Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 67

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 60←Archive 65Archive 66Archive 67Archive 68Archive 69Archive 70

How to handle an AFD closed as "merge" where the merge is not appropriate for the target article?

The Rake (cryptid) had a low-participation AFD that was closed as a merge to List of Internet phenomena. ([1]). The problem is, that there's all of one legit source, and for the Internet phenomena list (which was not consulted for the merge) that source fails inclusion for the list (to avoid making the list spammy). How would one go about resolving this situation? Talking with the closer? DevReview? --MASEM (t) 19:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

We just got another one that was an AFD that closed as merge to the same list, but by our list metrics, the best sourcing fails the list's inclusion metric (that being the Daily Dot, which is not a mainstream source). I'm inclined to remove the material but want to check to see how to proceed here. --MASEM (t) 04:29, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Looking at those AfDs, the only possible alternative closure is no consensus. Redirect is another compromise, but there is no point in a redirect to a page where the subject isn't mentioned. WP:Deletion review will not be interested. There are also WP:Copying within Wikipedia considerations since the merges have already been done. I would try to engage the merging editor, either directly or at Talk:List of Internet phenomena. If you expect future AfDs, it may be helpful to keep an eye on Changes related to "List of Internet phenomena", as notifying proposed merge targets has not caught on. You might be interested in discussion of what a valid "merge" is at User talk:Flatscan/RfC draft: Merge versus redirect. Flatscan (talk) 05:09, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
I forgot to mention WP:Non-deleting deletion discussions. Flatscan (talk) 05:43, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, let's put it this way, if I were aware of those AFDs and participated in them and the idea of a merge came up, I would be all against it pointing out "no, we would not be able to include this in that last due to our sourcing requirements for that list", which might have altered the discussion. (I don't know if I'd have !voted "keep" as well, but that's not an issue here).
This might point to advice that if a during an AFD that a possibility of a merge comes up , the talk page of the merge talk should be altered since the sudden injection of the material may be inappropriate for that target. --MASEM (t)

I found this a few years ago in an AfD on the Christianity and Judaism article, which was closed with a recommendation that it be merged to Judeo-Christian, without editors on that article ever having been informed, and something that would generally not have been appropriate. After some discussion on the talk page, I raised it with the closing admin, who recommended starting a renewed discussion on the talk page, and should a new consensus be reached, then to follow the new consensus, per WP:CCC. Which all happened. I don't know if any of that is helpful here, but it is one way the question could be progressed. Jheald (talk) 18:02, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Problems deleting a page

I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mobile Suit Gundam 00 mobile weapons, but it won't let me delete :

You do not have permission to delete this page, for the following reason:
This page has a large edit history, over 5,000 revisions. Deletion of such pages has been restricted to prevent accidental disruption of Wikipedia.

So, how do I get the page deleted (I have deleted the 26 redirects, and the talk page)... PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Sujit Meher

--Fashionburnstar (talk) 11:15, 26 January 2014 (UTC)Sujit_Meher this page has poorly sourced write up . May be deleted as it is low impotence and copy write infringement

Hello Fashionburnstar, he does have a major write-up in The Telegraph, so I'd say there are many far worse articles on the English Wikipedia. If you see any problems or think there is a copyright violation, maybe you should raise it on the article's Talk page? Sionk (talk) 12:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Arsenal F.C. lists

I'm an unregistered user. Have added my thoughts as to why List of Arsenal F.C. hat-tricks should be deleted. 5.65.53.211 (talk) 12:43, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done nomination completed. GB fan 12:56, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Don Balfour (politician) BLP issues

I am not completely familiar with the Wikipedia policy, otherwise I would have AfD'ed it myself, but that page was clearly created for one purpose, to criticize the article's subject. It almost could meet a speedy delete for an attack page. I don't know if it qualifies for deletion, as he is probably notable, considering he has been a senator for 20+ years, but as it stands, it just one big criticism article. I looked at the history, and it seems as though 4 socks primarily wrote it, as all 4 usernames have zero contribs outside of the article. Does it qualify for a AfD or Speedy? Thanks, Brinkley32 (talk) 13:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

The closest is G10, but it's not completely right because that requires the article to be unsourced. The (actually 5) editors do seem a little suspicious, but given that they all have 1-4 edits on this page (if there's an admin about, correct me if there's something in deleted contribs), there's not enough evidence linking them to do anything. You can tag it under speedy if you want and see what the response is, but I personally would send it to AfD and see what people say there. Since the subject does meet WP:POLITICIAN, I'd mention the possibility of remaking the article as a NPOV stub after deletion. Ansh666 18:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Alright, I was just checking if it met AfD at least. I haven't ever nominated anything, so I will go look up the guidelines later tonight or tomorrow. And yeah, there is only one source, which somehow got added 10 minutes after article was created, but a separate editor. The fact that a Georgia editor was online, happened to see a page created(w/o categories), recognize it as a Georgia-related article, go find and add the lone source all within 10 minutes of creation is a crazy coincidence. Not saying there isn't an explanation, but can't help but point that out. Thank you for your input and I will look into it soon. Brinkley32 (talk) 04:56, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
I have stubbed the article down because there was undue weight to the one issue that he was acquitted on. I will look some more, but from what is in the article I do not believe he meets the notability guidelines. GB fan 13:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
I have gone back after looking more and started an AFD. GB fan 13:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

1st Feb page

Has something gone wrong with the 1st Feb page? I swear it had more than 3 nominations this time yesterday. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:56, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

  • My impression is that the structure has been broken by the addition of headings for Software and Internet. I'm not familiar with the standard structure myself and so will ask for assistance at ANI. Andrew (talk) 12:08, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

MULTIAFD - "near the start"

The article re MULTIAFD says: "For the sake of clarity, debates should be bundled only at the start or near the start of the debate, before most of the discussion.[clarification needed]"

I propose clarifying by adding: "Near the start means after a maximum of two editor comments on the original nomination"

Thoughts?

Oncenawhile (talk) 16:44, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd say "ideally before any substantive discussion, but may be acceptable following one or two other editors' comments, particularly (but not only) where those comments are "per nom", by SPAs, the article creator, or were clearly in bad faith." My understanding is that if, say, the nom starts an AfD on one article, then goes back and reviews the creators other contribs, and finds a whole host of related articles, if he hurries up and adds them to the AfD, it should be fine even if someone happens to respond in that time. But the nom should not go and add more articles after there've been several responses, or a relist.
In short, I see it as a guideline that means don't add more articles later, but if nobody's said anything of consequence yet they can't go and cry foul for your adding more articles. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 21:45, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. It's the quality of comments that matters here, not quantity. 6an6sh6 21:59, 7 February 2014 (UTC) (P.S. any comments, questions, complaints, or suggestions about the new sig are welcome on my talk page.)

RfC announcement

Please see the RfC at Wikipedia talk:The answer to life, the universe, and everything/Archive 2#RfC: Is this an information page or is it an essay? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Bundled AfD not showing up

Not sure if I muffed the code (quite possible as there will a million tags) but the discussion page for Constitution Party of Alabama doesn't seem to have made it onto the AdF roster for Feb 9 2014. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:06, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I know it's three days later, but wanted to note that this seems to have been sorted. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Mike Bannister

I question the notability of this biography/profile: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Bannister

Reasons include: - not notable beyond his piloting of the Concorde fleet; the pertinent information could easily exist in a more concise form on the Concorde entry - last two paragraphs (more than half of the article's length in words) reads as self-promotion and is unverifiable

tl;dr: not particularly notable & possibly self-promotion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.78.175.52 (talk) 02:00, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Bannister. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:29, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Problems with the logs

Using the javascript relisting tool, there seem to be issues. AfDs on the 13th-15th logs show a blank "old log" entry, while one AfD on the the 16th shows as the 18th's...while another has the "old log" entry reading "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Two days ago"...! - The Bushranger One ping only 02:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Joseph Minala article

An article I created the other day has been nominated for deletion, as it stands the Joseph Minala article has been viewed over 60,000 times in two days. However the problem is, he hasn't played a first team game but has been in international media having been accused of age fraud. It seems silly for the article to be deleted when it's currently one of the most visited. What options are available to save the article ? TheBigJagielka (talk) 10:56, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

The only option I can see is to convince those participating in the AfD, via reliable sources, that the subject of the article meets Wikipedia notability guidelines. Page view statistics evidently caused by a single event that wouldn't in itself establish enduring notability aren't amongst the notability criteria. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:13, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

MULTIAFD again

I had an tough time yesterday after using MULTIAFD in a way that people felt it wasn't built for, but on the bright side I received some constructive if aggressive feedback from a variety of knowledgable editors (User:Colapeninsula, User:AndyTheGrump and User:PBS).

To avoid others making the same mistake in future, I suggest adding a sentence into WP:MULTIAFD such as:

  • For the avoidance of doubt, MULTIAFD should not be used to form consensus around policy decisions such as "should wikipedia include this type of article". Bundling AfDs should be used only for clear-cut deletion discussions based on existing policy."

Grateful for any comments. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:02, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I think the existing guidelines cover the case: bundling should only be used for articles which are likely to be deleted unproblematically: "An article with a fair or better chance of standing on its own merits should not be bundled". If there's already debate about something, with people arguing keep, or a legitimate debate over policy, that indicates it probably shouldn't be bundled. But if it's felt necessary to add explanation, I wouldn't oppose. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:21, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
I read that wording five times, on different days, and I still decided to go ahead with the bundling as it felt like a good way to get consensus across articles. Perhaps I am an idiot and can't read between the lines properly, but i'm probably not the only one out there. Oncenawhile (talk) 10:28, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Aaron Quick Nelson

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Quick_Nelson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.126.129.141 (talk) 14:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I've went online to search to get information on a actor that I saw that was interested to know about because he was so brilliant in a independent film I was watching. And wasn't surprised to see a Wikipedia on him but once I went into his article I couldn't help but see the box message above him information. Aaron Quick Nelson is a well known independent film and television actor. The information that is shown in the article is clear and is has external links that describes him. The imdb site that is linked to the actor's Information on the article is an online database of information related to films, television programs and video games, taking in actors, production crew, biographies, plot summaries and trivia. In order for anyone to be listed on that site is by being in a motion picture, independent movie, directed, screen writing or more. Before anyone gets listed on this site, the site goes through an approval through extensive research. If the actor information meets their guidelines. It is approved. You should keep this actor's article up. Aaron Quick Nelson is a well known independent film actor. Thank you.

Simeon Rice. February 20th. 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.126.129.141 (talk) 14:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

The bilateral country articles

As per this AFD discussion here (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bangladesh–Luxembourg relations), I am thinking more and more about a deletion review of all of these articles. I have no idea how extensive the deletion of bilateral articles has already been, so have no idea of how to proceed, or even if I want to be the torchbearer for this. I would like an AFD person to read over what both I and @LibStar: have written, and see if there is any merit to what I am saying. Thankyou in advance. :)--Coin945 (talk) 12:03, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Having just read through the discussion on the AfD in question (and I am on the record as favoring deletion), I think what is being suggested here is to grant automatic notability to the relationships between nation states, even in cases where there isn't any to speak of. I strongly disagree with that suggestion. But setting aside my disagreement, this is ipso facto a proposal to alter existing WP:N guidelines. IMHO opinion this is not the right forum for that kind of discussion. I would suggest staring off by sending this to RFC as per WP:PROPOSAL. Best regards -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:19, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
WP:VPP may also be a good venue. 6an6sh6 20:50, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
  • OP, I'm more than happy for you to take your proposal forward to the community at the appropriate venue but I have to tell you in advance that I think that such a proposal would be a terrible idea. The general principle is usually that a specific type of subject can be considered notable even if it doesn't meet WP:GNG because it is otherwise notable for another reason. For example, an Olympian is general considered notable for having competed in the Olympics WP:NOLYMPICS because it is competition at the highest international level and being broadcast to that many countries would probably be considered significant coverage anyway. The proposal here seems to be that synthesised relationships (that is, a bunch of non-notable diplomatic events strung together to suggest some sort of notable inter-country relationship) should be considered inherently notable because such things are, to some people, interesting. That is, to be frank, not a very good idea and not at all consistent with WP guidelines or policy. Stalwart111 02:56, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
For something to be "automatically" notable would have to have strong consensus, particularly as you are giving these class of articles the highest type of notability. The fact that over 100 bilaterals have been deleted and many more ending with no consensus AfDs does not show a strong community consensus for automatic notability. I have gone through 100s of these bilateral articles, as Stalwart says many of them are based on factoids, or a one off meeting in 20 years of relations. If we are saying inherent notability, that gives a massive free pass to very small nations like Liechenstein and Andorra, and Tuvalu etc to get bilateral articles when there might be none or close to none. LibStar (talk) 04:15, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
In the case of articles like Foreign relations of Tuvalu, these already list the countries with which the nation has a particularly notable relationship. In many cases, additional "x-y relations" articles are unnecessary content forks of those "foreign relations of x" articles already and editors have so-far even refrained from creating articles that might be about notable relationships (like Australia-Tuvalu relations for example). It transpired, during discussions last week, that nobody had thought to create Afghanistan–United Kingdom relations but Embassy of Afghanistan, London did exist to provide coverage of a thoroughly non-notable building. My point is that there are a great many articles that could be created, many of which would be justified. But there are also a great many that have been created that don't meet our inclusion criteria (some of which have been deleted) and a great many more that shouldn't be created or recreated. Let's encourage editors to create those articles that should exist before encouraging them to create articles that shouldn't. Ever. Stalwart111 05:32, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
I totally agree, there are 100s of notable bilateral combinations that have not been created yet those on a spur of creation seem to concentrate on one country. as an example, one editor is actively creating everything Bangladesh-X and inserting factoids of one off business meeting where they promised to trade more. and the text that Bangladesh items such as clothing (one of its main exports) is considered possible for import to country X. I found other editor creating one line bilateral articles and never touching them again. LibStar (talk) 05:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I have supported the notability of almost all of these articles in the past, but some of the relationships are not really notable either by the GNG or in any real sense, such as the relationship of a small country in one part of a word with a small country in another when there is no particular reason otherwise, . The merit for this is otherwise: it's to accept the articles on the basis of not paper and little chance for anything harmful , simply as a device to avoid the inconclusive and contradictory discussions. This is an important merit. We might as well make use of our capacity for being not paper. DGG ( talk ) 09:58, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
a week later, coin945 has established no general support for his/her belief of inherent notability of bilateral articles. LibStar (talk) 13:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
  • For what is worth, I support Coin945 arguments completely and wholeheartedly. As I said in the course of these years, I find LibStar efforts in destroying such articles extremly disruptive for the encyclopedia. As Coin945 stated, this has intrinsic encyclopedic merit, and it is a case where article non-existence is misleading: Silence equals vagueness and misinformation. I would rather be told a straight up "X and Y have little to no bilateral relationship to speak of" than be kept in the dark (and unable to locate any article with any information on the topic) due to not being able to find conclusive evidence to support wither side of the coin.. I know that "intrinsic notability" is seen as a profanity in many circles in WP, yet I think this is one of the most clear-cut cases where such a concept is needed. If the existence of whole articles on weak relations is frowned upon, at least lists of such relations should exist. Something Minor foreign relations of Italy, so to say.--cyclopiaspeak! 23:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
"LibStar efforts in destroying such articles extremly disruptive for the encyclopedia" how is it disruptive, who is this disrupting? we use community consensus to determine notability. I am concerned about the very minor relations articles that have been spawned that could easily be covered in 2 lines in a foreign relations article. Having said that many combinations are indeed notable, and a lot have not been created, in fact I've created some myself. Those often arguing for keep in AfDs fails to provide coverage. LibStar (talk) 23:45, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Cyclopia, obviously i am extremely disruptive if I've created these following notable articles:

•Australia–Solomon Islands relations •China–Maldives relations •Japan–Laos relations •Brazil–Spain relations •Mauritius–South Africa relations •Jamaica–Trinidad and Tobago relations •Finland–Latvia relations •Chile–Spain relations •Canada–Iceland relations •Albania–China relations •Germany–South Africa relations •Australia–Singapore relations •Australia–Germany relations •Lithuania–Sweden relations •Botswana–South Africa relations •Belgium–France relations •Australia–Tonga relations •Iceland–Norway relations •East Timor–Portugal relations •France–Venezuela relations •Sudan–United Kingdom relations •Finland–Nicaragua relations •Japan–Nepal relations •Bahrain–United Kingdom relations •Brazil–Denmark relations •Mozambique–Portugal relations •Cambodia–Japan relations •Australia–Thailand relations •Australia–South Africa relations •Australia–Philippines relations •Australia–Brazil relations LibStar (talk) 00:07, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

It is disruptive for the reasons mentioned above. And that you also built content, while excellent, doesn't change the fact that, in my humble opinion, removal of bilateral articles is extremly detrimental to users and the mission of WP and, as such, disruptive. --cyclopiaspeak! 00:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
how is it extremely detrimental? all the deleted bilaterals contained little more than confirmation of diplomatic recognition. most of those countries have never had their leaders meet, never signed one agreement. WP is not a repository for every fact. the foreign relations articles series is a good way to contain info on bilaterals with minimal relations. LibStar (talk) 00:30, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
and how is an article on say Nepal-Liechenstein at all encyclopaedic to WP. LibStar (talk) 00:31, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

