial mentions. 50.45.170.185 (talk) 02:44, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

There is also a newspaper source. Jacona (talk) 02:25, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Clarification for a common scenario

This question was triggered by a discussion at wp:notability, but that is not my reason for this post. First, a couple of observations. As a quick observation, most of the guidance here seems oriented towards editors with a longer term involvement in the article. I'll phrase it from a NPP reviewer standpoint, but my question could apply to anyone who isn't going to have long term involvement at the article.

  1. If I review the article and feel that it fails to meet one of Wikipedia's requirements for existence as a separate article, and have no further opinion on exactly what should happen to it, is it wrong to bring it to afd?
  2. If I review the article and feel that it fails to meet one of Wikipedia's requirements for existence as a separate article, and I somehow say or show that I think the best thing would be one of the common AFD outcomes which is not outright deletion (e.g. a merge or redirect) So I have thus shown that I'm not seeking an outright deletion...does that show that I was wrong to bring it to AFD?

If the answer to #1 is "OK" and to #2 is "wrong" then that basically suggests to not state any suggested outcome (other than outright deletion) with the nomination or before it. While that sounds bad, it's not unworkable. If the answer to #1 is also "not OK" then a majority of AFD's are "not OK"

I think that the answer is that AFD policies/pages make no clear statement that determines the answers. Which is fine and typical for Wikipedia. And I think that when there is a typical situation where there is longer term editor involvement at the article, that it's prefered that editors first discuss / work on potential outcomes other than outright deletion elsewhere. But that it doesn't state that as a hard rule because that would create dillemas (such as NPP's on unreviewd articles) where the person is not able to have long term involvement at the article.

If my "take" in the previous pararaph is right, then we probably have a typical Wikipedia fuzzy guidance. If my "take" is wrong, then perhaps any hard rule should be more directly stated. And if there were a hard categorical rule to only use AFD's for situations where only outright deletion is sought, the only way to implement/enforce that would be to require a statement to that effect in the nomination. Which would create an unsovable dilemma for the NPP process. What do folks think? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:41, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Correction, I think that Before C4 explicitly discusses discussing outcomes other than outright deletion at AFD which may be relevant to the above. North8000 (talk) 15:53, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
As you said, point C4 on WP:CONRED says that AfD is appropriate if a merge or redirect is controversial. For non controversial merges or redirects, I think it's best to go with the WP:BRD cycle (where AfD can be part of the "discussion" step) and start by just boldly redirecting or merging topics that obviously should be somewhere else. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 16:04, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
I guess I should now add #2.1 where that was already tried. e.g. where a merger was done and then reverted. And keeping in mind the context which is someone (e.g. a NPP'er) who isn't going to have long term involvement at the article.North8000 (talk) 16:12, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
If a redirect is reverted then it should be taken to AfD per this RfC in 2021, which is mentioned at WP:BLAR. For a merge the appropriate process would be WP:MERGEPROP which would be separate from AfD. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 18:08, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Just to clarify, when you say no further opinion on what should happen, do you mean no other opinion other than deletion, or no other opinion other than it shouldn't be a separate article. If the nominator's opinion is it should be deleted with no further alternatives, then nominating for deletion is fine. I'm not a fan of nominated with just "I think this should be merged", without an attempt for a merge discussion on either talk page. Proposing with should be deleted or merged as an option is a different scenario. I don't think it matters if there is a longer term editor involved with an article or not, a merge/redirect/other alternative discussions are fine with whoever participates, so I don't see any dilemma. If an attempted merge/redirect is reverted, a talk page discussion can be started, potentially on destination talk page about the proposed split that happened, or a merge of even a newly created article. WikiVirusC(talk) 16:34, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Answering your first question, I posed it based on what is on the page (nothing regarding that) rather than what is in the nominator's head. If you want an example, the nomination would just say that that it is not wp:notable under GNG or SNG followed by a GNG analysis of the included sources and a statement of not being able to find any GNG suitable sources in a search. So I guess that's "no other opinion other than it shouldn't be a separate article. North8000 (talk) 17:10, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
By "no long term involvement" I was thinking from the limited participation that is possible for an active NPP'er. An active NPP'er needs to complete 30-50 articles per day in their available wiki-minutes. And let's say 5 per day don't meet wikipedia's standards for existence as a separate article and 4 of those are candidates for a merge, redirect etc. If they entered into and participated in the alternate processes that you describe with those, and an average length of 2 months for that alternate process, that meas that at any given moment they would need to be tracking and working on about 240 of those articles. And if they tag them as reviewed, those unsuitable articles will have already been released into Wikipedia not slated for any further review. If they don't tag them as reviewed, thousands of times per day a NPP'er will be stumbling into articles which has another of those processes in progress. I was avoiding getting into that complexity by just saying "no long term involvement". And if they make a quick attempt at a merge or redirect then get reverted, they have shown a preference for something other than a complete deletion, hence my question #2. North8000 (talk) 17:46, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
For first part I was just clarifying as I wasn't sure when you said no further opinion on what should happen, but seems deletion is their goal in stated scenario. For second part a lot of that sounds like a NPP issue less so than an AfD issue. If article doesn't meet "standards for existence" (WP:N? WP:V?) then it should be deleted no? A redirect/merge is still getting rid of the article so a discussion can be started since the advocation is for deletion of the article, even if some of content can be moved from preserved history. As for the issue of keeping track of X many articles at any given times that's a volunteer's choice. I'm not sure what you mean by they "need to" complete 30-50. They don't need to do one per day if they don't want to, they could do one per day and still be active. In one scenario yes there is a lot of "tracking" involved, but just like when you nominate for deletion, you can let the discussion happen and someone else will close it at the end, your active involvement will depend on the scenario. If it is a simple questions like "Do you think we should merge/split" from/into here/there" then it's not like you will be expected to defend your reasoning like in an AfD, as you are just asking a question.
My opinion is if the content is already located somewhere else and a standalone article isn't warranted, or if the content isn't even need at other location, a bold redirect is first step, if reverted, then AfD would be next step. If the content isn't already present in the preferred article, a merge discussion could happen to move the content depending on weight of content towards destination article. The discussion should probably happen on talk pages rather than AfD, because even if nominator suggests merging, a lot of AfD participants are going to come in with delete or keeps on their mind first, and bypassing the merge thought. In a merge discussion on talk page, delete isn't even an option to discuss to be decided there. But again if the article doesn't meet "Wikipedia's standards for existence", than it should be deleted and AfD is the route to go. WikiVirusC(talk) 18:47, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for that thorough response. I believe that it reinforces my thoughts in most of the areas. Recapping one item, you are referring to a merge as a "deletion" of the article, even if all of the content is retained elsewhere, which I agree with. From your questioning, you might be interested in the "responsibility flow" from a NPP standpoint. If not marked as reviewed, it is slated for review by a NPP'er. (Prods and speedies are not "dispositions" and not marked as reviewed.) Once marked as reviewed the only "dispositions" of responsibility are are:
  • Converted to redirect (e.g. merge, draftify): The NPP'er is done. If it is converted from a re-direct it will automatically come up for review again. So the situation is "covered"
  • AFD The NPP'er has transferred responsibility & decision to AFD. So the situation is "covered"
  • All other tagging (including proposed merges) The NPP'er has sent the article into Wikipedia, no further review is slated. So the situation is NOT "covered"
So, regarding your comment, from this standpoint, tagging is very different than AFD. Thanks again. North8000 (talk) 20:11, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

AfD incorrectly filed as a 2nd nomination

The AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Walpole, 8th Earl of Orford was incorrectly filed as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Walpole, 8th Earl of Orford (2nd nomination). I have already corrected the title of the AfD page; should I also change the log and AfD tag and tag the redirect for deletion? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:20, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Request listing of Capcom Super League Online at AfD

Could someone please assist with the listing of this article at AfD? Pre-filled discussion page template with rationale given below. Deletion discussion page link for your convenience. 

{{subst:afd2|pg=Capcom Super League Online|cat=G|text=A cancelled mobile game, planned to be launched only in South Korea, that had only a 4-day closed beta test (CBT) of ~2,000 players. Does not meet GNG as most sourcing is routine reporting and not SIGCOV. Out of 12 sources in the reflist: 8 regarding announcement or start of CBT; one about the game being silently cancelled. One (inclusion in top-10 list) reinforces obscurity of the title. Two are reviews from Korean gaming reporters after CBT ended: one is quite superficial, the other has more substantial critique.}} — [[Special:Contributions/2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730|2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730]] ([[User talk:2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730|talk]]) 10:41, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks in advance! — 2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 (talk) 10:41, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

The page has been listed here. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 18:31, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Please

Please Delete My Sandbox's Talk Page YearAccount 213234 (talk) 23:25, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I've tagged it for deletion, YearAccount 213234. In the future, if you want to delete a page that you've created, then you can add the following code to the page: {{db-g7}}. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:02, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Strange AfD - no reason to delete provided - admin/closer input welcomed

There's a strange situation at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big! (Betty Who album) where zero justification to delete has been given, the first comment was someone agreeing with the nomination, despite there being no explanation by the nominator, and while there may be valid reasons to delete, it all seems a bit unfair on the person who created the article, to not even have a reason to delete to argue against. If admins or experienced AfD closers would like to find a solution to this, I think it would be helpful. Maybe a speedy procedural close, letting someone renominate with a justification if they wish? CT55555 (talk) 20:37, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

@CT55555, I have closed the AfD as speedy keep, and left a note for the nominator. – bradv🍁 21:57, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
I've had that happen to me several times where the curation tool created a blank one and I had to manually re-enter the rationale. North8000 (talk) 22:14, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Judging from the comments on the nominator's talk page, I doubt that's the situation here. – bradv🍁 22:18, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I think there is a competence issue behind this, several editors gave the nominator nudges. Thanks for your actions @Bradv CT55555 (talk) 23:00, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Clarity on AfD process

Hello AfD gurus! I'm looking for some clarity on the AfD process. I weighed in on the AfD for the University of Oregon School of Journalism and Communication. I hadn't contributed to the article (that I can remember) before the AfD, which I came across the day after it was nominated. I voted to delete the article. The second vote was also for deletion. On 7/12 the article was relisted for discussion by @Star Mississippi. The conversation continued, and a third editor voted for delete, and then the fourth voted for a redirect. Not including the nomination, as that is already implied they think the article should be deleted, there is a unanimous consensus among the four voting editors there should not be an article, with three wanting deletion and one wanting a redirect. There have been no votes for keeping the article, and each question seems to have come to a satisfactory conclusion. The discussion was not heated in my view, and I don't see any unanswered questions. Can an admin help me understand why the article would therefore be relisted (again) when a general consensus has been reached with input from varied editors (this time by @TigerShark)? Any thoughts welcome! --Kbabej (talk) 21:49, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi! Just speaking to my relist it was because it was a procedural nom contesting an earlier decision (courtesy @Tamzin) rather than your typical AfD nom. Because of that, I didn't think a soft delete was appropriate. That's just speaking to personal opinion, not policy. Had I stumbled on it in yesterday's relist and not taken earlier admin action in relisting, I probably would have closed it as delete and let editors handle the merit of a redirect editorially. IS that helpful at all @Kbabej? Star Mississippi 23:20, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi @Star Mississippi! Thanks, yes, that's helpful. I understand the first relist, but I guess I'm confused by the second. Is it more of an opinion on needing a supermajority vote, or more editors weighing in at this point? I think I was just confused by the second relist when the four voting editors were in agreement the article isn't notable. While I've been voting in AfDs a long time, I'd like to know more about the "background", as it were. --Kbabej (talk) 23:23, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi Kbabej. Although I agree that it could have been closed as a delete, I felt that it might be a good idea to give it a bit more time to discuss the recent redirect comment and just more generally. This is partly because there seems to have been a bit of history with the article, and that it had come from an RfD discussion. Perhaps overly cautious, but there is little harm in keeping any given discussion open for a few more days and no rush to close this one, even if it would be easy to argue a consensus to delete at this point. Hope that helps to clarify. TigerShark (talk) 00:11, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Someone please create an AfD for me

Rationale at Talk:2022 Langley shootings. 128.189.112.147 (talk) 02:02, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Note that this user created an account and made the nomination, which is at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2022_Langley_shootings. jp×g 03:31, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Malformed AfD

Hi, can someone please fix Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James L. Bentley. From a quick look he's probably notable, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 22:07, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Note that the discussion in question has been fixed, and closed, since this comment. jp×g 03:33, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Amendment to deletion guidelines regarding extremely old AfDs

See Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_process#Preposterously_old_AfDs, per this, this and this discussion. Comments are welcome. jp×g 03:35, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Incorrectly formatted AfD

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kira Vincent Davis is ongoing, but the article page does not indicate that it is being discussed for deletion. Can anyone help? CT55555 (talk) 11:44, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

And this one too Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farrah Sarafa (2nd nomination) CT55555 (talk) 11:49, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
The problem has been solved. Seems like it was caused by someone relisting 10 year old unclosed discussions from 10 years ago. I did not realise that at first. Thanks @SouthernNights CT55555 (talk) 13:19, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Glad to help. This happened to a number of AfDs from a decade ago. I think I caught all of them and closed them out, but if I missed any just let me know.--SouthernNights (talk) 13:27, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

  • There were about a couple dozen of these preposterous AfDs left unclosed over the course of the last ten years -- I am pretty sure all of them have been dealt with now. There are still orphaned/unclosed AfDs from 2004 to 2009, but these are all procedural closes as far as I can tell, because I can conceive of virtually no situation in which relisting them would be reasonable. The below section here (#Amendment to deletion guidelines regarding extremely old AfDs is also relevant). jp×g 03:50, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Viability of a modified nomination procedure for large batches of articles

Having witnessed the regularly occurring arguments at ANI over large amounts of low-quality articles, it seems like large batch nominations (dozens or even hundreds of articles) are a subject of some interest. Having looked through the archives of this talk page, it doesn't seem like there have been any recent proposals along this vein (the last discussion along this vein I could find here was in 2009). Anyway, here's the shit of it, as of now:

It seems to me like batch AfD nominations tend to cause a lot of headache -- we don't really have a good process for dealing with dozens (or hundreds) of articles in a single go. Basically, we only have two ways to do this.

