Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 70

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 65

←

Archive 68

Archive 69

Archive 70

Archive 71

Archive 72

→

Archive 75

Would it be useful to have statistics-gathering categories for AFDs:

Closure-reason categories:

• AFDs closed as delete
• AFDs closed as keep
• AFDs closed as no consensus
• AFDs that were relisted
• AFDs that closed early
• AFDs that closed early due to speedy deletion
• AFDs that closed early due to speedy keep
• AFDs that closed early due to SNOW keep

with possible sub-categories

Categories for tracking damage done by sock-farms:

• AFDs related to blocked editor

Categories for tracking dates:

• AFDs opened in
• AFDs closed in

Thoughts? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I've been looking through some randomly closed AfD articles, and I'm a bit perplexed as to the lack of verbosity for many of the closures. Specifically "The result was X" or "The consensus was Y". While the sort of closures aren't necessarily wrong, they are certainly trifling and should be reserved for closures that patently obvious. Has this concern been raised before?That man from Nantucket (talk) 17:35, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I share the concern. I've been involved in several AfD discussions in which work has been done to improve the article while the discussion is going on. There will often be 2-4 delete votes (usually with little comment other than "per GNG"), followed by substantial expansion to the article, a keep vote or two based on the updated article, then another delete vote that is nothing more than "per above voter(s)", and the closing result will me "The result was Delete". I've given up on believing that AfD is anything more than a majority vote in most cases. If there is actual consideration given to the opinions, it would be nice to see. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:42, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I've often been struck by the brevity of these closing statements contrasting with often a great volume of argument below. But it is understandable. The way we assess "notability" leaves a lot to judgement and interpretation. When is coverage "significant"? How "independent" and "reliable" are the sources cited? Thus there are not many contested AfDs where one set of arguments is indisputably right and the other set wrong. Nevertheless someone has to decide and in most cases it's an administrator. These are people we elect to make these judgements for us. An expanded rationale would often have to say something like "On balance I judge the arguments for delete (or keep) to be stronger", leaving more exposure to challenge - "well I judge different, who are you?" - so it is understandable that closers confine themselves to a lordly "The result was ...", if not necessarily best practice: Noyster (talk), 01:29, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jocelyn Jones has gone about a month-a-and-half with only one comment, my own, for deletion. I'm thinking there's perhaps a backlog on deletions that aren't WP:SD, or it might simply have slipped through the cracks. If it's the latter reason, I thought it worth noting here. With thanks, --Tenebrae (talk) 19:17, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I have fixed the AfD and listed it in today's log. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:56, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi ...please delete this page (Kenza Morsli) because it contain little information and few resources ,More importantly, that this personal is not famous.Thanks in advance -- Boumediene15 (talk • contribs —Preceding undated comment added 10:31, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Although the display from the template says this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed, the text which an editor sees when they are editing says Please do not remove or change this AfD message until the issue is settled. This is open to misinterpretation, so that an inexperienced editor may believe that they are allowed to remove the AfD template when they have sourced the article or otherwise improved it to meet the reasons which were given in the AfD to suggest its deletion. Could we please amend the wording seen online so that it matches the stronger version of text displayed? See the history of Saint Rose de Viterbo Catholic Church for an example. PamD 09:05, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

@PamD: I've changed the wording. — JJMC89 (T·C) 16:42, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

@JJMC89: Thanks for that: it just might help some newbie editor in future. PamD 18:45, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

The White House Cyber Security Adviser page might get deleted how do you feel about this? Reddan33 (talk)

People can (and probably will) voice their opinions at the relevant Article for Deletion discussion page. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:51, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I created Methylbenzenes in my own userspace and moved it out. Since it was a crap article it eventually got tagged for deletion, but I'm wondering if instead of wiping it from the face of the site it could be moved back instead. - AwesoMan3000 (talk) 23:47, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

• • You are allowed to remove the prod notice and move it back to userspace if you want, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 04:05, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I have nominated List of Easy Company (506 PIR) veterans. For some reason it did not list properly on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 February 9‎ although the item appears to be correctly formatted while in edit mode. If someone can figure that, please fix. Thanks.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 03:44, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

You missed adding the template in part two of the nominating process. Should be fixed now. Monty₈₄₅ 04:18, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Someone who spends too much time at Afd, I was surprised to see a certain point about Afd format not in the guide. It's so surprised me, and I thought it was so obvious, but I have gone ahead that I have just gone ahead boldly entered it. If anyone has a problem, please revert and we'll discuss. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:41, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

• @TonyBallioni: -- thanks Tony! Just rushing here, doing too many things at once. Well I guess we see why I shouldn't be writing policy! :-) thanks for the key typo fix... Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:45, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Not a problem. As to the edit itself: I think the guide does kind of imply already the point when it says You can explain your earlier recommendation in response to others, but do not repeat your recommendation on a new bulleted line., but I also don't see the harm in making it extra clear not to !vote 5 times. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:49, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

God, there it is. My eye just missed it. No, it shouldn't be in two places so I just modified the existing line a little. See if this works. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:55, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I have no objections to your most recent change. Concise and makes the point clear. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:56, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

No, I think it actually makes it worse Tony because a wikilawyering editor may try to claim it only applies to those two options. So I pulled those. I think things were pretty much fine the way they were. My apologies for wasting your time. I should have opened a discussion here first. Lesson learned. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:58, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that edit. The edition of bolded makes it clearer. Agree with keeping d/k out of it, since AfD can get the Wikilawyers involved. Thanks for your initiative here. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:02, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

• Although I think I did manage to make one actual improvement: there's still the addition of "bolded" in "...but do not repeat a bolded recommendation." Because editors can and do reiterate recommendations in the Afd exchange. It's only repeated bolding of same that is discouraged. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:05, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
• Noting that the custom against repeating only applies to recommendations, and not to other types of common bolded statements, like comment, update, question etc. – Uanfala (talk) 21:08, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes and I thought that was clear enough. But want me to try adding a second line? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:10, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't go into that much detail. We should leave enough to common sense. – Uanfala (talk) 21:36, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
      • I agree. We've used the term "recommendation" here -- and not "comment" -- very deliberately. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:38, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Józef Juraszek Ślopek doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG. Only thing I found was a blurb from the 1970s. Didn't nominate for deletion since it has been around since 2009 and maybe Polish sources exist. AuroralColibri (talk) 10:49, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm confused. If the article subject is not notable, it must be deleted. If there are enough Polish sources to push it over GNG, it can be kept. A deletion nomination would have been the perfect place to find out whichever is the case (unlike this talk page). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:57, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Omer Dekel User:DarjeelingTea nominated the Omer Dekel article for stated reason "not really certain Professor Dekel passes our GNG". As I understand things, unless a nominator is sure an article does not meet criteria, they should refrain from nominating them. Debresser (talk) 11:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

This message makes an amusing contrast with the message thread immediately above this. However, holding someone to be absolutely certain that something does not meet GNG before requesting deletion is not a reasonable standard, as an editor cannot possibly check every possible reliable source; one can go by what is in the article and what one can find online and find a lack of evidence of notability, but should be open to the idea that there is notability to be found elsewhere and it may be put forth during an AFD discussion. While some may put it forth in different ways, saying "Fails GNG", "I'm not finding any sources that makes this meet GNG", and "not really certain subject passes GNG" suggest more different communication strategies of the editor rather than making factually different statements. (Having said that, in any of those cases it would be nice if there was some statement that suggested that WP:BEFORE had been done.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:43, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

There's nothing in life I'm "absolutely sure" about, sadly. DarjeelingTea (talk) 17:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I understand the idea of both editors, but just saying that you are not sure about notability should not be enough. The nominating editor should at least claim to seriously doubt the notability. Debresser (talk) 18:05, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Understood. I've upgraded my concerns from "not certain" to "seriously doubt" . Thank you for bringing this to my attention. DarjeelingTea (talk) 18:28, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh come on, it's all semantics. If there is a question about whether an article is notable, then someone can bring it to AfD, no matter what words they use to describe it. ansh666 19:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Words carry meaning, Ansh666, which is why we have to choose them carefully. That is not just semantics. Debresser (talk) 21:38, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

We should be careful about unnecessarily demanding too much uniformity in the way that matters are discussed; that can have the effect of excluding certain groups. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:16, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Maybe in other cases, but not here. "I'm not certain this passes GNG" and "I seriously doubt this passes GNG" are more or less identical in expressing the nominator's concerns about the article when nominating it at AfD. The degree to which they are uncertain does not matter. ansh666 00:35, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

If an editor hasn't done the work to prepare the community for an AfD nomination, and hasn't yet himself/herself decided about notability, why is that not a matter for the talk page of the article rather than AfD?  Unscintillating (talk) 02:13, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

What particular turn of phrase the nominator has used or how certain we think they are in their opinion that an article should be deleted is much less important than how they have arrived at that opinion. It would really be helpful if nominators were a bit more consistent in disclosing where they've looked for sources so that subsequent participants don't duplicate the effort. – Uanfala (talk) 03:01, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Fyddlestix has used the AfD template for Irish slaves myth but apparently meant it to be a request for a merge or redirect. What's the process here? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

The article was subject to major edit-warring over whether it should exist or be replaced with a redirect (for which its primary creator was blocked), and has just been restored against consensus. Under the circumstances, an AFD quite appropriate. Please let the discussion run its course. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:58, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

First I am new to this areas, so please forgive my ignorance. If the article clearly has no WP:RS that means it was approved mistakenly at WP:AfC, right? If that is so, should we speak to the editor who approved something that didn't meet the most minimum of standards? Seems like that would save everyone time. On the other side, I think some of the articles on WP:AfD were nominated and clearly meet the requirements to stick around and no good faith effort was made to reach out to the article creators to fix sourcing problems or look for better WP:RS before making the submissions. That should be discouraged. I'm shocked how many new submissions are on WP:AfD daily, which either (1) got approved and should not have (2) are slated for deletion but appear to have enough WP:RS. My feeling is that if WP:AfC is working correctly, we should have very few WP:AfD requests, right? Am I missing something? --David Tornheim (talk) 05:53, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

@David Tornheim: A great many articles are created directly in article space and bypass AfC altogether. These are the ones likely to have no sourcing. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:57, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: Thanks for reply. How are they able to bypass WP:AfC? --David Tornheim (talk) 08:08, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

@David Tornheim: Any registered editor can create any page in articespace. For example, if you click a redlink you're immediately dumped into the create article interface. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 08:29, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

BTW, if you want to spend a few hours reading up on the history of efforts to restrict who can create an article, Wikipedia:The future of NPP and AfC is the place to go. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 08:41, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:36, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi David. I have created many articles and not once have I gone to AfC. I have also never had an article deleted or nominated for deletion. I have created articles in two ways. First, as NeilN suggests above, create a red link and then start creating the article direct into article space. The second way (my preferred method) is to create the article in your sandbox and then when you are happy with it, create the red link and copy-and-paste from your sandbox. DrChrissy ^(talk) 13:16, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Just one caveat to what DrChrissy had to say, it's usually a better idea to actually move a draft from user or draft space into article space, rather than copy/pasting, since this preserves the edit history of the page. It's not technically required if there's only been one contributor, but it is required if there's been more, and if a body is going to get into a habit, the one that is always correct is the better of the two. TimothyJosephWood 13:31, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Can someone check the AfDs at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 February 19. There seems to be a formatting issue in a closed AfD somewhere causing a list issue.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 02:43, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Should be fixed now. Jenks24 (talk) 03:08, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Would anyone mind if we changed the way {{Find sources AFD}} handles parentheses? When a Wikipedia article includes parenthetical article-title disambiguation, a literal quoting of the entire article title is almost never the best search we're looking for: For article "A B C (X Y)" we get {{Find sources AFD|A B C (X Y)}} which pretty much matches nothing. If instead we did {{Find sources AFD|A B C|X|Y)}}, with each word of the parenthetical disambiguation an additional search term rather than part of a literal phrase, we should be able to get better search results by default. Thoughts? Jclemens (talk) 04:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Seems reasonable Jclemens, but the gain perhaps needs demonstrating with a range of test cases - I tried the links at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danny Duncan (musician): standard web search doing it your way brings up fewer apparent mirror sites, otherwise no clear gain; but when you come to Google Books, the alternative search displays a lot more book references for musical Danny Duncans than the present link. Similarly on Highbeam - 12 listings for the alternative, zero for the present link. The change could be proposed as a requested edit at Template talk:Find sources. As a caution, relevant search results are likely to be thin on the ground in these cases, however you tweak the search terms: that is why they're at AfD: Noyster (talk), 12:32, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• I agree with Jclemens's point. I use a similar template on talk pages now: {{friendly search suggestions}}. This seems to handle parentheses in the way that JClemens suggests. For example, see Talk:John Clerk (physician). I suggest that the logic of these templates be harmonised. I might do it myself when I get a chance but am too busy right now. Andrew D. (talk) 14:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

The latest (and only current, open AfD) in which I've used this is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Imperial Guard (Warhammer 40,000), but it's got a lot of applicability in any cultural media context, where the specific root term is clearly notable: 'common pithy name (tv show episode)', 'creature name (dungeons & dragons)', or the like, which is where I tend to work in AfD most. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All Things Are Possible (Hillsong Church album) (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dukat (Star Trek), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cy (Cylon). In these cases, I actually refined the find sources template further, either based on my knowledge of the topic or after review of the article in question, but I see no programmatic way to do anything of the sort, hence my proposal to parse the parentheses. Jclemens (talk) 17:37, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Is it acceptable, and if so, when is it acceptable, for an admin to close a contested AfD as simply "The result was delete." (or v.v.) with no further explanation. It is usual that both sides have made some good points and it is necessary for the closer to evaluate and judge their balance. "Just delete" gives no indication of this - did the closer make the necessary effort to judge this, or did they just try to cull a backlog? Why were some editors' views rejected?

If there are two sides to the AfD and no overriding consensus, I do not believe it is adequate for the close to close without some better comment than this.