My problem with articles about non-existent relations between certain countries is that, in the mad scramble to fabricate notability, we're getting misleading crap that isn't even about the (nonexistent) topic. Statements from business organizations unaffiliated with the governments of either country do not indicate relations between those two countries. A musician from country X performing a concert in country Y is not an example of X-Y relations. Things Ban Ki-Moon does in his capacity as head of the UN do not count as South Korea-Anything relations. Reyk YO! 00:26, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

as Reyk says i think it is extremely detrimental to have articles built on synthesis based on no actual interaction between the government of 2 countries. I've seen the following added to bilaterals: sporting results or an incident of a criminal of a certain nationality being arrested in another country for robbery, the flags of the 2 countries being displayed together (amongst 10 flags) in an Antarctic base. desperate attempts to establish notability on trivial coverage is detrimental to WP. LibStar (talk) 00:57, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
In response to LibStar's and Reyk's valid concern about these pages on non-notable relationships being filled with trivial and unaffiliated nonsense, I would like to point out that if it is explicitly stated that the article's existence is not due its notability in and of itself, but rather for the completeness of a larger notable topic (bilateral relationships), then even the non-notability of this particular relationship is notable in the broader context of such relationships. I would personally be intrigued by the types of country duos that don't really have relationships - if there are any patterns for example. So long story short, my point is that the article creators won't feel the need to fill them with rubbish in a desperate bid to meet notability criteria. I think a simple acknowledgement of the lack of bilateral relationships is perfectly fine.--Coin945 (talk) 02:46, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
thanks for your thoughts, Coin945. I think this relates if we ever were to have agreed notability criteria for bilaterals. I think an attempt must started years ago but never successul. generally speaking the smaller countries do not have notable relations with other smaller countries particularly on other continents. LibStar (talk) 03:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

all the deleted bilaterals contained little more than confirmation of diplomatic recognition. most of those countries have never had their leaders meet, never signed one agreement. - Yep. And how am I supposed to know that? The absence of an article does not mean that automatically the relationship is minimal to none. It is simply a void. You ask how is an article on say Nepal-Liechenstein at all encyclopaedic. It is because it answers the question "what are the relationships between Nepal and Liechtenstein?", even if the answer is "There are none". In this context, "there are none" is exactly the encyclopedic and relevant information that answers the question. No article means that there is no answer. Since bilateral relations are not indiscriminately open-ended, they are a limited and well defined matrix of relations, and since all of these relations are of encyclopedic interest (remember to avoid systemic bias: we may find Nepal-Liecthenstein relationships irrelevant, but for sure Nepalese and/or Lietchtenstein people don't agree), we ought to cover that. Inclusion of such information is also consistent with WP:5P pillar number one, as a gazeteer-like information. --cyclopiaspeak! 14:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

those combinations with minimal relations are covered reasonably well in foreign relations of country x, articles. This has been established practice in years in lieu of stubs of non notable country pairs. We dont simply keep stubs because people of say Nepal or Liechtenstein would find the info WP:ITSUSEFUL. Notability must still be met. LibStar (talk) 12:39, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
  • are covered reasonably well in foreign relations of country x, articles. Fine for me, if such information is preserved. Can we at least establish the appropriate redirects, then?
  • We dont simply keep stubs because people of say Nepal or Liechtenstein would find the info WP:ITSUSEFUL. Notability must still be met. - It's not merely useful, it's encyclopedically useful, as per our first pillar. Merely being useful is not an argument (cookie recipes are useful but not meant to be in an encyclopedia), but an encyclopedia should also take into account its usefulness for readers, otherwise Wikipedia becomes an exercise in collective intellectual masturbation. Notability is a guideline/set of guidelines, meant to be followed with the occasional exception; WP:5P is our most fundamental policy. --cyclopiaspeak! 20:49, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Qi-Yo Multi-Yoga

I would like to have other editors look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qi-Yo_Multi-Yoga. Currently, there is one editor who thinks the page should be deleted, but I think it just needs to be tagged with the notability tag and not deleted. We are obviously at disagreement and I think other editors should weigh in and give opinions on how the page can be improved, but I'm not sure how to ask other editors to do this. Thank you.Jheditorials (talk) 22:57, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

We don't cancel a nomination for deletion because the person responsible for the article disagrees with it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:30, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
...Particularly if the person asking us to cancel the nomination has a conflict of interest in doing so. [2] AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:40, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Shooting of Kimani Gray

Can someone please complete the AfD for that article? Here is my rational for nominating it, thanks:

Not enough evidence of this shooting meeting WP:EVENT. While it did lead to four days of protest in Gray's neighborhood, after it subsided, practically all coverage of this shooting stopped completely. It only affected a small section of the city and had little to no impact on society. There is no high profile investigation or trial for the officers involved (like the Sean Bell shooting incident), no coverage of Gray's family filing a lawsuit or taking other judicial actions against the city (like the Shooting of Amadou Diallo), no references in any music, film, etc. (like the Death of Yusef Hawkins), and no national media frenzy (like Trayvon Martin or Rodney King). Those cases continued to receive coverage and discussion years after they happened. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, March 2013 already has an entry for this shooting that is sufficient enough to cover it. 67.84.106.227 (talk) 14:57, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done --NeilN talk to me 15:21, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

User trying to delete nomination

Hello, the article Tommy Oliver was nominated for deletion, but a user is trying to get the discussion deleted in an obvious attempt to stop the nomination. Please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.236.68.115 (talk) 06:49, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

On the face of it, this seems a valid complaint. As is evident at User talk:Ryulong#Tommy Oliver, the removal was based on a preemptive assumption of bad faith. The AfD nomination may be malformed, but that is no reason to dismiss it - and I think the grounds given for nomination (if reworded in Wikipedia terms) are at least arguable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:10, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
The request was malformed and originally requested by a user whose first edit was to revert me on a related article, an action taken by sockpuppets of a banned user who began harassing me in the past. Tommy Oliver may be a page that needs work or merging to some other article that doesn't exist yet but this improper AFD is not going to solve that. There's no point in wasting the community's time because a banned user may or may not have a valid complaint.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:15, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Okay, to be honest, this request is not "malformed" - IP editors cannot create WP space pages as is typically required for AfD. While the IP does have some very suspicious activity (improperly closing a different AfD and edit-warring to keep it closed), that does not diminish the validity of this AfD. 6an6sh6 08:18, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
It kind of does invalidate this attempted AFD. And as I said on my talk page, I'd gladly work on making the article better or just a redirect to a more valid list article that's going to be a pain in the ass to produce, rather than waste the communitys' time trying to figure out what to do with an AFD started by a banned user's sockpuppets.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:20, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Face it. Your "duck test" suspicion are unjustified. I remove an episode listing because there were no official sources, not because of you. You seem to take it personally. The fact the someone else would nominate shows that you need to start playing fair. 174.236.68.115 (talk) 08:32, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
I would like to note that the IP in question reverted my edits on one article to a version that was full of malformed edits performed by another editor, as well as posted this somewhat trollish edit summary. It frankly does not matter if the debate might have merit, due to the suspicious actions by the IPs and their questionable past usage by multiple banned editors (most recently Colton Cosmic). I find it suspicious that a new editor would find my edits to that episode list and then decide to list one of the most recent similar articles I had a hand in editing for deletion other than someone trying to get my goat.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:42, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
After reading this discussion, I've created the deletion nomination in the correct place. AS92813 (talk) 15:59, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
@AS92813: Umm, although you've created Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tommy_Oliver you don't seem to have left anything on Tommy Oliver to link to it. PamD 23:07, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Done. AS92813 (talk) 01:39, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
AS92813 appears to be a sleeper sockpuppet in this whole affair. My labeling of these IPs as Dragonron was incorrect, but it appears this is either Don't Feed the Zords or BuickCenturyDriver (who are probably the same person).—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:47, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
If there's cause to delete Tommy then there's cause to delete all pages set up for independent power ranger characters.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 00:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Untrue. See WP:Other stuff exists. 6an6sh6 00:59, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Three malformed discussions

I'm not sure what the protocol is for this; another User has created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HyperSoar, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hexatarsostinus and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tapinosaurus but none of them got properly listed. All appear more appropriate to Merge discussions anyway. YSSYguy (talk) 12:08, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

So, fix it. I would, but I'm editing on mobile right now. 6an6sh6 17:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Arguments to avoid

Every deletion debate has Users coming in and saying the same irrelevant arguments over and over again. It's really quite predictable. Can we have it so that each debate has links to:

Put these right at the top, and encourage people to read them before commenting. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 02:03, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Excellent idea. I second the motion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
I would have no objection to linking to the GNG. And I will say that AADD is an excellent essay filled with useful advice. But it is not a policy and is not a guideline. My concern is that linking to it may confer more authority than it deserves as an essay. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:09, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
I think Cullen328 nails it. This is why we rely on admins and experienced editors to close deletion discussions - because closers are to look at the weight of the arguments, not just the number of votes. I also doubt that linking to WP:GNG in every discussion will help anything - it will just be more wallpaper taking up space. VQuakr (talk) 03:27, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
WP:GNG is the main thing being debated in a debate, so it is useful to have. It should also explain the nature of the discussion and that it is not a vote. You have many users who are not familiar with WP policy come in and start linking blogs and other low quality sources to prove notability. Also isn't WP:AADD defacto policy since they are arguments that will be basically ignored in deletion discussions? --Harizotoh9 (talk) 03:41, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
AADD is an influential and useful essay. It is not policy and is not even written in the manner or style of a policy. As for linking to blogs and other low quality sources, closing administrators routinely disregard such weak arguments. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:43, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

rakesh biswas page

Hello respected sir ,

I am a big follower of Mr Rakesh Biswas work for last 3 years , and i have provided fact and actual information about him .

please make the page more attractive and visible .we wish peoples will be happy study about Mr Rakesh Biswas hard work achievements and laurels for his country in such a small age . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rakesh biswas01 (talk • contribs) 12:35, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Jeffrey Scaperrotta

Can someone please complete the nomination process for that article? Here is my reasons for nominating it:

There is no proof of him meeting WP:NACTOR, WP:ANYBIO, or WP:GNG. While he was in Law & Order: SVU for 10 years, he only appeared in 17 of the 200+ episodes that aired in that stretch and his character was never a major one who impacted the show significantly. All of his other roles were small, guest or supporting ones and he has no awards/nominations or notable mentioning in any entertainment news articles to show any fan base or contributions to the entertainment industry.

Thanks. 173.2.255.184 (talk) 00:13, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeffrey Scaperrotta. 6an6sh6 03:41, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Justin McShane

The article Justin McShane was marked for deletion earlier today but the tag was just removed by Ansh666.

Reasons for nomination for deletion are because the subject lacks notablility (WP:GNG), the article appears to be self-promotional (WP:SPIP), and the bulk of edits appear to have been made by accounts that are solely intended to edit this article.

[Zoedawn] [50.241.186.9]

The following user has only edited this article and also added the subjects name to other articles.

[72.95.38.89]

It all smells of somebody merely promoting their young career.

I have no experience with nominations, so could somebody more knowledgable please continue the process to send the request for voting? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.103.184.76 (talk) 19:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done Lugia2453 (talk) 19:34, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Jason Fernandez

Jason Fernandez looks like a vanity article to me. It's about a guy who owns some restaurants in Tampa, Florida, and none of them are important enough to have an article, either. It was even worse before I took out a whole set of links to the restaurants' websites. It has been deleted twice already, it has to go to Article for Deletion now because somebody added some references, which are just restaurant reviews in the local newspaper. The guy exists, but it looks like he or somebody close to him is trying to use Wikipedia for free advertising. Thanks for your attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.228.138.207 (talk) 19:06, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Fernandez. 6an6sh6 20:50, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Banned contributors?

There's an AfD (specifically, Fox Attacks) that I'm half-tempted to do a non-admin closure on (as there seems to be a consensus to keep). The only problem is, one of the major arguments to keep was made by a sock of a banned user (Sportfan5000). Should I ignore the argument because it was made by someone who wasn't supposed to edit? ChromaNebula (talk) 15:33, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Moot on several levels, as User:Hahc21 relisted it and Sportsfan also supported keeping (though in the future, yes, banned contributors' comments may be ignored). ansh666 15:53, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
With all due respect, what I actually meant was: "Do I have to ignore the sockpuppet's argument?", not "Can I ignore the sockpuppet's argument?" ChromaNebula (talk) 19:00, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Ah, no, I don't think you have to if it was made in good faith (aka not with disruptive intent or being used to votespam), though it usually is anyways. ansh666 19:37, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Margret Bird

@Hahc21: one user proposed deletion, two objected. One poor counter argument given. Page deleted? discussion was here Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Margaret_Bird Jonpatterns (talk) 11:45, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:Deletion review. ansh666 15:49, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Agree that this decision needs reviewing. At the very least it needs some explanation rather than simply "result was delete". JASpencer (talk) 19:56, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
@Ansh666: Thanks for the heads up, I did find the Deletion review page after searching for a bit. It says not to engage in the review process before discussing with the closing reviewer, which I have now done here.
@JASpencer: Margaret Bird has been restored, the reviewer meant to Keep, but went for Delete by mistake. Jonpatterns (talk) 14:03, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Request for early closure

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States v. Article Consisting of 50,000 Cardboard Boxes More or Less, Each Containing One Pair of Clacker Balls is currently running but every comment has been in support of it. I would like to ask if this could be closed early as it is currently also at DYK with an intent to run it on April fools day. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I was going to, but I don't think there will really be any issue with letting it run the full length - there are only 3 days left, which is 4 days before April 1st. ansh666 22:45, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
And, closed by User:Royalbroil. ansh666 06:59, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

AfD nominating process still so lousy that it introduces bias

Multiple steps, fraught with potential for error. Discourages editors who don't want to negotiate this nonsense. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 00:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Have you tried using Twinkle? It takes care of most of the tedium for you. KDS4444Talk 11:29, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Hobbes Goodyear (talk · contribs), the process is a mess. And while, yes, I use Twinkle, that doesn't really address the problem fully. All Twinkle does is change the problem to, discourages editors who don't know about Twinkle, or aren't tech sophisticated enough to know how to install it. If you really wanted to make it easy, there would be a "nominiate for deletion" tab on every article, in the default interface. Of course, that might not be what we want to do. If we made it that easy to nominate articles, AfD would probably melt down. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:24, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
KDS, I have not used Twinkle but will give it a try if I ever start nominating more than once in a blue moon. RoySmith, saying "melt down" does give me pause--we are probably already at or beyond capacity to properly address the current volume. Thank you both for your comments. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 22:28, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
I usually clean up incomplete nominations (from User:Cyberbot I/AfD report‎) - it's interesting that most of the time, IP editors are much better at following instructions than registered editors. There seems to be a pretty big misunderstanding about how AfD works: a lot of inexperienced (and even a few experienced) editors think that simply placing an AfD tag (no rationale on talk page or here or anywhere) is enough, and don't check back when I or someone else removes said redlinked tag. Perhaps it's for the better, though, since most of those would probably end up speedy kept... ansh666 20:42, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Marlene Lawston

Can someone please complete the nomination process for me? Here is my reason for putting it up for deletion:

I see no evidence of this actress meeting WP:NACTOR, WP:ANYBIO, or WP:GNG. She only had two supporting roles and three single-episode guest appearances, no awards or nominations for these roles, no social media pages (e.g. Facebook or Twitter) to show any fan base, no contributions to the entertainment industry, and no significant coverage in any major entertainment news articles except for brief mentions that mainly focus on the films she was in or listings on movie websites like Rotten Tomatoes that have listings for virtually every actor in the world. 173.3.52.81 (talk) 21:39, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Armtech SMOLT

Could someone please complete the nomination process?

I’ve explained my rationale on the article’s talk page [[3]]. I would also like to point out that there is no indication that more than one of this gun even exists. “SMOLT” appears to be a name that was made up by the guns owner to refer to his customized revolver.

Thanks. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 17:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done --NeilN talk to me 18:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Canvassing in a previous debate:

I didn't notice it at the time, but a page I nominated for deletion was the subject of a WP:Canvassing campaign.

--Harizotoh9 (talk) 10:45, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

That's probably the most benign canvassing campaign I've ever seen - encouraging people to follow WP policy completely. Of course, that doesn't change that it was canvassing, but I don't think it had much of an effect: their reasons were mostly policy-based and likely would have been made by others (and indeed were). And, besides, who can argue with a group of people mobilizing to improve the 'pedia? Hopefully some of them stick around. ansh666 10:56, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
I wish all campaigns were as thoughtful as that. --NeilN talk to me 18:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Jennifer Grünwald

Hi, I have nominated Jennifer Grünwald for deletion the reasons below. Would someone please complete the process of nomination?