  1. The first method is to make nominations one at a time, which causes a lot of redundant effort from participants, who must make a large number of identical arguments across many pages (as well as monitor all the discussions individually, which is difficult even if you use your own AfD stats page to get a current list).
  2. The second method is to make one nomination which includes many articles. This practice of "batch nomination" was created as an alternative to the first method, but it still leaves much to be desired. For example:
  • It's hard to !vote on a batch AfD. People who don't have the same opinion about every article in the batch end up having to make awkward !votes ("Keep 1 through 5, Redirect 6, and Delete the rest). This is doubly a pain in the ass for closers -- if ten people comment on a ten-page AfD, that could be as many as a hundred !votes to read through when closing. Of course, it won't be that many, but it's considerably more than a single AfD with ten !votes would have.
  • It's hard to discuss things in a batch AfD. There are several conversations happening simultaneously on the same page. "What people have to say about Article #3" is dispersed throughout a gigantic discussion where people are talking about many other articles. It's often unclear whether comments are about one of the articles, several of the articles, or all of the articles.
  • Most importantly, they only have seven days (and a relist, if someone decides to relist, but that's still only another seven days). This makes no sense to me, and feels like an oversight rather than a deliberate decison. If we agree that it takes seven days to discuss one article, why the hell would it also take seven days to discuss a dozen articles?

Because of this, I think it may be worth contemplating some kind of supplemental guideline (or even a new process) for batch nominations. I don't know exactly what a solution would look like -- it might just be a couple lines in Wikipedia:Deletion policy saying "batches of more than five articles run for thirty days instead of seven" and a page that links to all currently-running batch deletions. But, who knows: maybe an entire "BfD" process could exist where a nomination page has separate sections for each article (as well as one section for overall discussion).

Anyway, I figured I would throw this out there, because it's an idea I have been thinking about. jp×g 05:21, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for starting this. Clearly we need a process. Such a process could reach roadblocks if it becomes dominated by people who either want to keep everything or people who want to delete everything and it will more likely be successful if participants are willing to build consensus and if people recognise that that means being willing to update conclusions when persuasive arguments are presented or new information comes to light. A lack of that, in my opinion, seems to hamstrings AfD sometimes. CT55555 (talk) 18:31, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Can I just point out that there's a related Arbitration case which is ongoing which has a remedy which is currently passing for an RfC on this - Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Requests for comment/AfD at scale. I'd like to suggest that we hold of on this for a few weeks until that red link turns blue. WormTT(talk) 08:18, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Question

Hi. I have just closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jackie Clark, an AFD case I recently opened. I am not sure what to do about the "Old prod" notice on the article talk page, however. It is not mentioned at WP:CLOSEAFD.

I am new to AFD so I have had to carefully follow the instructions in WP:AFDHOWTO and WP:WDAFD, as well as the steps in Twinkle. To give you some feedback, I think the instructions are excellent and very easy to follow with plenty of explanatory information also available. I must admit, though, I chickened out of of using WP:MULTIAFD for three similar cases I wanted to raise and I did them individually instead. I will try a bundle sometime after I have gained more experience!

Thank you.

Sistorian (talk) 09:22, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Just leave it, it's still true that the article was PRODed in the past, which is all that template means. Hut 8.5 11:34, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Oh, I see. I didn't realise it was part of a different process. I have read about PROD but it didn't spring to mind. Thank you for your reply.
Sistorian (talk) 11:56, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Assistance listing an article for deletion

Hiya, would someone mind listing List of largest buildings in the United States at AFD with the following rationale:

This list is entirely original research. It appears to have been computed from coordinate data (as far as I can tell -- the map doesn't seem to offer the area itself) entered in an openly-editable database. Many of the entries that I checked were edited by a username similar to that of the main contributor to this article as well. Moreover, that these are in fact "the largest" is also unverifiable -- there's no way to tell if entries are missing.

Thanks in advance! 35.139.154.158 (talk) 13:26, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Done: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of largest buildings in the United States. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:46, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

How to see everything you've nominated?

Hi! Is there a way to see a list of every article I've ever nominated for deletion? I just want to keep track. TraderCharlotte (talk) 00:02, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't know of a way to do exactly that, but XTools should get you close. Go to https://xtools.wmflabs.org/pages. Select Namespace: Wikipedia and put in your own username. That will get you a list of pages you've created in Wikipedia space. Your deletion nominations should be a subset of that. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:10, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, that worked perfectly! TraderCharlotte (talk) 00:12, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
@TraderCharlotte: If you want a little more full-featured page, afdstats can give you very detailed information on any editor's AfD participation (including yourself). For example, here is all your AfDs, and here is all your nominations. jp×g 09:25, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Drug traffickers on death row

A very significant slew of articles on drug traffickers in Singapore who have been/are going to be executed has recently been created. I have yet to identify all of them but I have already spotted a handful - I think it's reasonable to lump them all in the same AfD, rather than assess them case by case, or could the outcome of one AfD serve as precedent for all others? They are extreme examples of NOTNEWS with a lurid amount of detail Kingoflettuce (talk) 17:11, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

As a suggestion, perhaps nominate one for deletion and see how it goes? If it's a slam dunk delete, then nominate a bunch, if people raise issues you had not considered, then you can reassess next steps? CT55555 (talk) 17:14, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Or maybe perform or propose a merge to Capital punishment in Singapore. I have not reviewed the section closely and it is not clear which articles are being considered for AfD, but the Changes to the law subsection about Drug trafficking may be a reasonable merge target. Beccaynr (talk) 17:33, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
You ought to stop nominating these for deletion. They're all clear GNG passes and you have no accepted deletion rationales. These are extremely well done articles and you're wasting everyone's time with this misguided campaign. Central and Adams (talk) 21:12, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
They are clearly 'well-written', but deceptively so. The padding and gross level of detail (this is why I raised the issue of detail) make it seem as though GNG is clearly met but I fail to see what makes the subject inherently notable. Take for instance Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nazeri Lajim: most of the sources simply mirror the AFP piece [4], which makes scant mention of the subject. It's also very disingenuous to claim that the coverage spans a decade when literally it's just a case of a solitary source talking about his arrest and conviction in 2012... and then a flurry of brief coverage in 2022 leading up to his execution. I note that I'm not the first to have mooted such a 'misguided campaign': the two articles I've nominated for deletion so far were previously PRODded. Kingoflettuce (talk) 03:19, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Search for additional sources

Is it reasonable to expect/encourage people to look at interwiki articles for additional sources in WP:BEFORE (D). For example, suppose I wish to nominate a French scientist - should I see if the French wikipedia article has any sources? If so, should that be added to the list here? StAnselm (talk) 02:49, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but the major citation databases cite work in many languages, certainly French science, so notability should be found there. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:11, 14 August 2022 (UTC).

Hoax article

The article Mountain View Academy (San Francisco) is a carefully constructed hoax article created by a banned sockpuppet account, whose only act of editing within mainspace was to create this page. There isn't a single fact within the article that is true. The school very likely never existed. I hope that it can be deleted ASAP. The AfD discussion is here (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mountain View Academy (San Francisco) (2nd nomination)) and I see it's due to expire soon anyway but I wanted to make sure I was taking the right steps to flag this.

The main reason it evaded detection for so long is that it appeared to cite 2 sources, which turn out to be the same source: a video recording of a City of San Francisco Board of Supervisors meeting, which triggers the same shrug from everyone. ("I'm not going to watch that, but AGF, the cited facts must be in there somewhere.") It also used the same name as a well-known school nearby (in actual Mountain View, California), so a quick Google search yields all sorts of results that look like they "might" be the right one. I've done some further research into the address given and it appears that the uncited facts in the "lede" are completely made up. Of course it always takes longer to prove that something is completely untrue, but in this case the circumstances of its creation suggest that we can and should delete the misinformation, and also make sure that all the other articles created by this network of socks have been investigated and dealt with appropriately. Copying original nominator: @Premeditated Chaos. Cielquiparle (talk) 21:22, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

The AfD is set to close today, and no one has argued for keep, so it will be deleted when someone gets around to closing it. No need to worry. The only other remaining articles created by the rest of the socks are Murder of Justin Back and Andrew K.C. Nyirenda, both of which appear to be reasonably well-sourced on a glance. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:06, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Interesting, thanks. Cielquiparle (talk) 03:10, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Violation of WP:NTT

I believe this article violates WP:NTT and can be nominated for deletion. Please advise. Trains from New Jalpaiguri Junction and Siliguri Junction - GoldenDragon2293Return (talk) 05:22, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Query

Hey, all,

I have a question about when an AFD nominator is discovered to be a sockpuppet. Some editors/admins act on this discovery and close an AFD discussion without a decision while most of the time, the discussion just proceeds until it is closed in a regular fashion.

Because of this difference in handling these cases, which seem to have come up a lot this month, I tried to find some policy instruction on what should be done when this happens and came up empty. There is nothing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Administrator instructions regarding this matter. WP:BANREVERT concerns how to treat the edits and page creations of a ban-evading editor but doesn't mention the creation of deletion discussions. And WP:PROCEDURALCLOSE deals with procedural closes with deletion discussions but doesn't mention sockpuppetry. When AFD discussions are closed because the nominator is a sockpuppet, is this just an instance of WP:IAR? It seems like one could close a discussion based on WP:BANREVERT if no other editors have participated in a discussion but once there are participants discussing a page deletion, I don't think "reversion" (or, in this case, closing a discussion) would be appropriate.

If this matter has already been discussed here, please link me to it. Or, if it is better to move this to Wikipedia talk:Deletion process let me know and I can do so. Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 19:51, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't know the policy, guidance, or what the consensus is, but I'm willing to share an opinion. Would that be helpful? CT55555 (talk) 20:44, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
  • At WP:EARLY, the speedy keep reasons include The nominator is banned, so their edits are not to be retained. In that case, the nominated page is speedily kept while the nomination can be tagged with {{db-g5}} and speedily deleted as a banned contribution. However, if subsequent editors have added substantive comments in good faith, the nomination should not be speedily closed (though the nominator's opinion will be discounted in the closure decision). At WP:SKCRIT, reasons include, The nominator was blocked or banned at the time of making the nomination, so they were not supposed to edit. In that case, the nominated page is speedily kept while the nomination can be removed from the log, tagged with {{db-banned}} and speedily deleted as a banned contribution. However, if subsequent editors added substantive comments in good faith before the nominator's blocked or banned status was discovered, the nomination may not be speedily closed[1] (though the nominator's opinion will be discounted in the closure decision). It seems that both need to be checked because the Deletion process guideline is occasionally different from the Speedy Keep guideline. Beccaynr (talk) 21:04, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, Beccaynr, that is exactly what I was looking for. I didn't think to check the Early closure section. Much appreciated!
Your work on the AFDs that I have reviewed is very impressive and has an influence on the opinions of other discussion participants. Thank you for your thoughtful and thorough participation in deletion discussions. Liz Read! Talk! 21:52, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Liz, and many thanks to you for all of your work in helping us navigate these discussions! Cheers, Beccaynr (talk) 22:15, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Unless all such comments support keeping the article, in which case the discussion may be closed as a speedy keep.

Request for AfD completion

Could a registered user please complete the nomination process for this article: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saibini Detailed reasons for the deletion have already been discussed on the article's Talk page. Thank you very much in advance for your time and help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.108.249.108 (talk) 17:08, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

As a polite suggestion, you could register an account and do that yourself. CT55555 (talk) 17:14, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
This is kind of late (or is it?), but  Done. HouseBlastertalk 21:31, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Requesting for AfD completion: Steven Fernandez

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

As a person without a Wikipedia account, I am requesting someone else complete the deletion process for this page. I'm leaving this detailed note for your consideration, and I do not intend to return because I don't have time to wrangle and hairsplit. I'm laying out my perspective, and it is up to you Wikipedia editors to decide.

The issue is that Fernandez was / is a notable Youtuber years ago when he was a minor. Also when he was a minor, he was caught up in a situation where he was charged. The charges were dropped, he never faced trial, and he was never punished.

The Wikipedia page is, for my search engine, the top result for his name. The details that underlie his notability, and thus reason for inclusion on Wikipedia, are continuously removed. The article history reveals that. Because of this, the charges and surrounding controversy make up 50% of the page.

This is a poor use of Wikipedia. Either Fernandez is notable, in which case the article should reflect that notability, rather than its current minimized (and in my view suppressed) state, or he is not notable and the page should not exist.

Given the currents state of the article, the page in my view constitutes an "attack page" (G10). The article history reveals considerable effort to maintain the article as a stub + criminal history page.

As far as I know no non-notable person is featured on Wikipedia for criminal charges that have been dropped and never went to trial for events that took place while the person was a minor. The page also constitutes a breach of the claimed sensitivities surrounding the biographies of living persons. The claims of the accusations against Fernandez may not be unsourced, but they do not tell the whole story, and they are presented on Wikipedia, (and _by_ Wikipedia) in an unbalanced way and thus in my view is unfair and unjust.