Pinging @Kurykh:, as this is largely in reference to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fictional locations in The Railway Series, although it's a long-running issue. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:01, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I heartily endorse Andy's view. Admins must provide some elaboration as to why the decision was as it was. Even "The result was delete because Delete votes outnumbered Retain" would show that it was nothing more than a simple count of votes, in which case some Users may want to challenge the decision. A four-word response from the closing Admin is nothing more than summary justice. Dolphin (t) 11:32, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

In this case there was a decent nomination and a well-argued but strongly contested keep vote, then a relist to get a better idea of consensus. All subsequent opinions were to delete, with good arguments. A more substantial closing statement would have been nice, but the result IMO was correct. There'd certainly be no chance of overturning it if you took it to DRV. Reyk _YO! 11:50, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

This thread isn't DRV. But no. The nomination has holes in it and the one substantive complaint was fixed between nomination and deletion. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:02, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

That's your view, but the other participants obviously did not agree and consensus was very clear. As I said, a more substantial closing statement would have been nice, but I don't see much point complaining about a correct close. Reyk _YO! 12:12, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

If you find the closing statement lacking then ask the closing admin for elaboration. I think most will be happy to do so, either in talk or in the AfD, as they have probably only used a terse statement as they thought the reason was obvious, and like all of us they were trying to use their time efficiently. If you still find their reasoning lacking then take it to deletion review, but the first thing to do is ask the closing admin.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 12:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. And remember too, quite a few editors only interact with AFD when they have an article nominated. So what might be an obvious close to admins who deal with AFD all the time might not be so obvious to the average editor. Offering quick explanation in the close, or later on request, is a good habit to keep - but it's enough, usually, that the admin is willing to explain their reasoning if asked. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:15, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

A full and complete rationale for a contested close is always a good idea. One thing I would like to see more of is admins explicitly stating why WP:ATD options were inapplicable for things seemingly covered by them (e.g., a fictional element of questionable notability with a valid merge or redirect target). Jclemens (talk) 17:41, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Response by closing admin: Closing admins are supposed to determine if there is consensus to delete or to engage in some other action. The default reason of a closure is that the closing admin finds that the consensus of the discussion is the stated outcome. What Andy is asking me to do is to lay out the rationales for deletion using my own research, which turns me into a participant of the discussion rather than an evaluator of consensus. This is a wholly inappropriate task for someone who is supposed to impartially determine whether consensus exists. Rationales are added when the presence of consensus is debatable and further explanation is needed, but that is not the case here. Andy laid out his keep arguments, and other participants saw those arguments and rejected them. --Kurykh (talk) 01:32, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting. Do I have this right though: you are not permitted to explain your conclusion? Can you then please explain why so many other admins do this? Perhaps they are spending more than a minute on each deletion close (Special:Contributions/Kurykh).

There was no consensus here, certainly not one based on policy. Two obvious WP:IDONTLIKEIT and unexplained claims that the three secondary sources added are somehow "primary". This is not an obvious and easy close, so it warrants an explanation from the closing admin as to why at least some editor's comments have instead been excluded on a reasoned basis. I don't believe you did this; you just counted the bolded words and rubber-stamped it "delete" because you are in such a hurry to bulk close AfDs (thanks for that, as backlogs are indeed a problem). But now when asked to explain this, you refuse because you're "not allowed" to explain why. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:38, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I believe the point Kurykh is making is that the debate itself lays out the reasons for deleting the article. If you're asking them to justify the close with something that isn't in the debate, then you're asking them to cast a supervote - and, at that point, they should just comment and let someone else close. That's not how this works. I'd add that weak reasons to delete that go undiscussed are still reasons to delete - and the closing admin can evaluate them on the merits. But it's not the job of the closing admin to debate those weak reasons - it's the job of other editors. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:31, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Usually, when someone have a question of what a person said, they simply ask for clarification rather than put words in people's mouths and create nefarious intent from thin air in blatant violation of WP:AGF. In any case, UltraExactZZ has it exactly right. --Kurykh (talk) 19:13, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Quite frankly, from what you have said thus far in this thread (the second paragraph in your response to me was very telling), your real problem is with the outcome of the AfD rather than the process itself. That's fine, but that's a WP:DRV question, and it doesn't belong here. Also, if you're trying to imply something from the speed by which I'm closing AfDs (I'm using User:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD, and it's great), then you should say it explicitly and allow me to address it directly. I add explanations when I believe they are warranted or if I believe that my closure will be contentious under normal circumstances, and if you look through my closures like you urge others to do, then you would have seen that I actually do add explanations when the occasion warrants such. --Kurykh (talk) 19:34, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

My problem is with the process itself. I have seen far too many discussions result in a simple "The result was delete," leaving me to wonder if the closing administrator even (a) looked at the article in question, and (b) paid attention to the arguments presented instead of simply counting votes. These have looked like the following:

• Delete - not notable
• Delete - per GNG
• Delete - per previous arguments
• Keep - Since this AfD began, I have added several reliable references to establish notability
  

There may be another vote or two on each side, but the result for this sort of debate is almost always "The result was delete." I would argue that there is a definite need to add a closing rationale, as the first three votes were not even about the state of the article at the end of the debate. If the closing administrator finds that the article should be deleted, he or she must be prepared to explain that decision in light of the sources that have been added. If an administrator is not willing to do so, he or she should avoid working in AfD. Similar situations exist with sockpuppetry, canvassing, etc. A one-word rationale doesn't work, and it's a slap in the face to editors who work hard to bring articles up to the notability requirements. I have pretty much stopped trying to rescue articles, since that work is frequently ignored by administrators who seem to do nothing more than count votes. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:49, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I suggest that where some of the Deletes were specifically based on policies such as WP:BLP that the "no consensus = keep" belief is errant. Where WP:BLP concerns are found by a closer to be valid, then the simple "delete close" is absolutely proper. I further note that "state of the article" is irrelevant to the requirements of WP:BLP. Policies outweigh votes. Collect (talk) 00:01, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, this is a BLP now? Andy Dingley (talk) 01:59, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I believe Collect is talking about the general issue, rather than the specific AfD you mentioned. ansh666 02:15, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I also have a problem with the process. On Wikipedia, we encourage all Users to briefly explain why they are doing whatever it is they are doing, not wait until someone asks. For example, all Users are encouraged to leave an adequate Edit summary on all their edits, so others can see the reason for their actions. Wikipedia doesn't say Don't bother leaving an edit summary. If anyone wants to know why you made that particular edit, they will ask.

I think it is highly inconsistent to suggest Administrators can close a Deletion debate with nothing more than a four-word summary to explain their action. It is particularly inconsistent to imagine that when people want to know why an Administrator made a particular decision, those people should ask, by leaving a message on the Admin's Talk page! Dolphin (t) 11:40, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• One reason why it's good for closing admins to use bare four-word closures is that if they tried to explain their rationale they would run the risk of making it clear they haven't understood the arguments in the discussion. – Uanfala (talk) 02:27, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Collect - I'm not sure what you mean by "state of the article is irrelevant". My concern is that delete votes can be piled on an article that doesn't meet GNG, but if the article is brought up to GNG standards during the discussion, closing administrators rarely seem to pay attention to the delete votes were in regards to what is, essentially, a completely different article and are therefore irrelevant. However, since many closing administrators seem to be little more than number counters, the irrelevant delete votes are given enough credence to outweigh valid votes cast on the improved version of the article. In this sense, I believe the "state of the article" is not only relevant, but of the utmost importance in guiding closing administrators. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:10, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I had specifically referred to cases where WP:BLP is concerned - and in such a case, an article violative of WP:BLP and noted as such in a deletion discussion is deletable. A BLP-violating article with 10,000 "cites" can still be deleted. This is specific to that policy, which is not negotiable. Is this more clear? Collect (talk) 15:40, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

(1) If the BLP-violating text is removed during the deletion discussion, WP:BLP would no longer be a valid reason for deletion. (2) If the article has reliable sources, then it would make sense only to remove BLP-violating text rather than deleting the entire article. (3) Either way, stating the reason in the closing rationale is important. "The result was delete" would still be useless. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:58, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

From the top of the page:

Common outcomes are that the article is...transcluded into another article (or other page)...

I don't follow AFD extremely closely, but I can't recall having ever seen a discussion closed as "transclude" before. Our transclusion information page includes a link to a discussion where the general sentiment is that transclusion of article content is a bad thing. Should we remove the phrase from that sentence, or is there a more recent discussion regarding this matter? — Train2104 (t • c) 00:44, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I've just had a look and couldn't find any AfD that has been closed as Transclude, ever. There are a few where someone discusses it as a possibility. There are cases where article content is transcluded into other articles, mostly because they both have some section in common and it isn't worth maintaining two copies of it. In any case it clearly isn't a common AfD outcome and I suggest we remove it. Hut 8.5 13:38, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Agree, that does not match any outcome I’ve seen, or even recommended in a discussion. Articles should not normally be transcluded in other articles, it just makes editing them, monitoring them, discussing them harder.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:25, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Agree. I don't remember ever seeing that as a close before. Reyk _YO! 14:59, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Since this doesn't seem controversial, I've made the edit. — Train2104 (t • c) 18:02, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Input is welcome at Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents#Call for dissent, which potentially involves the deletion of a large number of articles. TimothyJosephWood 13:08, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey, is there a template for that? Wasn't sure, couldn't find the procedure. South Nashua (talk) 14:51, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

There should be instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO, but the long and the short of it is that when you create the AFD template at the article, you add (2nd nomination) or whatever to the link - then create the debate at the "ARTICLENAME (2nd nomination)" page as normal. If it still gives you trouble, let us know here and someone will help sort it out. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:24, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I oppose the removal of the page of artist Frany Dejota, collaborate and check on Amazon: Electronic Music Albums and Singles by Frany Dejota at Amazon Roumo Roumo (talk) 07:05, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I've advised this user where they should leave AfD comments. Hut 8.5 07:31, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Please stop using the abbreviation AfD. It is commonly associated with a political party in Germany with racist tendencies, which are gaining prominence. They are proposing a Chancellor for the upcoming elections, which would be the successor of Merkel. Even the use of majuscules and minuscules are the same ("Alternative für Deutschland"). --94.217.191.110 (talk) 06:30, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey, hey, we started using it first! Tell them to stop it! ansh666 06:48, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

If only we hadn't freely licensed that abbreviation... we could have charged a fee and funded the site for at least a few hours. Alas. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:39, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I oppose the removal of the page of artist Frany Dejota, collaborate and check Biography and information about the artist Frany Dejota on Google Play Roumo Roumo (talk) 11:12, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Roumo, the correct place to voice your objection is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frany Dejota. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:05, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I have completed step 1, and request that someone else complete the deletion process for Jordan Fung. Please see Talk:Jordan Fung for reasons for deletion.220.246.180.78 (talk) 13:52, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done. I've completed the steps and listed this debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jordan Fung and at today's log. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:13, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Hitachi Furyumono was a wrong redirection to Hitachi City. I think that it should be deleted. Best. --Toyotsu (talk) 00:24, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I think the article Nations and intelligence should be nominated for deletion. The article has so many problems, som of them is POV, original research]] and SYNTH. The Swedish article on the same theme was deleted recently. EnWP is the only wiki with this article. We allready have the article Race and intelligence that covers this subject. Dnm (talk) 12:33, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

@Dnm: please note that when the article was nominated for deletion last year, it was speedily kept. This is a strong indication that it should be kept. Any POV, OR and SYNTH problems can be tackled without deleting the article. Simply remove any problematic content.The argument that Race and intelligence covers the same topic was brought up during the last deletion discussion and was not found to be accurate. Please also note that what other language WPs do is sometimes different to us, since they have independent (and sometimes very different) standards, especially in terms of notability. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:01, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok. I understand. If the problematic content would be removed it would result in a soft deletion. But I do not want to fix the article: It is to much work and if EnWP want to have a article like that one, whom am i to argue? :) Thanks for your answer, user:Finnusertop. Dnm (talk) 13:34, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Is Joshua Evans (YouTube personality) notable? I don't see how he satisfies WP:ENT. Social Blade ranks him 18,969th on YouTube, although he ranks 2,128th by subscriptions. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:11, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

When in doubt, take it to AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joshua Evans (YouTube personality). That's the proper place to check notability, which one should not hesitate to settle. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:56, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:05, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Urban Design Associates has been malformed by the nominator, User:AliceStanley11, but I'm not quite sure how to fix it other than start over. SpinningSpark 18:45, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done. ansh666 18:47, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, and apologies for Malformed AFD.AliceStanley11 (talk) 19:06, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

This may seem like a daft question, but it came out of a genuine real-life discussion. (I notice it was asked upthread without much comment; maybe this can kick-start things)

We have been referring to "Articles for deletion" as "AfD" for years. Unfortunately, the Alternative für Deutschland is now also doing it (indeed, a google search for "AfD" is dominated by the political movement, as one might expect) and the potential for non-regulars to get confused has started to happen. If I said to you, "I'm taking this to AfD", you know what I mean, but if you thought I was going to get in touch with the political party or one of its discussion forums and talk about you or the article's topic, well the potential for confusion or upset is there.

So what can we realistically do about it? I'm loathe to start an RfC to change the name, as I predict it will result in an avalanche of "Oppose - it ain't broke don't fix it" votes. Should we just take real care not to mention three letter acronyms to newbies and always spell terms out in full? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:32, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I think we can skate by on this one, in large part because we're an English language encyclopedia and much of the world's English-speaking people don't pay attention to the rest of the world. In the US, there was rarely a problem with people discussing putting part of their earnings into IRA accounts, no matter what conflicts the IRA was involved in over in Ireland. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:06, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

My advice to folks dealing with very new editors, is that you shouldn't ever link to "AfD" and WP:ALPHABETSOUP anyway. Instead, you should link to things like Wikipedia guidelines on notability, our Articles for Creation project, or Wikipedia deletion discussions. TimothyJosephWood 18:28, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Or alternatively, use WP:AfD instead of just "AfD". If this actually becomes a problem, we can try to change common usage to WP:AFD (capital F), which may or may not be distinct enough. ansh666 19:48, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Agreed that this is a minor problem that can be avoided relatively easily, either by not using the alphabet soup altogether with newbies (which I agree with TJW about) or by adding the WP prefix. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:55, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I have just suggested the deletion of the promotional article Nathan Kelly, but I am unable to complete the AfD process because I do not have an account. Please may a registered user finish this for me? 87.210.99.206 (talk) 21:08, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Working on this. --Finngall ^talk 21:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done. --Finngall ^talk 21:21, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I came across an AFD just now, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shehzad Ghias Shaikh, and reading it is a mess. The formatting of the sources added by one user (in this instance AFD regular User:Northamerica1000) disrupts the flow of the discussion greatly and turns what isn't actually a long debate into a mess of a wall of text, no doubt discouraging participation and making it harder to gauge consensus. There's no actual value to presenting information this way, and if anything it just makes it seem like the sources of being shouted, drowning out other arguments. I'm wondering if maybe it would be worth looking at the idea of AFD discussions being kept to text and links, with no additional formatting being made? Certainly I'm not a fan of the techniques in that ongoing AFD. At the least, users shouldn't be using tables or flow charts or other mechanisms to make their points. KaisaL (talk) 23:44, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Sounds like you have an issue with one particular user, I would suggest talking to them about it/going to an appropriate noticeboard as appropriate. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:23, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't know the user, you're welcome to check that I've had no real engagements with them. It's important to deal with any trend like this more generally and, umm, where would be a better location than the AFD talk page? Anyway, I'll leave it there if it isn't bothering anybody else. KaisaL (talk) 02:07, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