The subject of this article doesn't meet the notability creiteria for creative professionals. The subject has created no works of note, is not widely influential, nor has the subject's work gained any particular critical attention. The article also contains original research in the form of commentary from individual's acquainted with the subject, claims not substantiated with secondary sources. Claiming that a minor background character in a comic is named after a person should not be enough reason for inclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.242.8 (talk) 01:05, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Grünwald. ansh666 02:50, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

April Fool's nominations

We should probably put the kibosh on any new April Fool's nominations. I'm running out of terrible puns to put on the ones that pop up and they're slightly disruptive. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:49, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Hence my question at WP:AN about whether they should be on the log. The only problem with that would be that nobody could ever find them (unless they're mandated to put them on the April Fools' Log, I guess). By the way, good job with the puns, and University of Alabama really doesn't deserve one anyways. ansh666 07:54, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I wonder if a good alternative would be to move them all down to the bottom and mark them as April Fool's jokes? It'd be a little tedious at first, but it's a good alternative otherwise. Or we could create a page for April Fool's nominations and move them there. I think that there's a little merit for keeping these, just out of humor, but I would like a way to have them without making it difficult for people to find the actual valid AfDs. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:13, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I've moved the joke nominations to their own section at the bottom. Feel free to revert if anyone wants, although I'd prefer for the joke submissions to stay at the bottom for the time being so the real AfDs can be more easily seen. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:21, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Please contribute to the Machel Waikenda AfD discussion

Only two people have contributed to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Machel Waikenda, and the discussion has been open for more than two weeks now. Dear all: Please contribute to the discussion. Thank you! —Unforgettableid (talk) 01:00, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Madison Eagles

Need an admin to complete this nomination - the fifth. Reasons are on the talk page. 124.180.170.151 (talk) 02:47, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madison Eagles (5th nomination). ansh666 06:47, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

User doesn't like AFD nom

I nominated A Billion Hits for deletion, but the creator of the article is repeatedly trying to 'close' the discussion and remove the AFD template from the article. I'm not sure if this is the right venue, but I don't know what action I should take. Adabow (talk) 05:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I've given the creator a final warning - if it is removed again, raise the matter at WP:ANI. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:35, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Talk pages of AfD

I'm just writing here to confirm that talk pages of AfD discussions are supposed to remain blank. I've had someone raise a concern over this, as several people have been using the talk page of a now closed AfD discussion as a place to discuss the deletion, the article in question, and so on. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

After a cursory read-through I don't believe there's anything in any of the policies/guidelines/info pages/essays about deletion, but, yes, I'm fairly certain that per accepted practice AfD talk pages aren't supposed to be used at all, and especially not after the AfD has closed. There are other places that are more appropriate for discussion (user talk, drv, etc.) that are recommended in the related pages. Maybe it should be codified if it isn't already. ansh666 04:52, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I would recommend that it be codified, as it could otherwise be a way to circumvent a page's deletion by using it as a general discussion page for the article. It could also be used as a way to abuse the system as well. Basically the page in question is the AfD talk page for the Belle Knox article, as it was being used as a general forum. The talk wasn't that bad, but I could see where it was gearing up to become pretty troublesome. Plus when you figure that the page was deleted and it'd already been run through deletion review, I don't see where further championing or demonizing the deletion (or anything done to the page when it was existent) in that particular location was really all that helpful. The basic complaint was that I was involved and that it hampers free/open discussion. I can concede the involve part (although I maintain that the end result would have been the same), but I don't really think that what was going on was an appropriate use of the AfD talk page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Speaking of which, is there an appropriate use of the AfD talk page? Really the only thing I've seen it used for before now is IPs creating the discussions there, since they can't do it on the actual project space page (and I guess maybe because of the AfC process being in WT: as well). ansh666 05:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
  • In my opinion, not really. Any comments about the AfD should be on the page when it's currently running. After it's finished, there's no reason to discuss the AfD unless you want to have it overturned, which should be done at deletion review. The basic problem about using the talk page during the AfD is that it can lead to a discussion fork with people using both pages, which can get confusing for all involved. Using the talk page afterwards kind of makes it easy to use it as a place to complain and generally not be productive at all. The point of AfD is to get a semi-definitive opinion about the page. Anything after that should either be at deletion review or on someone's talk page, as it could otherwise be very easily misused as a way to circumvent the article's deletion or to have random chatter about the page. If they want the page to be re-added, then any talk should take place at DR or it'd otherwise be considered generally unhelpful and basic complaining. If they're there to cheer on the deletion then that's equally unhelpful since it doesn't really improve anything. Nor does discussion over elements that are only applicable when the actual page is present in the mainspace. I figure that after a page has been deleted and the page's deletion upheld at DR, there's no reason to further discuss the page anywhere but on someone's talk page or potentially on a WikiProject's talk page. Basically put, there's never a good reason or time to use an AfD's talk page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:02, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I pretty much just want to get this unofficial rule made official because there's no good reason to use an AfD talk page at any point in time, and I want to avoid people trying to say that protecting an AfD talk page is censorship or not promoting open discussion. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:09, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Sounding off on AFD talk pages is a perfectly good way to allow disgruntled editors to let off steam after pages get deleted. If we don't allow that steam to go somewhere its going to lead to more DRVs and more complaints at ANI. Is this really a good idea and what harm is the steam letting doing? I'm firmly against prohibiting it. I see no harm at all. Spartaz Humbug! 07:59, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
  • They aren't allowed to edit the closed AFD so people sometimes continue discussions they found interesting or whinge like crazy over the deletion/outcome. Sometimes they are lone voices shouting into tumbleweed and sometimes there is a chorus. Its not that common but it does happen and I can't see the benefit from shutting this down. Spartaz Humbug! 08:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
  • The problem is, if they have a problem with its deletion they should go through DR. Otherwise using it to blow off steam is pretty much just using it as a forum. I mean, their arguments aren't really being constructive and I'd say that it could be even more ANI bait because you'd essentially have pointless arguments and drive by sniping comments. For example, if you have a nn director that's deleted and he gets 50 friends to clamor on the AfD talk page, how is that helpful? Almost nobody watches the talk pages of AfDs and it'd be easy for arguments to form. Plus again, there's nothing constructive to be gained by using it as a location to vent frustrations. It should go through DR or it should be on a user page where something beneficial will come of it. Not to mention it could be used as a way to circumvent deletion decisions. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:40, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Plus you run a very strong risk of undermining AfD decisions because you're essentially saying "the Afd is over, but you can keep arguing your point on the talk page". It'd be seen as a way to just continue the discussion... without the admin oversight a regular AfD would have. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:51, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
I've seen one or two examples where AfD talk pages have been used for what appear to have been legitimate discussions while the AfD has been ongoing - from memory, one involved a complex discussion about a source which was being used as evidence for notability, and moving the discussion to the talk page ensured that the discussion could continue without swamping the AfD itself. As for their use once an AfD is closed, this seems highly questionable - I would suggest that policy be amended to state that they not be edited once the AfD is closed - and that if necessary, they should be locked from editing. We shouldn't be providing 'forums' in obscure places, away from oversight. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

A blanket rule about AfD talk pages is unwarranted. Conversations there are sometimes productive, sometimes not, just like everywhere else on Wikipedia. Lagrange613 16:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

  • At the very least I do think that the AfD talk page shouldn't be edited after the AfD is over. There's just too much risk of it being abused or for people to assume that it means that the rationale reached at the AfD's conclusion holds less water. I mean, there's no real reason to post on the talk page after an AfD is over. I can see from the examples where in some rare cases the talk pages can be used while the AfD is currently open, but the problem is that once the AfD is over there's really no constructive use for it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:33, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
  • But look at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Datacoin, which provides a helpful post-closing note about the disposition of a userfication request. A discussion on the admin's talk page [5] explains the reasons for this post-closing annotation, which is now easier to find for anyone else interested in resuscitating the topic than it would be in any other location. --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
  • That's still pretty much an exception to the rule. I'm still concerned about the potential misuse. I mean, in my experience I've seen more people abuse this than anything else. I can guarantee that if I were to unprotect the AfD talk page for the Belle Knox, it'd soon fill up with people just continuing to make arguments for or against the page's deletion, harassment, attempts to circumvent the article's deletion, and so on. It's fairly rare that I've seen anyone use an AfD talk page to any good effect. Most of the time when people do make comments on the talk page, it's almost always moved to the main page for the AfD or deleted/removed. After it's gone, most editors, the vast majority of them, won't use it for the things you're citing here. I have a strong feeling that if we were to look at the history of AfD talk page usage, we'd see more cases of abuse than people using it in a beneficial fashion. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:13, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) No one has mentioned here the benefit of using an old AfD talk page to post notice of a subsequent AfD.  Then, the talk page is ideal to post links to discussions with the closing admin(s).  The AfD talk page is ideal because editors who have the AfD watchlisted get notifications.  Note that DRV talk pages are also used from time to time. 
Unscintillating (talk) 05:34, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I have to ask though, wouldn't the comment be better off posted on the talk page of the closer? By that I mean that if you have reason to suspect that a page's deletion or retention would merit further discussion, wouldn't it be better to ask the closer to re-open the AfD (or take it to deletion review) or to just open a new AfD? Leaving it on the talk page doesn't seem to really get any good consensus and it runs the risk of being completely ignored. Not everyone leaves the pages on their talk list. I know that I frequently remove the AfD pages from my watch list after they close because I figure that any further discussion would and/or should take place in DR or on a usertalk page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:34, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
I would oppose as instruction creep any codification of this "do not use AfD talk pages" idea. In the rare cases when they are being used disruptively, I would think our existing guidelines are already adequate to justify a request to move the conversation somewhere better. VQuakr (talk) 06:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I just think that we need to have some sort of cutoff for comments, otherwise it really doesn't do anything helpful. I know that I'm unlikely to win this battle, but I just really think that allowing unfettered access to the talk pages of an AfD will rarely prove helpful. In most situations it's just someone trying to tack on a "keep" or "delete" vote after the final decision, try to recreate part of the article in the talk page, use it for spam purposes masquerading as a keep/delete rationale, or will use it as a forum. I think that a large percentage of this comes from the fact that unlike talk pages on the various articles in the mainspace, WikiProjects, and templates, talk pages of AfDs are almost always ignored by both admins and non-admin users. Part of me saying that the talk pages shouldn't be used comes from the idea that much of the use is redundant to other areas that already serve these issues, but it's also because we don't really have enough people who would be willing to overlook all of the various edits that happen on the talk pages of AfDs. I'm sure that if I were to comb through the various AfDs out there, I'd probably find quite a bit of abuse of the system. It's just that because nobody really watches those pages, anything posted is largely ignored. Putting some sort of ground rules or limits on what talk pages for AfDs can do probably wouldn't be seen as disruptive and would largely just reinforce the standard that is already in place for various AfD talk pages. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:09, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
The contention that "nobody really watches those pages" is, if true, an argument against adding instruction creep. If it's just people blowing off steam with no effect on actual outcomes on Wikipedia, who cares? If they're making personal attacks or whatever then we already have the tools to deal with them, as VQuakr pointed out. Otherwise, if a tree falls on a talk page.... Lagrange613 16:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
  • But at the same time, you've got to understand that since a lot of these pages aren't being watched, we won't know exactly what goes on in these pages unless someone reports it or unless someone stumbles upon it. So in theory you could have someone dox someone in an AfD talk page after the fact, or post something incredibly hateful/mean, or post something that would merit an autoblock for whatever reason. Part of the reason I don't think we've had an overwhelming issue with it in the past is that there's always been this unsaid rule that they aren't supposed to be used. But if people do think that it can be used, then what? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
  • But everyone who participates has the page on their watchlist and we have lots of pages with no watchers anyway. Wikipedia does not supervise its editors or require them to edit in specific places so they can be watched over by adults. The whole tenor of your argument is disturbingly patronising. Spartaz Humbug! 15:15, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Not everyone who participates has the AfD on their watchlist. I'd say that at any given time I've had about 1-5% of any given AfD on my watchlist, although I do go through my history to see if there are any updates on a currently running AfD. After it's over, I don't really check them anymore and I'll remove the closed AfDs from my watchlist. I don't mean to sound patronizing, just that unfortunately I've seen enough on Wikipedia to where I don't think it's a truly great idea to be completely free with an area that is essentially unmonitored 98% of the time, especially when there's a good chance that the majority of the people editing are IP and SPA type editors. I just think that it'd be a good idea to have some sort of rule to point to when (and it's when and not if) someone abuses the talk page of an AfD. Otherwise what can we do? They can just thumb their noses at us and tell us that there isn't any rule to prevent them from using the talk page as a forum. We can't police every page, but a small rule or coda would really help stem any potential post-AfD gripe-fests that brew up on various AfD talk pages. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I can see legitimate uses for the AfD talk pages, but I would support a CSD/MfD criterion that allows deletion of such a page if it's being used solely for ongoing argument about the AfD post-closure. There are other places for virtually everything else, and what remains (e.g., unfounded griping about the participants) doesn't belong anywhere on Wikipedia. However, I could see this as not even requiring a new rule; those who gripe about a closed debate on the talk page are simply trying to circumvent the rule against continuing the discussion after its closure. That should be equally subject to being reverted under the current rule. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 15:23, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

The Center for Early Education

Can someone complete the nomination process for me? Here is my rationale for nominating it

No evidence of this school meeting notability guidelines. Being a private elementary school with unusually high tuition costs is not enough to merit notability and the statement "Since then the School has become regarded as one of the top elementary schools in the nation" is a fallacy. All of the references in the article are from the school's website and there is little to no mentioning of it in major education news sites and agencies. There are many other schools called "The Center of Early Education," none of which seem notable either. West Hollywood, California#Primary and secondary schools already mentions this school and the few content of this article can be added there if needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.3.52.87 (talk) 20:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Center for Early Education. ansh666 22:43, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

82nd Street Academics

82nd Street Academics is alive and well and I don't understand why it would be nominated for deletion Ronald Tompkins Executive Director www.82ndst.com

I believe you're looking for the discussion here. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 12:42, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion: Make AFD discussion pages more friendly

This may have come up before; if so I'd be curious to see the results of the previous discussions.

I've observed that when clicking on the "this article's entry" link from an article that is at AFD, the page that comes up, for instance this one, provides no instructions or examples of how one should proceed if they wish to express an opinion on the matter. There isn't even any ready indication of where one can go to learn more about what's going on.

I'd like to suggest that some boilerplate text be added when such pages are created making it more clear to those who may be unfamiliar with the AFD process what their options are, where they can go for more information, etc.

Off the top of my head, it could be something like: "This is the article for deletion discussion for (article name). This article has been nominated for deletion on the following grounds: (nomination reason). More information regarding Wikipedia's deletion policies can be found at (link). You are welcome to express an opinion regarding whether this article should be kept. Typically opinions include one or more of the following summations: Keep, Delete, Merge (linked appropriately), Redirect (linked appropriately), etc."

TL;DR: I think it would benefit the project if AFD dicussion pages included an explanation of what was going on and options for expressing one's opinion, for those who might be unfamiliar with how AFD works. DonIago (talk) 13:29, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Support - A very short little guide, with links to WP:AADD, WP:GNG etc. would be really nice and avoid many pitfalls for newer editors.--cyclopiaspeak! 13:33, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support and suggest that a pilot scheme be run to assess what is required and how well it works. Since we use standard substed templates I suggest the pilot runs for a calendar month, and is left in place while it is assessed. Then it can be turned off if required or modified. Fiddle Faddle 14:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Might want to make it one of those show/hide boxes, so you don't have to navigate off the page to see it, but you can also make it go away once you've read it. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Only thing is I would not include the reason for removal as that is something that might be edited or changed in the main discussion thread as the AFD proceeds, and being duplicated in the header may create a discontinuity. But providing all the article page links and sourcing links, and with links to how to participate in an AFD, are all good stuff. At minimum, the header should remind people this is not a vote, that inappropriate canvassing (on or off Wiki) is inappropriate, and to keep comments civil and focus on the article and not the editors. --MASEM (t) 14:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough. Possibly the text could list the original reason for nomination with a comment that said reasoning might evolve in the course of discussion. Alternately it could always reflect the most current grounds for deletion, but I can see that being more complicated and possibly error-prone. Since I'm commenting anyway I'll add that in an ideal world I think there would be links to previous deletion discussions (including their rationales/results) as well. I think the main thrust of my argument here is that at a glance the discussion should have all pertinent information in a format that's nevertheless as friendly for those unfamiliar with the AFD process as is reasonably possible. DonIago (talk) 15:09, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Next steps?

I'm going to go out on a limb and call this a consensus to revise the AFD discussion pages even if we may have varying thoughts on the particulars. This is a bit beyond the scope of my normal interactions with the project...what do we do next? DonIago (talk) 15:13, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

AFD for 2013-14 LFL Australia season

Can someone please complete the nomination for me? Thanks. 124.180.170.151 (talk) 22:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I would appreciate some assistance if you wouldn't mind. This has been left uncompleted for too long.