The page does not, for example, note how the Los Angeles Police Detective Ninette Toosbuy targeted Fernandez in part because of his Youtube comedic pick up artist persona. This article (cited in the Wikipedia page) says that he's "likely to face more charges." Yet all the charges were dropped.

https://www.newsweek.com/steven-fernandez-youtube-lapd-los-angeles-414999

Toosbuy continues to feature Fernandez as a major case she cracked on her personal webpage:

https://www.toosbuyconsulting.com/baby-scumbag

In my view, the infamy surrounding this case, which I reiterate produced no trial or conviction or punishment, has possibly more to do with the fame seeking of Ninette Toosbuy than the supposed (unproven, untrialed, unconvicted, unpunished) "crimes" of Fernandez. But nobody can add those details or reflections to the page because nobody in the establishment media has decided that sorting through these details is worth their time. So it counts as "original research".

So the story on Wikipedia does not represent the whole or true story of what happened. In that sense, the page fails as a provider of true and accurate information.

I have noticed that over the past few years #MeToo type accusations have ballooned on biographies, at times getting space that outweighs the information that establishes notability. Wikipedia has an interest in maintaining balance in these cases, or it risks losing credibility over the long term. If Wikipedia permits every vague, unproven, uncharged, untrialed, unconvicted claim to become the life story of people on Wikipedia, readers will have to find their biographies elsewhere.

In conclusion, as I said this page presents itself on search pages as the first word on Steven Fernandez. He is a young person trying to rebuild his life after the roller coaster of online fame and online infamy. It isn't the place of Wikipedia to keep Fernandez on trial for the rest of his life. If Wikipedia editors want to keep the page, then the page must be notable. For that, the details of his life (the reason for his fame years ago) must be returned. For that to happen, the page probably has to be locked (since otherwise it will likely be turned into a stub again). In my view, this is the proper way to resolve this issue. Fernandez is a significant figure in the history of online influencers, especially on Youtube, and this probably should be reflected on Wikipedia.

However, if these changes are not made to establish notability and ensure balance, the page will continue to constitute a G10 violation and should be deleted.

For more information from Fernandez's side, see this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtUaoQYPy_Y

To understand his early fame, see this video from PBS: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXjVosJh-dc

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Candidates_for_speedy_deletion_as_attack_pages — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.177.41.64 (talk) 15:06, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

 Done Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Fernandez --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:38, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Bundle of three hoaxes and two non-notable articles to be deleted

Good afternoon, everyone. I have recently proposed a bundle of five battle articles to be deleted, the discussion for which can be found here. Any and all participation will be appreciated.

Thanks. Wareno (talk) 16:27, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

2022 Japan heatwave

Please nominate it for deletion with the following rationale.

Appears to be a WP:PERMASTUB. Does not appear to be able to be expanded properly. Lacks significant sourcing. All news articles found appear to be immediately during the heat event as forecasts, meaning WP:NOTNEWS also applies. 98.116.128.17 (talk) 18:47, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

 Done AfD can be found here. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 19:26, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Link Error

The like talk pages with Links with prefixes shall be talk and not [[Talk:PREFIXNAME:PAGENAME|talk]] 2600:1700:6180:6290:FD99:5F2E:1888:B271 (talk) 23:17, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

pre-RfC mass-article creation discussion has begun

As part of the Conduct in deletion-related editing case, the Arbitration Committee decided to request community comments on issues related to mass nominations at Articles for Deletion in a discussion to be moderated and closed by editors appointed by the committee.

Workshopping for the first of two discussions (which focuses on mass article creation) has begun and feedback can be given at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Requests for comment/Article creation at scale. As previously announced, Valereee and Xeno will be co-moderating these discussions.

For the Arbitration Committee, –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:33, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § pre-RfC mass-article creation discussion has begun

Shariq Hassan Khan

Can somebody complete steps 2 and 3. I have nominated Shariq Hassan Khan for deletion. Reason:FAILS GNG AND NACTOR 2409:4073:2E9E:DD4F:0:0:930A:910C (talk) 03:54, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Sudhakar Vasanth

Please complete steps 2 and 3. Afd reason. Fails GNG 2409:4073:4D04:B7EB:0:0:934A:9A0F (talk) 04:03, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Request for afd completion

Requesting someone to complete the afd procedure for Krishand. Explained the reason for afd in the the articles talk page. 2409:4073:4D0E:B9F3:0:0:930A:7806 (talk) 04:14, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Request

Can 2008 Vancouver, Washington tornado be nominated for deletion for the following reason

another stub article that fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:LASTING. If a merge is necessary, can easily be merged into Tornadoes of 2008.74.101.118.197 (talk) 21:57, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 08:10, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

About deleted award ceremony articles

If the article for an award ceremony is deleted by consensus at AFD, should all the respective entries for that award on various Awards & noms articles/BLPs across WP be deleted as well? I'm asking wrt the BreakTudo Awards which was deleted in 2021, discussions here and here. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 06:19, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

If the award is not notable and the only claim for notability is WP:ANYBIO based on winning the award, then I would suggest the BLPs should be nominated for discussion. If they are blatantly spam, I would suggest a mass nomination, but maybe before jumping in there, pilot one, proposed it for deletion and explain the background and see if you learn anything from that and if it gets easily deleted with good participation, then do the mass one. This is not me telling you guidelines or policy, just offering what I hope is an informed opinion. CT55555 (talk) 12:00, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
I don't quite follow what exactly you're suggesting. All I'm asking is if mentions of winning a BTA should be removed from the prose of any BLP articles that they're mentioned in, as well as from the "List of Awards and nominations received by" articles that still have the BTAs included in their tables despite the fact that the awards were deemed non-notable. -- Carlobunnie (talk) 23:05, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Based on the BreakTudo Awards (2nd nomination) AfD linked in your first comment, this may be a question of whether to remove spam from various articles. The AfD discussion also suggests it is unlikely the award will be supported by independent and reliable sources, so removal can likely be justified because Wikipedia is not a means of promotion and it is not an indiscriminate collection of information. If there are no independent and reliable sources to support inclusion, I think that supports removing this content. Beccaynr (talk) 23:44, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Hello Carlobunnie. I agree with Beccaynr that the text should be removed if there are spam concerns or the text is not supported by independent and reliable sources. All the best, MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:33, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
I think I misunderstood the question to be about deleting the whole articles, rather than certain lines. I recommend you ignore my earlier reply. CT55555 (talk) 10:58, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Thank you CT55555, Beccaynr and MrsSnoozyTurtle for your responses. I began the removal minutes ago and also notified editors belonging to a related wikiproject which this concerns. With their help, hopefully all 180 existing mentions will be gone soon. Have a wonderful day! -- Carlobunnie (talk) 20:03, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Formatting an AFD

Hello,

A new editor tagged an article for an AFD discussion but didn't format the discussion page correctly. I'm more experienced at closing discussions that setting them up, can anyone format Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdul Rashid Dawoodi properly for them? The page was tagged as vandalism but since the article was properly tagged and the editor is putting forth an argument, I think the discussion should proceed. What do you think? Liz Read! Talk! 05:47, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

No comment on the merits of the nomination, but I've fixed the discussion page. Hut 8.5 07:51, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Kate Spade AfD

Can someone else please check out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kate Spade? It's an AfD for a page on an individual who easily passes WP:BIO, started by an IP editor w/o an account and all of the delete votes are also IPs. Something seems odd with this one. And is there a reason that AfDs can be created without an account? Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 18:31, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

This has since been taken care of. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 02:49, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Emdrup Church

Can a confirmed user please complete steps 2 and 3. This is non-notable building. A Google search (in English) for additional information only returns the church's own web site and Wikipedia. The church fails WP:NGEO in terms of significant coverage. 217.42.50.155 (talk) 23:20, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done Discussion can be found here. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 03:34, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Ernst & Young Entrepreneur of the Year Award

Can a confirmed user please complete steps 2 and 3. Rationale: This is a non-notable award sourced mostly to EY themselves and an advertorial. A WP:BEFORE search yields plenty of results, just no GNG-qualifying coverage. 2A01:4B00:9D42:6E00:FCE7:AC6D:CFC5:3126 (talk) 19:31, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done Discussion can be found here. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 19:52, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

RfC which may be of interest

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Requests for comment/Article creation at scale Valereee (talk) 13:57, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Britannia Pub

Can a confirmed user please complete steps 2 and 3. This article is trivia. The references only contain brief trivial mentions or incidental coverage. There is no depth of coverage in the cited references. I doubt the bar even merits a mention in another article such as one about the geographic area. A Google search for additional information only returns the pubs own web site and sites such as tripadvisor, the bar's facebook page, other promotional sites and business directories. The bar fails WP:ORG in terms of significant coverage. 217.42.50.155 (talk) 22:39, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I've expanded the article further and would actually ask another editor to remove the tag, which has just sat there for a few days now... ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:34, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Please complete AFD process for Mobile phone industry in the United States

Someone please complete the article deletion process for this page.

AfD: Nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mobile phone industry in the United States 107.115.33.39 (talk) 22:09, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

I would have thought that someone would do this sooner, but be that as it may, it is now  Done. --Finngall talk 02:12, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Bankleitzahl

Can someone complete the AfD process for Bankleitzahl please? The article claims it is a system for Bank Identifier Codes but it's merely the German word for them. --91.66.203.114 (talk) 20:40, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done Discussion can be found here. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 03:56, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

NovelAI for AfD

Could someone nominate the article NovelAI for deletion due to lack of notability (severe lack of citations and non-reliable sources throughout) and possible advertising? Thanks. 63.139.68.87 (talk) 19:58, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't know if I can endorse this AfD. There seems to be some coverage for it at least in Japanese sources to meet the threshhold of WP:GNG. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 03:52, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
It appears that the primary contributor of the article seems to have some sort of connection with the subject, and has already been under fire in the talk page of the Stable Diffusion article for excessive original research. At the very least, there seems to be quite a bit of WP:OR and likely WP:COI going on here. 63.139.68.87 (talk) 14:38, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
There indeed seems to be something strange going on the with the article: less than 24 hours after the AfD notice was posted (and the appropriate post made in the talk page of the article, as detailed in WP:AFDHOWTO), the primary contributor of the article has already deleted both Advert and AfD notices. If someone could make note of this (if they choose to create the nomination on my behalf), it would be much appreciated. 63.139.68.87 (talk) 15:49, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Deletion of the article Rinshad Reera

The page doesn't meet the notability guide lines of Wikipedia Lillyshang (talk) 11:50, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

AfD nomination was malformed--I have fixed it. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rinshad Reera. --Finngall talk 17:05, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Javad Safaei

This AfD seems to have been over-run with WP:SPAs and I am quite unsure what the best procedure is to deal with this, especially as the auto-confirmed protection is quite easily being bypassed by these accounts making >10 meaningless edits prior to participation. Would it be best to raise a WP:SPI on all of them that show as newly registered? Bungle (talk • contribs) 21:17, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

fyi Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Khabat4545 may be relevant. Beccaynr (talk) 21:30, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Yes, starting an SPI would be a good place to start. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 22:51, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Verdis and Liberland

This is clearly going nowhere. MicroSupporter's original question has been answered; for conduct issues, the dramaboards are thataway. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:40, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Can someone please review and complete the process for the AfD nomations for these two requests (or bump for better consensus?)? Both requests are by one nominator. Verdis has a lot of chit-chat and some requests to Speedy keep and Liberland has a lot of keep and strong keep with very few saying delete. There has been almost no progress in discussing these AfD's in the past few days and they have been extremely quiet. MicroSupporter (talk) 18:51, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Neither of these qualify as a speedy keep, which has very limited applications and isn't just closing a discussion quickly due to overwhelming consensus. Regardless, there's been enough discussion on both AfDs that an early close isn't warranted. Let the process play out. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 19:51, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
I understand. My apologies. Could both articles potentially be bumped for a better consensus before the AfD is completed? MicroSupporter (talk) 19:52, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

...and while you are at it, review the activities of a few single-purpose accounts active on the AfDs... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:55, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

would like to note that this user has had a go at numerous people on numerous pages regarding the existence of micronations overall and saying that micronations should be deleted for violating Wikipedia:Neutral point of view when everyone already knows they are either ambitious or fantasy states. just because i only really edit micronations, occupied territories, royals and occasional gnome edits doesnt mean my account is 'single-purpose' btw. MicroSupporter (talk) 19:18, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
The above claim is false. Sadly, MicroSupporter seems incapable of understanding the difference between notability and neutrality, and given this lack of understanding has taken to following me around responding to things I haven't said. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:46, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Once again, where did I follow you around to? You replied to something regarding me and then you came here to reply to what I said on this talk page. I replied to something you said on Liberland's AfD since I was already part of the conversation there. You said that micronations should be removed from Wikipedia because they lack neutrality. Nothing is stopping you from editing those articles and making them more neutral yourself. Micronations like Liberland are notable enough to be on Wikipedia. Neutrality of the article might need fixing to bring out the fantasy side of things, but it doesn't mean the article should be deleted. MicroSupporter (talk) 19:51, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
No, you halfwit, I didn't say that "micronations should be removed from Wikipedia because they lack neutrality". Learn to fucking read. Or fuck off. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:53, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Indirectly you did. You said its not a place for imaginary nations. You continue to forget that imaginary or not, some micronations still hit the notability requirements. Also, I am merely responding to what you're writing in my section. You followed me here. Also, mind your language and be civil. MicroSupporter (talk) 19:56, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
This is not 'your section'. It is a section on a noticeboard inappropriately calling for early closures of AfDs, with no justification in policy, coming from someone promoting a particular outcome. And no, I'm not going to be civil to someone who has systematically misrepresented what I have written. So fuck off. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:01, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
I created this section. When I mean my section, I just meant the discussion I created. My reason to request a complete process of the AfD was because neither AfD's were really receiving anymore chit-chat and no progress was being made. But I was corrected by another user in this section and I understand how AfD's fully work now. MicroSupporter (talk) 20:07, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
User warned for incivility. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:01, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
And are you going to warn the other user for repeatedly misrepresenting what I've written? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:03, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
How am I misrepresenting what you said? MicroSupporter (talk) 20:05, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Well you can easily refute without going to name callings. And your first comment in this section was "...and while you are at it, review the activities of a few single-purpose accounts active on the AfDs..." Certainly not WP:AGF Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:20, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
It isn't necessary to refute an evidence-free claim. And frankly, if you are interested in civil discourse, I'd recommend not perpetuating a pointless argument. Particularly in a thread that should have been closed as not based on policy. The AfDs are continuing, per normal process. The contributor with a blatant CoI for one of the articles (not MicroSupporter) has been reminded (again) of policy in that regard. There appears to be nothing more relating to the purposes of this noticeboard that needs saying here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:30, 14 October 2022 (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.