...could we avoid bad joke AfDs and concentrate on serious stuff? KATMAKROFAN (talk) 21:33, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

...could we avoid serious AfDs and concentrate on humorous stuff? – Uanfala (talk) 21:41, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:NOT KATMAKROFAN (talk) 21:43, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:YES. – Uanfala (talk) 21:51, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Fighting this is like fighting the wind. A force of nature April 1st is. Just grin and bear it and be happy it only happens once a year. --Majora (talk) 21:49, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

If you don't like it, ignore it. WP is a community built on consensus, and consensus says that they are okay. ansh666 22:09, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

KAP03 is relisting AfDs that were created 1 April. The reason given is that the log is overfilled. The only reason the log is overfilled is that there are 71 joke AfDs. I tried to fix the problem by removing the jokes but that was not acceptable. Since they weren't removed any other year we can't remove them this year even though they are causing problems. I have a hard time even looking at the page as it takes a long time to load. Simple solution remove the jokes. ~ GB fan 00:23, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Why is past precedent preventing us from removing the jokes? Not a bureaucracy and whatnot. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:41, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't know, when I removed them, that was the reason I was reverted by two different people. They are there in other years so they need to stay this year. ~ GB fan 00:44, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Not to be uncivil, but that seems over the top ridiculous. I'd also have no problem suggesting deleting them as G6, though I'm sure that's crossing some sacred line too. I'm fine with the April foolery, but when it causes a core project page to load and further increases the backlog enough is enough. No need to relist, just remove the jokes. If they've already been relisted, don't put them on April 1 again because its more trouble than it is worth. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:48, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

It looks like about 20 have been relisted already. If we just had removed the 71 jokes we would be at a manageable level. ~ GB fan 00:52, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

• We've always had alot of AFDs on April Fools and we've coped just fine so I don't see why they should be removed now, What I don't understand tho is the constant AFD relists, The loading time might take a bit more time but it's not something overly worry about, I believe last year a few of the AFDs were deleted which is why there's not as many in last years AFD log, Blame the morons like TBH and Champion who took it upon themselves to nominate every bloody article on here. But anyway I don't see a problem with them staying, –Davey2010^Talk 00:54, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

For me loading time in that page is significant. After I removed the jokes it was manageable. ~ GB fan 01:03, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Suggestion: how about moving them to a separate log, a subpage of WP:April Fools, something like that? That way everyone gets their way - the joke AfDs are kept around (unfortunately) but they aren't slowing down the main log. ansh666 00:56, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

  Can't we just nuke the shit AFDs ? (mine included)?, There's a few that wasn't commented on and wasn't funny so won't be missed - I don't mind nuking some but I'd rather us we keep some then to get rid of all –Davey2010^Talk 00:58, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

  G7 yours if you want, then. Generally that hasn't been done in the past. ansh666 00:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

  I say G6 the ones that weren't commented on. I think it was taken overboard this year and there is no reason to keep the jokes that no one found funny enough to comment on around. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:02, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

• Well I've only done 4 AFDs and 2 had failed so in all nuking 2 won't do much help, Unless I CSD the bad ones under "housekeeping" stating AFD log issues ? –Davey2010^Talk 01:02, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

• I agree with TonyBallioni just nuke the ones that wasn't commented on which is pretty much the first 10 I guess –Davey2010^Talk 01:04, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

• If I don't hear any objections, I'll add a G6 tag to them in a bit and link to this conversation. We can see if that works for GB Fan. If there are still issues after that, we can figure something else out then. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:13, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

• Beat me to it , In that case I'll let you do the honours as I'll probably be fast asleep by the time everyone replies lol, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 01:22, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)I've asked KAP03 to stop the relisting on their talk page until it is resolved what to do here. Right now, I can load the page on my computer, but not sure if everyone could. Regardless, if it is at a manageable level, no need for more relisting. If some people are still experiencing issues, the obvious thing to do is to remove the jokes. Relisting pushes the potential AfD close back a day (or two now) and that is less desirable than just removing the jokes. I'm also fine with Ansh666's suggestion of a separate log. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:00, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

• GB fan, TonyBallioni Ansh666 - Do you's (or anyone else) object to me removing and CSD'ing the crap AFDs ?, I've already done 2 of mine however didn't wanna touch others incase anyone disagreed, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 01:15, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

  No objections. ansh666 01:20, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

  Nuke away. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:21, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

• I've tagged them. Tagged the ones with no comment or that only received a serious !vote by someone who was confused. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:21, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
• Comment There seems to be 53 joke AFDs still on the log with a few more tagged for speedy deletion per WP:G6 as described here. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 03:12, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
• wait, so, core program is lagged. then, Just remove the transclusion only from the log page. because deleting will make them unseeable ever again. unless some admin revives it. a lot of jokes are gone by now. if you look at This year's April fools' page, a lot of them got removed and now unseeable. so, yes. Product0339^{Talk  • Project}
  _{Contributions} 03:14, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
  • The AFDs that are being deleted had very little participation in the first place. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 03:17, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Yeah, but, small contents is not a no content. we can't just remove the wiki-history without finding the alternative way first. Product0339^{Talk  • Project}
      _{Contributions} 03:20, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
      • so that is my alternative way. removing the transclusion instead of the actual article. changing transclusion to a wikilink is also considerable. Product0339^{Talk  • Project}
        _{Contributions} 03:21, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Wrong - No alternatives need to be found, Jokes were unoriginal, unfunny and to be blunt shit, Nothing of value was lost, Also too late we've found a better alternative - To delete them, Not our problem you were late to the party. –Davey2010^Talk 03:22, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
    • There was a rough consensus here to delete those with no April Fools Day participation. I implemented quickly because It helped with the page lag, and I also think was worth doing because there's no need to have a bot tagging the old articles with the old AfD tag and then having someone remove it, especially if the comments that make some of the good gags funny aren't there . I think tagging ones that had comments on them as was recently done was not in line with the consensus here. I was about to comment that if there are issues with the remaining ones, we can remove the transclusion and set them up with their own subpage per Ansh. Let's not waste more of anyone's time fighting over something relatively minor. There are articles to write and backlogs to work on. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:27, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Hey, Some Jokes were unoriginal, unfunny. but, they too, are a part of a history of Wikipedia. also, if jokes are just a 'Nothing of value', then why does all Humor pages exist? they are kept because it is considered humorous. some people finds it funny. also deleting them will ruin the tradition, if I was more late, then next day those would be all red links.

• We all judge humour differently I get that but everyone here agrees they were crap (if they disagreed none of them would've been deleted), OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a valid reason to keep crap. –Davey2010^Talk 03:35, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

• No one is talking about deleting all of the AfDs. The ones that were deleted were ones that had no participation or where an editor who wasn't participating was confused and made a real !vote. I didn't intend to tag any with even one gag !vote other than the nomination. Some of the ones that were tagged after me probably shouldn't have been, but I think Davey reverted a couple. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:39, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I've reverted one at the moment - Those that been deleted wern't on my watchlist however I think there was 2 that may of had participation... I'm not sure tbh, –Davey2010^Talk 03:45, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion#Merge. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:03, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Step 1 of the AfD process has been completed for Entertainment Today, with justification on Talk:Entertainment Today. As an IP editor, I am requesting that someone else complete the process.220.246.180.6 (talk) 15:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

•  Done Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Entertainment Today. ~ GB fan a "frantic, furious ball of anger" 15:59, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I as an IP user has completed step 1 and am requesting that someone else complete the process for the page Sha Tin College. Justification is provided on Talk:Sha Tin College. 220.246.180.6 (talk) 16:15, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

For the benefit of anyone else reading this it's been done (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sha Tin College). Hut 8.5 18:06, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Oops! Thanks Hut 8.5, and apologies for my tardiness. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 18:16, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating Renaissance College (faculty of the University of New Brunswick) for deletion as an ip editor. 118.143.145.237 (talk) 07:10, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I'll complete the steps for you, per WP:AGF. I'm taking your rationale from the article's talk page, though you may wish to go to the AFD and engage in the discussion once it starts. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:59, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Can someone close my AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexis Bonabes, Marquess of Rougé as withdrawn? I'm not sure how to. SL93 (talk) 23:05, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Done - @SL93: please do or discuss a possible rename, if a different title is preferable (per one comment in the AfD discussion). GermanJoe (talk) 23:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Step 1 of the AfD process has been completed for Abu Eesa Niamatullah, with justification on Talk:Abu Eesa Niamatullah. As a new user, I am requesting that someone else complete the process.--Mujaddouda (talk) 21:26, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

My apologies, but I don't see the AFD tag or a rationale in either of those pages' histories. Could you make sure that that is the correct article? Or, alternatively, feel free to post your rationale here and someone will copy it over verbatim. Thanks. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 17:16, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.orghttps://wikious.com/en/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Environmental_justice_and_coal_mining_in_Appalachia_(2nd_nomination) needs pulling; too soon from last AfD, which I somehow didn't notice until after the fact. Will pulling it reset the counter, BTW?

This was not even posted to the article yet because of page protection. Anmccaff (talk) 16:26, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done. There is not a formal "counter" in renominating an article. Just common sense wait of at least 3-6 months is normal after a no consensus close. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:33, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I was thinking about Twinkle; it appears to look for previous nominations, and act accordingly. (It also appears to partially hang up if the article is protected, as it is now.)

Thanks much for your help. Anmccaff (talk) 16:44, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Step 1 of the AfD process has been completed for Abu Eesa Niamatullah, with justification on Talk:Abu Eesa Niamatullah. As a new user, I am requesting that someone else complete the process.--Mujaddouda (talk) 21:26, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

My apologies, but I don't see the AFD tag or a rationale in either of those pages' histories. Could you make sure that that is the correct article? Or, alternatively, feel free to post your rationale here and someone will copy it over verbatim. Thanks. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 17:16, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I can't find anything at all about him other than the current sources used already. Improving the page is very difficult, as he is not notable enough to have a variety of reliable sources having written about him. Others have tried to improve the page to provide more information about him, but they have had to use unreliable sources to do that. Currently, the only sources that are acceptable are either from a local newspaper or from an article that is quite defamatory (the author of said article has since been dismissed and he is quite known for his inflammatory rhetoric).

I've pasted some comments from the Talk page here -

"This person does have have notability. Pretty much all the references used are his own website or other local muslim websites. With all due respect to this man, he is not even notable within the muslim community is Manchester (e.g. vast majority of Didsbury mosque goers would not know who he is)."

"This article is a mess. Looking through the page history, a lot of info is being added and removed every few months, and very little of it can be sourced reliably. Currently, the article essentially transcribes a Telegraph piece by Andrew Gilligan who was so defamatory he no longer works for that paper. Previously it relied on websites affilliated with the person himself, as well as sites such as MuslimMatters. It's clear that to source his views, works and education, we would have to depend on sub-standard sources, and as such the article as it stands is not only imbalanced (largely parroting Gilligan's article with responses inadequately sourced and thus removed), but also impossible to improve due to lack of (any!) sources. Thus it's best to concede that this article is long overdue for deletion. Any article that doesn't have sources to get it to a decent stage is surely non-notable by definition."

"The education section of the article currently contains no reliable sources for Abu Eesa. I have been unable to find any evidence that he studied in "Mauritania, Medina, Morocco, Egypt and Pakistan" or that he has any actual higher education qualifications. Since the section has contained the "citation needed tag" for over 6 months I will remove it entirely until reliable sources can be found.

This raises a more general question: Is this man notable at all? If so, for what exactly?"--Mujaddouda (talk) 16:43, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Something seems to be off here.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Butin mount
Butin mount (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Does not seem to be listed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 April 22 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
No idea what to do here. I had inadvertently removed the AfD on Butin mount when reverting unexplained deletions. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 07:26, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I deleted it since we don't need an AFD for an article that recreates an existing topic. I have converted the article in question to a redirect. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:31, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Step 1 of the AfD process has been completed for Abu Eesa Niamatullah, with justification on Talk:Abu Eesa Niamatullah. As a new user, I am requesting that someone else complete the process.--Mujaddouda (talk) 21:26, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

My apologies, but I don't see the AFD tag or a rationale in either of those pages' histories. Could you make sure that that is the correct article? Or, alternatively, feel free to post your rationale here and someone will copy it over verbatim. Thanks. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 17:16, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I can't find anything at all about him other than the current sources used already. Improving the page is very difficult, as he is not notable enough to have a variety of reliable sources having written about him. Others have tried to improve the page to provide more information about him, but they have had to use unreliable sources to do that. Currently, the only sources that are acceptable are either from a local newspaper or from an article that is quite defamatory (the author of said article has since been dismissed and he is quite known for his inflammatory rhetoric).

I've pasted some comments from the Talk page here -

"This person does have have notability. Pretty much all the references used are his own website or other local muslim websites. With all due respect to this man, he is not even notable within the muslim community is Manchester (e.g. vast majority of Didsbury mosque goers would not know who he is)."

"This article is a mess. Looking through the page history, a lot of info is being added and removed every few months, and very little of it can be sourced reliably. Currently, the article essentially transcribes a Telegraph piece by Andrew Gilligan who was so defamatory he no longer works for that paper. Previously it relied on websites affilliated with the person himself, as well as sites such as MuslimMatters. It's clear that to source his views, works and education, we would have to depend on sub-standard sources, and as such the article as it stands is not only imbalanced (largely parroting Gilligan's article with responses inadequately sourced and thus removed), but also impossible to improve due to lack of (any!) sources. Thus it's best to concede that this article is long overdue for deletion. Any article that doesn't have sources to get it to a decent stage is surely non-notable by definition."

"The education section of the article currently contains no reliable sources for Abu Eesa. I have been unable to find any evidence that he studied in "Mauritania, Medina, Morocco, Egypt and Pakistan" or that he has any actual higher education qualifications. Since the section has contained the "citation needed tag" for over 6 months I will remove it entirely until reliable sources can be found.