124.180.170.151 (talk) 14:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

SkyFly Airlines

Hi, I nominated an article yesterday for deletion because none of the links on the page went anywhere and because the airline doesn't actually exist in any other sources. When I nominated it for speedy deletion it was rejected by User:Randykitty who pretty much dismissed my evidence and refused to do anything about it other than tell me to post something on here. Please let me know what you think I should do. This is the first article I've ever nominated for deletion and it seems a lot harder than I expected considering I'm nominating a fake airline's wikipedia page.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 10:36, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

You nominated the article under the speedy deletion criterion WP:G8. WP:G8 is only for pages that are dependent upon another page within Wikipedia and that page does not exist. An article can never be deleted using the WP:G8 criterion. You misunderstood what Randykitty was telling you to do. Articles for deletion is another process for deletion of articles. Randykitty was suggesting you follow that process. If you go to the main page, WP:AFD, there is a three step process to nominating the article for deletion. If you find the process difficult, leave a message here with the rationale you would like to use and I or someone can complete the process for you.a GB fan 11:22, 19 April 2014 (UTC)r
  • Ok, I tried to follow the instructions there but only got through the first one. The second tells me to click "this article's entry" and I don't see that link on the page. I included the reasons I don't think it should be a page on my edit summary but I think that's the most I can do. Wow, this is a lot harder than I expectedMonopoly31121993 (talk) 11:59, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
I have completed the nomination for you. GB fan 12:13, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Rionne McAvoy, Kellie Skater and Hartley Jackson AfD's

Need someone to complete these for me. Thanks. 203.12.30.74 (talk) 04:28, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I have noticed some AFDs that were "completed" by what i would label a "helping" editor, on behalf of an IP editor, perhaps this one, before. Where the "helping" editor did not take any stance, did not do the wp:BEFORE homework. I see that WP:AFDHOWTO indicates that only registered editors can open AFDs. Presumably there were reasons for that policy. This process of an IP editor asking for help to have an AFD opened, and anyone actively helping them, seems rather like a subversion of the intended process, though I am open to being educated about what is going on. Has this been discussed before?
From past experience, I personally believe that what I call "fake AFDs" where the nominator is not really putting any personal stake into the nomination but is just putting it out there for some other reason, are usually not helpful. I would hope that, at a minimum, anyone "helping" by opening these 3 requested AFDs would take a personal stance, would do all the wp:BEFORE requirements and would only nominate if they genuinely themselves believed the article should be deleted and were staking their own reputation on it. --doncram 13:25, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Okay, further I see the IP editor had put AFD nominations onto the 3 articles, and I just removed those with edit summaries calling for discussion here. It seems the AFDs were opened by the non-registered user, in contradiction to policy, and the user only didn't complete the process by opening the necessary AFD nomination page, so the articles showed redlinks where an actual AFD nomination should have been linked. I don't see why the intended process should be subverted. If a registered user chooses to revert my removals of the AFD starts, and to "complete" the AFDs by making nominations, that is okay by me, but I would appreciate some discussion. I don't have any opinion yet on the merits of the 3 articles, and I don't intend to investigate unless and until they are actually nominated for deletion by a registered user. --doncram 13:33, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
The way the IP editor did this is what the instructions say to do, see WP:AFDHOWTO where it says "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 am completing them for them, but it is the IP editor who is making the actual nomination. GB fan 14:45, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh, okay, i see now that the instructions are as you say. Should the instructions be changed to disallow that, however, unless the "helper" is actually taking a stance on the nominations? The instructions are silent on the helper's responsibility. I do believe there were probably some good reasons why AFDs can't be opened by a non-registered user. This seems to undermine that. So it seems to me that some standard of responsibility should be required for any helper person, i.e. that they should take a stance. I don't know if this a serious problem or not, however. --doncram 21:28, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
The reason a non-registered user can not complete an AFD is that the software is set so that non registered users can not create pages and a page must be created in step II. I have completed AFDs before and made recommendations to delete, keep and as done here no recommendation at all. Each person needs to make their own decision on what AFDs they want to participate in. I do not see any reason to force someone to make a recommendation just because they are willing to help out another editor. GB fan 23:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
@Doncram: Yes, what GB fan said - technical restrictions only. The registered user's interaction is solely administrative (not WP:Admin, but more generally, you know). I also completed nominations for IPs for a while as User:Ansh666; as long as they followed instructions (i.e. gave a rationale somewhere), I would complete it without even taking a good look at the article, under the stance that if they were registered, the AfD discussion would have been created already anyways. Usually, they're reasonably well laid out, but I believe I've seen delete verdicts handed down for a rationale of something as simple as "not a notable person". Remember, WP:IPs are human too, and there's no reason that they should be given any less voice in this regard. 206.117.89.4 (talk) 08:52, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I would say let them run their course. They are not disruptive AfDs as such (i.e. nominating articles that are obviously notable) and as such if we close these for procedural reasons we will inevitably only end up having a further AfD (one of the subjects, particularly, looks really non-notable). Black Kite (talk) 00:14, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree, with Black Kite. There are other possibilities other than the two explained by GaryColemanFan. A 3rd possibility is that the closing admin will put the proper weight to the arguments provided and determine the consensus. There are good faith recommendations on the AFDs. GB fan 00:26, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
  • My two cents I am not opposed to helping out with an AfD nom. But I do feel on principal that no AfD should be initiated unless someone is prepared to go on record with an argument for deletion. If you are doing a nomination at the suggestion or request of an IP, I think due diligence still applies. The IP should explain in their request why they think the article needs to go and the actual user:nominator should do at least a cursory check to be sure that the nomination is not patently without merit. No you don't have to agree with it. But there needs to be an argument that is at least plausible for deleting the article. And that should be at the top of the AfD discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:31, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
    • someone is prepared to go on record with an argument for deletion - which would be the IP, of course. there needs to be an argument that is at least plausible for deleting the article - well...not every nomination by registered users has this, either. 206.117.89.5 (talk) 20:05, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
      • The IP is a banned user. A banned user is "forbidden from making any edit, anywhere on Wikipedia, via any account or as an unregistered user, under any and all circumstances." Therefore, the IPs's opinion does not matter. Knowing that a banned user is behind the Afd, and then allowing an AfD to proceed, only encourages the banned user. Sure enough, you give an inch, and the sock puppet brigade is back in full force. Although I'm Black Kite didn't see it coming, not being aware of the past behavior, allowing the banned user to edit has been incredibly disruptive. Now we have the user, banned permanently in a unanimous vote, boldly saying that he cannot be stopped again and violating a whole host of policies and guidelines in the process. This is a slap in the face to policy and to the users who were harassed leading up to the ban and during the subsequent spurts of ban-evading sockpuppets. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:11, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
The solution to this problem is well known. The lack of appetite for it on Wikipedia is, I frankly admit, discouraging. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:10, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

This absurd redirect should be deleted

Penny is the Irish-Norwegian owner of Bolt the dog! Nobody would search for this as an article title. 86.136.110.44 (talk) 11:57, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Guba Genocide Memorial Complex

Because of the disputed neutrality of the Guba mass grave, and, as the article says, no foreign or third-party experts have looked at the site and there is no evidence that the bones belong to massacre victims and it remains a political weapon more than anything, this article should be deleted, because there is no connection with the site to any historic event, and no neutral history has ever called it a genocide. --216.125.48.225 (talk) 13:34, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a strong case for deletion here. The article clearly deals with a controversial topic (and it needs some heavy duty copy editing), but the notability of the subject is not something I seriously question. Any other issues seem fixable though normal editing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:49, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahmed Kaboudan

I don't really have a stake in the matter, as all I did was remove the prod tag on the article. I should have voted, but I didn't. However, this article was deleted with only one delete vote. Is that really enough to establish consensus? ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 13:48, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

This close does look a teeny bit precipitous. Conceding that I don't know what the article looked like, sometimes it really is a no brainer, normally I would be uncomfortable with a deletion based on such limited input. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:01, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)There were actually 2 editors that recommended the article be deleted (the nominator plus one other editor). No one recommended keeping the article. While it isn't an overwhelming support that the article should be deleted there wasn't any reasons given why it should be kept, so the close is consistent with the discussion. If you have a concern about the close, the first step should always be discussing it with the admin that closed the discussion, Salvio giuliano. GB fan 14:06, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
My issue is not so much with the closing administrator. I've seen other articles close with limited input in the past. My question is whether or not two editors can form consensus. The article was not a no brainer deletion, he was a professor in Egypt with several published articles to his name. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 14:34, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
I suggest you continue your discussion with the closing Admin and see where that goes. But if you think this might have been a bit hasty you can always request a deletion review. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:45, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

weenus

unless im missing somthing, one word and a picture does not make an article https://wo.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weenus also, why do the deletion proposal tags not work on a non-English article.--Stewievader2 (talk) 06:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Because that's Wolof Wikipedia. I'm kind of interested why the licensing notice at the bottom is in French while everything else is in Wolof (I imagine there's some special legal reason for it). —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 06:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)This is the English Wikipedia, and that article is in the Wolof language. Our deletion processes (and deletion tags) only apply to the English Wikipedia, and not to foreign language Wikipedias. Language editions of Wikipedia are largely independent in terms of article content policies, and something that would not be acceptable here might be acceptable there. Furthermore if you want to get something deleted on a Wikipedia in another language you have to use their deletion process. Hut 8.5 06:37, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solar Roadways

Could an admin look into an ongoing trainwreck of an AfD. This article was renamed to solar roads without consensus in the middle of an AfD and there is no way to revert since there is a problem when trying to rename. We need the article renamed back to Solar Roadways while the AfD is still ongoing. Nearly everyone who !voted in the AfD did so under the understanding it had the name and scope of Solar Roadways (a company) and not a concept (solar roads). The person who did the rename late in the AfD did so without consensus or discussion with anyone. -- GreenC 22:02, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Why do you need the article renamed back? Note that Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#You_may_edit_the_article_during_the_discussion discourages, but doesn't prohibit, renaming an article during an AfD. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:34, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Hmmm, OK, I'm reading User talk:Safiel. It looks like the person who did the move now regrets his action, so I guess the logical thing would be to just move it back. I'll take care of that. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:38, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Draft space XFD discussions

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Miscellany_for_deletion#Draft_space_XFD_discussions for a discussion on the best locale for Draft: XFD's. — xaosflux Talk 15:15, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Two open AfDs

I recently fixed the AfD template for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HSC Examination 2014 Question Leak. It looks like it was malformed, as it had been done incorrectly so that when Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HSC Examination 2014 Question Leak (2nd nomination) was opened, it didn't immediately show up. The second one is the one with the most traffic, but the first one was opened just minutes before the other. Anyone have any opinion as to which one we should keep in this instance? I'm leaning towards proceedurally closing the first as a malformed nomination (it was cut and pasted from another AfD, so the correct name wasn't even on it) so we can have conversation occur only in one AfD without any big confusion. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:14, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

The second does seem better to keep open; I'd probably close the first (procedural seems fine to me, personally) and notify the participants about the second one if they haven't already commented there. And besides, this is already all WP:IAR anyways. Ansh666 15:40, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Closing the first one sounds sensible.  Philg88 ♦talk 15:46, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Deleting actionable articles

Under what circumstances is it correct to delete an article for a subject which would otherwise pass WP:GNG when the objections are actionable (needs citations, too detailed, needs wikification, contains copyvio, too much trivia, etc.)?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:53, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Context: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jabari Parker's high school career (2nd nomination) --NeilN talk to me 05:11, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

GNG doesn't guarantee an article, so there's plenty of reasons to delete such if it is believed by the consensus that we shouldn't have an article on that topic irregardless of any possible cleanup.
(Realistically, I think the question you should be asking on the above AFD is "when is it reasonable to break out a segment of a person's biographical article?", which is likely best at VPP. ) --MASEM (t) 05:42, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
When a consensus of editors participating in a debate agrees that a hyper-detailed fork of a biography such as this is not appropriate, then in my view, that is the right time for editors who disagree to step aside and respect consensus. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:18, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
The example cited isn't a case of an article being deleted for reasons that could be addressed through editing. The objection was that having an article on this aspect of a person's life was an excessive level of detail. That can't be addressed by putting up a different article about that aspect of a person's life.
More generally I think it is reasonable to delete an article which could be made acceptable by editing if that "editing" would amount to rewriting the article from scratch. Hut 8.5 06:54, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Per WP:DEADHORSE, the work required is irrelevant if concensus agrees that, as in this case, it shouldn't be kept as an unnecessary content fork.  Philg88 ♦talk 06:58, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Gentlemen, I appreciate the spirited attempt to drive this discussion toward an immediate WP:DRV and away from my pursuit of clarification. You are of course only presenting 1/13 of the argument. Yes I have had difficulty with one recreated formerly-deleted article. You failed to mention the 12 recreated articles that are now at WP:GA. I am not attempting to get an explanation of any one article. I have recreated at least 13 articles, 12 of which are WP:GA. I have successfully recreated other articles that are not currently GAs, but I don't even keep track of the ones I don't raise to GA level. However, can we keep things general. This discussion is not an attempt to get clarification on any one of the 13 articles from the past. I am attempting to understand what I must consider regarding the next 13 formerly deleted articles rather than any one of the prior 13. What I am hearing is one of two things. One thing I am hearing (I guess with the prefix hyper), is that when the actionable problem is really bad according to all concerned, then it should be deleted, which of course does not make sense. The more sensible takeaway is that when the actionable problem is not the reason for the consensus to delete—which I think makes more sense—deletion might be appropriate. The actionable element (my experience has been lack of notable facts, lack of citations for notable claims, too much detail) is not always the entire issue. Keeping things general enables me to learn rather than focus on splitting hairs (When I say the article has details that can be pruned and you say "an article on this aspect of a person's life was an excessive level of detail"}. Thanks as well for the suggestion to investigate the propriety of SPLITTING/FORKING. I will think about this issue in the near future as well.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:49, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
    • You missed what everyone just told you; there was nothing actionable about the deleted article - no amount of editing, expansion, or other improvement would have satisfied the basic core problem that the topic of the spun-out article was far too narrow to be a possible article target. You could spend hours and hours trimming down, etc, etc. to make it a better article, but the core statement from both AFDs was that it never should have been spun off in the first place, on the basis that it is the very exceptional case that we break out a biographic portion of a person's life to a separate article. The basis for the creation of that article was that the main article was too large, but as noted at WP:AVOIDSPLIT, the first step is then to trim down before splitting out, not the reverse. (In contrast, the 12 articles you have taken to GA do not look like they started as spinouts but were singular topics with questionable notability that you fixed). --MASEM (t) 13:19, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
      • Well about half of the 12 were notability not established (Either lack of facts, or lack of verifiable sources for claims). I have also recreated a couple WP:COPYVIO and one WP:SPAM advertising (Tory Burch), 3 pages had been blanked by the time the admin deleted the page so there is a strong possibility that there were a few more copyvios or SPAMs. Of the 13 prior recreations, the failed Jabari Parker's high school career is most similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toni Preckwinkle, which was deleted because local politicians were viewed as inappropriate WP subjects at the time. Fortunately, the DRV discussants had the forsight to state that future attempts at recreation were acceptable Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 September 21. It continues to trouble me that portions of athletic careers are considered unacceptable SPLITs. I continue to feel that this is narrowminded. Did you know there is a movie about Pete Maravich's 8th grade season (The Pistol: The Birth of a Legend)? If I were to write a WP article about Jabari Parker's 8th grade season, that might be a bit too narrow of a subject.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:03, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Please stop forum shopping. It isn't sufficient that the subject of the article is considered notable. He already has his own primary article. There is consensus that there is no need for an article on his high school career. High school athletes are only very seldom considered notable anyway. He is notable for his subsequent career. Please stop forum shopping and wasting electrons. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:09, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Overturning past AfD rulings in a new AfD

In this AfD dicussion, two questions arose related to prior AfD rulings:

  1. User:Ad Orientem said that Keep decisions in 2006 and 2007 mean deletion now requires a higher burden to be met than for a previously unreviewed article, based on precedent and common sense.
  2. The same editor thinks it's possible that the decision should be based on notability 2007 guidelines in place during the last Keep decision, rather than current guidelines.

Neither issue is explicitly addressed in guidelines. I'd appreciate opinions on these ideas. Agyle (talk) 17:38, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I am for keeping the article, but both the arguments by Ad Orientem make no sense. 2006 and 2007 is a long time ago, and policies and overall consensus were different. If it had recent deletion attempts it could be different. Also yes, policies/guidelines act retroactively on all articles, not only on new ones, unless explicitly stated.--cyclopiaspeak! 18:19, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
The first point isn't all that bad: while AfDs are non-precedential, significant weight should be accorded to the fact that there was a consensus to keep in the past. While consensus can change, the arguments from that earlier AfD should at least be countered by the participants in the current AfD. The second point is pure bunkum, though, and seems to misunderstand the way notability and the guidelines work together. Notability exists (or does not exist) independently of the guidelines, and the guidelines provide a number of evidentiary rules of thumb for demonstrating that notability exists. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 18:29, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, consider that 2006-2007, notability was nowhere as well defined as it was today, so the discussion from way back is going to mean little. The weight of past AFD is likely going to have a diminishing tail the farther out from that discussion, with a 2006 AFD meaning almost nothing in a 2014 AFD, while a 2013 AFD will mean much to an 2014 AFD. --MASEM (t) 18:36, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Was GNG really all that different in 06/07? It might be a bit more of an amorphous standard now, but I seem to recall the basic idea was exactly the same. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 18:39, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
The GNG might have been the same, but we now since have things like the subject-specific notability guidelines. And in some areas, we've pushed stronger standards (BLP being one of those). But if there was a 2006 AFD based on a lack of sources which was kept on the claim sources were coming, and now we're back in 2014 and no sources having come, that's a good since we had a bad decision to start. --MASEM (t) 18:49, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Mendaliv, the [2007-06-07 WP:WEB guidelines, quoted in the 2007 AfD, said web content was notable if "distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators" (excluding trivial/user-submitted sites). This was later removed from WP:WEB. Agyle (talk) 19:01, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
I won't comment on the specific case but in general, I think that AfD "keep" outcomes from so long ago have fairly little value in predicting the outcome of a 2014 debate. But the debates are worth reading and any valid arguments should be addressed in the current discussion. I agree with Masem's discription of a "diminishing tail" of significance as we move back in time. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:29, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Hi Agyle. I don't think we are as far apart as you may think. I have done some reflecting on that AfD and my view has changed to the point where I tend to think that older AfDs probably do not carry that muich weight, largely for the reasons you cited. In the case in question there were three factors that I think weighed against my original argument. First the age of the AfDs. Secondly the fact that the article had changed rather dramatically, and lastly the evolution of standards for notability. I still think my rational is sound for more recent AfD discussions, especially if multiple ones. There comes a point where you don't want to be seen as promoting a "the voting will continue until the desired result is obtained" kind of situation. But yeah, when discussing articles where the last AfD discussion is obviously pretty dated and there has been significant evolution in the article, I think it's perfectly reasonable to to revisit the notability question if there are doubts. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:43, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Mutual Intelligence

The article Mutual intelligence was created on December 7, 2011 at 23:30 and was last edited the next day at 07:14. The article consists of exactly two sentences and cites no sources or references. My attempts at locating any reliable sources or references using the term "mutual intelligence" (alone, as well as cross-referenced with the term "artificial intelligence, which is one of the categories in which this article is included and ostensibly integral to the topic judging by the text) have only turned up usages of the term that are clearly unrelated to the topic in question, and sources that clearly do not qualify as reliable, such as a youtube video where the term is clearly an invention of the user. In addition, I found articles on other user-editable encyclopedia sites that consist of the exact same text in the Wikipedia article in question. Based on this, I believe the subject of the article is a neologism at best and probably does not meet the necessary criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. ProgHead777 (talk) 04:18, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

@ProgHead777: Prodded per WP:NOTDICT. --NeilN talk to me 04:34, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
@ProgHead777: next time, you can follow the instructions at WP:PROD#Nominating or WP:AFDHOWTO to nominate the article for deletion (they're two different processes); if you don't feel comfortable doing so, as it is a bit technical in nature, then posting here like you did does work as well. Cheers, Ansh666 04:48, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

adding comments to an old AfD page?