Canon Communicator

I would like help starting an RfD discussion for Canon Communicator, if anybody has a moment. 184.67.135.194 (talk) 23:21, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done Discussion can be found here. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 01:15, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Donatus Edet Akpan article

Hi, could someone please complete this nomination for me? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donatus_Edet_Akpan

The reason for nominating this article for deletion is that there is very little detailed coverage of him in independent references. Thankyou. 49.183.64.151 (talk) 03:44, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done Nomination can be found here. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:23, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Chilinda District

Hi. Can somebody nominate Chilinda District for deletion for me?

The reason is that the district is inexistent; Internet search results do not report anything on the topic; the article says it was "proposed to be created" 5 years ago but it has not been mentioned on any news source or even by Zambia's government from that time.

Thanks. GeographicAccountant (talk) 23:28, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Could you nominate it yourself? You are a registered user... Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 17:40, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Liberland and Verdis - 7 days

Both Verdis and Liberland have been nominated for AfD for over 168 hours now. Could someone please review both the AfD's and complete the process based on the conensus? MicroSupporter (talk) 18:02, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

just saw that Liberland AfD has been completed. Verdis still pending. MicroSupporter (talk) 18:03, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

A query

Hello, admins, editors and AFD discussion closers,

I've recently run into a problem several times. And that is that some editor takes it on themselves to make major changes to the article being discussed for deletion before the AFD discussion has been closed. I've had articles in question merged into other articles. I've seen articles turned into redirects before the AFD was closed. I am working with one AFD where an editor moved most of the bundled nomination to Draft space in an AFD where at least one editor argued that the articles should be kept and not draftified.

When this happens, it really ties the hands of the AFD closer and, honestly, it wastes the time of the other participants in the discussion for one editor to take action regardless of what other editors think should happen. I saw one editor say they were being BOLD but it seems disruptive to me, especially if they are in disagreement with the other participants. Should I revert all of these edits if they occur mid-way through the discussion? Or should reverts only be done if the actions taken are in opposition to the closure decision I've come to? I've been doing closures since January but I've just run into incidents of this rush-to-action over the past few weeks. I'm hoping other admins and editors who close discussions can offer their opinion of how they would handle these situations. Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 23:54, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I see that here on a guideline page, it specifically states that these actions should not be taken during an AFD discussion. But it doesn't state how they should be handled if they ARE taken anyway. Liz Read! Talk! 00:09, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Surely you as an administrator have the right to undo the action taken? I mean that's what I would expect, for sure. MaxnaCarta (talk) 01:13, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
For a move to draft during an AfD with an objection in the discussion, the WP:DRAFTOBJECT section of the WP:DRAFT explanatory essay states: A page may only be moved unilaterally to the draftspace a single time. If anyone objects, it is no longer an uncontroversial move, and the page needs to be handled through other processes, such as deletion, stubbing, tagging, etc. Also, the WP:AFDTODRAFT section says a move to draft during an AfD should preferably be avoided and offers reasons why, but WP:DRAFTOBJECT seems to support a reversion of a move to draft when there is an objection, and allowing the AfD to handle it. Also, the age of the article should be considered, because per WP:DRAFTIFY, as a general rule, articles older than 90 days should not be draftified without prior consensus at AfD. Beccaynr (talk) 14:47, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
There was also a recent example where the article was renamed during AfD. I'd say any move that changes the substantive nature of the article (draftify, redirect, rename) should be classified as disruptive and reverted with, as appropriate, a warning, no? It's hard to see how these moves could be seen as positive during an AfD discussion. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:58, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
I agree that this is super annoying and should be discouraged by a reasonably broad interpretation of the last point of WP:AFDEQ. But once it's happened... I don't know if there's much you can do about it? More often than not, reverting just creates more work and confusion. Maybe we can make the guideline more prominent? – Joe (talk) 15:36, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Please complete the AfD process for Kathleen Martínez

This article does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. It uses prose and flowery language with most citations being Spanish sources from the Dominican Republic. Others are orphaned. It's about a Dominican lawyer who is supposedly on the verge of discovering the "ancient tomb" of Cleopatra and has "led" many excavations in Egypt. No RS nor Egyptian sources confirms this. It seems like a vanity project leveraging Wikipedia to enhance local notability. Moreover, the same IP has been editing this article. A knowledgeable editor can take a look at this. 2601:18A:C67F:8210:90D3:A523:9AB0:DAF9 (talk) 03:47, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Please complete the AfD process for Statistical stability

The article in form of an essay describes two different things, one inexistent and one ill-defined: "statistical stability" in probability theory and "statistical stability" in the purported theory of "hyper random phenomena". But "statistical stability" is at most a concept of the theory of "hyper random phenomena" and not of probability theory: classical literature such as Kolmogorov and von Mises does not develop a theory of "statistical stability". By principle there cannot be an article on the first thing. And then, realistically, neither a clear concept of "statistical stability" from the theory of "hyper random phenomena" is developed in this article. I mean, reading the article doesn't answer the question what "statistical stability" should be (perhaps first the question what the theory of hyper random phenomena is, who developed it, where it is taught and what it's uses are could be answered under the lemma hyper randomness, but that is not my concern.) --129.16.31.116 (talk) 08:22, 7 November 2022 (UTC) PS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Theory_of_hyper-random_phenomena was deleted before

 Not done WP:AFDHOWTO was not followed. Sam Sailor 20:50, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
How is that? Could you please help instead of stall? --85.226.194.47 (talk) 21:18, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Sure: WP:AFDHOWTO. This time, read it, please. Sam Sailor 21:37, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Why so unhelpful? Nobody requires you to follow this discussion page and help IP users with their deletion efforts. In any case, I followed the step "Put the deletion tag on the article" [5], and then followed "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." I cannot see where this went wrong. 85.226.194.47 (talk) 21:47, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

@IP 129.16.31.116. Having actually taken the time to look at the article in question, I have to agree that it merits deletion - or at minimum, translation into something more closely approximating intelligible English. Maths isn't my strong point, but I'll see if I can find someone with a little more expertise to look it over. If my assessment is right, I'll ensure it gets to AfD before too long. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:46, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

I've now asked for help at Wikiproject Mathematics. [6] AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:00, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Hypothetically....

I have a mental puzzle... quandry... thing...

  • Situation 1: Article gets nominated to AfD, gets a few delete !votes and no keep !votes, and the closer completes as soft delete. All is good. Another user requests a REFUND (can even be with a junky "it exists!" rationale) and the article is restored. Also all good.
  • Situation 2: Article gets nominated to AfD, gets a few delete !votes and a single "it exists!" keep !vote. (Same as #1 but with the addition of a single junky keep !vote.) Closer completes as delete since there was now adequate participation.

I recently REFUNDed a Situation #1 article, which makes me wonder if silence on the part of a keep !vote at AfD allows a loophole in turning a hard delete into a soft delete that can then be restored. In this case, there was only a single delete !vote, so even with the junk keep !vote, it should have been a soft delete, but I can foresee a single junky keep to be the threshold jump from soft to hard delete. Game theory says they should keep quiet if they think the delete !votes don't cross the soft-to-hard threshold, and only speak up once the threshold has been crossed. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:59, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Soft delete is only really used in cases where there's fewer than two people supporting deletion other than the nominator. With two or more it would be closed as Delete instead. So for situation #2 you would need to have one Keep and at most one Delete, plus the nominator. I doubt a debate like that would be closed as Delete even if the Keep argument is terrible. Hut 8.5 18:26, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Help with withdrawal of AfD

Could someone please help out @Roostery123 with their withdrawal of WP:Articles for deletion/Anthem for a New Tomorrow? I have no idea how to withdraw an AfD nomination either, but I'm pretty sure blanking the page is not correct. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:43, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Done; thanks for the note. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:52, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Olympics afd

Can someone complete the request for an AFD for 2036 Summer Olympics? Reasoning left at the talk page. 160.72.80.50 (talk) 15:10, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Done ~ GB fan 12:51, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Furry afd

Would someone mind completing the AFD for List of furry role-playing games with the following rationale:

Unsourced, and there seem to be no reliable sources about this as a topic, let alone that discuss this as a set, failing WP:NLIST. What constitutes inclusion here seems to be complete WP:OR as well.

Thanks in advance! 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:38, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Live at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of furry role-playing games. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 14:07, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Mania tornado

Can someone finish the process of nominating Manila tornado for deletion?143.170.105.162 (talk) 18:02, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Are you not able to follow the directions on the AFD tag you put on the article? - UtherSRG (talk) 19:05, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Wife acceptance factor

I nominated for deletion an article called Wife acceptance factor. In the talk page of that article I left a brief message. I don't have a Wikipedia account and prefer not to create one. I'd be grateful if another registered user could complete the deletion-nomination process. 207.229.172.29 (talk) 04:44, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done by RPI2026F1. – Joe (talk) 04:58, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Fabien Moreau

Dear all,

I am the article subject and I regard myself as a non-notable, private person. I do not engage publicly, do not have social media and/or website either.

Thank you in advance for deleting my Wikipedia profile page at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fabien_Moreau

And please feel free to contact me at [email protected] regard this matter.

Best regards,

Fabien Moreau Fabmore101 (talk) 22:17, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I've proposed it for deletion, linking to this post CT55555(talk) 22:23, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
I also fixed your post, you don't add the deletion template here. What I've done is started a simpler process. Someone may object and then more complex steps will be needed, but with no objection, the page will be deleted in 7 days or so. CT55555(talk) 22:26, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Admin intervention in Deletion discussion

Hello. During the Arb Com workshop this summer related to conduct in deletion discussions, one of the principles discussed was that BLUDGEONING should be avoided. Well, we have a situation that has gotten completely out of hand IMO in WP:Articles for deletion/Daily Dozen Doughnut Company (2nd nomination). Would it be possible to have an uninvolved admin step in and intervene somehow? Cielquiparle (talk) 01:39, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

For context, I would add that part of the reason this AfD discussion has attracted so much attention to begin with, is because it was pre-discussed in a rather animated way here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Prep_3:_Daily_Dozen_Doughnut_Company
The discussion then continued on the article Talk page, etc., and then a second AfD was re-opened. Cielquiparle (talk) 02:03, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Completing nomination steps II and III

Hi there, I created a nomination page Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Jagraj Singh so can someone please complete the steps II and III as mentioned at WP:AFDHOWTO. Thank you. 113.193.45.185 (talk) 05:04, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

@113.193.45.185 Usually I'd be like SOFIXIT, but I'm particularly bored tonight, so I did it for you. LilianaUwU (talk / contribs) 05:10, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Said Al Muzayin

Nominator has withdrawn, appears WP:SNOW keep. Can someone uninvolved please close? CT55555(talk) 18:14, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

  • Done. It's probably OK for someone involved to close in an uncontroversial situation like that. Hut 8.5 18:26, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
    OK, I think the topic has discretionary sanctions, and I've never closed anything in my life, so I probably wouldn't start here. Thanks for the close! CT55555(talk) 18:28, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Complete the AFD process for Nude Tour

Can an experienced editor take a look at Nude Tour, that i've nominated for AFD? The article is redirected back and forth and now it unredirected it again. I've left the rationale on the talkpage so the discussion can start right here. 2600:1700:9BF3:220:BC50:56D1:29AF:C64C (talk) 04:53, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Could someone please list this page for discussion?

Hello, please could someone list the page Cassern S. Goto for discussion with the following rationale? I can't tag the page because it is semi-protected. Thank you! 86.23.109.101 (talk) 14:10, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

This page has had a notability tag on it for over a decade, has been prodded twice and multiple people on the talk page have questioned whether this author is actually notable, so I think it's about time it was brought to AFD so a discussion can be had. This author is best known for writing some really poorly received Warhammer 40,000 video game tie in novels, which made them the subject of much derision and mockery on sites like 4chan. What I don't see here is any evidence that this has translated into any kind of coverage that would confer wikipedia notability.

The author does not appear to meet any of the notability criteria at WP:NAUTHOR and furthermore does not appear to have attracted any kind of coverage that would suggest they pass WP:NBASIC. Doing a bit of searching around turns up a fair few results from Warhammer 40,000 fan sites, forums and wikis, but that is hardly the kind of coverage that demonstrates notability or that would be required to write a BLP. The article as it stands has no citations, and the only external links are to games workshop companies and databases.

86.23.109.101 (talk) 14:10, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done Discussion can be found here. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:18, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
@Qwaiiplayer Thank you! 86.23.109.101 (talk) 16:05, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Acadia: A New Orleans Bistro‎

We need an uninvolved administrator at this AfD. One user tried to close it and now users are edit-warring it open and closed again. Our software is embarrassing that it even lets this happen. ɱ (talk) 20:43, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Despite the closing mess, the whole thing needs to be undone or redone. The AfD itself and its related AfDs have been messy hostile battlegrounds. ɱ (talk) 20:45, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Please review 2024 Republican Party presidential primaries

Hi there, I know what follows involve a page into which lots of work has been invested, so I'm going to discuss a problem I've noticed with the page, then leave next steps in your capable hands. (For what it's worth, I'm a NPP US voter.)