This raises a more general question: Is this man notable at all? If so, for what exactly?"--Mujaddouda (talk) 16:43, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Something seems to be off here.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Butin mount
Butin mount (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Does not seem to be listed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 April 22 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
No idea what to do here. I had inadvertently removed the AfD on Butin mount when reverting unexplained deletions. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 07:26, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I deleted it since we don't need an AFD for an article that recreates an existing topic. I have converted the article in question to a redirect. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:31, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I've completed step 1 of the AfD process for Jesus (archangel) with a justification on article's the talk page, but as I'm unregistered that's as far as I can go. Could a registered user please complete the process?2601:1C0:CD01:74EE:A8AD:D914:CC5B:3DA4 (talk) 17:28, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesus (archangel). Cheers, ansh666 19:16, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Why is it not compulsory to notify the creator of an article that an article is up for deletion? -- PBS (talk) 08:19, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

It might not be "complusory" because it is assumed that the creator of the page is monitoring it; the instructions do state that interested persons can be notified; if Twinkle or Page Curation is used, it automatically notifies. 331dot (talk) 08:22, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Because it doesn't always make sense. If the "creator" made the article as a redirect or one-sentence-stub or was blocked (for whatever reason) before they could build it, and it was greatly expanded by someone else, notifying them wouldn't really matter. And if that someone else was a bunch of people, such that you couldn't identify a primary contributor (which is often the case), then who do you notify? ansh666 09:02, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Agree with both of the above. In addition to the second point, often the editors are not even active any more on Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 15:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Editors not being active on Wikipedia is often a good reason for notification. Assuming that they will see a prod or deletion notice on the article assumes that they are checking here every week. Posting on their talk page, however, will often trigger an email to them, alerting them to the situation. And the page creator may have additional insight into why the article should be kept. This would be particularly true of someone who edits Wikipedia rarely, who may not have put enough sign of notability into the article because they don't think in terms of Wikipedia guidelines, but may be able to point you to sources indicating notability when prodded to do so by the impending deletion. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:24, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

It would be little inconvenience to notify the article creator. We can come up with hypothetical situations in which it might not be needed, but it's definitely a worthwhile courtesy. I would support making this mandatory. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:31, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Also, there are a number of editors who combine not sending a notice to the creator or main editor with not leaving a proper edit summary of the AFD, PROD, or CSD so there is a good case for compulsary notification on the grounds of fairness Atlantic306 (talk) 23:33, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I would like to AFD Run Leia Run - could someone please complete the last two steps for me? I have posted my rationale for deletion on the talk page per the instructions. Thank you. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 23:47, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done ~ GB fan 23:55, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry for posting here, I'm not an experienced editor. I hope it's the right place.

Can someone please help me understand how to deal with what I feel is a malicious (or in the best case misguided) Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion entry? Here's the sequence of events:

• The page was deleted by User:Walter_Görlitz in December 2015. I did not receive an email about it despite being subscribed to the page (possibly due to bad settings in my own profile).
• On the 24th of March 2017 I asked to have the page restored and it has been restored.
• The proposed deletion notice has been on the page since then. The discussion is not going anywhere and the person who proposed the deletion is saying that the notice will stay there until the page is deleted. User:Walter_Görlitz (the only person who had a problem with the page) is refusing to participate in a discussion about how to improve the page.
• I think the purpose of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion is to have a discussion and once the discussion is over: to make a decision about what to do. I may be mistaken but I don't believe the intention is to keep a page hostage until the main contributor doesn't look and then delete it.

Can some administrators please have a look and make a decision? I'm a reasonable person, and I feel that what's curently happening in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ISO_Master is unreasonable.

Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mig21 (talk • contribs) 07:07, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I think that you have misunderstood the situation somewhat, including what has been said. The box indicating that there is a deletion discussion underway is kept on there until the discussion is "closed", which will sometimes be performed by an administrator and at other times (generally in less close-call situations) by a non-administrator user who has not been involved in the discussion. The box goes away when the discussion is closed no matter the outcome. In the event that the article is not deleted, another discussion may be started, at which point the box will reappear, but a user repeatedly starting deletion discussions which have failed in the past after a reasonable amount of discussion would be frowned on.

The thing that's been keeping the discussion alive is lack of participants in the discussion. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:40, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

• I have the same problems with the page I'm creating and it's very difficult to understand the criteria the admins and editors manage in Wiki. I think, finally, I got it. Feel free to contact me at any time. Olga Wills (talk) 03:18, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I would like to nominate this as an AFD: https://en.wikipedia.orghttps://wikious.com/en/Robin_Hunter-Clarke I fail to see what point it serves, I have removed a lot of waffle/gossip, he may have held a senior role in the leave campaign, but that was only for a few months and that isn't the sort of thing anyone is going to look up. He's currently an assistant for an opposition Assembly Member and a UKIP election candidate - does that merit a page here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulharding150 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done. The debate is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robin Hunter-Clarke (3rd nomination). UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 21:09, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Could someone please complete another AFD for me? The article in question is Reign of the Fallen. I have put the rationale for deletion on the talk page, per instructions. Thank you! --122.108.141.214 (talk) 01:09, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:15, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you @NeilN: and @Sakura Cartelet: for responding so quickly. However, now there are two open AFDs for the same article. What happens now? --122.108.141.214 (talk) 01:18, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I posted a message to @NeilN: to delete one of the deletion debates. Hopefully it'll be acted on soon. Sakuura Cartelet ^Talk 01:21, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sakura Cartelet got there first - I've deleted my AFD page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:22, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix! --122.108.141.214 (talk) 01:30, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Requesting deletion. PROD was removed suggesting that original author or someone interested does contest it. Page acts as an ad for a private attorney with no notoriety. Marked for deletion. Requesting assistance to complete the process. TY. 67.82.252.143 (talk) 22:54, 18 May 2017 (UTC) For convenience: Anna Latkovskaia. Reason for deletion was included during PROD as well as current Afd request. 67.82.252.143 (talk) 22:55, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done ~ GB fan 22:58, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks 67.82.252.143 (talk) 02:03, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

If an account (SPA, Single Purpose Account) was only used to create and edit one page , why is it necessary to notify them about AFD's? The only thing they are going to be watching is the original page, which will have a big old AFD tag at the top. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 09:13, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Not everyone has a watchlist and AFDs can be added without an edit summary. Sending a notice may trigger an email alert to the editor Atlantic306 (talk) 15:31, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Not to mention that many AfD's are created with automated tools such as Twinkle, which automatically notifies the article's creator, SPA or not. Granted, this can be turned off manually, but no one really does this since article creators should be aware that an AfD is in progress. SkyWarrior 15:45, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

The page in question is Black art. Nearly all of the articles listed on the page do not have "black art" as a title. The only link with that term in the title is Black art (theatre), but it redirects to Glossary of magic (illusion)#B. Mitchumch (talk) 16:45, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I've followed the instructions as carefully as I can, and I can't manage to add Adidas F50 to this page properly. It only creates a red link. I've completed step two, I have created a project page, but can't seem to complete step three of the instructions found here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to nominate a single page for deletion. I hope someone can help! TGB13 (talk) 22:02, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done. ansh666 22:22, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

@TGB13: For future nominations, I suggest you enable Twinkle in your preferences => gadgets tab, it automates the creation of these pages. Regards SoWhy 07:12, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you ansh! Okay So, I'll do that, thanks for the advice! TGB13 (talk) 17:57, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Template:Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology

So... There have been articles created for basically every single type of sub-division of this school, most or all of which are probably patently non-notable. Mass AfD anyone? TimothyJosephWood 19:20, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Howdy,

Over at WP:BEETLES I had an AfD flag turn up on the Article alerts for the page Harpalus subtruncatus. The AfD has started on the talk page (where I have initially responded) rather than at at AfD proper and it has no time-stamp on the article alert. Could someone more familiar with AfD process take a looksie at the whole shebang and help answer whether the alarm bells I am hearing are unfounded? Thanks Zakhx150 (talk) 13:25, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

The AfD on the page was added by an IP editor. If I understand the system, IPs can't complete the process; there are examples higher on this talk page of IPs asking for help with other AfDs. I think the answer is for someone to finish the AfD process (or start over, e.g.: with Twinkle) on behalf of the IP and let it have its week in the sun. Your arguments on the article talk page seem valid, but it's way out of my area of expertise/interest.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 14:12, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

You can't start an AfD on a talk page, if you aren't registered you can post a rationale on a talk page and request that somebody else complete the process for you but that's not the same thing as starting an AfD on a talk page. I would complete this but I honestly don't think that nomination has any chance of succeeding. Hut 8.5 17:59, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I am new to Wikipedia and have just created a new article for Colchester united F.C football player Reuben Mudd. For some reason the article has been out of for deletion, however there is no reason why this should be the case as all content is completely factual . Any help would be greatly appreciated in order to allow the page to remain as I am not sure how to appeal it . Daveymudd (talk) 22:46, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello @Daveymudd:, and welcome to Wikipedia. The discussion about this article can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reuben Mudd, where everyone is welcome to participate. Aside from being factual, articles about footballers also must meet certain "notability" requirements as outlined in WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Simplifying: the player must have played in a fully professional league and/or must have been covered in-depth in several independent reliable sources. I suggest you look into these guidelines and the arguments in the AfD discussion, and comment directly in the AfD page. Hope that helps a bit. GermanJoe (talk) 23:08, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

• Could an admin delete Kovy (youtuber)? WP:Articles for deletion/Kovy (youtuber) closed as delete already and the article has not been deleted. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 22:53, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

• The above request was posted at 22:53, 33 seconds after the article was closed at 22:20. The article was deleted on on 23:13, 20 seconds after the above request was posted. Might I humbly suggest giving the admins a bit more time before complaining? I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:30, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Guy Macon, 22:53 is 33 minutes after 22:20 and 23:13 is 20 minutes after 22:53. This is a total of 53 minutes not seconds. ~ GB fan 12:43, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Note to self: next time, smoke crack after editing Wikipedia. :( --Guy Macon (talk) 15:09, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

No, no! Don't do it! It's a horrible habit that will ruin your life! Just smoke the crack! --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:26, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I have started a formal Request for comment that may affect Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. It is at Wikipedia talk:Deletion process#RfC on holding RfCs within XfDs. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:48, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Is there a bot (or other process) which looks for AfD subpages that have not been transcluded to a daily page? Two examples are Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Claremont-Mudd-Scripps Athenas and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Claremont-Mudd-Scripps Stags, both created by Spatms (talk · contribs). What should be done when these are found? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:54, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I think Cyberbot I does this (eg. ). The bot probably missed those two because the AfD pages have not been formed propely. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:23, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Yep, the bot usually catches these - and the ones it can't process get logged at WP:BADAFD (which is backlogged severely at the moment, if anyone is bored). UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:32, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:BADAFD doesn't include malformed AfD pages, since it looks specifically for the AfD sorting template ({{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD}}). To the best of my knowledge, there is no bot that checks for AfD pages that don't have a properly substed {{afd2}}; doing a check for non-transcluded AfDs could actually work to find those, since Cyberbot will automatically transclude the ones that have the proper templates. ansh666 22:35, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I've fixed these nominations--when I find them I add the template (plus appropriate commentary) and transclude them manually. Yes, if the nominator doesn't create the discussion page with the template, usually it will sit with little to no notice until it's been around for 30 days and pops up at Wikipedia:Article alerts/Problem entries/Old‎ and/or approaches the top of the list at User:DumbBOT/TimeSortedAfD‎--if you're already watching WP:BADAFD, these are other good pages to add to your watchlist. --Finngall ^talk 02:44, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I wish to nominate Andrew U. D. Straw for deletion. An article with that name was deleted eleven years ago. When I use the template it links to the previous deletion entry and discussion. How can I nominate the current version? Kablammo (talk) 20:39, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

There was also an article deleted in 2011, which has no initials in the name: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Straw. Also see Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Andrew Straw, from 2012. Kablammo (talk) 21:08, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I suspect you can get that deleted just with a prod; the one editor who was supporting it is blocked. But if not, install WP:TWINKLE; it makes starting AFDs easy, and can handle starting a second nomination. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:06, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello. As instructed, I have started the process, but can someone please complete the process of deletion for the article Michael Wolfeld? Thank you. 2604:2000:E016:A700:F993:BCA:C3F0:6EE6 (talk) 21:18, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Working on this one. --Finngall ^talk 21:22, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done. --Finngall ^talk 21:29, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Please complete the nomination for The Dark Redemption for me - I have posted my rationale on the talk page as required. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 03:05, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Done GermanJoe (talk) 03:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! --122.108.141.214 (talk) 03:49, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't sure who reviews articles to decide if a person a notable enough to have an article, so I asked about this one at the Help Desk page: https://en.wikipedia.orghttps://wikious.com/en/Wikipedia:Help_desk#Eddie_Rosenstein. Can this article be "nominated" so there can be a discussion about whether this person is notable or not? Or would an administrator just look at it to decide? Thank you. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:44A2:2F56:E172:3C6 (talk) 02:46, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I just noticed various concerns about the article on the talk page of the editor, Tictocdocs, who started the article and has made almost all the edits to it (https://en.wikipedia.orghttps://wikious.com/en/User_talk:Tictocdocs). And Tictocdoc's userpage says "Passionate documentary filmmakers" so it appears that the account is a company (https://en.wikipedia.orghttps://wikious.com/en/User:Tictocdocs). 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:44A2:2F56:E172:3C6 (talk) 05:16, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I request that someone complete the AFD process for Balaji Tambe. --2604:2000:E016:A700:85B4:9690:1F70:F1EA (talk) 11:47, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done. --Finngall ^talk 17:25, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you.--2604:2000:E016:A700:7190:91E9:8197:994C (talk) 22:11, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

It would be appreciated if someone could complete the process for John Frelinghuysen Talmage. --2604:2000:E016:A700:7190:91E9:8197:994C (talk) 22:21, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

• @2604:2000:E016:A700:7190:91E9:8197:994C:  Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:10, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I wish to nominate the page Vladimir de Thézier for deletion, can someone complete the process? The page was nominated for a Fail WP:GNG in 2011 but was kept for reasons that I don't consider correct. Apart from the fact that this person is totally unknown in Quebec (no page on the same subject in the French-language Wikipedia), the qaulity of the sources leavec much to be desired. For example, in many cases the Pro-Quebec Independence website Vigile is used as a source, even if anybody can anonymously publish an article in it. Also, other sources simply mention his name in passing. There is also some ambiguity with the name "Justice De Thézier"; it is not clear whether this is one and the same person. --132.204.184.199 (talk) 19:21, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vladimir De Thézier (2nd nomination). ansh666 21:39, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Didn't we used to have a recommendation -- though not an obligation -- that article creators identify themselves at Afd? I can't see it at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Wikietiquette. Didn't it used to be there? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:27, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

It was removed here. ~ GB fan 23:51, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks. Well, I disagree with its removal by @James500:. Did anyone else? Disclosing that one is an article creator was a long-standing recommendation. Indeed we have Template:Page creator, which arguably shouldn't continue exist if we have no policy based reason for applying it on a creator's Afd comment. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:56, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I see he hasn't edited in over a year. In the meantime, I think there's gotta be a nice way to simply restore this as an Afd etiquette recommendation, maybe without raising the spectre of COI -- which in defence of James5000's removal, could come across as rather too strong . We do have a recommendation elsewhere on the page that nominators notify creators as a courtesy and it seems common sense to have it as a courtesy for creators to self-identify. Anyone disagree? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:08, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