Two weeks ago, I closed an AfD with just "Delete". Now, somebody has (quite reasonably) asked me to elaborate on why I closed the way I did. What's the etiquette here? I know the template says No further edits should be made to this page., but still, it seems like the AfD page is the most useful place to put my expanded explanation. Any reason not to put it there, two weeks later? -- RoySmith (talk) 18:24, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you answer the question where it was asked, and try to get in the habit of explaining a bit more in the future. But if consensus is clear, there is no need for a lengthy explanation. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:49, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
  • It is not currently conventional, but IMO the AfD Talk page is a fine place to discuss the closing, and does not conflict with the request to not add edits to the Project Page.  A middle ground is to discuss it on the closer's talk page, and link to that discussion from the AfD talk page.  Note that by marking the AfD talk page, all editors who have the AfD on their watch list are notified.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:35, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Newspaper search engines by country

Wikipedia:Newspaper search engines by country. This is a start. Any feedback or modifications appreciated. -- GreenC 14:36, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Closing/Relisting old AfDs

Why are some AfDs not being closed or relisted after the 7-day deadline, even if a consensus has been reached or more discussion is clearly needed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.211.170 (talk) 12:46, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Because sometimes in an imperfect world, things get missed or fall through the cracks. Got any specific AfDs you'd like to point to? -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:03, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
No AfDs in particular, I just looked through logs from the beginning of the month and noticed quite a few that were still open without a relisting after 7-days from the previous one or nomination date [6] [7], [8]. A few from the end of May are like that too. 67.87.211.170 (talk) 23:30, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Also, the 7 day thing isn't a hard deadline. There are many other reasons that AfDs would be open without relisting for more than a week, for example if there is a lot of traffic and it isn't easy to determine consensus. Ansh666 14:03, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. Is there a way to tell when an AfD page exists but is not properly formatted? As in, the absence of CAT:AfD but not a previously closed discussion. Pinging User:Cyberpower678, as he maintains the current AfD report. Ansh666 07:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Location of AFD multi template

There seems to be disagreement between the adminstrator instructions and WP:Talk page layout. I have started a thread at Wikipedia talk:Talk page layout#AFD history to try to resolve this. SpinningSpark 12:47, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

The "List of Playboy Playmates of X" articles likely should be deleted. I've never seen anyone attempt such an AfD, so would like to hear what more experienced editors have to say on such a WP:MULTIAFD situation. --Ronz (talk) 16:07, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

  • It's a nightmare. I did a mass AfD for forty some odd state chapters of the Constitution Party (United States) last year. The AfD did not transclude (is that the right term?) properly into the AfD log and it was one of the most time consuming things I have done on here. I have heard similar stories from other editors who have had trouble with mass AfDs going through correctly. I thought my fingers were going to fall off after all of the typing. It was also hotly contested by some editors who accused me of political bias. My bottom line is that if it can be avoided, I would try to find some other way of dealing with the articles. That said, sometimes you just have a bunch of articles that need to go. Caveat: I have not looked at any of what you are proposing to AfD so I am making no judgments. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:34, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
    Much appreciated. Sounds like there's a scaling problem with the process, which is what I was assuming from what few attempts I've noticed. Anyone else? --Ronz (talk) 16:41, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
    Oh, god, that was a mess. I did the cleanup for that - 50+ articles to change the {{AfD}} tag to {{Afd-merge to}}, and add {{oldafdfull}} on their talk pages. Was not fun. At least it padded my mainspace pie a little... Anyways, I'm just going to say, if you have a good case, be prepared to do a lot of copy-pasting. And, hopefully, cleaning up (because if not, I'll likely end up doing it all ). Ansh666 17:15, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • One more word of caution. Because you have to put up AfD tags on all the nominated articles and then link them in the original AfD discussion/nom, make sure you have plenty of time and are not likely to be interrupted when you begin this. It's one of those things where once you start you really need to keep going until it's finished. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:55, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I would consider spreading it out over a few days/weeks. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 18:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Actually, Ronz is talking about doing them all in one massive AfD discussion page, not individually, so that wouldn't really make sense... Ansh666 02:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Follow WP:MULTIAFD carefully! :-) Another general tip is to check each subject individually, and only include what you find to be the most clearcut cases in the AfD; discussions get messy when several articles are debated separately within a bundled AfD. However, in this case the articles are very equivalent, and a bundled AfD is unlikely to involve much analysis of individual subjects, so much as interpretation of whether Playmates are "famous for a specific event" per WP:LISTPEOPLE. In general I'd only do a bundled AfD if you think it will pass, and my gut instinct is this will result in no consensus, but you may disagree, or you may want to go through the process for reasons other than deleting the articles. I recently started a 13-article bundled AfD of biographies, but it was after 5 out of 5 similar biographies were deleted in individual AfDs. It could still go either way, but that sort of track record was an indication to me that success seemed likely. ––Agyle (talk) 08:33, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for the responses. Please keep them coming.

My take from all this is that it's probably best to start with a single AfD, notifying all the creators of all the articles about it and the possibility of a multiple-article AfD to follow. --Ronz (talk) 20:06, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Taylor Bruce nomination

Would someone please complete this deletion nomination? Thanks. 184.147.140.76 (talk) 19:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and do this. --Finngall talk 20:12, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Ooops. I had already started it when I hit the refresh button and saw your comment. I need to do a little more digging on Google just to be sure though. My initial search was pretty cursory. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:19, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
No worries. Carry on.  :-) --Finngall talk 20:21, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

@evleaks nomination

I'm hoping the community would discuss the deletion of @evleaks. I have contributed to this page in good faith, despite that I feel it's rather promotional and questionable if it establishes notability. (The subject is merely a blogger who leaks things. There are many, many bloggers who leak things and they don't all need Wikipedia articles.)

I soon realized the vast majority of the article is written and maintained by the subject's executive assistant, Wikipedian Cclewandowski. Here are Cclewandowski's LinkedIn and Twitter profiles establishing he is @evleaks' executive assistant:

- LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/pub/corey-lewandowski/3a/397/581 - Twitter: https://twitter.com/CCLewandowski

On opening a discussion about whether the article should be deleted, the discussion was removed by @evleaks himself and the following was posted by him on my Talk page:


Bottom Line: @evleaks is attempting to control his article as a promotion page through intimidation and manipulation. Please advise what to do or if you agree with deletion. In good faith, and thank you. Wikigeek2 (talk) 18:55, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Help?

I'm not sure how this should be addressed. An editor says he created an article; though the record is murky as you can see here. But for the reasons he stated in his edit summary, he seems to want to gut it. Can someone who thinks they know how to best address (I'm not sure) step in? Thanks. --Epeefleche (talk) 03:00, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

  • not sure. Can't be unilaterally deleted anymore, even at their request (assuming we take them at their word about the old account). My instinct is to stub it and make it as neutral as possible and go from there. I'll do that. Protonk (talk) 04:01, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
  • so in the process of stubbing it i found that most of the sources were not about Niazi himself but rather about companies or products (or places where he's quoted). PROD might not be a bad route. That said I didn't look around for other sources. At least now it's a less...well...puffed with puffery. :) Protonk (talk) 04:10, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Kraft

The person in question is an ordinary industrial chemist, like thousands of others. He is completely irrelevant for an encyclopedic project. It is believed that the author just tried to discuss himself. Deletion is suggested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.64.254.240 (talk) 10:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm coming up with an h-index of about 15, which might be judged to be sufficient for WP:PROF C1. *shrug* By the way, you may wish to create an account, anonymous participation reveals your IP address.--j⚛e deckertalk 14:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I have applied a COI tag to the article and dropped a note on the creator's talk page. Beyond which I am not comfortable sending this to AfD. It's very possible that the article is self promotional, but there is a plausible argument for notability here, albeit I think a weak one. If someone feels differently and wants to pull the AfD trigger I will be happy to look at the nom and give it every consideration. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Essay deletion?

Could someone please point me to the guideline/page for essay deletion? Searched but failed, cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:46, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

The most relevant policy to Wikipedia's exclusion of essays is the section of the WP:NOT policy page Wikipedia:NOTESSAY. Hope that helps! --j⚛e deckertalk 23:49, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Joe, doesn't explain how to nominate an essay for deletion though unless I missed it? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:58, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I may have misunderstood. If the question is about an essay in article space, the policy above applies, and the correct place to head next is WP:AFD. If it's in some other name space, Cullen's recommendation below is correct. My apologies for any confusion. --j⚛e deckertalk 00:12, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
In my cynical experience, you just get a WP:JANITOR on your side who is willing to move the essay that offends you into the WP:User space of the person who authored it. It's kinda a WP:DICK move though. Any hints as to which WP:Essay you don't like? -- Kendrick7talk 00:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello Nimbus227. I think that WP:Miscellany for deletion is probably what you are looking for. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:09, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks all. Looks like we could need a specific place to delete essays, some users are treating them as gospel policies. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:18, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, when they like what they say! But yeah WP:MfD is probably your best bet. However, if you've merely run into a problematic interpersonal issue with just a few editors, consider taking the problem to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. -- Kendrick7talk 00:30, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

List of most downloaded Android applications

I'd like to ask if someone could finalize the deletion request. The justification is here. Thanks. -- 89.14.24.193 (talk) 11:19, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll take care of this. --Finngall talk 15:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Done. --Finngall talk 16:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

GATAC deletion

People who dismiss GATA have obviously not given detailed appraisal to the facts available such as those in The Gold Cartel by Dimitri Speck which is a highly acclaimed appraisal of long term intra day price trends. As a consequence their reasons for dismissing GATA are usually based on unsubstantiated 'points of view'. Deletion of GATA would reduce the credibility of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roberthorse (talk • contribs) 12:31, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Reality show contestants

I've cited the general rule that Reality show contestants, unless they win/place/show, or have some other notability per WP:CREATIVE, don't get their an article. Can we word-smith a line about that? Bearian (talk) 22:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

In general, I'm supportive of the notion for both reality shows and music contests such as singing contests. And have seen discussions supporting the fact that those who come in at a lower level in music competitions are not ipso facto notable. But I have a question -- are you suggesting that if they otherwise meet GNG (though not CREATIVE), they not get an article? The sentence may need some wordsmithing. Also, I believe the place for such a line is in a notability provision, not in OUTCOMES. OUTCOMES is less helpful, as it just documents past treatment, and if relied on solely for a !vote suffers from a wp:otherstuffexists challenge. --Epeefleche (talk) 23:50, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't think that's the suggestion at all. No sensible person would argue that someone notable somehow becomes un-notable just because they were on a quiz show. Reyk YO! 00:14, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Then it would say something along the lines of "other notability per WP:CREATIVE or GNG." Plus, we would have to consider what to do with a person who has GNG-level coverage of their 12th-place finish. Epeefleche (talk) 03:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Here is a relevant discussion re notability of contestants in American Idol and the like. Epeefleche (talk) 03:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Reality contestants would be covered under WP:BLP1E (the event being the show itself), I don't think new language is needed. --MASEM (t) 16:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • @Masem -- I don't think that's clearly the case. If it were, the winner of the show would not be deemed notable -- they are notable for the one event of the show itself. And we routinely view the winner of a notable reality show or music contest as notable. Probably because under BLP1E a person can in fact be notable for one event--if editors do not believe that the person is, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Or editors view the event as significant, or view the individual's role as either substantial or well-documented. By how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources. I think clarification as suggested would be helpful. Epeefleche (talk) 18:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, I mean, as a baseline, if there only coverage is for being on the show, that's BLP1E. If they actually won, and we're talking a notable show (Survivor, American Idol, etc.) that gets routine coverage, then there is usually more details about the person's life that are highlighted, and often that person is referred back in future seasons of the show. But I would also not say that winners are automatically notable, only that the presumption of notability is enough to allow an article to be created and given time to develop. If after a year or so there's nothing new from that winner, then our presumption was wrong and we can delete that article. --MASEM (t) 18:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Epeefleche, your link was very helpful. I think the consensus is pretty clear: you have to rank in the top 10 to 13 slots of a singing contest or reality show to prove as one factor of WP:CREATIVE. There's no rush. Bearian (talk) 20:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Comment On Chinese wiki, we don't keep anyone who doesn't rank in the top five and is only famous for his reality show.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 12:34, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Top three is not something I would disagree with. Top five is iffy though I could live with it. But I am having a hard time swallowing presumptive notability for someone who comes in tenth in a reality TV contest. That seems to just stomp all over BLP1E and is far too indiscriminate. -Ad Orientem (talk) 12:46, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
    • I would agree that a presumption of notability can be made for top 3, but no deeper than that. Not that a 10th place finish could be notable for other reasons but there's no presumption of notability for just finishing 10th. Note that this is still a presumption even for top 3: if that top spot doesn't turn into any more demonstration of notability, then it can become a target for removal. But we can make the safe assumption that sourcing could possibly come able to give time for that. --MASEM (t) 14:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Seems to me it's tough to make a real rule here due to the vast difference in the notability of the shows themselves. Is the winner of a season of American Idol notable? Almost certainly. Is the winner of the "Teen LumberJacks" on the "Woodcutter Network" deep in the depths of C grade cable notable? Doubtful.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion about wording and formatting of OldAfD templates

Please see Template talk:Old AfD multi#This template (and all similar templates) put the attention on the wrong link. Thank you for your comments, Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:07, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I've started a discussion over at WT:Deletion policy#Question about WP:NACD that may interest the passing reader. Thanks, Ansh666 18:31, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Center for HIV Law and Policy

I nominated a proposed article, located at Center for HIV Law and Policy for Speedy Deletion on the grounds that it is both promotional in nature and is also about an organization that is neither substantial nor well-known. It appears that as soon as the author deleted the Speedy Deletion tag, the nomination was removed from the list of articles being nominated for speedy deletion. I was unable to use the tool at WP:AFD to nominate the page, I'm assuming because it has not actually been approved as an article. Ormr2014 (talk) 21:55, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I've restored the tag and placed the appropriate warning on the IP's talk page. If he continues to remove the tag report him to AIV and he'll be blocked.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 22:35, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the help! Ormr2014 (talk) 22:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Given that the speedy deletion has been contested by other than the article creator (see the talk page, and this post [9] as well as mine) I have removed the speedy tag. I think there is sufficient evidence to suggest that the subject may meed Wikipedia notability criteria. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Memory storage density

I nominated Memory storage density for deletion. This article has been out of date for the last three years, and is unlikely to receive or to deserve the ongoing maintenance it requires. I request that someone else (editor or registered user) completes this process. 71.128.35.13 (talk) 19:14, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

It is a valid subject. Being out of date is not a reason for deletion. If you manage to finish starting the AfD then it will likely end in being kept. Most encyclopedias become more out of date every day, this article at least has a chance of being brought up to date. Chillum 19:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
WP:NOTCLEANUP. Please don't waste people's time with a pointless nomination. Dream Focus 19:25, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
@Chillum: IP editors cannot "finish starting the AfD"; they require a registered user to create the actual discussion page. I'm not going to finish it as I usually do, per concerns above. Either complete it or remove it. Ansh666 19:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I see. The template says "If the nomination is not completed and no message is left on the talkpage, this tag may be removed.". There is a message on the talk page so I guess I will simply not remove it or finish it. If no user is willing to create the AfD in a reasonable time I suppose it can still be removed but the wording is unclear about that possibility. Chillum 19:31, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Given that memory storage density is clearly a notable topic, not an attack page, not an advertizement, has sources and constant scholarship, is not associated with a Pokemon or youtube channel or ethnic conflict, etc. etc. etc., there is not a snowball's chance in hell it's getting deleted. I'm removing the template. @71.128.35.13:, if you believe the page is out of date, rather than trying to have it deleted, you should try updating it with more recent information. --erachima talk 19:30, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Good move. Chillum 19:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Technically, yes, that might have been the more accurate piece of word salad to include. WP:IAR is the "Because I Said So" of policy justifications though, and the idea of SNOWing an AfD so early in the process that it's still a redlink amuses me. --erachima talk 19:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
WP:IAR most certainly is not the "Because I said so" of policy justifications. It is the "this rules was preventing me from improving or maintaining the encyclopedia" of policies. A common misconception. You are right it would have been silly to go through all of that just to meet the letter of a rule, you were right to ignore it.
IAR exists not so that people can do things because they want to, it is so we don't waste time when the rule prevents you from improving or maintaining the encyclopedia. While it is often misused I would say that you used it perfectly. Chillum 19:46, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I know how IAR works, and I am perfectly aware that it actually means "because it was my best judgment that policy does not apply well here." I am referring to the catch-all and unsatisfactory nature of being told that the reason something you disagree with was done is IAR. The parallel to "Because I Said So" is that telling someone you did something due to IAR is similarly uninformative and condescending. Rather than asserting that you did it due to your best judgment, you should explain why that was your judgment. --erachima talk 19:55, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I am the one who said it. I now see you were just explaining why you did not. I agree that when you ignore a rule you don't need to invoke IAR, you just need to explain why you ignored the rule. You did explain yourself well[10] and I was not suggesting you should have linked to IAR.
I only meant without a hint of sarcasm that I thought it was a good move and a good example of IAR working. Chillum 20:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Thumbs up icon Ansh666 21:54, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Just why exactly are we bikeshedding the snot out of IAR? Protonk (talk) 23:08, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Because we have found ourselves in furious agreement. --erachima talk 23:13, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

If I thought it would result in a big discussion I would not have mentioned it. Was just trying to say good job. Chillum 23:10, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

2018 FIFA World Cup qualification (CONCACAF)

I would like to officially nominate this article for deletion as it has remained empty since its creation on 19 July. On top of that, the CONCACAF has not officially announced its qualification process for the World Cup, therefore, making this article not notable right now. I would like to request a registered user or an editor complete this process for me. Thanks. 71.162.68.219 (talk) 14:55, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Demet Muftuoglu

can you please delete the above page as it is full of self promotion and she is clearly advertising herself? she is not known or has any fame whatsoever. G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.22.228.31 (talk) 04:32, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Deletion is being discussed. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 17:06, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

AfD Nominator Voting in Afd?