2024 Republican Party presidential primaries violates WP:CRYSTAL in that it lacks a single link verifying the Republicans will run primaries in 2024. The lede is super weird; it contains no authentication of the article's premise, but instead exists to host a mini-essay about Donald Trump's nascent candidacy. This essay is followed by reams of potential candidate info and polling data searching for a reason to be collected on Wikipedia.

I invited the article's contributors to provide any sourcing whatsoever for its main premise 9 days ago. Nobody has yet taken me up on that invitation. So as it stands, the article authoritatively states that a certain process will be used to select the Republican nominee, when there is a non-zero chance the Republicans may think better of giving Trump a path to the nomination through popular election.

I leave it to you to determine appropriate next steps, and I thank you for your consideration. Townlake (talk) 04:11, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

The article does not violate CRYSTAL because the article is not about a potential future event, but rather a process that is occurring right now. We have one major announced candidate and no shortage minor candidates. They are raising money, filing paperwork with the FEC, and traveling the country right now. This article is about the process. It is about who has announced, the ongoing speculation about who may announce, the fundraising, and the polling that is all occurring right now. Vrivasfl (talk) 21:32, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
I see nothing wrong with the article as of this datestamp. As an article it is none of the following: "unverifiable speculation, rumors, or presumptions" and while it may be reasonably argued that it contains some of those things to some degree, there's lots of verification for such assertions. It's interesting that #1 of WP:CRYSTAL specifically mentions the 2024 presidential elections as an acceptable topic, and IMHO this subject is an obvious and necessary subtopic of those processes. Does the OP have any reason to believe the challenging political party in the race will not be holding a primary? That would be an exceptional assertion requiring exceptional sources. Of course User:Townlake is always welcome to nominate the article for deletion if they disagree with our opinions here on talk. BusterD (talk) 22:02, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
This is a clear case of WP:BLUE. Technically, @BusterD is correct that @Townlake is free to nominate this for deletion, but that would be a pointless waste of time and borderline disruptive. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:14, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
Cf. canceled Republican primaries from 2020. Most states held primaries in '20. some didn't. The 2024 Wikipedia article says (or at least suggests in vague wording) that the 2024 primaries will be held in all 50 states. How do you know they'll happen in any? Republican stuff has been weird lately. Townlake (talk) 03:54, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
I have taken the liberty of deleting the pipe character which was being added to the end of the URL and stopping the link from working. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:52, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
The mere fact an expected future event might conceivably be cancelled is not a reason to delete an article about the event, especially when the cancellation itself would generate plenty of media coverage. If this wasn't the case then it would be essentially impossible to have articles about any future events at all. While you can nominate this page for deletion, it will almost certainly be closed very quickly with a Keep outcome, as the argument you're making is well out of step with community opinion. And this isn't the right place to keep debating it. Hut 8.5 11:37, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
I'll take comfort in the knowledge that community consensus is not on my side, but the policies that were supposed to guide this project are. Be well. Townlake (talk) 15:40, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Note that WP:CRYSTAL#1, which specifically lists the 2024 article, is part of policy page WP:NOT, and has remained part of the page since it was added in 2005 (using a prior election year)... ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 06:15, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
You're aware we aren't on the talk page for 2024 U.S. presidential election, right? There will certainly be an election, but holding primaries is a distinguishable choice that the political parties make. Alas, if folks here can't even make that distinction, this truly is wasted effort. C'est la vie. Townlake (talk) 04:24, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

SMK Negeri 10 Bandung

i don't want to write a page of smk Negeri 10 Bandung for now Ariandi Lie (talk) 13:03, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Please list Vince Matthew Chung for deletion

Subject is not notable, page exists mostly to talk about being the winner of a lesser-known reality TV show. 2604:3D08:7481:AF00:587B:A73A:5CEF:D24B (talk) 15:36, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vince Matthew Chung. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:31, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Complete the nomination process of Systems in Blue for deletion

Can you complete the process of the AFD that i've nominated for deletion of Systems in Blue, I left the rationale for deletion on the talk page section. I need it to start the nomination of their songs, the albums and the band for AFD. 2600:1700:9BF3:220:F428:A306:AA8C:7475 (talk) 04:22, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Evidence

The page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion makes it seem simple. The nominator explains their nomination, and voters vote yes or no. How common or proper is it for evidence to be posted, and what is the proper venue? Lists, screenshots, source analysis tables, hyperlinks, are these meant to go somewhere, and should these be things that the nominator includes in a certain spot, like a subpage, or are these things that voters can create and post somewhere? ɱ (talk) 16:52, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

I've seen such things posted in the main discussion and I don't remember many complaints. Of course, folks can and will disagree with evidence if they feel it's appropriate to disagree or comment upon it. And posting a giant list of hyperlinks or the like can cause TL;DR/readability concerns. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:46, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
Ok, but who has posted, nominator or voter? At the top or within a vote? Is it commonplace? Do you think it should be a norm and/or described in the AfD page? ɱ (talk) 21:51, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
Theoretically the onus is on the nominator to demonstrate that an article should be deleted, so this should be their job. In reality, the nominator rarely does extensive work like this. Jclemens (talk) 22:57, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Deletion nomination

Please complete the nomination for Tornado outbreak of November 29–30, 2022. Reason for deletion left on the talk page. 12.207.51.104 (talk) 13:44, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Someone PRODed it, but it was removed. Can someone non it for AFD? 12.207.51.104 (talk) 14:19, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Complete Reflections (Paul Young album) nomination for deletion

Subject fails WP:NALBUM, Onel5969 redirected back and forth and it reverted it again. Can I complete the nomination for the AFD? 2600:1700:9BF3:220:1DB4:2EA4:F966:9B0E (talk) 17:07, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

If you register an account you'll be able to create pages and then you'll be able to nominate pages for deletion yourself. Jahaza (talk) 17:48, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 Not done This album does not, in fact, fail WP:ALBUM. It spent three weeks on the UK Albums Chart peaking at 64, which is cited in the article.[7] Jahaza (talk) 17:56, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Malformed deletion discussion

Hello, could this deletion discussion by another user please be properly categorized, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psi.Kore --FMSky (talk) 19:54, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Think I got it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:47, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
thanks! -- FMSky (talk) 21:13, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Complete the nomination process: Hamilton Tigers (CPHL) 

Hello, could someone help nominating the Hamilton Tigers (CPHL) for deletion and I left it on the talkpage to complete steps 2 and 3 in the AFD process. 2600:1700:9BF3:220:A578:6010:913C:51E3 (talk) 13:31, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done by another editor. Discussion can be found here. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:38, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

AFD duration extensions?

Would it be alright if, due to circumstances such as difficulty of accessing sources that are not online (especially in certain environments where such sources are not easily accessible by the public, or if a holiday makes it difficult to access the sources), a user can request the time of an AFD be extended to a month for special circumstances? I'm asking other users to search for sources in locations I cannot access.

For context, I created several international school articles in 2015 when "all high schools were notable". It's now 2022 and this is no longer the case, and several such articles are about schools in the Global South, where sources may not be easily accessible. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:01, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't have any authority around here, but I'll just comment and say that it certainly seems reasonable to give a little extra time for people who are bona fide trying to establish notability for establishments like this. CT55555(talk) 19:24, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
Failing that, userification for improvement by explicit request should be honored by any admin, absent reason the content is harmful (i.e., would qualify for CSD G10, G11, or G12) Jclemens (talk) 19:38, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
I haven't worked AfD for a while, so I'm not sure what current best practice is, but in my book, the goal of AfD is to determine if a topic is notable. If there's a legitimate reason why doing the required research for that will take a month, I really can't see any reason to deny the request. The article's been there for 7 years, right? What difference is another month going to make? -- RoySmith (talk) 19:50, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
AFD discussions can be relisted for a week or two at the request of an editor who needs time to locate specific sources which they have identified. Since I've been active in the AFD area since January, I've never seen a discussion "paused" for a month though. I think it would be better to ask for Userfication so you could work on finding sources at your leisure. What if it takes longer than 4 weeks to locate sources? If it's in User space, you wouldn't have to be watching your calendar. Liz Read! Talk! 22:16, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Need help I am withdrawling request

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nintendo Switch Pro Controller I heard you can request the keep of a article if no one else opposes it and I would like someone to close it as keep as I am withdrawing the request Qwv (talk) 13:06, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

@Qwv:  Done You could have done this yourself. The instructions are at WP:WDAFD. Now you know. :) - UtherSRG (talk) 13:59, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Help needed

Hello, fellow editors,

I'm not sure whether it is the end-of-the-year holiday season or editors are just burned out by deletion discussions but I'm having to relist an unacceptable number of AFD discussions because there are so few editors participating in the them these days. I hate to close a discussion based on just a nominator's statement or the judgment of the nominator and one other participant but that happens frequently in regular nominations that aren't controversial. We desperately need more policy-knowledgeable editors participating in ordinary deletion discussions and we could use a half dozen more admin and NAC closers who'd be willing to help out and just close a few discussions every day to, sort of, rotate in to help carry the load. It's unfortunately fallen to just a handful of us to close the majority of AFD discussions and I think Wikipedia is served better by having a diverse and healthy number of editors and admins participating in these discussions rather than having deletion decisions determined by 12-20 regular participants. Of course, I appreciate the AFD regulars but we need to hear from more of you who are willing to put in the time to carefully evaluate articles and their sourcing. It's your encyclopedia after all and deciding whether articles are deleted is, I think, as important as article creation.

If you used to participate in AFD but got burned out, please consider coming back in some capacity. Even a little bit of additional, thoughtful voices would help. On the other hand, if this is a predictable lull than happens every year in the second half of December, well, you're still welcome but the situation could bounce back in the new year. I hope! Have a Happy New Years! Liz Read! Talk! 04:50, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Liz. I comment less often at AfD than I did roughly ten years ago although I do comment from time to time. Back then, I was happy to recommend deleting obviously unacceptable content, and keeping by improving and expanding articles about obviously notable but underdeveloped topics. My subjective impression in the past few years is that most of the topics are up-and-coming entertainers, such as rappers, influencers and YouTubers, plus coverage of tech startups and charismatic religious figures. Oh, and low level footballers. A high percentage are of borderline notability, and persuasive arguments to keep or delete can be made. I often end up concluding "I don't care", and end up not commenting. I am highly confident that a large percentage of this content is written by undisclosed paid and COI editors, but that is often hard to prove. And what administrator wants to be the one who deleted in January, 2023 the biography of a hypothetical brilliant recording artist whose breakthrough hit was released in April, 2023? Since the pandemic began, I have identified, expanded and helped keep eight articles I found at AfD. It used to be easier to find them. but I will try to take a closer look in months to come. Cullen328 (talk) 05:56, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
I feel the exact opposite. I love to be proven wrong when I AfD nom something and that spurs folks into action to find acceptable assertions of notability that are supported by appropriate sources. Same if the nomination fails to spur folks to action, and the article gets deleted but comes back a few months later with all that it needs. Excellent! And if not, and no one ever comes back and makes the article, then it was right that the article went away. Frankly, Liz, I think you've been exceptionally generous in relisting some AfDs. I think that might make folks less interested in trying to save an article. (And this isn't just you, just picking on you slightly since you brought it up... certainly others have also been very generous in this regard as well.) As for closing things... well, I've been burned on that... - UtherSRG (talk) 14:10, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Help needed

Can you get an experienced editor to help nominating Soundtrack of Your Summer Tour for deletion, the rationale is left on the talkpage to finish steps 2 and 3 for the AFD. 2600:1700:9BF3:220:B9E1:5B8:C232:4F52 (talk) 20:54, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done UtherSRG (talk) 21:30, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

David Moo article for deletion

Hi, can I get some help with making sure the nomination process for deleting the David Moo article was done correctly? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Moo Thanks! JRed176 (talk) 17:56, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done (see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Moo), for future nominations, you should be able to create the page at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Insert article name here yourself as a registered user and then add the nomination to the daily log. Iffy★Chat -- 18:24, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Bug when nomination includes blacklisted sources?