If no continues to object, I'll restore a gently worded line about this later today or this evening. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:12, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I've done so here, borrowing some of the language from Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#After_nominating:_Notify_interested_projects_and_editors. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:15, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Can you tell me why that is suggested? Its main effect would seem to be to let people dismiss that person's !vote over them being an interested party. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:45, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

In the interests of transparency and mere good courtesy, I suppose. I have always volunteered as much when pages I've created went to Xfd -- and in doing so, never felt that my comments were being "dismissed." Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:28, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I certainly would not suggest that we recommend they not mention it, but I'm honestly not seeing the benefit here. It still to me carries to overtone that an article creator should not be an equal participant in the discussion. (And, in contrast, it might be seeing as giving a !vote particular leverage when it's the creator calling for deletion.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

• Well, if consensus is with you by all means remove it again. But then I think we should then offer some guidelines for use for Template:Article creator, because if you're correct, then this template serves no purpose at all--except in cases where the article creator is seen to be editing disruptively or something. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:01, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Is article creator what we're looking for? For example, I didn't create Frederick E. Toy but I've done more work on it in recent years than anyone else; the actual creator was an IP who submitted an AfC and who hasn't edited since 2010. Maybe what we're seeking is "editor(s) with an investment" or a similar term.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 02:32, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
    • That's a good point too. I'm going to remove the added text at least for now. And await more comments. But then I will move on to what we should do with {{artcreator}} -- because in light of all this, it's been mis-used by me and other editors who patrol Afd. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:42, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
      • I'm trying to think of other times that we either put or encourage a flag on a participant of AfD, and the only one that comes to mind (perhaps due to my lack of intense involvement in the AfD scene) is SPAs... and let's face it, we do that so that anyone viewing the discussion is alert to the possibility that there is some form of puppetry or off-line canvassing going on. It's meant to say that the arguments should be viewed with a pinch of caution. None of this is to say that an article creator shouldn't feel free to identify themselves, nor that another party cannot feel free to identify the creator if there is some real relevance. I'm just a little wary of the need for even the genteel push in this article, and concerned that the existing of a template may make it look like some sort of official scarlet letter. But I could be wrong; goodness knows it has happened before. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:54, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
        • • No, that's it: {{artcreator}} would seem to imply that this is as problematic an issue as {{SPA}}. It sure did in my mind, as one who adds these very tags. So I'd like to broaden the discussion to see whether I should bring {{artcreator}} to Tfd, or less drastically, try to write a guideline for use to appear somewhere on Template:Article creator, which restricts its use to cases where tendentious editing may be taking place, or something. But that's gotta be worded carefully, of course. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:22, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

• I've never had an issue with {{article creator}}, it's useful for perspective on where people are coming from and (at least to me) doesn't have any negative connotations. Or maybe I'm just crazy. ansh666 18:32, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
• I was about to add the following to the template as a discussion-starter: Page creators are not required to identify themselves at Xfd. Please restrict the use of this tag and assume good faith. But I'll put that aside of course. There's no rush. I think I probably do a great deal of the {{article creator}} tagging myself so I'll just hold off. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oh and the reason why I've raised this is that when I last added the tag-- strictly as a matter of course--at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Base 62, @Andy Dingley: seemed to take very strong exception. So I may as well ping him. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:43, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

My reasoning is much as you describe above. I see this sort of 3rd party tagging as very like the pejorative implications of {{spa}}. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:39, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, I'm no longer using it. That should mark a reduction in its usage. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:41, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I would like to withdraw the AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William W. "Bill" Carmody, but I don't know how to close it. I would appreciate if if someone could close the AfD as withdrawn. SL93 (talk) 05:31, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done TonyBallioni (talk) 05:44, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. SL93 (talk) 05:45, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 70#Creator of an article

In the older section I asked "Why is it not compulsory to notify the creator of an article that an article is up for deletion? -- PBS (talk) 08:19, 10 May 2017 (UTC)"

@user:331dot you wrote its not compulsory "because it is assumed that the creator of the page is monitoring it". I have created well over 1,000 articles. I do not watch them all, and I would not expect that I am the only one is this situation.

@user:ansh666 "such that you couldn't identify a primary contributor (which is often the case), then who do you notify?" I think you are confusing primary contributor with the major contributor. Yes it may be true, it may also be true that the first contributor has been blocked (although you can always check that). However that is not the point. The reason I raised this that an article I wrote in 2010 was put up for AfD in 2014. At the time it was put up for deletion about 2/3 of it was my contribution. It may be that the first contributor creates a redirect, but if so then it is not difficult for the person proposing the delete to look for the first person to write a stub.

@user:Debresser you wrote "In addition to the second point, often the editors are not even active any more on Wikipedia." This is easily checked, by looking at the editors contributions. However just because an editor is no longer active is not a reason to leave a message on their talk page, and potentially more harm is done to the project by not informing the person who created the article than by added a message to a user's talk page that is never read by that user. As someone is putting an article up for deletion and giving reasons why they think it ought to be deleted, it makes sense for the person who create it to give arguments for keeping it. Then disinterested parties can make a more informed decision on whether to keep it or delete it.

Ie I am proposing that AfD's ought to use the same standards as those used for speedy deletions: "Users nominating a page for speedy deletion should specify which criterion/criteria the page meets, and should notify the page creator and any major contributors."

-- PBS (talk) 14:12, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

• Please see Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#All authors must be notified of deletion. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:31, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

  First of all the club that is Wikipedia:Perennial proposals is probably not worth the bytes it takes up. For example see the "Move maintenance tags to talk pages" when this was addressed in an RfC over Orphan templates, the vast majority of people supported it, (see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 108#Proposal to move the Orphan tags to the talk page) yet this is not reflected on that page. Secondly the page itself is against the idea the consensus can change.

  Second what are your specific reasons for objecting to the proposal? -- PBS (talk) 10:59, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

• So what if several editors contribute a roughly equal amount after the article was created as a redirect and then converted to a stub by someone else? What would notifying any of the "creators" of the article serve, and who would the "primary" or "major" contributor be to notify? Are we going to go down the rabbit hole of notifying everyone who's contributed to an article? Besides, many automated tools just pull the page creator from the log and notify that person. There's no easy way for a bot to determine who contributed the most; even checking who added the most bytes isn't a good indicator (spam vandals, pov edit warriors, etc.) ansh666 15:53, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

  The wording seems to work for speedy deletions, and does not lead to anyone going down any rabbit hole.But if you object to the the "and any major contributors" then would you support "should notify the page creator"? --PBS (talk) 10:59, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

  But speedy deletion generally doesn't apply to articles with complicated contribution histories. I absolutely do not support "should notify the page creator" as I've already laid out in the previous discussion; "any major contributors" works but IMO is still far too much effort than it's worth in many cases. ansh666 23:11, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, there are a few people who do it manually, but I believe the majority of AfD nominations come through Twinkle, which handles the notification for you unless you opt out. I've never opted out, and there is nothing I hate more than arguing with a company's marketing director at an AfD. Adding this as a rule wouldn't really help that much, and could lead to good faith contributors who add AfDs manually getting wikilawyered because they forgot to copy and paste one time. Its not worth it. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:00, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

  @TonyBallioni "doing this as a rule wouldn't really help that much", so presumably you think it would help. The wording includes "should" not the stronger "ought to" or "must" so there is nothing on which to wiki-lawyer. -- PBS (talk) 10:59, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

• It's kind of hard to claim that there's nothing on which to wikilawyer in the sentence right after the one where you used an inexact expression of this not being a helpful change to claim that his point was that it was a helpful change. People will use any excuse for their pilpul. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:22, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't know if this is the time to vote, but I still disagree, for several reasons, which now include replies to the proposer's aruments: 1. this proposal is too much instruction creep, 2. the creator of the article may not be active any more (as opposed to speedy articles, which are usually nominated at an early stage, and the editor is probably sill around), and it is way too much instruction creep to obligate nominating editors to check this 3. if it is not on the creator's watchlist, then that shows that he is not interested in the article any more (since it was added automatically at the moment of creation, and it isn't there any more, that proves that the creator removed it on purpose). Debresser (talk) 18:05, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Comment. Notice on creator's Talk page often works to reach others (lurkers) who are interested in the same topics, who may have collaborated with the creator, even if the creator is no longer active. I certainly see and act upon such notices at others' Talk pages, including when I am aware the creator is not around or not able to be involved as much in the unfortunate grind of deletion processes. It's a good attempt to reach some interested editors. --doncram 06:01, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I request that someone complete the process for Frederick Frelinghuysen (lawyer). Thank you. --2604:2000:E016:A700:A00C:7F46:822D:9F12 (talk) 19:02, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done. --Finngall ^talk 20:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. --2604:2000:E016:A700:A00C:7F46:822D:9F12 (talk) 22:17, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I have a question about the ethics and etiquette of Articles for Deletion, and I will ask it somewhere else if this isn't the best place. On New Page Patrol, I nominated an article for deletion. I then received a Wikipedia email from the author of the article, asking for advice, as specific as possible, about what to do to "improve the content to keep the article live". I have generally thought that the advantage and disadvantage of email is that it is private, and it isn't on-wiki, and that most communication about articles should be on-wiki. I advised her that I didn't plan to provide specific advice off-wiki, and that discussion should take place in the deletion discussion. (I know that the usual place to discuss improvement to an article is the article talk page, but any comments on the article talk page are only kept and relevant if the article itself is kept.) I advised her that she could ask for advice at the Teahouse. (The Help Desk or a Village Pump would also be valid places to ask for advice.) Am I correct that discussion about improving an article that has been nominated for deletion should be on-wiki, preferably in the deletion discussion? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:19, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. If nothing else, without the author replying on-wiki, there's no "paper trail" to indicate that they were even necessarily interested in saving the article. DonIago (talk) 19:36, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any particular ethics breach in answering privately, any more than I think you'd have an ethics problem if someone ran into you in a bar, found out you edited Wikipedia, and wanted to chat with you there about how to keep a page alive. So long as you're clear that you're not in some unique position to save the article should the changes you suggest be made, I expect you'd be ethically fine. You're not likely to be giving secret tricks or underhanded techniques ("this editor can be bribed into supporting your article with the promise of a brownie..." Teaching someone how to make an article worthwhile serves Wikipedia's goals as well as the editor's.

That's different from the practical question; giving your advice online means that others can chime in with relevant information, perhaps even where they think your suggestions are off-base. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:20, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, there is also the small detail that I am not really motivated to want to save the article, so I will ask the further ethical and etiquette question of whether I have an obligation to give advice to an article author on what they can best do to improve and save an article that I personally don't really think should be improved and saved. However, I think that we are now talking in abstractions, and will suggest that editors can look at Partnership brokering and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Partnership brokering. What I think is needed to save the article is for its proponents to find third-party coverage of the concept, since the reason why I nominated the article for deletion is that I didn't find third-party coverage of the concept, and so consider the concept to be non-notable. If business magazines write about the concept in the next year, an article summarizing what the business magazines have written will be in order. If business magazines have written about the concept, then I will change my !vote to a Keep. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:18, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think you have the obligation to do the full run-to-the-end-zone help in this regard. I think it would serve Wikipedia well if you said "While I cannot speak for any other editors, my objections are grounded in not seeing sufficient signs of meeting our notability guidelines. You can find those guidelines at..." and give a link. It is possible that they will find material that will clearly overcome the objection. But in my experience, there's also a real chance that they will look at those guidelines, realize they can not meet them, and withdraw all objection, which would simplify your attempt at deletion. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:53, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

My thoughts:

• You are under no obligation to reply by email. One sufficient reason why not is that you may not want to reveal your personal email address. You may reply on-wiki, but you should not reveal personally identifying information received via email
• As nominator for deletion, you should be clear that in you intial opinion, sufficient improvement is not possible, the topic is unsuitable ^Note. If on reading the email, you remain of the opinion that the topic is not suitable, you should not give false hope.
• I believe that in cases of good faith contributions of unsuitable topics, Wikipedia:Alternative outlets gives the best response. If the person wants to press the issue, refer to the WP:GNG, or better if applicable, WP:CORP. I think that in all cases of paid editors, or intelligent SPAs, WP:CORP is the first thing to consider, and usually the only thing needing to be considered. COI doesn't matter if CORP is failed.
• RE "Ethics and etiquette". I think it is similar to the case of private approach by a student who asks why they failed. Telling them that their "effort was appreciated", or "almost good enough", or I "was looking for ..." (such and such) are not good ethical responses. Leave no crack open that may entice inappropriate requests or offers. Instead, be firm, clear, polite, and objective. Firm, clear, polite and objective is much more constructive for them in the long term, and much less likely to be repeated inaccurately to others by them.