If you nominate an article for AfD, is it proper/standard to submit a vote as well? Upjav (talk) 18:12, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

No. The nomination counts as a Delete vote unless the nominator specifies an alternative desired outcome. Which AfD are you talking about?  Philg88 ♦talk 18:21, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. I actually voted after nomination in my first AfD about a month ago, and just realized after participating in several more AfDs that that probably wasn't standard procedure. If you want to see the archived AfD, it's here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jitterbug_Vipers. Upjav (talk) 18:30, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Shusha massacre

I want to nominate Shusha massacre for deletion as there is no source about this massacre in western sources. The majority of sources comes from only armenian claimed books. Moreover, article includes sources from books such as Michael P. Croissant. The Armenia-Azerbaijan Conflict: Causes and Implications. Greenwood Publishing Group, 1998 where doesn't talk about this massacre but as conflict.

The article also covers only armenian view instead of both, which breaches Wikipedia's NPOV. --Yacatisma (talk) 16:55, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

An article does not have to have western sources. The other problems you are giving are reasons to edit the article, they are not reasons to delete the article. If you think it should be deleted you can nominate it for deletion (although I would suggest you don't, as I do not believe it would be deleted). GB fan 18:32, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Incorrectly opened AfD?

I don't think that the nominator opened this AfD correctly. Their is also a weirdly formatted notice on the article's page. Can an admin, or someone savvy about the procedures please fix this somehow? -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:15, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

 Done. Ansh666 23:03, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Where are the deletion discussions for 14 August?

I can't see the deletion discussions for 14 August (2014) listed on either current or old deletion discussions. Could an admin take a look at this, please? AdventurousMe (talk) 03:02, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I'll tell you how to fix this, as I run into this now and again. It will eventually catch up, but if you go to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Old, and look carefully, there's a link to a button to refresh the current lists of discussions. You can press it, and it'll seem like it's doing nothing for as much as 2-3 minutes, but it will eventually refresh the list. I do this most days by hand not long after midnight UTC, but it does eventually get done by a bot as well.  :) --j⚛e deckertalk 03:05, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

The Hundred Parishes

Requesting parts II and III to be completed for the above entry, as per [11]. 109.176.223.232 (talk) 14:42, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Need registered user to complete nominate for deletion process

I nominated Gennady_Stolyarov_II for deletion and need a registered user to complete the nomination process. Thank you.

 Done - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gennady Stolyarov II. Ansh666 22:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

AfD discussion speedily deleted

Hello, I proposed an article for AfD [Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Citycon] at the same time that another editor proposed it for speedy deletion. The article was speedily deleted, but the AfD remains up. Do I just close it with a speedy delete decision? Upjav (talk) 18:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

 Done. --Finngall talk 18:42, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

What can I do for it not to be deleted? I really want it to be accepted.Or please someone edit it for me.. so that it can be accepted?. 112.198.234.141 (talk) 10:48, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Uninvolved administrators

In poking around in the AfD archives, I was surprised to come across a case (several years ago) which was summarily closed as "keep" by the editor (incidentally an admin) who had created the page under discussion (!). I was even more surprised that the instructions do not explicitly forbid this, since they define an uninvolved administrator as "one who has not participated in the deletion discussion". As an administrator myself I would not dream of closing an AfD if I was "involved" according to the more general definition at WP:UNINVOLVED. In fact, since that page is a policy and this page is not even officially a guideline, I believe that the wording here has no effect. In order to make this clear, I am changing it:

From: An uninvolved admin (i.e. one who has not participated in the deletion discussion) ...
To: An admin who is uninvolved and has not participated in the deletion discussion ...

Better ideas are welcome. Zerotalk 13:17, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

There could be legit cases here, however. Without seeing the AFD in question, it's hard to tell. For example, a case I could see is if the closing admin's only previous action on the page to be deleted was to salt it with a redirect, or perhaps move a userspace draft into mainspace as part of a request, and nothing else (no content generation, etc.) then there's no reason that the admin could also be the closer of the AFD on that. --MASEM (t) 14:28, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
I would say if an administrator has acted only in an administrative manner towards and article then they are not involved. Involved, as defined for the purpose of administrative actions, means involved in a content dispute.
Again, as Masem said, without knowing the precise case I cannot say if anything has gone wrong or not. Chillum 14:35, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree with you both, but I don't think further words are required since it is a general principle that administrative actions do not constitute "involvement". It says so in the policy at WP:UNINVOLVED. Zerotalk 00:53, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Speedily deletion nomination/Articles for deletion redirected page

Hello. Can you please delete the redirect article so click here: Spartan race (company). I think we can add a tag using speedily deletion edit for the Spartan race (company). Thank you. Bryancyriel (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:54, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Added a G7 tag. Ansh666 03:15, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Needs to be split

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PrimeFaces needs to be split into a second nomination. Sorry, no time, must go. – Fayenatic London 18:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

 Done. Ansh666 19:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

August 30th is missing from lists of open AFDs

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old/Open AfDs, August 30th is missing. I'm guessing Mathbot messed up somehow, since it seems to be what fills in those pages. Can someone please fix them so that August 30th is listed. I tried adding a header for August 30th at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old/Open AfDs but I think I messed it up (linking to the wrong day), and Mathbot just removed it. I'm not sure whether trying again and linking to the right day would work, so I figured it was better to just ask here and have someone who knows what they are doing fix the problem. Calathan (talk) 16:46, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the bot messed it up. I don't know why. Unfortunately, once it misses a day, it cannot come back and insert it, as perhaps a human editor removed that day. I put August 30 by hand, and the bot respected that link when I started it. If such a glitch happens again I will take a closer look at the source code. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:20, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Contradictory instructions for non-logged-in users

The page first says an IP editor should post both on the article's talk page and then on this talk page, and then contradicts itself by saying it's not possible for an IP editor to complete the process; the template says an IP editor should post only on the article's talk page. So that is three paragraphs all saying different things! Which instruction is the correct one?--greenrd (talk) 23:13, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

  • I dunno, but I always thought the "talk page" part was a pain in the ass. I'd prefer the policy be just "make a post on WT:AFD noting the article and the reason for deletion" because then I can just copy their post and add the template myself. Protonk (talk) 01:18, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

AfD in limbo: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dina Rae (singer)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dina Rae (singer) was created on 4 September 2014, and has attracted some comment. Although opened two weeks ago, it's not been closed or relisted, but it's not transcluded to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 September 4 or any other daily page. What's happened here - I thought that there was a bot that made sure that open AfDs were transcluded to one of the daily pages? There's a thread at Talk:Dina Rae (singer)#Requested move where they were told not to move the page until the AfD closed; they're still waiting for that, and complaints about the delay have been posted there. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:12, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll see if I can at least get it fixed technically. --j⚛e deckertalk 19:26, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Marie Porter

This person is not notable and most of the sources are primary and the ones that are not are not even sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orasis (talk • contribs) 00:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Pizda (chemical)

As an unregistered user I cannot complete the AFD process myself, so following the instructions at WP:AFD I am requesting that someone complete the process for Pizda (chemical). The rationale for the nomination is on the article's talk page, Talk:Pizda (chemical). Thank you. 71.185.49.96 (talk) 11:54, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

 Done - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pizda (chemical). ansh666 23:53, 19 September 2014 (UTC)


Soft deletion

I just had a somewhat frustrating experience with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dmitriy Grigoriyev. After being up for deletion for nearly a month, it was closed as "no consensus". While I don't fault the closer for his decision, isn't this slightly absurd? It's clear the topic isn't going to attract much interest if renominated, and if all the single-purpose account who created the article could bother to do was remove the AfD template — well, that's his problem. Moreover, I do recall discussion about discussions with no votes cast ending up as soft deletes (at least as a general rule), and although I'm not sure how that turned out, perhaps it's time to codify that, given situations like this one. - Biruitorul Talk 16:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

While in general the choice is a matter of closer discretion, in this particular case I think NC/NPASR is the right call. If you check the article hiistory, you will see that the article had been recently PROD tagged, and the PROD tag removed by the article author. It is quite likely that a SOFTDELETE would have ended up at WP:REFUND, the article restored, and we would be precisely where we are here, but with a few extra steps along the way. --j⚛e deckertalk 19:09, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
We will, at some point, have to cross this bridge. One way will be to treat no discussion AfDs like PRODs. Another may be to empower admins to close AfD discussions on the basis of a nomination alone. We're not there yet, so I think the best policy is to let closers figure this out as they go along and have the policy take note of the practices which appear to work best, rather than codifying this before it becomes a real practice. Protonk (talk) 19:16, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
WP's systematic bias in favor of keeping crap articles on questionably notable subjects is frustrating. It seems it's better to be everyone's webhost to upsetting some SPA or newby. The other problem is that every angle of every notable thing seems to be assumed to be notable: every song ever recorded by or written by or produced by a notable person, even if never released as a single or charted, every agency of every local government, such as a town's police force, fire dept, water dept, utilities dept, parks department, often with little more than "Fooville PD is the police department of Fooville. Its website is ..." A quick google search will show that the local rag mentions the PD about once a month, busting truants, drunk drivers, people who are past due on parking fines or library books, and the general fluff of the PD's toy drive for Xmas, a profile of the new officer's new wife's new baby's new puppy, and other crap and alas, the article is kept as a one liner with tags. We ought to break that bias lest we become yp.com Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but do you have an actual comment on how we should handle low/no participation AfDs or is this just a rant? Protonk (talk) 23:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes. CSD should be expanded to include all articles without at least one source. Second, no one may remove a prod without providing an independent reliable source (this is already in place for new BLP's). Third, if no-one comments during an AFD, it's deleted. No AFD's are to be relisted without at least 2 !votes, if even one of two commentors thinks it should be kept, it's kept but can be renominated in 6-months, if the problems (sourcing, or notability) are not corrected during the second AFD, then only a clear consensus to keep would keep the article - we do have the article rescue squad. And yes, a rant, too. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Carlossuarez46 et al., I've renominated (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dmitriy Grigoriyev (2nd nomination)), although, because I dared include a couple of other trivial topics in my nomination, I've drawn incredulous gasps from those who invariably put process above results. - Biruitorul Talk 13:38, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I need help for deletion

Hello can you help me to delete this page Gasaneri. Because there is no village like this. Also how I can delete the page because I am not an administrator? Can someone help me?--Nəcməddin Kəbirli (talk) 13:57, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Daily AfD pages are getting too long

At the moment, no fewer than four of the last seven daily AfD pages are showing up in Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded - basically, this means that the total length of the AfD articles to be put on the page gets so long that they can no longer all be transcluded, and the final AfD articles on the page only show up as links. This immediately makes looking at the AfDs concerned (no matter commenting on them, if necessary) a far longer process, particularly as the daily AfD page concerned is so long that it can take half a minute to reload whenever one goes back to it. And we don't really want to be doing anything that discourages editors from looking through AfD discussions. There are a number of at least theoretically possible solutions to this problem - increasing the maximum allowed length of pages after template inclusions, cutting down somehow on the number of AfDs, cutting down somehow on the length of AfDs, relisting fewer AfDs (particularly already long ones), spinning off relisted AfDs onto a separate page, and no doubt more. Each seems to have some difficulties or drawbacks - but surely we can come up with something that on balance improves the current situation? PWilkinson (talk) 16:33, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

The other irritating thing is the "too many people are viewing this page" notice which is more & more constant here, To be honest personally I think the entire AFD system needs hugely updating as we're in 2014, Not 2004, Only solution I have is instead of 1 page a day - Have 2 pages ? .... –Davey2010 • (talk) 02:15, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
One page per day per category (e.g., Monday's biographical articles)? Given it is possible people are interested in particular types of AfDs it might make it easier to navigate too. QuiteUnusual (talk) 13:19, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
I'd support either sort of breakdown into multiple files, it would require some script work, I'm sure. I don't believe that we should let technical considerations drive the content of deletion discussions--if there's a problem with relisting (and one can argue that there is, and/or that there is a problem with AfD participation), that should be discussed separately, but I think that trying to fix that in order to work around the template inclusion limit is a short-term band-aid that isn't likely to prove a useful long-term solution. Let's just fix this right. --j⚛e deckertalk 17:37, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
I think "spinning off relisted AfDs onto a separate page" is a good idea in any case. I don't see significant drawbacks beyond the work required to implement it, and it would be useful in a number of ways. VMS Mosaic (talk) 22:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

A bot could measure the length of a given day's AfDs and if too long split it up into #1, #2 etc. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 17:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

After repeatedly failing to load today's log over the past 15 minutes for the first time ever, I'd support a split of some sort - having a separate log for relisted discussions sounds like a good idea, though a separate log for each category, while harder to maintain (categories can be switched easily), would probably be a better long-term solution if the volume of AfDs continues to increase. Ansh666 18:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

If people would stop contesting prod's, if we'd expand CSD, we'd have fewer of these. So few articles nominated for deletion that are kept are ever more than crap or permastubs with tags forever that it seems much effort for little reward and the community's efforts would be better spent identifying unquestionably notable topics and encouraging editors to write there. But, alas, the system we put in place when every article was precious is cumbersome at the 5 million mark. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:31, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

One thing that would help is to stop relisting articles over and over and over again. In most cases these are nominations with one or two delete !votes and no keeps, and should be soft-deleted as though they're expired PRODs. Reyk YO! 22:58, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

True. I thought that a couple months ago, a proposal came by here (and passed) whereby we'd treat those that way? Or was I dreaming the whole thing? ansh666 23:01, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, you're right. I remember that discussion now: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 110#Deprecate PROD, close unchallenged AfDs as delete without prejudice. Reyk YO! 23:08, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion about getting rid of PRODs. If this happens, there will inevitably be more AfDs, and so problems of non-transclusion (as described above) will happen sooner and more frequently. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:51, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
At the moment there are 167 AfDs on today's log; that's the biggest number I can remember seeing. At minimum maybe we should give serious consideration to the proposal to put relists on a separate daily log that AfD regulars might remember to check and give extra attention to help resolve some of these older discussions. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Too many are being relisted by well-meaning non-admins (who of course can't press delete). Frankly, if an AfD can't find anyone to comment on it in two weeks, it should simply be deleted. Otherwise close it normally. I can think of very few AfDs (usually very contentious ones) that have benefited from being relisted more than once. Black Kite (talk) 17:13, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, then maybe more admins should get on closing AfDs...also, relisted ones can be closed at any time, not only after a week, right? ansh666 18:49, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
The problem is closing low participation AfDs is a good way to get an earful of shit over nothing. At least with >3 participants you can point to the discussion but with fewer than that (especially if it's numerically pitched the other way but they're all no-content arguments) you're liable to piss someone off whichever way you choose. Protonk (talk) 18:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Someone who complains about an article being deleted after two weeks at AfD should probably have done something about it whilst it was at AfD. Having said that, I don't see a problem with articles deleted in this manner being dealt with like deleted PRODs. Black Kite (talk) 20:44, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Special:AFDFeed

Could AFD possibly be based off of the AFC tool Special:NewPagesFeed?--Coin945 (talk) 18:15, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Lighter templates

One (partial) solution is too make the templates used in each AfD "lighter". It is not always easy to see what would help and what wouldn't, many people here rae much better versed in this than me, but I've tried something nevertheless. If we replace the "Find sources" template used in each AfD with the new Template:Find sources AFD, does it help? It removes the "free images" search, which is IMO never useful for an AfD. The "newspapers" search also doesn't give any useful results for me, but that may be a country-specific thing; can American (or other) editors confirm that this is useful for them? Otherwise it can go as well.

Now, I don't know whether this really helps with the template include size, I just offer it as a possible solution. if this would help, one would need to change Template:Afd2 (replacing :({{Find sources|{{{pg}}}}}) with :({{Find sources AFD|{{{pg}}}}})). Perhaps someone can check if more tweaks and trimming are possible. Fram (talk) 13:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I have checked this a bit more, and it seems to reduce the number of standard templates on 1 AfD from 11 to 10, or some 9% (in number, perhaps not in size). I'll do the test by replcing Find sources with Find Sources AFD on one day, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 September 16. At the moment, the last AfD that is visible is the one for Tsakana Nkandih, and the first that is not expanded is the one for Robert Lyn Nelson.