I wanted to nominate an article for deletion and tried to include two blacklisted sources which I found making while making a WP:BEFORE. The report was seemingly aborted for the blacklisted sources, but went through anyway but without opening the discussion. I then had to open the discussion separately in a new edit. If this is normal, all good, but I would have liked to remove the blacklisted sources when I was made aware they were blacklisted. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 09:37, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Deletion help for VIP

Hi, can I get an help finishing steps 2 and 3 for VIP (Aya Nakamura song) to be nominated on AFD, i've left the rationale on the talkpage, so the discussion for the Aya Nakamura song to be AFD'ed. 2600:1700:9BF3:220:587:EC63:D4B7:FFD (talk) 17:16, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Sportsnet regional feeds AFD

I have listed Sportsnet Ontario and Sportsnet Pacific for AFD, though I actually want them to be redirected rather than deleted. I decided to make an AFD on advice given by Hey man im josh at Redirects and categories, and my reasons for doing so are pretty much the same as those given there, plus the maintenance template I added and the the fact they are both stubs with exactly one source each. 100.7.44.80 (talk) 15:39, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Mass deletion request for Animorphs books

I'm not a frequent AfD nominator, but looking at this category I think all these articles should be deleted Category:Animorphs_books. Though that book series can be notable, each individual book is not, and all these articles are mostly unsourced. It'll be great to hear additional comments, and I'll be grateful if anybody can create a mass deletion request. Artem.G (talk) 17:06, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Afd

Abdulkareem jamiu Asuku is the former Protocol to the Kogi state governor and the present chief of staff to the Kogi state governor. This person is notable and the article is notable the references are from reliable sources Kwaro1 (talk) 09:47, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Request to keep the article

Abdulkareem jamiu Asuku is a popular man public figure former Protocol to the Kogi state governor and the present chief of staff to the Kogi state governor and the Gobernotorial aspirant of APC in kogi state I hope this person is notable. The article is notable and has a reliable source of information. Kwaro1 (talk) 09:54, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Kwaro1:, this is not the place to request an article is kept. If you are wanting to comment that the article should be kept, you should put a comment on the discussion page at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdulkareem Jamiu Asuku. Please note that comments like is a popular man are subjective and won't be considered as part of the discussion. To keep an article, it needs to meet the criteria set out at WP:BLP and also be covered by reliable sources. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 09:58, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Southwest Ontario Tornado Outbreak of 1984

Please finish the steps in nominating this article for deletion. Reason for deletion is left on the talk page. Pinging Elijahandskip, who previously noticed the article is unsourced, as well as Tails wx. 47.19.209.232 (talk) 19:11, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

HELLO???? It’s been sitting here for 6 days with no reply. 72.80.246.5 (talk) 23:54, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
These are likely socks of the IP hoping user Andrew5. See the long history at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Andrew5‎. United States Man (talk) 23:59, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Mariama Bawumia -- deletion

I initiated AFD, then AFD (2nd nomination) before learning I couldn't complete the process. Sorry. I thought unregistered users were only not allowed to create articles. Sorry again.

I believe the subject is not inherently notable and that any salient info can and should be added to her husband (Mumuni Bawumia)'s article.

If anyone agrees, please complete the AFD (2nd nomination). Thanks. 107.122.161.21 (talk) 04:15, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done - UtherSRG (talk) 13:02, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

AfD error

Hi.

I guess I did something wrong. Used an old code or something.

This article I nominated for afd (Marie-Thérèse Kaiser) is not listed and it dosent give me the option to start a afd

debate page? Can someone fix this and help me please.

Also it would be nice if you could tell me what code I should use next time?

Thx MumQuin (talk) 16:16, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

You used the PROD template. That's fine, it's just a simpler, less formal process. No discussion, just needs a 2nd person to endorse the PROD, and then a week's time with no one removing the PROD templates. The description of what you should have done for AFD is at WP:AFD. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:01, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Ah ok. I see. Thx :) MumQuin (talk) 18:11, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

2023 Montana radar incident

Could someone potentially nominate it for deletion? The article fails WP:NOTNEWS, and unlike Yukon, does not seem to be an unprecedented event. Thanks! 71.125.36.50 (talk) 16:39, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

AfD_debates_relisted_3_or_more_times

If anyone wants a new hobby, there is a particular group of deletion discussions that need more input, and my new hobby is to check the category above daily and offer opinion where I can to help get them closed. It's lonely over at the 3+ relist corner and it could do with more attention.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:AfD_debates_relisted_3_or_more_times CT55555(talk) 04:20, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Yep, that's definitely a worthwhile task. (Just as a public service announcement, you can follow these on your watchlist by watchlisting the category and making sure the "Hide categorization of pages" box in the "Watchlist" tab of Special:Preferences is unchecked.) Another good place to visit every once in a while is WP:OLDAFD, which shows discussions that are overdue for closure. AfDs usually end up here because consensus is unclear, so any additional !votes will often make the closer's job a lot easier. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:21, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Mass delete of a number of non-notable TV-related lists

Rationale: fails WP:N, no WP:RS outside of official media and just fancruft 2407:7000:88D5:8300:7942:33AC:EF01:ED07 (talk) 02:16, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Control lock

I nominated control lock for deletion on Feb 7, mostly because the (light) information is already covered on the main article for a Lock (water navigation), and secondly because it is very lightly sourced and no one seemed interested in building up the article. The edit log showed someone removing the tag, and I wasn't sure why. I've tried reading up on deletion policy, but it's a bit more confusing than I was expecting. Why wasn't this article removed, and how best do I go about arguing for its deletion? Criticalthinker (talk) 06:40, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Criticalthinker, you didn't nominate it at AFD. What you did is called a PROD, or "proposed deletion". If a PROD is uncontested (i.e. the tag is not removed), the article will be deleted after 1 week. A PROD tag can be removed by any editor for any reason, even for no reason at all. But in this case, it was removed by a user because the article Control lock has ben PRODed in the past; articles may only be PRODed once. The next step is to nominate it at AfD, which involves a different process, and editors !vote on whether an article is notable and if it should be deleted. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 06:46, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Criticalthinker: Alternatively - boldly redirect to Lock_(water_navigation)#Stop locks, and merge in anything useful including the alternative names, the image, and the source. Alternatively leave it as is, and expand with a list of (bluelinked) control locks. Note that there are a substantial number of incoming links to that page, so I can't see that an AFD is ever going to (sensibly) end with a delete result. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 08:58, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Circus Bazaar Magazine

Could someone please finish this nomination? The reason is "Only has superficial coverage in other locations". Thank you. 180.150.37.213 (talk) 21:40, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

 Done - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Circus Bazaar Magazine. --Finngall talk 23:18, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Age fabrication

The article has numerous issues here, including but not limited to Original research. @Hipal even proposed to delete it for these reasons. There’s been debates for years. 2600:100C:A208:620D:4049:FAA0:8615:4B94 (talk) 22:36, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Jason Reid

Rationale: "Nominating because notability is inherited from the Tell My Story documentary." Thank you.180.150.37.213 (talk) 07:00, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I've completed the steps listed on the AFD notice you placed for you. Please consider creating an account so that you can perform these steps yourself. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:07, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for completing the other steps.
I prefer to do this using an IP account, because in the past I have been wiki-stalked by UPE and sockfarm accounts. Is that okay? I appreciate your suggestion though. Also, thank you for your welcome message on my Talk page.180.150.37.213 (talk) 00:34, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

That'll Be the Day (musical)

This article about a UK theatre show has only two citations, one of which is a dead link and the other to its own programme 15 years ago. A web search returns only this page and its own website. Nobody notable appears in the show, or anybody with their own page. 86.1.92.136 (talk) 00:55, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

You didn't do the AFD correctly, so I fixed it so it transcluded to the proper areas.   ArcAngel   (talk) 01:51, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Southwest Ontario Tornado Outbreak of 1984

Can someone actually finish the AFD nomination? Last time, the tag was removed because someone suspected sockpuppetry, but no actual evidence was given nor was an SPI filed. 47.19.209.229 (talk) 19:48, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Based on edit history and the commentary here, along with the WHOIS location, this is another likely sock of User:Andrew5. The SPI process has proven useless, since the editor hops around on different IP addresses and each admin refuses to indef block each address. When one is unblocked in a few weeks, the user just jumps back to that one and continues the same editing behavior. United States Man (talk) 01:42, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Every single thing about that article violates Wikipedia policy, and deletion was actually recommended by 2 confirmed non-socks (Elijahandskip and Tails Wx). So it becomes clear you’re grasping at straws to engage in more WP:SQS. You do remember that your WikiProject is being tightly watched following the ANI incident, right? 172.85.249.214 (talk) 18:31, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Manish Hathiramani

Rationale: Biography doesn't meet notability requirements.

Could someone finish the remaining steps please? Thank you, 180.150.37.213 (talk) 23:50, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

180.150.37.213, I see that you added an AfD template. You need to be a registered user in order to nominate articles at AfD. Create an account and then nominate it. — Nythar (💬-❄️) 23:54, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
It was done in accordance with the second paragraph of the AfD instructions. Therefore, could someone please complete the remaining steps? Thank you, 180.150.37.213 (talk) 01:02, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 Done Galobtter (pingó mió) 01:10, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
Galobtter thank you so much! I hope it wasn't too much trouble. All the best, 180.150.37.213 (talk) 01:24, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
Sure, no problem, I just used twinkle to do the nomination so it was no work. If you register you can do so too :) Galobtter (pingó mió) 01:30, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Nacelle (film producer)

Could someone please finish this nomination? Rationale: Company doesn't meet notability requirements.

Thank you, 180.150.37.213 (talk) 01:02, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Oops the link was missing before, sorry. Could someone please complete the remaining steps? Thank you, 180.150.37.213 (talk) 23:38, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
The version of the article with the AfD template is here. Unfortunately it keeps getting removed by people who don't understand this procedure, and I don't want to get in trouble for Edit Warring to reinstate it. Thank you, 180.150.37.213 (talk) 01:19, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 Done. I may have had a brain fart there. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 01:26, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for completing the nomination, much appreciated. Sometimes I could use WP:IMADUMMY too! All the best, 180.150.37.213 (talk) 01:35, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Jessica Pierce

Rationale: Subject does not meet notability requirements. No secondary resources discuss Pierce, her life, or explain why she warrants a biography. There are a few book reviews for a book she co-authored but these reviews focus solely on the book. Perhaps the book should receive an article? I have removed passages that refer to how Pierce feels about her associations to certain universities. These statements were not sourced to anything. This biography was clearly written by her friends, and I believe her friends are obstructing the deletion process. I believe this is a vanity project. Sagsbasel (talk) 08:27, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

"The page "Jessica Pierce" does not exist." Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:31, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
That works. Lol. Thanks for your time. Sagsbasel (talk) 08:46, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
To clarify for the record, the page was speedy deleted for WP:A7. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:25, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure A7 was technically correct; the article at the point it was deleted said "Pierce has authored or co-authored over 30 articles in peer reviewed journals and chapters in scholarly edited collections". DGG can you advise if A7 was correct here? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:02, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
Persons with a doctorate submit their work to peer reviewed journals. That's just a function of their job. Just googling around, it looks like some doctorate students who work hard can have ten or more papers and have over 100 citations before they graduate (https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/134555/how-do-some-phd-students-get-10-papers-is-that-what-i-need-for-landing-good-fa). Pierce with 30 articles authored and co-authored in 45 years is nothing particularly notable. Especially when there are no mentions of her in newspapers, no autobiographies, and no evidence that her work is cited extensively by her peers. Sagsbasel (talk) 02:37, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
I also found this: "Materials scientist Akihisa Inoue, former president of Tohoku University in Japan and a member of multiple prestigious academies, holds the record. He met our definition of being hyperprolific for 12 calendar years between 2000 and 2016. Since 1976, his name appears on 2,566 full papers indexed in Scopus." Sagsbasel (talk) 02:47, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
I did start a discussion about the A7 at User talk:Deb#Deletion of Jessica Pierce. I mean she doesn't look like the most notable academic out there and quite possibly isn't but the fact that we're discussing this clearly indicates that she deserves an WP:AFD. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:02, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Ridi Corporation

Rationale: Article sources don't meet WP:CORPDEPTH requirements.

Could someone finish the remaining steps please? Thank you, 180.150.37.213 (talk) 22:12, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 23:33, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Orna Guralnik

Rationale: Lacks in-depth coverage that is independent of Couples Therapy (2019 TV series).

Could someone please complete this nomination? 180.150.37.213 (talk) 22:19, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 23:33, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Ambassadors

I'm new to the AfD pages so thought I'd ask a question here before messing up too many discussions.

A number of articles about ambassadors are currently in AfD as "Ambassadors are not inherently notable". However, each British ambassador I have looked up has had an article in Who's Who (UK) (I believe it's an editorial decision for that book to include all British ambassadors), which seems to make them notable under WP:ANYBIO #3. So I thought I'd get some thoughts here before going too far with the idea "Ambassadors are not notable but British ambassadors are notable because someone at A & C Black says so". Cheers, Mgp28 (talk) 13:02, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

:For what it's worth (I'm a AFD regular, disregarding no-consensus !votes, 76% of my !votes match consensus, I lean more towards keeping than deleting biographical articles) I think your logic is good and your argument is fair, I'd suggest framing it like:

  • Keep, due passing WP:ANYBIO criterion #3 The person has an entry in a country's standard national biographical dictionary due to presence in Who's Who (UK) on page XX of the 20XX edition.
CT55555(talk) 13:18, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
You would get pushback over this (but not from me) because many editors are more familiar with the US Who's Who publications and these folks will not believe that the UK version is any different, and (2) although the UK version is selective, the entries are written by the subject followed up by somewhat slight editorial oversight and so the independence can be questioned. On AFD generally, in my experience it is best to accept that it is an arbitrary process. Thincat (talk) 15:12, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
  • According to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources: Who's Who (UK) is considered generally unreliable due to its poor editorial standards and history of publishing false or inaccurate information. Its content is supplied primarily by its subjects, so it should be regarded as a self-published source. This source is also not "a country's standard national biographical dictionary", so it does not fit the WP:ANYBIO guideline. However, I encourage you to participate at AfD, including to offer sources and ask questions, because the format is a discussion. Cheers, Beccaynr (talk) 15:24, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
    That is very good advice and nullifies mine! CT55555(talk) 15:29, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
    Thank you all for your responses. I had thought Who's Who's content might be questionable but that its main claim was that its entrants were notable.
    From WP:ANYBIO I thought I had followed a link for national biographical dictionary and found Who's Who as the first book referenced, but now I see that the link was only to biographical dictionary.
    Thanks again, Mgp28 (talk) 15:55, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
    PS Is there a list of countries' "standard national biographical dictionaries"? It sounds like the sort of title lots of publishers would like to claim. --Mgp28 (talk) 15:56, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
  • While Wikipedia has decided that the content of WW should not be considered to be altogether reliable due to its autobiographical nature (although, in my experience, almost all entries are completely reliable and the waters have been muddied by a handful of over-exaggerated claims), that is an entirely different issue from its use to establish notability. People are selected by the WW staff to appear on the basis of their notability. They do not apply to be in it and they do not pay to be in it. I should also point out that, in the UK, WW is considered to be a standard and reliable reference work and in pre-internet times was held by almost all public and university libraries. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:51, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
    Thank you for your reply. Yes, it is in my local library, and in general I thought most errors were of omission rather than outright false claims.
    Regarding notability, if the publishers have a policy to include all British ambassadors then their presence in Who's Who simply reflects that policy rather than being a comment on the individual's notability. (I tend to expect that many ambassadors would be notable but that's a separate discussion.) --Mgp28 (talk) 18:15, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
    And there's the rub. WP consensus has decided ambassadors are not inherently notable, WW has decided they are. Their editorial policy doesn't shape WP's, right? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:04, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion: Strict rules

This is an unnecessary redirect to Rules of golf that was clearly created only to match the name of a link on the Golf page, which could easily have used a link like this: strict rules. The page was clearly not meant to be linked to from any other page. (I can't nominate this article for deletion because I do not have an account.) 209.237.105.194 (talk) 15:11, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to blank the page and fix the link but we should still remove this article. 209.237.105.194 (talk) 15:12, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
This has been done by Rosguill. (Just for future reference, proposals to delete redirects go to WP:RFD rather than AfD, and I believe IPs are allowed to nominate at RfD.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:41, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
I did not know RFD existed, thanks. 209.237.105.194 (talk) 20:10, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Abuja Chamber of Commerce and Industry

In accordance with the second paragraph of the instructions, I have completed Step I of the nomination procedure and stated the rationale on the Talk Page. Could someone please do Step II and Step III?