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:25, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I replied on the author's talk page, explaining that there are two issues, notability and tone. The first is that I haven't found third-party reliable sources that have written about the concept. The second is that the tone is promotional about the concept, not for any particular company, but for a way of doing business, rather than discussing the way of doing business neutrally. The article should be deleted if, as I think, the concept has not been written about by reliable sources, such as business magazines. If the reliable sources can be found, then the concept is notable, and the sources should be added, and the article will require a major rewrite as to tone. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:47, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I will put that in the deletion discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:47, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Would appreciate somebody starting an AFD process on this page. Rupert Read does not meet notability requirements for a politician (former local councillor, failed candidate) nor as an academic or author PompeyTheGreat (talk) 09:19, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Requesting that the article Onision be re-evaluated for deletion on notability grounds. I believe that this page has been nominated for deletion in the past. The case for this deletion would be that the sources cited by the article are poor, subjective, or directly affiliated with the subject.--SamHolt6 (talk) 16:01, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi SamHolt6. You can nominate an article for deletion by following the directions here. Alternatively WP:Twinkle is a helpful multi-use editing tool that allows (among many other things) an editor to nominate pages for deletion with a few quick clicks on their mouse. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:29, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I have another off-the-wall question about the ethics of AFD. Some editors are saying that a particular article should be deleted, as in turned into a redirect or a disambiguation page. (One of the editors is saying that other editors want to disappear it. I was aware of the transitive use of the verb "to disappear" referring to political murders disguised as unsolved kidnappings, especially in Latin America. (Maybe that phrase reflects the way a Spanish verb is translated.)) My question is whether it would be considered appropriate or disruptive for a proponent of keeping the article to start an AFD. My assumption is that it would be considered to be disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, and that a better way to oppose any such effort would be a Request for Comments, which is the method of obtaining consensus when there is no other specific method of obtaining consensus. Thoughts? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:36, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

So any user that wants articles deleted can start a deletion page through WP:AfD, but those who want to bring the page to the Wikipedia community for assessment, and start an AfD, with a view other than deletion, are forbidden from doing so? So only those who deign to express "delete" are allowed to start AfDs? No, that sounds silly and a double standard. Sagecandor (talk) 22:47, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

It's been done before, as a procedural nomination type - nothing unethical or disruptive about it. Just keep in mind that without anyone expressing a reason for deletion or redirection, an AfD may be closed per WP:SK#1, so linking to the discussion where editors have expressed those opinions would be best. I'm not sure if turning an article into a disambiguation page counts, but honestly in that case the content should be moved first to a disambiguated title make way for the dab page and then a standard AfD can be done with the new title. ansh666 00:15, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Agree with everything said here by Ansh666, above. Thank you ! Sagecandor (talk) 00:20, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Okay. Thank you. I learned something. So an AFD directed to the article talk page where there are deletion or redirection arguments and recommending keeping would be valid. Okay. User:Sagecandor - Do it if you think it is necessary. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:01, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, thank you ! Sagecandor (talk) 01:04, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi- I'm a new user so unsure of the procedure of nominating for deletion..hope I have the right place. I started out going through pages for copy editing etc, and came across this page on Simone Arrigoni. After doing work tying to track down new sources/checking provided citations, it would appear the subject really lacks notability. 3 out of 5 citations are to subjects own page, and the other two articles seem largely promotional puff pieces (one has a big promotion of his new self published book) and dont really support the claims they are cited for. I couldn't really find anything that wasn't from the subjects own page. The long list of records are straight from subjects website, and I cant find any supporting evidence for them, or that the later ones are officially recognised records by any sporting body (no mention of subject at all on list of athletes recognised by https://www.aidainternational.org/ who appears to be the official body for freediving). There's also a couple of direct links to external websites- one for subjects book on amazon,and another for the non profit org the subject apparently works with. What I'm asking about is, should I put this on the talkpage and wait for discussion, prod it, or just nominate for deletion? Is the article as lacking in notability as I think it is? Curdle (talk) 08:12, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I'd like to request that 2 AfDs I started either be closed or relisted. One of my nominations has already reached a consensus, while the other nomination has not. I suspect there may be other nominations as old as the latter nomination that have not been touched since their grace periods expired as well. Thank you in advance. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 12:00, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I've closed the first nomination you linked to. The AfD process is a little backlogged at the moment and there are some discussions which are a day or two past the point where they could be closed but which haven't been closed yet. Hut 8.5 16:27, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello again. I have withdrawn a nomination I made a week back as the discussion resulted in new sources. I am requesting closure on the nomination. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 18:16, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done. ansh666 18:53, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Please complete the nomination of Boba Fett: Crossfire for me - please note it is a second nomination (it was previously deleted in 2005 by AFD and recreated), and so the template currently links to the first nomination for deletion. My rationale is posted on the talk page. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 23:59, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:32, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Cheers, UltraExactZZ. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 05:26, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Nominating the Smart Start page for deletion. Has had multiple issues for over two years, no ones bothered to fix, and doesn't seem to warrant a special section when Ignition Interlocks are already covered in detail. Appears to just be a free marketing page for the company itself and serves no important informational purpose on it's own.

Please complete the nomination for: https://en.wikipedia.orghttps://wikious.com/en/Smart_Start,_Inc. 2601:285:203:5033:65A6:13BE:C818:D892 (talk) 04:19, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

(Combining duplicate sections - UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:37, 14 July 2017 (UTC))

Nominating the Smart Start page for deletion. Has had multiple issues for over two years, no ones bothered to fix, and doesn't seem to warrant a special section when Ignition Interlocks are already covered in detail. Appears to just be a free marketing page for the company itself and serves no important informational purpose on it's own. Please complete the nomination for: https://en.wikipedia.orghttps://wikious.com/en/Smart_Start,_Inc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:285:203:5033:65A6:13BE:C818:D892 (talk) 04:19, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I'll complete this one. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:37, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smart Start, Inc.. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:40, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

please help me complete

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soul Tones
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Future Flows
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vortex Immersion Zone68.151.25.115 (talk) 11:36, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dwipāda Viparita Dandāsana68.151.25.115 (talk) 11:48, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apollo Ends68.151.25.115 (talk) 11:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC) sockpuppet Atlantic306 (talk) 23:39, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vladimir_J._Konečni (2nd nomination) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.53.249.130 (talk) 23:25, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

You're going to want to explain, for each article, why you believe the article should be deleted. I can guess in some cases, but in others it might not be obvious. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:39, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I completed one (Future Flows) where a PROD had been declined. For the rest, we need a rationale. Thanks. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:46, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

The posting editor put the afd reasons on the talk pages. (I will not be making these afd's myself as I'm not practiced in doing third-party afds.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:49, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done for all five.UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:09, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• addendum rationales are on the talk page, cf. "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." + "Unregistered users placing this tag on an article cannot complete the deletion nomination and should leave detailed reasons for deletion on Template talk:Article for deletion/dated. If the nomination is not completed and no message is left on the talkpage, this tag may be removed."68.151.25.115 (talk) 23:49, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

• i added Trivia (album). talk page rationale: "progarchive.com, discogs.com, neither are reliable. the 2 allmusic refs are to the same page. fails wp:n (not enough reliable sources)."68.151.25.115 (talk) 02:14, 1 July 2017 (UTC) sockpuppet Atlantic306 (talk) 23:36, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

• Floh de Cologne is added. rationale is on the talk page. many thanks in advance for helping me complete it.68.151.25.115 (talk) 08:57, 4 July 2017 (UTC)already done68.151.25.115 (talk) 08:58, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

• After Crying is added. rationale is on the talk page. many thanks in advance for helping me complete it.68.151.25.115 (talk) 01:58, 9 July 2017 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE 19:57, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I'd like another article for deletion I nominated closed with a result of speedy keep please? It was a mistake and a few new sources resulted from it. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 03:02, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

@Jd02022092:  Done. You can do it yourself (provided no one else has supported the nomination, as was the case here) - see this edit for how to do it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:18, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

@Od Mishehu: Thanks. Also, I caught a typo in your edit and was able to fix it. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 03:19, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

No such legislation or legislative bill in fact currently exists either in the United Kingdom or in Gibraltar. An article created (for a topic) before the fact, it would seem; and it would also seem that the creator might not be British (as a Brit) or British (a Brit, from being a Gibraltarian), might perhaps have a somewhat imperfect proficiency and command of the English language, and might in fact have a limited grasp of how legislation is actually made in the respective legislatures, either in the United Kingdom or in Gibraltar, the actual legislative competence of the Gibraltar legislature (as the legislature of one of the British Overseas Territories (BOTs), as Gibraltar is), British (United Kingdom) law (especially in relation to the EC/EEC/EU/EEA or to the BOTs, in particular, the European Communities Act 1972), Gibraltar law, or the politics of Gibraltar (or comparable Crown Dependencies (the Isle of Man, Jersey, Guernsey)) generally. --- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 22:17, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Is there a user with the rights to nominate this protected article for deletion? I noticed on the Talk page that someone asked for it, and it looks like they don't have the rights to do so. 71.89.9.224 (talk) 03:56, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

The same user came to my e-mail stating the same thing. Quite frankly, I don't think WP:BIODELETE is a proper rationale for deletion. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 17:19, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hans Stuffer Andy Dingley (talk) 18:10, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I request that someone complete the process for Child_erotica, on the grounds that this is too close to child pedophilia information... Thank you. 94.133.68.129 (talk) 09:34, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

• Um, what? Articles about paedophilia don't constitute paedophilia, or promotion of paedophilia, as you claimed on the article talk page. Hut 8.5 18:35, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Requesting help in entering AfD for the late Stubbs the cat. Stubbs was the subject of a local joke suggesting that he was elected mayor of a small town in Alaska by write-in ballot. Subsequent reporting showed this was a complete fabrication, as the town had no mayor and thus no election. Consequently the cat does not meet notability standards for a stand alone article. GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 17:58, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

@GreatCaesarsGhost: notability is based on how much coverage a subject has received in reliable sources independent of the subject (regardless of whether it was a joke, real, etc.). Of course, the article should also be accurate, based on that reliable source coverage, so if it is currently inaccurate I'd recommend opening a talk page thread here: Talk:Stubbs (cat). If you would still like to nominate an article for deletion, there are instructions here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Nominating_article(s)_for_deletion. If you're looking for general help about Wikipedia policies and processes, you may want to stop by Wikipedia:Teahouse, a place for new users to ask questions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:00, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

The AFD is open at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stubbs (cat). UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:31, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello. I'd like to request closure or relisting on an AfD discussion. One of its participants is getting very anxious. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 20:11, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

This appears to be in reference to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beau Davidson. --Finngall ^talk 20:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

@Finngall: Correct. Thanks for linking it for me. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 22:58, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi there. Handling scores of AFDs has left me with the feeling that editors these days (not like in the good old days™) see AFD as a binary system: Delete or keep, there is nothing else. WP:alternatives to deletion are oftentimes ignored even when they clearly exist, like with non-notable works by notable artists or non-notable characters of notable TV shows. Thus I'd like to propose an addition to the edit notice displayed on every AFD to remind people of those alternatives and to educate less experienced editors that AFDs is not binary.

The proposed addition would read something like this:

When discussing an article, remember to consider alternatives to deletion. If you think the article should be a disambiguation page or redirected or merged to another article, then recommend "Disambiguation", "Redirect" or "Merge" instead of deletion. Similarly, if another editor has proposed an alternative to deletion but you think the article should be deleted instead, please elaborate why.

Thoughts? Comments? Regards SoWhy 16:17, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

This seems reasonable, SoWhy and can't hurt. How much it will help is another question -- many editors seem to fail to pay much attention to such notices. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:54, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Since no one object for more than two weeks, I went ahead and added it. Even if only a few editors see it, it might be better than nothing. Regards SoWhy 12:30, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I made this template {{subst:dpnom}} for ease of use during debates. Produces this:

• Delete per nom.

Does anyone have any improvements? I would like to append the 4 ~ into the template so that people don't forget to sign, however, I don't know how, and I am afraid that those in the habit of signing will end up double signing out of habit.L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 22:55, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Just curious what the motivation is for this template? It is, after all, the shortest acceptable form of AfD !vote already. Even if it substitutes the tildes, too, substituting the template is only 3 characters shorter than just typing "{{s}} per nom ~~~~". Perhaps more importantly, do we really want to make it even easier -- even standardized -- to take the laziest !vote? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:19, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

The motivation was when I am on a participation spree, and the noms have been doing their before and making good nominations, it can be a little repetitive to hand do the bold and text. While I don't necessarily want to make to make it easy for people to delete articles, many !votes are this way. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 23:25, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

• I've now nominated this for deletion - We should encourage editors to write meaningful and helpful !votes - As per WP:PERNOM these types of !votes are not only strongly discouraged but they're also more or less ignored in AFDs if no other comment is provided, –Davey2010^Talk 23:36, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Excellent work, Davey2010, cheers. — fortunavelut luna 10:19, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

This user made a page of himself just to test the Wikipedia. I would like to request that his page be deleted, as well as the blocking of his account. Content: Maximiliano Meyer, user: . Source:https://www.oficinadanet.com.br/tecnologia/19835-tudo-que-esta-na-wikipedia-e-confiavel (in Portuguese). — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndersonPv (talk • contribs) prev) 21:32, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

CSD'd under A7 - Thanks for coming here, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 21:59, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Nominated Lee Jussim for deletion with rationale on the talk page, but can't create the page - can someone else help? 128.223.223.205 (talk) 23:52, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Done. GermanJoe (talk) 00:02, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! 128.223.223.205 (talk) 00:18, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Nicely done, GermanJoe. :) --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:27, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Should "Articles for deletion" be renamed to "Articles for discussion"? TimothyJosephWood 21:54, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Note - This proposal is for a cosmetic name change only, and not for any functional change in policy or practice. TimothyJosephWood 13:16, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• Support as proposer. The current name is inaccurate, since there are other options besides deletion. It often runs afoul of WP:BITE by that very nature, and contributes to discussions being rash and impassioned rather than measured and reasoned. It would also bring AfD into line with TFD, FFD, CFD, and RFD, with MFD being yet the odd man out. TimothyJosephWood 21:54, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support Experience has shown me that new users are very upset about the process because it's called "Articles for Deletion." A recent example can be found on my talkpage here where a user who is new to creating articles was distressed because of the possibility of deletion. Calling the process "Articles for Discussion" will create less stress. Editors under stress will not always have their best arguments at the ready online: there is a tendency to panic that their hard work will come to nothing. There is an added bonus that the acronym will remain the same. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:31, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose  This is a perennial proposal that would open the door to the blood-letting of articles where deletion wasn't considered by the nominator.  This is not a hypothetical concern, but I don't have diffs quickly available.  The bright line for AfD is whether a nomination needs admin tools.  While closes out of AfD can be the content decisions of redirect or merge, editors seem to often be unaware that closes out of AfD that don't use admin tools are not binding, just as admins making such closes are not bound into subsequent content disputes.  Reyk and one of the deletionist admins shoved through a change at the guideline WP:SK a couple of years ago that prevents non-delete redirect nominations from being closed under WP:SK#1, so there is already some damage to the design, but WP:Deletion policy itself remains untouched.  Any editor can close a content dispute brought to AfD.  DRV is closely related, and it would similarly screw-up DRV to open DRV to review of content decisions.  Deletion policy specifies the use of talk page for content discussions, with mention of RfC. 

  The entire fix I believe is simply a centralized discussion forum for turning articles into redirects, where non-admins could close such discussions, and all the rest of policy and practice would remain unchanged, albeit WP:SK needs to be restored.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:10, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Unscintillating... I'm sorry... but what? This is by intention purely a cosmetic change to help new users not be scared away, not a material change to policy in any sense. I'm not trying to be obtuse, but I really don't understand your objection. TimothyJosephWood 23:34, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, that explains Megalibrarygirl's response, but not Ritchie333's response.  How about "Articles for Deletion Discussion" for the name change?  Unscintillating (talk) 23:59, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

What's in a name if it doesn't change the meaning other than for those who don't know what it means? TimothyJosephWood 00:18, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, the word "filioque" is recognized as the main cause of the schism of Eastern and Western Christianity in 1054, so words can have great impact. 