Feel free to trout me if this go horribly wrong, and to undo my changes if they are deemed to be nagetive or unwanted. Fram (talk) 14:12, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

All right, I have now done the test, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 September 16 now shows 12 further AfDs (last one shown is now Robert Bianco)! It still exceeds the limit, so further improvements are needed, but (as long as no one wants "free images" back for AfDs) it is a step in the right direction. I'll change the AfD2 template so that new AfDs automatically get the "Find sources AfD" template; again, feel free to revert me if necessary. Fram (talk) 14:31, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I've seen the "newspapers" search come up a couple times, it's particularly useful in case an article is about an older topic (i.e. before the interwebz) and may not have received a lot of online coverage since. ansh666 19:08, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
For certain classes of subject, news has been one of the most productive sources for demonstrating notability. Please do not remove material which is actually valuable for assessing notability as a band-aid for a technical failure. That way lies madness. --j⚛e deckertalk 19:13, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for trying this. The Google newspapers search can be very useful for older topics, assuming the search syntax is properly formulated (disambiguation terms in the title can throw it out of kilter, for example). I agree that images are unlikely to be helpful in most AfD cases (and where they might be, they are easy enough to access from the basic Google search in any case). --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I only suggested removing the "newspaper search" (not the news search) because it doesn't yield any results (for me!) anyway. If it is useful for others, even just for the Americans (of which there are quite a few at enwiki), then of course it should stay. I'll try to thnk of other ways to make the template lighter still. Fram (talk) 19:26, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I agree with regard to images. --j⚛e deckertalk 23:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
I think regardless of the technical impetus, trimming down templates like these is valuable. +1 for removing the free image sources. I'll try and take a closer look at the remainder of it later. Protonk (talk) 20:15, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
I'd also recommend removing the JSTOR link unless we have some reason to believe that JSTOR covers a substantial number of sources not indexed by google scholar (which would seem to me to be impossible as scholar indexes JSTOR), because their search is certainly not better. Protonk (talk) 00:39, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Also the "stats" link appears to be dead and I have no idea why it would be a good idea to link the the page views for the page under discussion as anyone using that as an argument for or against deletion would be ignored. Protonk (talk) 00:41, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm proud to say that with further rewrites of the template (without losing any further fucntionality, and keeping the underlying "Template:Find sources multi" subtemplates) I have now eliminated (or seriously reduced) the problem. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 September 16 now is again fully functional. Every new AfD gets this new, lighter template; if any older pages still have the transclusion limit problem, you'll need to change the old find sourecs template to the new "find sources AFD" template on every single AfD on that page though. Fram (talk) 07:17, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Why relist?

Wow. Yes, those daily pages are getting way too long. Looking over a few random pages, I see two easy fixes. First, almost all debates get three or four lines that "This debate has been included in the list of foo-related deletions". Now creating such lists and groupings sounds very useful to me... but is it really necessary to mention their existence in each AFD debate? Does a daily AFD page benefit from having 200 lines informing us that <some debate> has been put on <some list>? I somehow doubt that.

Second, and more important, is the relistings (and this has been a problem for several years now). Relisting a debate to "generate a more thorough discussion" sounds like a nice idea, but in practice it usually doesn't work. Looking over a few daily AFD pages, I don't see any evidence of the "relist" tag generating a more thorough discussion. So to get AFD back under control, this practice of mass relisting should probably be removed. Either treat such articles as expired PRODs (and remove them and let WP:REFUND restore them if anyone minds) or treat them as "no consensus" and keep them, but don't just throw them back in the hope that a second round of process would give more of an outcome than the first round of process. >Radiant< 15:35, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Need User to complete AfD

Vern Hughes. Can't complete to AfD. Rationale is on the talk page. 124.180.144.121 (talk) 03:51, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

This is a bit urgent. I just had to revert a user who removed the AfD tag (and the other tags as well calling them "botched"). 124.180.144.121 (talk) 10:03, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 Done Black Kite (talk) 10:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Cem Dinc

As I am not a registered user I request that someones completes the AFD-process on this article. I put the rationale also on the talk page.

This article can be deleted, because it is of no relevance. The person does not meet the notability criteria for basketball. He was for a very short time with a TBL-team (which is not listed in the criteria-leagues), but did not play at all. The article is not up to date. Also some links are broken. The first part about his "Early Life" is not based on facts. He never played for the Turkish national team. Again sources are missing. So I propose to delete the article.

193.134.132.20 (talk) 12:29, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Some of those problems are fixable - we could find sources, for example, or clean up the text. But the argument that the subject is not notable is what matters at AFD. I'll complete the steps for this one. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:02, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Need help for completing an AFD

I am unable to create correctly Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Concave hull, probably because I have used "Show preview" while writing the reason of deleting]]. Thanks. D.Lazard (talk) 17:42, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gospel Book

This is a silly nom which was improperly set up on 19 September, but never I think on the listings. It has none the less attracted 3 Keeps. Can someone shut it down - it really is too silly to deserve listing properly. Thanks, Johnbod (talk) 14:49, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

  • @Johnbod:  Done. I dunno if it was silly, but closed as keep. Are there sources which came up in the AfD which can be added to the article itself? Would be nice if we could clear that cleanup tag on the article as a result of this. Protonk (talk) 15:10, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. When we have Category:Gospel_Books with 87 articles on individual examples, at least two FAs, it was indeed silly to argue the subject is not notable. I have referenced some sections, though the Orthodox one needs doing. Johnbod (talk) 15:36, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what to do here.

I came across the State atheism article around a week ago - the term "State atheism" has no historical consensus, as it is but an 'idea' (or 'accusation') invented by Christian fundamentalists, but the article doesn't mention this. The article is lengthily written and sourced, but most all of the sources are "people did/said things" references to events unrelated to any "State atheism" banner. This is an example of Wikipedia being used to promote an agenda in a rather weasel way: the article title is the central claim, and its content and references are "proof" of causality (although the references cited mention none).

This article shouldn't exist unless it is rewritten as the fringe idea that it is, but this has already been extensively 'covered' in the main Atheism article. I left a talk-page message to this effect a week ago, and it has been met with silence thus far. Should I nominate this for deletion, and if so, in citing what criteria? This seems to fall through the cracks. Thanks, and cheers. THEPROMENADER 07:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Sounds more like a sourcing/cleanup issue than an AfD issue. This isn't exactly a fringe topic as you make it out to be, there are several clear examples which have nothing to do with "Christian fundamentalists" (People's Republic of China, to name one off the top of my head). A notable topic, but in need of an overhaul. Have you tried contacting any related WikiProjects? ansh666 07:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
That's exactly what I mean - what historian describes the People's Republic of China as "state atheism"?. But yes, perhaps putting it in context (citing the origin of the term, for starters) would be a solution. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 09:11, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps the term itself is the issue, then? Because clearly the concept is there and has been discussed enough to avoid deletion. ansh666 18:00, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
That's also what I mean. The term itself wasn't invented by any historian, and only a select few would say that such a thing even exists, yet the article neglects to mention that - in fact the entire article is just fabricated "proof" that such a thing exists and that it is widely accepted by historians. Do a google for "state atheism" and you'll see what I mean - try to find one respectable historical journal or publication, or any non-theocracy-apologist publication for that matter, that uses that term. THEPROMENADER 13:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, I'm curious as to what you'd think about related pages, then (Marxism and religion or Religion in the Soviet Union, for example). I agree that the term itself isn't used, but the concept has definitely been discussed. For the record, I'm not particularly religious. ansh666 19:32, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Again, those are not titled 'atheism'. Communism (and all totalitarianism) hated religion for sure (it was the competition ; ), but not under any 'atheist' name. That is the invention. THEPROMENADER 20:24, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
(after looking around) Hoo, boy. It's been around for a while, and quite a few have worked on it, all theists using theist references. Affirmation propaganda or not, I haven't a chance in hell of doing anything about it. But thanks for looking at it, anyway. THEPROMENADER 20:35, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

So, antireligion as opposed to actual atheism, yeah, I guess (although the former page seems to be just as badly sourced). Hrm, this entire thing is messy. ansh666 20:58, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Something like that, yes. Messy indeed. It would be like atheists started a theocratic totalitarianism article filled with references to dictatorships and made every religious article link to it, or adding "other dictatorships" sections to religious articles... but intellectually honest people don't do that sort of thing. It should have been nipped in the bud when the 'meme' started circulating back in 2008 - you can see some of its origins here - but hey, too late. THEPROMENADER 21:26, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Complete AFD

I need someone to complete the AFD for Ogie Banks. Thanks. --108.211.72.67 (talk) 06:44, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't he meet WP:NACTOR? "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." Before nomination takes place, please provide a clear nomination statement. --NeilN talk to me 14:16, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

He seems like a minor VA to me; realistically, the article should be gone, but we have to deal with the bureaucracy wonks who want every minor-ass cartoon guy to have a crappy "article" consisting solely of a role-list. You want to make the nom, go ahead; I won't be crying over it. --108.211.72.67 (talk) 18:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

That's not a clear nomination statement... --NeilN talk to me 22:49, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

IP user request for AFD process assist per WP:AFDHOWTO -- FinePrint

WP:AFDHOWTO says "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 have completed these steps and am now requesting assistance on Steps II & III. Thank you. 104.32.193.6 (talk) 18:05, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done --NeilN talk to me 18:29, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

"Gutting" an article during deletion discussion

I've created an essay on Gutting an article during deletion discussion.

You may find it interesting reading at: User:Cirt/Gutting.

Cheers,

— Cirt (talk) 18:22, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I think "gutting" is a valid tactic if done properly. It's not on the onus of an editor doing clean-up to fix an article's problems. Sceptre (talk) 19:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
@Sceptre: If you read Cirt's essay, and more importantly his/her 2 sub-essays, you will see discussion on both valid and invalid gutting tactics. 104.32.193.6 (talk) 18:39, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
@Cirt: Interesting essay. I would also propose that another "gutting" you may want to research and add to your essay is what I would call "incremental" gutting. This is where an editor (or editors) gradually nibble away at an article -- wait for the heat to die down -- then nibble some more until the article is too unsubstantial to survive. I can't provide an example but years ago it was tactics like that which caused me to become so infrequent an editor. 104.32.193.6 (talk) 18:39, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I am not sure if this idea has a place in those essays (particularly on improper gutting) but the idea of stripping a non-free image from an article and then putting it up for FFD claiming it as orphan could possibly fall into that. (If you are going to FFD an image, unless it is an immediate CSD option, it should stay in the article until the FFD is completed). But that might dilute this. --MASEM (t) 18:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Need Help with AFD

I recently added a deletion tag to an inaccurate article (Phyllis Cheng) and added the justification for deletion to its talk page. Can a Wikipedian please complete the process? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.26.114 (talk) 06:32, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

  •  Not done Conceding that the article has some problems, I don't think notability is one of them. The others look fixable. I have taken the liberty of adding some maintenance tags including notability, though I think the subject passes N. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:55, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
@Ad Orientem: QUESTION (asking for my own education): I concur with your assessment & decision but why is the AfD tag still in place if this is not going to be continued for AfD? 104.32.193.6 (talk) 14:55, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
I left it on the off chance another editor disagreed and wanted to finish it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:39, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Ah... good old fashioned courtesy! I like that. :) Thanks for the info. Looks like you made a very solid call. 104.32.193.6 (talk) 17:24, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
I've removed the tag. --NeilN talk to me 14:58, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
I removed it again after the IP reverted Neil. ansh666 17:29, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 Michigan Bucks Season

The 2012 Michigan Bucks season still hasn't been deleted. Can an admin please delete it. Kingjeff (talk) 05:15, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

The AfD template was never added to the article, so technically it shouldn't be deleted. I'll add a G6 tag, though, and see what happens. (note: I added links to the OP and section header). ansh666 06:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

When a pge is moved while at AfD

There's a link on the AfD template which directs readers to WP:Guide to deletion which includes, at WP:EDITATAFD:

Moving the article while it is being discussed can produce confusion (both during the discussion and when closing using semi-automated closing scripts). If you do this, please note it on the deletion discussion page, preferably both at the top of the discussion (for new participants) and as a new comment at the bottom (for the benefit of the closing administrator).

The instructions in this article, at WP:AFDEQ, say:

While there is no prohibition against moving an article while an AfD discussion is in progress, editors considering doing so should realize such a move can confuse the discussion greatly, can preempt a closing decision, can make the discussion difficult to track, and can lead to inconsistencies when using semi-automated closing scripts.

Could we have some consistency: are we asked to add notes to top and bottom of an AfD discussion when a page is moved, or is it not necessary? I've just done so at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rose Anne McGreevy. PamD 14:01, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Please do. Since most closers use scripts nowadays, a note anywhere can help them notice that they need to do some steps manually. ansh666 18:40, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't see a contradiction here; one page is more detailed than the other, but they both basically say "this is allowed, but confusing". I'd use notes at top and bottom to reduce the chance of the AfD being closed incorrectly, as WP:EDITATAFD suggests; WP:AFDEQ is basically the same thing but less detailed. That said, incorporating the details from that page into this page would be entirely reasonable IMO. --ais523 19:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Proposal: transclude discussions to article talk pages

As above, I suggest transcluding discussions to the article talk page. The would put all of the discussion about the article on its talk page, instead having to follow a separate link to view it. If the page is kept, the record of the discussion is left where people expect to see it, and if deleted, it's just one less transclusion and doesn't harm anything. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 18:15, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Help needed

I have just created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Palestinian stone-throwing, however, it does not show up on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 November 2. How do I make it do that? Thanks for any help, Huldra (talk) 20:59, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I see it perfectly. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 21:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, at a second glimpse not so perfectly, but never mind, we have good people around... --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 21:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, was in the middle of fixing this. Should be transcluded correctly now. Protonk (talk) 21:05, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
@Huldra: in the future, please follow the steps outlined at WP:AFDHOWTO. ansh666 21:06, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your your help; yes, I see it is up now. And User:Ansh666: I really tried to follow WP:AFDHOWTO, but I got lost somewhere in the orange section. I sometimes wonder if the average Wikipedian (= very tech-savvy) has *any* clue as to how difficult it is manoeuvring around for the less technical of us (like me!) Again, thank you for your help! Huldra (talk) 21:15, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, you at least tried, unlike most people! I see two orange sections (labeled "II." and "III."), which one was giving you problems? ansh666 21:20, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Huldra: the afd process sort of sucks (because there are technical choices/limitations that require editing in 3 places very specifically), so many editors use javascript gadgets to help them out. If you install Twinkle it will let you nominate an article by clicking a link and filling out a pop-up. Protonk (talk) 21:21, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
User:Protonk, eh, what is Twinkle? I heard about java-script, but I have no idea as to what it is. And I just nominated another article, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Netanel Arami..I will study what Protonk did with my other nomination..and try to copy that! And User talk:Ansh666: it was that first orange section, labeled "II" Huldra (talk) 21:29, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
See WP:TW, it's enabled with a setting at Preferences → Gadgets. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:35, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) If you plan on doing a lot of these and don't want others following you around fixing them, I'd also recommend Twinkle. To enable it, go to your Preferences - it's under the Gadgets tab, 4th from the bottom in the Browsing section. Then, when you edit a page, there will be a drop-down menu labeled "TW" next to your search bar; to nominate an article for deletion, choose the "XFD" option, type in your reason, choose the right category, and hit submit.
If you still want to do them manually, I'll try to help further - there are two options in section II, separated by the "OR". Which one are you trying to follow, and what parts are you not sure about? ansh666 21:39, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Heh; I think I managed to list that second nomination .....Please tell me if it ended up wrongly. And I have enabled Twinkle, and I see xfd permanently at the top. (Perhaps it is different for different browsers; I use Safari) Thank you, everyone, for your advice and help; I really appreciate it. Basically I´m a content-writer on Middle-Eastern subjects.. ..I´m not really that "into" technicalities. The rpp section looks very interesting for me: I wish I had known about that a day or two ago when I had this charmer after me. User:Ansh666: I think I did a combination! I ended up adding the subst:afd2 -thing *after* I had created the page. Oh well. Huldra (talk) 22:15, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, whatever you did, it worked. Good luck, and happy editing! ansh666 22:18, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

question

I'm just curious if the article Jessie Lilley is notable enough. This person edits a small magazine that doesn't even have its own page (Mondo Cult) and the citations seem to be from Amazon (where anyone can sell a book), the IMDB and youtube which don't seem to be viable citations as well as a blog and the magazine's own website which i'm pretty sure are not allowed per the wikipedia's guidelines for citations.Cthwikia (talk) 03:46, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Looking at her article, her notability is in her past work, which include being the publisher or editor of multiple film magazines that do have articles. I'd lead towards keeping if it came to Articles for Deletion. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 15:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
I might lean the other way. I don't see, nor do I find at a quick glance, indications that there is coverage which would allow her to meet WP:BASIC. But it's quite possible that there are sources out there I haven't seen. --j⚛e deckertalk 15:42, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't see too many reliable sources out there, but I didn't look very hard. I'd recommend making a post on the article's talk page and see if any of the contributors to the article (or anyone else with it on their watchlist) have anything to say before nominating it. Also links to sources which aren't independent of the subject are allowed but we can't have an article which relies too heavily on them. Protonk (talk) 16:11, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
links to sources which aren't independent of the subject are allowed'

Wow really? So companies can use their own websites to give themselves notability or people can use their own personal websites as citations as well? I never knew that. This explains why pretty much anyone or anything can have its own wikipedia page.Cthwikia (talk) 16:28, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

  • @Cthwikia: That's not what I said. The links are allowed, meaning that nothing stops us from using a company's page for information in their article (or a person for that matter). Each page has to meet the general notability guideline which requires that a subject be covered in reliable, independent sources and we should not rely on first party sources so our articles can remain neutral, but they're not disallowed. Protonk (talk) 17:04, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

A suggestion

For those users -like me nowadays- who participate a lot in AfDs, could it be possible to install a link to every deletion discussion page (I mean on each article's own deletion discussion entry) through which one could return directly to the current "Articles for deletion" page, instead of making two clicks. (Sounds lazy, no? :-) Regards. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 22:30, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Possible technical fix needed for a discussion

Regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leon miguel: Leon miguel is a redirect, not an article. The AfD tag was mistakenly placed on this redirect which also had the text of the article underneath it. So, just earlier I moved the AfD tag to the real article Leon Miguel and removed it from the redirect. So, the seven-day discussion timer needs to be reset to when I placed the tag. However this is tracked, it needs to be corrected for this discussion. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:52, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Sound envelope

I'm not sure whether Sound envelope should be nominated for deletion. I don't think it technically matches the criteria for deletion. However:

  • It's an orphan,
  • It's clear from the content on the page that it should actually be a disambiguation page rather than an article, but
    • It only has three items, and two of those do not contain links to other pages that discuss the topic,
    • Of these two, it seems to me that one (the "phenomenon in cognitive neuroscience") might at some point warrant an entire Wikipedia article, and the other probably won't,
    • So then it would be a disambiguation page with a single real link and a single red link that may not ever get filled in. This doesn't seem to serve much purpose.