Rationale: Organisation not notable, due to sources not meeting WP:ORGDEPTH.

Thank you, 180.150.37.213 (talk) 21:39, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done --Finngall talk 23:02, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
Great, thanks for your help with this. 180.150.37.213 (talk) 22:49, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

List of Bitag characters

Rationale: BLAR was contested by Materialscientist. Currently the list fails WP:NLIST, WP:FANCRUFT and WP:INDISCRIMINATE, which is entirely unsourced for the over 14 years. Could someone nominate the Bitag characters list to AFD? Thanks. 2600:1700:9BF3:220:7148:2601:8A18:F86 (talk) 05:43, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done Discussion can be found here. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:19, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Manoj Pillai

Rationale: Coverage is inherited from the company Thinkpot, and mostly passing mentions.

Could someone please complete this nomination? Thanks, 180.150.37.213 (talk) 23:00, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done -- see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manoj Pillai (2nd nomination); note that your tag had linked to the previous AfD discussion and that a renomination requires creation of a new discussion page. --Finngall talk 18:56, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Thank you, Finngall. Oops, I didn't realise that a different template is needed it's a renomination. Sorry for the confusion. 180.150.37.213 (talk) 00:33, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Quick closers

So many closers close a page within a minute or two, one after the other, even if the page has a full discussion with many contested points and worthy back and forths. These are not read and analyzed carefully in far too many cases. What is the point of writing spirited and full defenses if they are not going to be read or taken into careful consideration? Please don't ask for examples, just go to many contested AfD discussions and check the closer's editing history for the time of the closing - often close after close after close within a minute of each other appear, even for close calls (shouldn't close calls always be closed as "no consensus"?). This is one of the broken part of closings at all deletion venues, and I personally believe that this accepted practice has been quite destructive of Wikipedia's collections on particular topics. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:03, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

If you feel the decision is incorrect, do you ask for deletion review? CT55555(talk) 13:39, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
That's not the point I was making, please address the concern, thanks. Although relevant to my question, reviews usually will affirm "close calls" which should be closed as no consensus per WP:COMMONSENSE. I've never understood how any closer can say something is a "close call" or similar language and still delete. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:49, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
I know it wasn't exactly the point you were making, but I was curious. Thanks for answering. I do agree that there is a disconnect in logic when discussions clearly don't reach a consensus, but something other than "no consensus" is chosen by the closer.
To address you specific concern, I didn't comment on it exactly because I had not noticed that. I will look out for it now. CT55555(talk) 14:06, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for commenting CT55555, and you will find examples abound (although in some God's green Earth closers will take this to heart and take time to study the ebb and flow of discussions, which usually evolve if the nomination is well-contested). Another form of this is drive-by re-listings, with similar problems. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:19, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Big Bear (food company)

I recently nominated Big Bear (food company) for AfD, cuz I'm on the fence as to whether it's notable given the lack of recent edits and the article's extremely short length. 100.7.44.80 (talk) 12:37, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Can somebody create the AfD on my behalf please? I obviously can't do it myself. 100.7.44.80 (talk) 11:43, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 Done --Finngall talk 17:25, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Now That's What I Call Music!

I was looking at Now That's What I Call Music! articles I think there might too many and some might be against Guidelines of notebility.

the UK has over 100 of these complitation albums and that's not including the christmas specials!

there is also austrilian, new zealand, usa series of these albums. 1keyhole (talk) 19:16, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Inappropriate use of AfD

Anti-China terrorism in Pakistan has been nominated for deletion on WP:IDONTLIKEIT grounds. At the same time, an attempted PROD was made for similar reasons. What's the correct response to a nomination like this? I considered taking it to WP:NPOV/N or WP:ANI, but I don't know if that would be considered canvassing or forum shopping. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:57, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, you could vote keep at the discussion for a start. Johnbod (talk) 03:18, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Wouldn't that imply that this was a legitimate AfD, rather than a disruptive action? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:29, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
The basic stance of a keep vote is saying that the reasons for deletion fail to live up to our guidelines... so someone suggesting something in a way that fails to live up to guidelines isn't a variance of what is expected at AfD, it's part of the system. This doesn't look like it will be a close !vote. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:31, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
AGF pretty much means we allow anyone to do something colossally wrong, but understandable as a legitimate mistake, once. If the nom continues to act in a disruptive manner, there are other venues to deal with user conduct. I mean, you found IDONTLIKEIT, which is responsible for a disappointingly large number of AFDs, if people were honest. So, argue the merits and ignore motive as long as possible. It's a polite fiction, but here... it generally works. Jclemens (talk) 04:36, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, this makes sense and it pretty much answers my question. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:41, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Follow up question: what if the discussion is overtaken by WP:NATIONALIST WP:SPAs, many of whom are not typically AfD participants or particularly active on Wikipedia at all? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 14:42, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
I find if you tag the SPAs, admins who close the discussion are skilled in separating bona fide from SPA !votes. CT55555(talk) 14:45, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
That's good to know (I guess my experiences at ITN have jaded me about closers following policy). The trick then is identifying the SPAs. What I don't want to do is misidentify one of the !voters as an SPA simply because they're from Pakistan; beyond being unhelpful for sorting, that just feels cruel. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 14:50, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
If you comment inviting the closing admin to check the edit history of voters, that should do it. I dipped my toe in the toxic cesspit that is ITN twice, in my opinion it's the worst cesspit of the project. AFD isn't always kind, it's sometimes polarised, sometimes bludgeony and pointy, but I find closing admins to be fair and reasonable. CT55555(talk) 14:57, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

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

This article has no relevance to the english language. Wikipedia (in portuguese) already owns a detailed page specifically dedicated to that place itself. Not to metion that most of the information given is still scarce, only directed to a specific and small audience with absence outside there. Jessica Malta (talk) 17:34, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

This is a strange request, that there is already an article in the Portuguese wiki would generally be a reason to keep/expand this article, not to delete it. The above comment is the user's third edit and they should perhaps read our notability guidelines, particularly Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features). Jahaza (talk) 21:20, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
I was confused by the rationale as well. It seems to imply that if any Wikipedia has an article on a subject that there's no need for any other Wikipedia to also have an article about that subject. DonIago (talk) 14:17, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Ten mile wide tornado

please nominate that article for deletion, under the following reasoning.

Contested PROD, disambiguates tornadoes whose widths are likely errors (see footnotes on List of United States tornadoes in 1946, and the respective talk page.

thanks. 38.108.217.140 (talk) 13:58, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 14:16, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Delete page request

Hi. I am requesting that you delete my article page, Joel Gallen. The information on that page is incorrect. I have requested the information be changed several times, but no one has made the change, so now I just want the page to be deleted. There is private information listed in that article that I do not want shared with the world. Therefore, it is easier to just take the whole page down. Thank you. Joeltenthplanet (talk) 23:27, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done This it not a valid reason for deletion. I see on your talk page that you've already been advised about how to handle BLP privacy issues. I'd suggest looking again at WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:BLPSELF for advice on the proper avenues to handle these issues. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:19, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2023

I want to edit this article to requires Wikipedia review and delete one article which is not convincing enough and still exist on Wikipedia in English. Quang Sai Gon (talk) 21:17, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

What page, and what reason? - Adolphus79 (talk) 21:21, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 22:36, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Third relists at AfD

Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Deletion process#Third relists. – Joe (talk) 12:12, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Charity Majors

I would like to nominate this WP:NBASIC article for deletion.

The only two sources about the subject are self-published (Open New York Times) and unreliable (Business Insider).

The article has remained a stub for a few years, so I do not see any potential whatsoever to fix it.

Can somebody create the AfD on my behalf please? I obviously can't do it myself. 128.6.36.94 (talk) 19:58, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

 Doing... Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 20:07, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 Done Next time, please request on the article talk page. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 20:09, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Observability (software)

Browsing further (see my previous topic above), I found another article that I want to nominate for deletion, which seems to be an advertisement leading to the non-notable BLP I made my earlier post about.

I think this article clearly violates WP:DICTIONARY and WP:NEO. In all the article's sources, "observability" is a synonym for software telemetry, for which well-developed articles already exist (cf. Monitoring#Computing). Furthermore, the article fails WP:SIGCOV it has no non-self-published, reliable sources treating about the concept "observability", which quite frankly seems is just a synonym/jargon term of telemetry.

Can somebody create the AfD on my behalf please? I obviously can't do it myself. 128.6.36.94 (talk) 21:37, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I have to ask: it seems like you are engaging in WP:SPA-like behaviour. While IP editors are welcome to file AfDs and participate in Wikipedia's processes, be mindful of the SPA guidelines and make sure you demonstrate behaviours that indicate you're WP:HERE to build an encyclopedia, rather than editing from a single point of view or aiming to attack individual people. Lizthegrey (talk) 21:41, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
I am trying in general to contribute by reporting advertisement pages (which I greatly dislike on a personal level) or non-notable pages, which led me to patrol COI-declared user's pages and deletion discussions. Furthermore, I am a minor member of any discussion, so people will take appreciation in comments where policy is cited accurately. 128.6.36.94 (talk) 21:55, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Patrolling autoconfirmed editors and others triaging this request: mind that OP was blocked for disruptive editing. Lizthegrey (talk) 22:36, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

List of Retro TV affiliates

I have decided to nominate List of Retro TV affiliates for deletion - see talk page for reason. 100.7.44.80 (talk) 15:42, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Retro TV affiliates. Iffy★Chat -- 16:00, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Minecraft (film)

I have nominated Minecraft (film) for deletion because the film (since it has been confirmed to be live action) hasn't started filming yet. Please create the AfD on my behalf. 2607:FEA8:761B:C900:6D93:9084:B36C:A331 (talk) 21:54, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Seems that another user has already redirected the page to Minecraft (franchise)#Film. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:30, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Complete steps 2 & 3 please

Olúfẹ́mi O. Táíwò nominated for failing WP:BIO. More like looking to get hits to their website but has links. 2600:8801:CA05:EF00:D41E:2828:7AA7:A58D (talk) 18:27, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Be advised the creator of the page removed the tag and stated “No AfD” I undid their revert and posted on their talk page they cannot remove the tag. They must participate in the discussion which needs to be created please. I also stated the reasons on the talk page for WP:BIO and not meeting WP:NOTABLE either. The person is a supposed young 20 something who is a professor in another country who wrote a book. 2600:8801:CA05:EF00:D41E:2828:7AA7:A58D (talk) 20:21, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
I'll remove your tag to make it easier for me to send it to AFD via Twinkle. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 20:22, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
Wait a minute... the article you're attempting to AfD seems reasonably sourced. Not sure if I want to do the process now. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 20:25, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
It’s not sources. It doesn’t meet WP:BIO and WP:NOTABLE. Sources aren’t the issue though they do not prove any reason why this person should have an article. 2600:8801:CA05:EF00:D41E:2828:7AA7:A58D (talk) 20:27, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
@LilianaUwU If you aren’t going to do it, please revert it back to having the tag. Two or three just show he’s a professor and the others just talk about him. That’s why I feel it fails both. 2600:8801:CA05:EF00:D41E:2828:7AA7:A58D (talk) 20:30, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 Done, despite not wishing to do so. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 20:32, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
@LilianaUwU Thank you. Remember you are just doing the technical side. You can participate with your thoughts. I’m gonna hop over now. 2600:8801:CA05:EF00:D41E:2828:7AA7:A58D (talk) 20:33, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Nominating multiple pages for deletion

Hi, I am trying to nominate both List of children of presidents of the United States and List of children of vice presidents of the United States for deletion, but I seem to have messed up. Can anyone correct the error I made when nominating multiple articles? Thanks, Interstellarity (talk) 23:50, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

@Interstellarity: Both pages are now showing up as individually nominated for deletion in the usual way. Rather than bundling them, I recommend leaving them as separate discussions, even though your reason for nomination is the same, the discussion might well diverge. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 00:47, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