When I initially stated this was a perennial proposal, I didn't realize that it was literally listed at Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Rename AFD.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:23, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose no need. We have other forums that are more suited for those conversations: namely the article talk page. WP:RM works quite well that way and it has the advantage of keeping a permanent record with the associated page rather than as a subpage. AfDs are needed to be separate because the article here is often deleted. We need a publicly visible record as to why if that happens. Merger discussions don't need that, and the absolute dearth of participation at uncontroversial mergers doesn't mean we should merge them with AfD, it just means people should be more BOLD and do it themselves if there is no discussion. If someone objects, BRD on the talk page. Also, ideally WP:ACTRIAL will help with the BITE arguments, which I don't find that convincing anyway. 80% of new articles by new users are deleted, and the majority of those via speedy. Changing AfD to mean discussion won't change that if ACTRIAL isn't made permanent after the trial, and it makes about as much sense as renaming CSD "Candidates for Speedy Decision ". TonyBallioni (talk) 02:27, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per the reasons laid out at Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Rename AFD. Note that the other XfDs that are "for discussion" involve much much more than deletion, while the main assumption at AfD is deletion (whether it be via redirect, soft, or hard) and that suggesting something else without deletion is not a valid discussion at AfD. ansh666 07:15, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
• At the Waffle House On the one hand, I agree this is a real problem, an the other hand, I agree with the specific objections some of the specific objections. Why not AfDoM, Articles for Deletion or Merger? After the inital spate of Tales from the Leather Nun jokes, that'd probably work well to be both serious and yet not frightening or offensive to article creators. Anmccaff (talk) 07:55, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - The well has pretty clearly be poisoned on this issue, as is pretty apparent by the fact that some of the !voters here are apparently responding to a previous proposal and not this actual proposal, since no functional change to policy or practice is being proposed. TimothyJosephWood 11:55, 30 July 2017 (UTC) (Sig added to section split for response to specific section)

Assuming this was placed here at least partly in response to what I wrote above; I take your point, and agree that some of the objections others made here are not valid; what I wrote initially could be taken as blanket agreement with all the objections, and I've struck that. I'd also agree that there's an excessive level of oh-this-againism, looking a substantially different past proposals as though they were exactly the same thing. Anmccaff (talk) 18:58, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I would also note that this was added to perennial proposals six years ago, when as far as I see, was the last time it was seriously discussed. Consensus can change. If six years isn't a sufficient period of time to warrant an actual discussion, then I don't know what is. But if the most that comes of it are links to perennial proposals as if that constitutes an argument (it doesn't), and arguments against imagined proposals, then whatever we're having falls much short of a discussion, and there's probably not much point. Unless that changes somehow I will not let this sit for the full period, because it would be a nothing more than a consummate waste of time. TimothyJosephWood 11:55, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

• I think that you are still in denial that you can change the name and that there is no corresponding behavior change.  Again, words have a real effect on people.  You say you want to have a discussion, but you've ignored the name change I proposed.  Unscintillating (talk) 12:35, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

The point is to change behavior. For new editors, who don't understand the policy surrounding AfD (and especially those who have previously had articles summarily deleted via CSD), the message is something along the lines of Don't panic, we're discussing whether this article is appropriate for inclusion in the encyclopedia. The appropriate behavior is to engage in this discussion and demonstrate why it should be kept. The inappropriate behavior is to panic, lash out on various talk pages and eventually on the AfD once you find it, and create ten socks because that's somehow not completely obvious.

For more experienced editors who should know better, if they nominate something obviously inappropriate (which they already do fairly regularly), we do exactly the same thing we do now: link them to the appropriate forum and point out that this is a forum for discussing primarily whether an article should be kept or deleted (with occasional inadvertent alternative results), and not a venue for primarily whether an article should be moved, merged or redirected, when the question of keeping or deleting isn't at issue. The idea that a name change would suddenly give experienced editors carte blanche to ignore policy, and that somehow the rest of us stuck-up pedants would simply allow it without correcting them just seems silly on its face. Whether AfD should ever be considered an appropriate forum for things like merger discussions is a separate complicated issue that may at some point need addressed on its own merits, but this is not that discussion.

As to your suggestion, it defeats the primary purpose, which is to emphasize the discussion over the deletion, since the discussion is the actual important part, and the part that new editors need to engage in if they think their article should be kept. Even ignoring nominations that inadvertently result in merger, redirection, or moving, deletion is exactly half the functional purpose of AfD, with the other half being to establish clear consensus that some articles should in fact be kept, and to protect those articles from future nominations destined to do nothing but waste time and end in the same result. Many times "articles for deletion" is actually "articles for keeping" and that has it's own important purpose for the project, and again, the actual important part of both those results is the discussion. The discussion is why these articles are at AfD to begin with, and not at CAT:PROD or CAT:CSD. (And even as I write this, another editor shows up to oppose a completely different proposal.) TimothyJosephWood 13:09, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

If AfD is a forum primarily discussing whether articles should be kept or deleted then it should have a name indicating that it is primarily for deciding whether articles should be kept or deleted. "Articles for deletion" isn't a great name but it does at least do that. Yes, we can correct people who mistake the function of the process, but we will have to do this a lot more often if we give the process a name which is actively confusing, and doing this may also give less experienced editors the impression that AfD is hard to use. Hut 8.5 13:35, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

but it does at least do that Well, it at least does exactly half of that.

have to do this a lot more often This might be true, but at this point is based on conjecture, and as far as I can tell, the assumption that most/nearly all regular AfD participants aren't... well... regulars who thoroughly understand and are experienced in applying policy as it stands, regardless of whether the name is articles for deletion, articles for discussion, or Doug's Clubhouse. Presumably, these editors understand policy because they took the time to read it, and not because it was somehow implicit in the name (because it isn't). This proposal is aimed at those who don't understand the process at all. If someone is unaware that something like WP:RM exists, then they will do so regardless of what AfD is named, and they can only be corrected by being corrected.

give less experienced editors the impression that AfD is hard to use AfD is hard to use, with pages of requisite policy, guidelines, essays, and otherwise implicit precedent. Wikipedia is hard to use. That's exactly why it necessary to have WP:BITE as an explicit behavioral guideline. TimothyJosephWood 14:00, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I think you have already seen solid evidence that this proposal is going to confuse people, because it confused everybody when you proposed it. Like it or not the term "articles for discussion" carries with it various implications about how the process should be run, and if we rename the process to "articles for discussion" then people will think that we are adopting those implications. You had to spend some time explaining to people that you weren't proposing that. The rest of the community is going to react in the same way, and we'll have to spend a load of time to explain people that their initial impression of the change is wrong. People have better things to do, and if this explanation doesn't happen or doesn't happen well enough then it will distort or disrupt the AfD process. Hut 8.5 14:22, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose as the proposal would be confusing. With the other "for discussion" processes it's entirely acceptable for someone to nominate a page for moving, merging, retargeting, etc through the process, and people often do. If we just rename AfD without changing the practice then people will think that AfD works the same way, when in fact merges and moves have different mechanisms for discussion. To be consistent we would have to combine the merge and move processes into AfD, which would make more sense but which would also create its own problems. Hut 8.5 12:56, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. I understand the idea behind the proposal and I would be happy if AFD could be combined with PM and RM to create a true discussion page at which mergers, moves, redirects etc. can and will be discussed as equals to deletion. However, I can understand the fears mentioned above as well and I agree that it will be negative to the project if we merely rename a process without restructuring AFD in a significant way. There are many options besides deletion, true, but as currently written AFD should not be used anyway unless the nominator has considered alternatives to deletion and rejected them as inappropriate, yet articles get routinely nominated that could and should be handled by redirecting/merging (see current discussion at WT:CSD regarding films/TV shows for example). So I don't see how changing the name alone is helpful. Regards SoWhy 13:43, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support Cosmetic change which addresses a systemic issue of non-inclusion. Semantics really matter. There is not only one outcome of a discussion, thus, Articles for Deletion is a "leading" title pointing to only one solution. SusunW (talk) 16:30, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support: I favor this as a softer approach, and the discussion below about considering proposed merges as an option is one I have also favored for some time. Redirects are cheap and often not adequately considered, particularly in cases where a redlink becomes "bait" for recreating the same article over and over again. Montanabw^(talk) 18:00, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose We have over 5 million articles and counting. A forum which exists to discuss any and all articles will have too much scope. What we see at AFD already is that discussions don't get sufficient attention and so they are relisted again and again. The scope of such discussions should be restricted more tightly to pure deletions and WP:BEFORE enforced more rigorously to keep the scope tight and stop the forum being used for general cleanup of new and weak articles. Workshops for hammering articles into shape should be project-based so that they have a limited domain which can be dealt with by subject-matter experts. Andrew D. (talk) 22:45, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I... Don't know how to address this kind of comment without being obtuse, but Andrew D., did you actually read the proposal? ...because literally not a single word in your response has anything at all to do with it. I... really don't understand how someone reads what was written, and goes on to invent the level of project shattering backstory that would be required to leave this type of comment. Maybe that's a failure of imagination on my part. TimothyJosephWood 23:03, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I read the proposal. For avoidance of doubt, here it is again: "Should "Articles for deletion" be renamed to "Articles for discussion""? TJW seems to suppose that the implications of this change are only cosmetic but even he doesn't believe that as he supposes that the name change would make a difference. Even his limited vision of the consequences wouldn't work out the way he supposes. Newbies might initially get a warm glow when they find that their handiwork is being discussed. They might not realise that a likely consequence is that it is deleted and then react with even more fury when they find that they have been duped. I am not so easily fooled; this is the thin end of a very big wedge as the name change would mean that any aspect of an article might be discussed under the new heading. Andrew D. (talk) 06:57, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose as unnecessary: If it's broken, don't fix or change the name of the forum for articles. KGirl ^{(Wanna chat?)} 23:25, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
• Pick one Seriously:
  1. Keep AfD as articles for Deletion: Articles are either deleted, or nothing happens: all non-deletion outcomes are mere suggestions to be referred back to the respective article talk pages, and admins no longer have to wade through merge, redirect, and other nuanced outcomes: Unless there's a clear "delete" outcome, close it and move on, no ongoing nuanced relisting.
  2. Change AfD to match current practice as articles for Discussion when, once article is brought up, all options for whether and how the topic and attendant information are best covered in Wikipedia: Deletion has no priority, and keep, merge, redirect, split, listify... all options are on the table and deletion is just one of many possible outcomes, rather than the default if no one shows up to argue for keep.

Either one of these would be better than the mishmash of admin understanding of AfD we have now. Jclemens (talk) 23:46, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Changing the name without changing the practice behind it does not help as it will lead to more inappropriate AFD where the ultimate goal is a merger or redirect. --MASEM (t) 23:52, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
• Moot point- It does not seem that changing the name will change anything about how discussions are closed, who is allowed to comment, or what form nominations take. It's pretty well understood that there are more types of closes available to the community than just keep or delete, and that's not likely to change any time soon. I would not oppose the proposed name change, but also I am not sure what problem this is intended to solve. Reyk _YO! 17:55, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

As an extension to this, I think it would be beneficial to merge AfD and Wikipedia:Proposed mergers, the latter of which is already well known to be inadequate, backlogged and needing a replacement. Indeed, I have on very small occasions "abused" AfD just so I can get a merge done quickly in a place where more people are looking. I think it would help to put everything together, and if you didn't have to use the word "delete" in the process name, that could work. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:04, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

• Full disclosure, I was compelled to finally push the save button as the result of the discussion User:Megalibrarygirl links to above, and I notified her of this discussion because of that. TimothyJosephWood 22:54, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

• Timothyjosephwood the link I gave above is related, but the link you're looking for is this one. :) Also, I would like to comment more on proposed mergers, but I've rarely been involved in those and don't have much to offer, I think. I defer to Ritchie333 in the matter. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:58, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
• I'd also Support Ritchie333's idea to include Mergers in Articles for Discussion, as again, it is one of the available options. Mergers on article talk pages only work if people are actively working on that article. SusunW (talk) 16:30, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

• This cannot be a mere "cosmetic change", because the change of title implies working through the policy page, altering text such as If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD. It would make little sense to change the page title as proposed and still maintain the expectation that nominators are always advocating for deletion: Noyster (talk), 16:38, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

• But that is the current proposal, that this is only a name change, that WP:Deletion policy isn't changing, and that nominations, as per WP:Deletion policy#CONTENT, will remain limited to proposals that require admin tools.  So the problem in moving this proposal forward becomes that of managing the erroneous expectations that AfD policy is changing.  Unscintillating (talk) 16:49, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

• I don't see a real concern that this would be perceived as a policy change, so long as it is clear that a) Deletion IS a possibility and b) Deletion can only be performed by admins. Merges are usually handled "in-house" in article space and usually either languish or become hotly contested and into RfC territory. But for a place to deal with those that do not get resolved or those where there are complicated issues (multiple targets for redirect, as an example), I an "Articles for discussion" is a useful idea. Montanabw^(talk) 18:11, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
• Sorry, but no, there is no "cosmetic change" possible by changing what AfD stands for. It's already far too contentious for that. Mind you, as I opined above, I think the time is ripe for the community to decide what we really want AfD to do and to be... but yeah, getting traction for any part of this is challenging. Jclemens (talk) 23:52, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
• I've removed the RfC banner. Feel free to restore if anyone thinks it would be fruitful, and continue to discuss if you feel the need, but we have many people having a schizophrenic conversation about many things, none of which may apparently lead to much of anything. Apologies for spilling your time on this. TimothyJosephWood 23:58, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

• It's quite normal on Wikipedia for discussions to ramble and peter out. You can only prevent this by having lots of rules and vigorous clerking, such as you get in Arbcom cases. That's why I prefer the original scope of AfD: a narrow focus on whether an admin should use the delete function or not. KISS. Andrew D. (talk) 08:53, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose no need, just cosmetic. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:35, 14 August 2017 (UTC).

This article Peter Diamond (illustrator) is self-promotional. I can vouch for this because I made the page some years ago, about my own illustration work, in a very misguided attempt to improve my presence on the web. My thinking at the time was that if it were inappropriate for Wikipedia it would be removed, and if it isn't removed then maybe it belongs. This was of course a sorry misunderstanding of, and disrespect to, Wikipedia.

As much as the tone is fairly neutral and the references included originally are legitimate ones, making it perhaps pass Notability muster on a strictly technical basis, I feel that the fact that this article would not have been created had I not done so myself makes it unworthy of Wikipedia.