I feel like it should probably be deleted, and then a redirect should be set up to ADSR envelope, but a strict reading of the Wikipedia policy seems to indicate it should instead be improved. What's the correct course of action for this page? sedm0784 (talk) 11:13, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

How do I withdraw an AfD nomination?

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gluten-sensitive_idiopathic_neuropathies

I've just found sufficient support for its notability. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:21, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I closed it. -- GB fan 01:28, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
In the future, you could either comment that you withdraw the nomination, in which case someone will come by and close it, or you could close it yourself per the instructions at WP:CLOSEAFD. Cheers, ansh666 01:29, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you both. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:00, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

AfD Closer Permission?

A user with an AfD Closer permission would be a non-admin who is given the right to close AfDs as delete and to call controversial AfD debates. This would not impact admin rights. Rather, it would be an expanded permission similar to rollback rights. It could be granted to trusted users by admins (similar to how rollback and reviewer rights are given) or through community consensus (like RFA but much more simplified and streamlined).

I’ve noticed that we have a bit of a shortage of admins, and that many AfDs stay open far longer than needed, even after a clear consensus has emerged. I believe that by giving trusted non-admins this right, the AfD process could be speeded up. Is this at all a good idea? Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

@Spirit of Eagle: Without offering my own opinion on the matter, I want to draw your attention to this list of discussions from 2012 and prior about various proposals to unbundle the tools. While consensus can change, the general argument against is that unbundling would introduce a lot of bureaucratic questions (e.g. what are the criteria for granting the userright?) and that there are a number of fairly common administrative actions related to deletion that would leave a lot of extra clean-up for admins (e.g. deleting and SALTing pages), and might simply not get done. You might want to chew on these considerations for a bit before pushing this forward. I, JethroBT drop me a line 04:39, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Deletion is the one right that will never get unbundled. The ability to delete must come with the ability to view deleted material and undelete, and the WMF has made it clear that users who wish to have this right must pass through at least an RfA-style process (meaning, at least as rigorous as RfA). I don't have the relevant links, but I'm sure plenty of people who are used to dealing with this perennial proposal do.
Now, if you're suggesting only the right to close AfDs and not actually delete them, that does seem a bit too bureaucratic and clunky, though I suppose {{db-xfd}} would work as the appropriate tag. Jethro's point about protection is relevant, too. I'd love to be able to close uncontentious AfDs as delete, but I sure wouldn't love to be the admin who has to go clean up after them. ansh666 04:59, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the feedback I JethroBT and Ansh666. In light of the above comments, I think that unbundling deletion would be a bad idea. I failed to consider how intertwined deletion was with other admin rights, and I’m unable to think up a solution around this that wouldn’t result in either a. so much unbundling that the process to get the permission would be comparable to an RFA or b. bureaucratization that does little more than displace the work load. Either way, the permission would fail to significantly cut into the number of open AfDs. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:40, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

AFD How Global Warming Works

There is an AFD [12] which is currently very closely split. It has been relisted twice (total of 22 days open so far) and closes in 7 hours. There have only been 7 votes so far. I invite you to comment before this AFD closes. --Obsidi (talk) 14:24, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MIDAS (operating system)

This AfD needs attention. It's been open since October 12th and has slipped through the cracks. I'd handle it myself, but I am a participant. czar ⨹ 03:02, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

It's still transcluded to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 October 12, so that's not the problem; but that daily page is no longer linked from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old. Looking deeper, I see that it was removed in this edit by Joe Decker (talk · contribs) so I presume that the bot that updates the counters (open / closed / total) had miscounted. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:09, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
With this edit, Mathbot decided it was closed and so de-counted it. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:14, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Hmmm, sometimes you'll see a relist script fail leave errors of this general sort, I don't know if that was the case here, but I've closed the AfD in any case. Good catch, Czar. --j⚛e deckertalk 19:09, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

String of incomplete nominations

New IP 86.158.182.11 (talk · contribs) has put four articles up for AfD in the space of 25 minutes, all incompletely formed (no deletion discussion pages). Not sure if this is a regular editor slumming as an IP or what. Someone should either finish the nominations or remove the AfD notices from the articles. (I'm the main contributor for two of them so I don't want to touch them myself.) Wasted Time R (talk) 02:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

@Wasted Time R: IPs can't create pages outside of talk spaces, so it's natural that there would be no deletion discussion pages - they are in Wikipedia: space, which although often used for discussion, is not a talk space. See WP:AFDHOWTO, paragraph beginning "Only a registered, logged-in user can complete steps II and III". --Redrose64 (talk) 12:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#NAC Deletes

There is a discussion about non-admins closing discussions as "delete" at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#NAC Deletes. See the subsection Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#So, this is the question we're asking, where the opening poster wrote, "Should non-adminstrators be allowed to close deletion discussions as delete?" Cunard (talk) 19:27, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Firearms DELSORT

Recently, several events (shootings, to be exact) have been added to the Firearms DELSORT page - they have been subsequently removed, because that is not what this page is for. Firearms DELSORT should not be used for an event just because firearms were used (e.g. Columbine High School massacre or Battle of the Bulge); directly related events (e.g. Gun shows in the United States) are fine.

Legitimate uses include but are not limited to for individual weapons, weapon series, or classifications (e.g. M1 Garand, Kalashnikov rifle, or Carbine); cartridges (e.g. .30-06 Springfield); manufacturers (e.g. Bushmaster Firearms International or Mikhail Kalashnikov); obviously linked legal, social, or mechanical concepts (e.g. Open carry, Celebratory gunfire, or Bolt action); organizations which are based on or involved with firearms (e.g. Shooting range or National Rifle Association); and maybe select end users which are intimately related to firearms (e.g. FPSRussia). All examples here should be easily notable.

Thanks, ansh666 19:15, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

What did I do wrong?

I did a non-admin closure of ‪Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamie Paterson‬. I must have broken the log page ‪Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 December 13‬ somehow. Every listing after the one I closed is now enclosed in the same box as the one I closed. I can't see anything wrong with how I did it. Can somebody please fix this, trout me, and tell me how to never do it again? Thanks! --MelanieN (talk) 02:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Mz7 fixed it and I know what I did wrong. Trouting myself and moving on. --MelanieN (talk) 03:25, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Aniket Gupta

To

Wikipedia Page

Respected Sir/Madam

Please Publish "Aniket Gupta" Karate Player Page.

If any query for Aniket Gupta pLease check www.facebook.com/SENSEIANIKET or Search in Google and also call +91-9999433982 and Email - karateaniket@gmail.com

Best Regard

Team Aniket Gupta — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karateaniket (talk • contribs) 16:00, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

No. Firstly, this page is for discussions relating to article deletion, not creation. Secondly, Wikipedia does not publish articles on demand - we are all volunteers here. And lastly, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aniket Gupta. This person does not meet our notability requirements, and an article on him has already been deleted twice. This is an encyclopaedia, and not a provider of free publicity. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:05, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

how to create - part III

In section III of the table it says {{subst:afd3 | pg=NominationName}}, but when creating an AfD the syntax seems to have changed to simply {{NominationName}}. AadaamS (talk) 09:30, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, "NominationName" is supposed to only be the name of the article undergoing the AfD: the subst adds the rest of the link ("Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/"). But, if you want (and I do this), you can simply transclude the entire link at once as well. Both arrive at the exact same result. ansh666 18:21, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
@Ansh666:, can you help me too? When I paste in the template (and replace NominationName with the article name), it pastes in what I posted in the article's AFD discussion page. However, it does not create the title, add in the various links to the talk page etc, or add anything to the contents box at the top of the page. What am I doing wrong? Thanks! Shinyang-i (talk) 21:48, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
@Shinyang-i: The {{subst:afd3}} template is for use on the daily list, all it does is to transclude the nomination that was created at step II, without modifying it in any way: if it's misformed on the nomination page, it will also be misformed on the daily list. If you are not seeing the title, links etc., that indicates that step II was not correctly performed: these items are added to the individual nom page when you create it using {{subst:afd2}}. So, when nominating We Got Married (Khuntoria) episodes, you created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/We Got Married (Khuntoria) episodes, but there is no evidence that you used {{subst:afd2}} to do that. Your other AfD noms all seem to have been done the same way, and TerryAlex (talk · contribs) has gone to a lot of trouble to fix them up for you.
The easiest way of performing step II correctly is as follows. Having performed step I and got the box at the top of the article which begins "This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy.", you will find in that four numbered steps. You've already done step 1; you'll see that step 2 has two choices - go for the first one ("Preloaded debate"). When you click that, you'll get more instructions, and below that, an edit box containing this: 
{{subst:afd2|pg={{subst:SUBPAGENAME}}|cat=U|text=Reason}} ~~~~
Do not delete this. Amend it as follows: where it says |text=Reason replace the word "Reason" with the text of your nomination, i.e. |text=This article cherry-picks out a list of episodes of a TV variety show ... - do not sign that. You should also change |cat=U to something like |cat=M or |cat=F but if you're unsure, leave it alone. Save it, and then you can proceed to Step III. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:37, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
A belated thank you to Redrose64 (talk · contribs)! I see where I went wrong now...clicked the wrong link in step II. This will be a great reference for the future! Shinyang-i (talk) 09:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Multiple AfD's

How does one nominate multiple AfD's? It's too much to nominate each one individually especially as they are related. They are New South Wales Surge, Victoria Maidens, Western Australia Angels, Queensland Brigade and Adelaide Arsenal. Speedy Climber (talk) 08:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Instructions right on the main page. WP:BUNDLE. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 13:44, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
A friendly word of advice, unless there are a lot of related articles you are nominating, I'd just do them separately. In my experience the whole multi-AfD thing is a pain in the @$$. Even highly experienced editors often have trouble with it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 08:24, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
They are related, and need to go together because of a related issue with some sus behaviour. Speedy Climber (talk) 10:57, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Hotels.com

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hotels.com

This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability. Lacks citations from secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject. There are multiple press releases, which Wikipedia does not cite as reliable sources, and also the Alexa Internet link is not a verifiable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kcmaher (talk • contribs) 16:01, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Please start an AfD discussion using the steps outlined at WP:AFDHOWTO. Thanks, ansh666 20:00, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Deletion question

I want to nominate Queen of Blood (2014 film) for deletion but since I don't have an account the instructions told me to come here. It says here "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." So after I put up that template can someone create the page for me?64.230.233.196 (talk) 17:22, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Would you care to first explain what rationale you are proposing for deletion, and whether this is connected with the earlier edits you have made in relation to Chris Alexander, the director of this film, as discussed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bud Cortman? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:29, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
I would like to nominate it for deletion for a few reasons. One it was created by an adminstrator who is a friend of the film maker who had requested it on the Blood for Irina talk page. Two, she even admitted there wasn't many viable sources she could use for citations but created it anyway. Three, the citations are pretty weak since #1 is a dead link while #2 and #4 are old links from before the film was even made. #3 is simply a listing at a obscure film festival and #5 is the filmmaker promoting it himself via an interview over another project he was working on. Realistically there is only 2 viable ciations in the forms of reviews (#6 and #7).
Meanwhile about that "Bud Cortman" thing To make a long story short that was a setup done by Chris' two allies Ninjarobotpirate and Tokyogirl79. I even proved this with my second post on that page showing how they post on each other's talk pages and send one another PM's about me. But it seems with the Wikipedia being a clique of editors no-one listened to me and I was deemed to be multiple people even though that is not the case and there is absolutly no proof.64.230.233.196 (talk) 17:50, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I think we've established beyond reasonable doubt here that your rationale for deletion is invalid, and is part of your ongoing attempts to disparage Chris Alexander. Which is all we need to know. Go away. Get a life. Merry Christmas. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:00, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
P.S. For anyone who's interested in this ridiculous saga, see this ANI thread: [13]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:04, 25 December 2014 (UTC)


Sigh. Is there no justice? Now I'm beginning to see why people do create sockpuppet accounts. It seems to be the only way to get around the B.S of false allegations, editors supporting one another, and misinformation. Even though I gave a good reason why the page should be discussed for deletion (heck even the creator of the page admitted it was weak), it doesn't seem to matter. The fact that this editor just insulted me shows the mindset of the clique here. I wonder if he's high fiving Tokyogirl79 even as we speak? I'm also beginning to see why a friend of mine (who is a teacher) refuses to let her students use the wikipedia as a reference. If this is the mindset of the people in charge here (telling people to "go away" and "get a life") I can see why there is no credibility64.230.233.196 (talk) 18:13, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
This is not a court of law where people go for justice, but rather an encyclopedia where people go for neutral information. Your teacher friend is correct to not let her students use Wikipedia articles as sources, and instead should ask them to read the references at the end of the article, which are likely good sources for a student to cite. Heck, one Wikipedia article can't be used as a source in another Wikipedia article. That's because, for one reason among many, IP editors with grudges often try to belittle people they don't like, and this group of articles has been subjected to such attacks. Experienced editors will stand together to defend the encyclopedia against ongoing attacks. By the way, you didn't even bother to post your reasons on the article's talk page as instructed. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:36, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Or to help thier friends promote themselves or to defend articles that they created where they admitted the sourcing was weak. You know editors and adminstrators have thier own agendas too. The only problem is they can weld power here while the rest of us can't. I have a nephew who is in a band. I can find three citations online about them. Now if I was your buddy and asked for the page (the same way Chris himself asked Tokyogirl79 for the Queen of Blood page) then I could get a page. Because with three citations that is more then what is listed on the Queen of Blood page that are not citations taken from the Blood for Irina page from before the film was produced, or a self promoting interview on a music site or a dead link. Its funny how even editors violate the rules of the wikipedia such as the first two listed here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Your_first_article#Things_to_avoid . Oh and by the way, I gave my reasons for why i want to nominate the page on this talk page but instead an editor responded by telling me to get a lfe and go away. Yeah welcome to the wikipedia. So classy64.230.233.196 (talk) 19:00, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

I have no interest whatsoever in horror movie fandom. My interest is in defending the encyclopedia. You are clearly here to belittle a person you do not like. You are not here to build an encyclopedia. Experienced editors simply won't put up with that. Not ever. So why not devote your time to another hobby? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:18, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Editors who disagree with me are saying I don't like Chris Alexander which is simply not true. While I'm not a fan, I don't have an agenda against him nor hate him. My point of contention is that he gets a page created simply because he knows an adminstrator here and she gave it to him even though she herself admitted the sourcing is weak. And then when I challenge her she makes up malicious lies about me accusing me of being someone I'm not and that I have multiple accounts even though the evidence states otherwise. No one has been able to link my IP number with Bud Cortman's nor are the other numbers in question the same or have the same ISP's. She figures we are all one person because the numbers come from the Toronto area (one of those numbers was from Hamilton!!) well guess what? Toronto is the largest city in North America behind New York City, Los Angeles and Chicago. So I guess anyone that edits or disusses a magazine editor that is from the 4th largest city in N.A are automaticlaly one and the same huh? That is beyond weak!! That is what I have a problem with. As well as the fact that editors refuse to allow me to nominate the page for deletion when it has weak sourcing is a violation of the wikipedia rules and the fact that I've been insulted by these editors is more rule violations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks.64.230.233.196 (talk) 19:55, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Personal attacks like "stop helping your friend/family member Chris use the wikipedia as an advertisment" [14] you mean? Your insistence that there is some sort of Wikipedia conspiracy regarding this minor article is ample reason to question your motives. It is also rather ridiculous. I for one know next to nothing about Alexander, and don't actually have an opinion one way or another as to whether his films are notable or not. I can however recognise a contributor with an agenda when I see one, and see no reason whatsoever why I should facilitate petty grudges on Wikipedia. Take it elsewhere, and leave decisions on Wikipedia content to people who don't allow their obsessions to cloud their judgement. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:18, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Should we permit deletion nominations advocating for a redirect?

I have opened a discussion here on the subject. Deadbeef 03:37, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Afd:Noble Order of Saint George of Rougemont

Could somebody complete the Afd for Noble Order of Saint George of Rougemont, please? 79.97.226.247 (talk) 17:09, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Request for completion of filing an AfD

Hi, the instructions say I have to ask for this because I'm editing as an IP. Can someone please do steps II and III for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maypole framework (relating to Maypole framework). My rationale is:

I proposed this article to be deleted, with the rationale "non-notable dead software project, barely worth a brief mention at Catalyst (software)". Another editor removed the prod with the comment "existing refs sufficient", but that is not true. The refs in the article do not demonstrate notability and my original rationale is still correct. So I'm bringing this to AfD.

Thank you, 176.25.140.245 (talk) 11:54, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done -- GB fan 12:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
@GB fan: Thanks, appreciated 176.25.140.245 (talk) 19:35, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Request for completion of filing an AfD, article name GGM

Hi, the instructions say I have to ask for this because I'm editing as an IP. Can someone please do steps II and III for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George_Manross ("GGM"). My rationale is that it does not meet WP:BIO. Thank you, -- 71.128.35.13 (talk) 20:50, 14 January 2015 (UTC)(UTC)

 Done -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:35, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Archive_67&oldid=1147871181"