ChatGPT contributions

It seems in the last couple of weeks that the use of tools such as ChatGPT to state a rationale, vote, and to coordinate sock puppetry campaigns has begun to affect several nominations. It does feel like we shouldn't have to note this as I hope most of us don't need much more AI than Grammarly to write, but a rule stating AI-generated votes and rationales will be tossed and dealt with appropriately needs to be put into place and stated within the AfD rules. Nate • (chatter) 23:46, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Is there a way for us to know which are and which aren't AI-generated? - Adolphus79 (talk) 00:52, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Boardman Plaza

Can someone please continue with step 2 and 3 please? Thanks 2600:8801:CA05:EF00:D41E:2828:7AA7:A58D (talk) 00:50, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done AfD can be found here. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:14, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Editors asserting notability for events

Recently, I've noticed a trend where articles about events are nominated for deletion, and !voters will claim that primary sources fulfill WP:GNG. This is, of course, directly contradicted by the actual GNG page. One recent example is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2023 Farmington, New Mexico shooting. Here I made a source assessment table to clearly lay out why none of the sourcing meets GNG, but !voters assert notability without any sort of policy-based argument. There seems to be a contingent of !voters that wish to keep any article about any event that's ever been the subject of a news story. What's the correct response to this? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:38, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

The correct response is to move on; you win some, you lose some. The WP:GNG does indeed require primary sources but a) editors will in good faith disagree on what is and isn't primary and b) it's entirely possible for individual AfD discussions to reach a consensus that differs from a straightforward reading of this or that policy per WP:NOTBURO, WP:CCC, and WP:IAR. – Joe (talk) 15:45, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
That's what I would do if it was just one, and that's what I initially did. But this happens just about every time an event article failing GNG comes up. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:55, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Frankly, the advice Joe gives is still the best path forward. AfD suffers from a lack of dispassionate editors and admins willing to make "unpopular" closes based on strength of arguments, not numbers. We just have to make due. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:10, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
I was afraid someone would say that. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:14, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Our notability guideline has a two-part analysis:

A topic is presumed to merit an article if:

  1. It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right; and
  2. It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy.
The WP:EVENT guideline specifically explains in its Background section that it is designed

with the intention of guiding editors in interpreting the various pre-existing policies and guidelines that apply to articles about events, including WP:GNG (i.e. "a topic is presumed to have met the criteria for notability if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject") and its relationship to WP:NOT#NEWS (i.e. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of news material)

and this section further states, "By attempting to clarify the application of these rules to articles about events, this guideline reflects the community consensus regarding the handling of similarly situated articles." This guideline seems particularly useful for the second prong of the WP:N analysis, i.e. determining what should be excluded per WP:NOT, even if WP:GNG coverage can be asserted.
The WP:EVENT guideline offers objective criteria, e.g. WP:EFFECT "Events that have a noted and sourced permanent effect of historical significance are likely to be notable", and WP:GEOSCOPE "a demonstrable long-term impact on a significant region of the world or a significant widespread societal group are presumed to be notable enough for an article." Subjective opinions about an event seeming important or other WP:AADD are discouraged by these criteria. So when I discuss the notability of events and there does not appear to be support in the sources according to WP:EVENT, I also try to make a clear association with WP:NOT, because if WP:EVENT notability is not supported, then it appears the article should be excluded per WP:NOT. Beccaynr (talk) 16:21, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Both the GNG and NEVEMT require some type if long term coverage, and that articles cannot rely on a burst of coverage as a sign of notabiliry. This point needs to be stressed in AFDs. Masem (t) 18:17, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
I have been stressing this in AfD debates, like in the example I linked above. But these discussions are overwhelmed by editors that have never even glanced at WP:NOTNEWS, WP:N, WP:NEVENTS, etc. Then we get ridiculous arguments like "a newspaper covered it once so it's notable" and "it's notable because people died". There are thousands upon thousands of routine news events getting articles, and people show up with these "arguments" to disrupt even the slightest effort at cleanup. Right now I'm trying in vain to explain to such !voters why literal bus plunge articles that were mentioned once and never heard about again aren't notable. I'm having serious doubts that more than a few editors actually read notability guidelines before participating in deletion discussions or are even familiar with the text of WP:NOTNEWS. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:42, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Thebiguglyalien, yet if you politely ask the AfD bombing editor a question, and even if the editor immediately backtracks and changes their !vote, you get accused of badgering by an overly sensitive admin. There needs to be a greater CIR threshhold for participation at AfD. — Jacona (talk) 20:31, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Update: This AfD for a bus plunge article with zero WP:SUSTAINED coverage, no WP:LASTING effect, and only basic news reporting was just closed as keep. This happens quite regularly. The way I see it, we either need to update notability guidelines to state that anything reported in the news can have an article, or we need to start removing users from AfD if they regularly attempt to keep articles based on a brief burst of news coverage or based on "death count". Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:22, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
Absolutely that article fails the enduring part of GNG/NEVENT, and that the onus is on those wanting to keep it to find sources after the fact that show this part was met. In the case of things like major accidents, there is nearly always a list article (like List of traffic collisions (2000–present)) that these can go in.
We need closers on these AFDs to understand that for events, it is not just about sources but the enduring nature. That specific AFD is almost one to be challenged since you did point out the GNG and NEVENT were not met, and those arguments were stronger than "sources exist". Masem (t) 20:29, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
Or we need people to look a bit more thoughtfully at what WP:NOTNEWS actually says: For example, routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities, while sometimes useful, is not by itself a sufficient basis for inclusion of the subject of that coverage (see WP:ROUTINE for more on this with regard to routine events). Also, while including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews. That's it. The fact that NEVENT tries to draw much stricter lines about what is notable is confusing in this setting. There's a huuuuge gulf between what NOTNEWS excludes, and what NEVENT doesn't include. Jclemens (talk) 20:56, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
WP:NOTNEWS is useful to set the basic foundation for Wikipedia's scope, but WP:N and its WP:SNG pages are the criteria against which an article's notability is compared in specific deletion discussions. For event articles, they must at a minimum meet GNG or NEVENTS, both of which require some sort of lasting coverage/effect. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:12, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
NOTNEWS is policy, while the relevant part of the GNG and the whole of NEVENT are guidelines, and we don't want to conflate policy and guidelines here. Taking the AFD in mention, which was a 2008 plunge, if the AFD was in 2009 or 2010, I would err on the guidelines to keep the event to give time for investigation results to come about or the like. Now its 2023, and the lack of any further sourcing, or lack of attempts by those wishing to keep it to demonstrate there was more than a burst of coverage, is a problem. Masem (t) 21:18, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
I considered challenging it, as I did with the other one that I linked higher up. But in both cases, I think that the best possible result from a "successful" challenge would be to go from keep to no consensus, and it wouldn't address the broader problem, so it would basically just be a waste of time for everyone involved. This needs a more lasting solution. I expect it would have to be one of the two I proposed (either loosen the notability criteria or more strictly penalize !voters that ignore them), but I would be glad to find a third option that solves the problem. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:09, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Above keeps saying that if newer folks would just familiarize themselves with the guidelines/policies things would go better but if taken literally they are a structural mess. The experts above are in the 1% that intuitively (if not literally) knows the actual Wikipedia:How Wikipedia notability works including wp:not's influence on wp:notability as well as SNG's influence on wp:gng. (BTW you have been asserting these two things above even though the are not literally said anywhere) are So to play devils advocate let me play the role of a newer participant at AFD on one of these how HAS read the key policies and guidelines. So here goes: "WP:not is relevant. The AFD nomination was based on notability, not wp:not. Plus wikipedia clearly really does mean to take not news literally...heck ...half of the top of the main Wikipedia page consists of news stories from the last few days. So now on to notability. The main notability page says that it must meet either the SNG or GNG. There's in depth coverage of the event in multiple sources so it meets GNG and so the SNG can be ignored."

The above 1% fol;ks understand that wp:not affects notability decisions even when the article was not simply excluded by wp:not. And that SNG's also affect the evaluation of sources under GNG. IMO If we ever want to tidy this up we'd have to start by observing and recognizing how the big fuzzy notability ecosystem (which mostly works) actually works and then write it down. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:42, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Nominating Country 1035

I have nominated Country 1035 for deletion. I request somebody create the AfD. 100.7.44.80 (talk) 00:52, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

You need to provide a rationale for deletion. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:16, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
I did just that on the talk page. 100.7.44.80 (talk) 01:19, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Ok. I've filed the AFD. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:33, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Nominating Shain Neumeier

I have nominated Shain Neumeier for deletion. I request somebody create the AfD. I left a rationale at Talk:Shain Neumeier indicating that there aren't many sources, and that sources from the past seem to be mostly self-published articles or unrelated to them. 2620:8D:8000:1040:AD0E:F45F:9F64:727F (talk) 20:52, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Bulk BLP deletions

A since-blocked sock called User:Gamsbart created lots of BLPs on non-notable ski mountaineers (they seemed to be a fan of this sport) like Sigrid Tomio. They did make some decent articles, but certainly, a lot of their stubs (even in non-ski mountaineering) have borderline notability. The problem is that they created hundreds of articles. Do I need to AfD these one-by-one, or is there a way to batch-nominate, or even have a special group investigate it and judge it as a batch? I don't want to clog up AfD if there is a better way. Aszx5000 (talk) 18:28, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I guess you need to nominate them one by one. Several of the BLPs I checked had an Authority Control which for some (like me) counts as an indicator of notability. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 02:08, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
Unfortunately, they seem to have based these articles on a variety of different sources, rather than using a single comprehensive source. If it was the latter we are creating a process that could have handled them as a group (See WP:LUGSTUBS, User:BilledMammal/Mass Creation Draftification), but it isn't well suited to cases where sources are only infrequently repeated as in this case. BilledMammal (talk) 02:20, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
Okay and understand. Thank you for that. Aszx5000 (talk) 08:58, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
The example you give looks like it would be eligible for WP:PROD; you may want to try that with a few of these, and see if there is some contingent likely to object to such deletions. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 19:13, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Nominating SportsChannel Cincinnati

I have nominated SportsChannel Cincinnati for deletion for being redundant with Bally Sports Ohio. 100.7.44.80 (talk) 23:43, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Decided to change it to a merge proposal per here. 100.7.44.80 (talk) 02:40, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Onus on refs

Why don't we ask "Keeps" to name their three refs that support their !vote, and "Deletes" to name the "Keep" refs that they refute (if there are "Keep" refs). I used to !vote as an IP on AfD and got into the discipline of doing this (otherwise, as an IP you will be ignored). It would be easy for an AfD OP to summarize for a closer all the listed "Keep" refs, and the "Delete" case (if any) against them. Sometimes this happens, but in lots of AfDs, there is little discussion on the refs. Why not make it policy, or your !vote can be struck? Aszx5000 (talk) 10:57, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Because not all arguments at an AfD are ref count based, and not all people with things worth adding will be doing so strictly on the strength of references? -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:56, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
I can see there are instances where is it not purely 3refs based, but I think the vast bulk of AfD (+75%) is GNG (or derivative versions for subsectors) related, and thus it is about the 3refs. We could make it that a GNG !vote had to be accompanied by the 3refs they considered met GNG? I know that many editors can refer to some other editor's !vote, but then you find that person's !vote only has 1ref. I think if a GNG-type !vote had to quote the 3refs, then it could help shorten/increase focus of most AfDs? Aszx5000 (talk) 15:11, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
You are suggesting a higher bar in Wikipedia expertise to be involved in discussion than I think we want. We need expertise in closers, who get to weight the arguments, but not in the arguers themselves, who may bring insight from beyond Wikipedia systems. And if editor A says Keep because The Poobah Press is actually a Pulitzer-winning paper and serves as an RS, and editor B says Keep because 43 Minutes is the leading ad-supported TV newszine, and editor C says Keep because The Okefenokee Glee & Perloo Society is actually the paper of record for Lower Slobovia, then we have perfectly cromulent argument for keepification even if no one editor made a full argument. "shorten/increase focus" is not inherently a good thing here; there is much to be said for robustness. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:56, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
That is an interesting angle Nat Gertier, which makes sense to me. Thank you. Would it be helpful if those individual contributions where classed as "Comments", and not classed as a !vote until one of them was able to bring all three strands together, into a "Keep". More emphasis being placed on the criteria to get to a valid GNG !vote? Anyway, thank you again for your relpy. Aszx5000 (talk) 07:37, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
I could see that concern if they were votes, but they're !votes. As I see it, they are more for clarity and conciseness than for weight, and adding more rules and hoops to the conversation won't improve things. But perhaps your view of the !vote differs from mine. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:33, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
There are many good reasons people might not men thattion specific sources in a keep vote, even if the argument is based on sources:
  • They're trivially easy to find (first page of Google or Google Scholar, etc.)
  • There are so many that arbitrarily picking examples serves no purpose
  • They're already cited in the article
  • They've already been mentioned by other participants
  • The argument is based on the existence of a general body of sources (e.g. "there must be sources in Gaelic", "19th century newspaper archives are likely to have coverage of this"), without specific ones being identified
– Joe (talk) 14:46, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
I agree Joe, there are exceptions. But my perception is that over 50% (and maybe even higher) of AfD !votes are GNG-type, and quite a few AfDs, you will not find a single !vote that covers the 3refs that GNG is based on. Maybe what I am thinking about is just too distracting, but if every GNG-type "Keep" (otherwise make it a "Comment") has to include the 3refs that they base their "Keep" (and visa verse for "Deletes"), that could improve quality/discipline of the AfD? Aszx5000 (talk) 15:23, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
No, AfD doesn't seem to have incorporated the "notability = three references" meme to the extent that certain other areas of the project have. I don't think that's a bad thing. – Joe (talk) 13:04, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Archive_76&oldid=1164382503"