I use Wikipedia in my work nearly every day, and find it invaluable. Frankly, it turns my stomach that I contributed this piece of it and so this is my contrite request that it be considered for deletion. I hope I'm going about this the right way, if not please advise. Pete Diamond (talk) 07:24, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

 Done Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Diamond (illustrator) Regards SoWhy 08:27, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.orghttps://wikious.com/en/Asim_Qureshi

This article needs deletion. This is not a person of significant importance. The article has little information on the subject and very little can be found or cited on the subject. It also seems like an attempt for an extremist group to give themselves credibility ] ]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:2:4A80:5878:155C:1CEE:AEA2 (talk) 15:31, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

 Done Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asim Qureshi --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:21, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

At Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Notifying substantial contributors to the article it says "Use: {{subst:AfD-notice|article name|AfD discussion title}}". To be consistent with the explanation of the process above, I think this should read "Use: {{subst:AfD-notice|ArticleName|NominationName}}. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:00, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I've done my best to figure out how to nominate Forbes Fictional 15 for deletion, but since this is a third nomination, I'm doing something wrong and can't make it appear properly at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 September 1. Could someone please help? With thanks, --Tenebrae (talk) 04:27, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Should be fixed. ansh666 05:57, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I have an article on a fringe topic Integrated Movement Therapy that currently has only one source and is of questionable notoriety I’m not sure if it is worth researching and maintaining or if it should just be removed. Unconventional2 (talk · contribs · email) 20:28, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Any help or suggestions would be appreciated.Unconventional2 (talk · contribs · email) 13:35, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Look for significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, particularly medical ones, first of all and if none are forthcoming, nominate it for deletion on that basis. WikiProject Medicine may be willing to give further advice. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:58, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Please don't be hostile or dismissive to other AfD participants. Things are unfun enough here as it is.

1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roll your own
2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adjoint filter
3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Squint (antenna)
4. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theatre of Zambia

Colapeninsula suggests a visit to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Wikietiquette. Maybe a WP:WIKIBREAK. Something. ~Kvng (talk) 15:44, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

TPH should probably be notified of this discussion. Given their comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theatre of Zambia, I absolutely understand why some editors would be concerned. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 03:13, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure my inclusion of the User:TenPoundHammer link in the section heading here would have generated a {{ping}}-style alert. I've not had good results with direct communication with other disruptive editors and don't enjoy WP:ANI. ~Kvng (talk) 16:51, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

If you're enjoying ANI, you're doing it wrong. I mentioned that there was a thread here when I got into it with TPH at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theatre of Zambia, which - combined with the ping - should be sufficient. Besides, as you point out - ANI, this ain't. It's a non-problem, and wasn't meant as a criticism. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 17:20, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

• To be fair, I don't think people should be baiting him at these discussions though. Reyk _YO! 06:06, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

• Not wrong. But some of the nominations indicated have been problematic out of the gate, and that's not something that baiting would explain. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 17:20, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

• Maybe, but I don't see anything hugely disruptive with the four nominations listed. The first looks headed for a (correct) delete consensus, and the Zambia Theatre article is absolutely desperate. There's literally nothing there, and I'm surprised at all the keep voters actually. I see a lot of people trying to rub TPH's nose in it, rather than thinking about improving the encyclopedia. Reyk _YO! 07:32, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

All of these were first WP:PRODDED by TenPoundHammer then WP:DEPRODDED by others (including myself) so the situation was already warm when it arrived at AfD. ~Kvng (talk) 03:48, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

• As someone whose been interacting with TenPoundHammer for years, I agree that while his conduct hasn't always been ideal, these are a significant deviation from his past behavior, and I wonder if something outside Wikipedia is prompting this change. Jclemens (talk) 22:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

• TPH has always behaved badly like this. Andrew D. (talk) 22:46, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Is there an easy way to see AfDs by the date the page was created? For example, "all open AfDs of pages created before 2010". Power~enwiki (talk) 00:24, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't think so, Power~enwiki. I've not heard of a way of doing this. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:41, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I believe this will give you all articles in Category:Articles for deletion (which all tagged AFD'ed articles are in), sorted by creation date. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 21:08, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

It's not as precise, but using pageID as a proxy for age works well in this context. We also have User:Cyberbot_I/Current_AfD's, which (along with WP:BADAFD) is populated by Cyberbot I. It might be possible to add a field for the article's PageID to that table. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:51, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm trying to list Cheeki Breeki on AFD... but I can't complete the process because I'm an IP. Could someone help with this? Reasons are on the talk page. 216.235.231.28 (talk) 17:01, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I suspect a PROD will do for now as clearly NOTDICT and unsourced. I have applied a PROD. I noticed you are fairly active on Wikipedia, including NPP. Have you considered getting an account? I think it's always better when patrolling and gives trust when people know how they speak to, even if it's just a username. Just a thought... _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 17:14, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

And now it's been speedy deleted as G6. Reyk _YO! 07:12, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

This is prolly my last AFD as an IP... but I'm gonna need help again... *Sighs* Page-link is here: Pre service education, and my reasoning is, of course, on the talk page. 216.235.231.28 (talk) 15:17, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

@Person who formerly started with "216": I see you've created an account. Did you still want help with this one? --Finngall ^talk 15:30, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

...No. I'll do it now. Thanks anyway. Person who formerly started with "216" (talk) 16:00, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to the fray, and thanks for joining in! --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:37, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

• And it's gone, as an 'Unambiguous copyright infringement'. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:50, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Can a non-IP editor look at The Widowmaker – Ian Easton and if they think an AFD is worthy, complete the process? 194.28.127.54 (talk) 03:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Can someone complete the AfD request for Sarku Japan per WP:N, WP:V, and WP:RS? -- 68.50.32.85 (talk) 01:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarku Japan. I used your rationale on the article talk page (minus the link to the deletion discussion). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:03, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

If I weren't unregistered I would nominate Josef Schillinger for deletion. Stub has existed since 2009 with no substantive edits thereafter (apart from the addition of a birthdate and even then there is no indication whether this information is sourced), and the subject is only notable in relation to Franceska Mann. No links, no sources that elaborate on the individual. Unlikely the article will ever be developed. --92.4.158.40 (talk) 18:10, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

It has been 'speedy deleted' under criteria CSD A7, an article about a real person, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:08, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

The information given in the main text talks about putting words in bold text, but does not talk about how to do this (i.e. putting words in between a trio of apostrophes on either side). Vorbee (talk) 15:41, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I linked to MOS:BOLD; does that sufficiently address your concern? DonIago (talk) 16:31, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Requesting to complete this Afd nomination. See brief Afd rationale here. Thank you. 77.189.193.114 (talk) 22:31, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ekumeku Movement. ansh666 01:46, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.orghttps://wikious.com/en/Vegan-capitalism Should this article be deleted? Jikybebna (talk) 10:03, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

As it is a neologism sourced to a single website, posted a couple years back by an editor who has made no edits before or since, a WP:PROD is likely to take care of things. I've placed the prod on the article. If someone objects to it, then a different deletion procedure can be considered. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:57, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm trying to list Jugglerz on AFD... but I can't complete the process because I'm an IP. Could someone help with this? Reasons are on the talk page. Yarozika utti (talk) 14:39, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Ooh, something went wrong there, Yarozika utti, but I've fixed the problem. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:01, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

150 percent thanks to you for fixing it --Yarozika utti (talk) 16:04, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Is this article Sri Somesvara Temple, a candidate for a PROD or AfD? Please take a moment to read my short summary on the article talk page and then please give your thoughts on the talk page as well. Thanks.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:07, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I nominated an article for deletion for the first time in over five years. I didn't know there was a policy against canvassing, as the bullet point on that is very deep on the page. The nomination was closed.

When can it be reopened? Is there a specific amount of time before that can happen? The article is sourced to one magazine article. Everything else was a primary source. The subject's notability is from an award handed out by the studio that she worked for. -- Zanimum (talk) 15:51, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

For anyone wondering, the article is Hazel Tucker. ansh666 21:34, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I need some help to list the page on Process Management for deletion appropriately. This page treats the same topic as Business Process Management which is against Wikipedia deletion policy on content forking. I have added the tag on the page as considered for deletion and started the discussion page. But I can't seem to figure out how to continue the process by listing the page properly on the Articles for Deletion Page. Thank you for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaleBlueDot1 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done I have done that for you, PaleBlueDot1, and also added the usual header to the discussion page. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:40, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi, can someone start the AFD for Ali Salami on behalf of Salarabdolmohamadian (talk · contribs), reason on talkpage , thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 00:52, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:33, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

B-Stand Blues (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

My article about an independent supporters group of an Indian Football club has been deleted. It has been done by Arsenalfan700 who voluntarily keeps updating about Indian Football. There is no solid reason why one would delete an article about a Supporter group when so many other articles about other supporters are there across the world. Balaji 3003 (talk) 17:48, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

If you dispute the deletion, you should discuss the matter with the administrator who deleted the page in the first instance. That would be User:Explicit. It was deleted on WP:GNG grounds so your best hope is to show that the supporter group does in fact meet WP:GNG. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:12, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Requesting to complete this Afd nomination. See brief Afd rationale here. Thank you. 77.189.121.82 (talk) 20:12, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

It looks as though someone else had the same thought and created a separate Afd nomination: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/State Counsellor of Biafraland. Perhaps you would like to add your comments to the discussion page? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:05, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Requesting to complete the AFD nomination for JSC News. It is nothing but an advertisement. Not seeing a single point needed for an encyclopedia -223.186.97.118 (talk) 01:49, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JSC News. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:56, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I tried to nominate Henderson House (Dumfries, Virginia) and the AFD is in the log and in the article, but the discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henderson House (Dumfries, Virginia) did not get created. Can someone straighten this out? My rational was :Unreferenced and does not meet GNG. Its claimed to be historic, but apparently not rising to the level of NRHP. I did find some info from a local historic group in Dumfries, VA but that is not enough. MB 00:52, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done. ansh666 01:10, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

British Rule (card game) is down here as it is listed as a hoax. However, Bhada (Charan) has also been categorised as a suspected hoax, and does not appear to have been listed as an article for deletion. Vorbee (talk) 17:01, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD#RFC: redirect to XFDcloser?. Evad37  09:04, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

If you take a look at Kellen McKay you'll see that it has an AFD template but when you click on it, instead of getting to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kellen McKay, one is directed to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stacked Like Pancakes through the following: {{Article for deletion/dated|page=Stacked Like Pancakes|timestamp=20170927170058|year=2017|month=September|day=27|substed=yes}}. Since I have commented on the Stacked Like Pancakes AFD I think it would be inappropriate for me to alter this apparently-malformed linkage. If an uninvolved editor or an admin could take a look and fix this if necessary that would be awesome. Shearonink (talk) 17:09, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

• It isn't malformed, it is possible for somebody to nominate two or more closely related articles for deletion at the same time and in the same nomination, as it may make sense to consider them together. The discussion does have the option of deleting one of the articles but not the other. Hut 8.5 17:21, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

• Not malformed. Both Stacked Like Pancakes and Kellen McKay have been nominated for deletion in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stacked Like Pancakes discussion, which is fine if they are closely related. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:24, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Ah ok....thanks for the replies. I tried to look up if such linkage was allowed but couldn't find it. Learned a new WP-thingy today - most excellent. Shearonink (talk) 17:48, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Which is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ralph Ellis. Different title so it wasn't picked up. I can't find how to do it, I guess I'm blind. Doug Weller talk 15:41, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I’ve added it in. It’s a particular style of infobox combined with a Special:Prefixindex template for ‘Ralph Ellis’. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:02, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Malcolmxl5 (tried the ping template but I could see in preview it wouldn't work) Thanks. Am I right in thinking there's no guide for dummies on this? Doug Weller talk 08:12, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Requesting to complete the AFD nomination for the "Bitag" page found within the Wikipedia. A lot of info is questionable and there are only a few references pertaining to the TV show. Most references and external links pose little significance to the entirety of the article itself. Personnel found in the infobox is no longer associated with my colleague who happens to run the TV show.

As much as I want to edit its contents, I lack the proper references to do so.

Kind regards, OccultaCogitat (talk) 06:35, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bitag. Regards SoWhy 06:59, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Why are IPs allowed to vote about deletions? Shouldn't the system only be confirmed users +? This would stop someone voting twice, all they would need to do at the moment, user their username or another username and then logout and their IP. Govvy (talk) 10:06, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Since deletion is not actually a vote, that is not so much of a problem. And people who do not wish Wikipedia accounts may have things of value to say in a deletion discussion. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:52, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

It's just I've noticed sometimes, I was wondering if anyone else has notice there sometimes one or two users, I would have to say cast a vote or either delete or keep on their nickname, then log out and do the same again on their IP. Because of the current system, it's open to abuse. Govvy (talk) 13:19, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

As there's nothing that keeps people from opening multiple Wikipedia accounts, barring IPs would not bar repeated !votes. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:35, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Although this behavior is possible and happens sometimes, I think that most administrators who close AfDs can detect such attempts at deception. It is quite difficult to convincingly simulate two different people, each conversant with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and ultimately a gigantic waste of time and effort. Intelligent people have better things to do. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:15, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I am going to nominate a movie production company's article for AfD (and bundling with it the unreferenced articles on the "film company's" non-notable movies, all created by the same editor) but can't quite figure out what the appropriate category the parent AfD belongs in...media and music? organization/corporation? Would welcome any thoughts on this.Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 15:13, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Could someone review https://en.wikipedia.orghttps://wikious.com/en/ExtremeZ-IP and see if it is really a suitable candidate for deletion?

51.9.218.247 (talk) 16:04, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

It looks a bit short of significant coverage in reliable sources. Perhaps a WP:PROD on that basis? (I suspect a COI too.) --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:17, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

50.241.221.197 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has placed an AfD notice on Big Three (Cleveland Cavaliers), but hasn't formally completed the process per WP:AFDHOW (IPs can't complete the process themselves). They have not provided a justification, nor posted their request here. GB fan left a note about AFDHOW in response to IP's talk page comment on Oct 29 at Talk:Big Three (Cleveland Cavaliers)#Delete this page, but perhaps the IP did not read it. The IP had already PRODed the article twice (Oct 7, Oct 14) and also pasted AfD notice on the article on Oct 14. I'm abstaining from completing the AfD for them as their previous comment from Oct 29 was mainly "The trio was not notable" with the rest being more like WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. I'll leave it to others if they wish to proceed on the IPs behalf.—Bagumba (talk) 11:03, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: I've also notified the IP about this discussion.—Bagumba (talk) 11:15, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

In most cases, I would complete the steps and copy the IP's rationale over to the debate per WP:AGF, since they would have just made the AFD if they were able. The rationale provided by the IP editor here is objectively bad - when you trim away the OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and the IDONTLIKEIT and the personal attack, what we are left with is "It's non notable." And that's not enough, in my opinion, to have a valid and worthwhile deletion debate. That said... I dunno, it feels like there's a lot of synthesis in this article. The sources seem to confirm the events mentioned, but the ones I've checked don't seem to talk about the Big Three as the Big Three. For now, I'm removing the redlinked AFD - it pops at WP:BADAFD and this isn't actually at AFD as yet. But I'm not sold on the idea that an AFD is out of order entirely. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:47, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I want to nominate Frederick J. Haig for deletion.

My rationale: His only notability seems to be that he was a law clerks to the U.S. Supreme Court. As was noted in a previous deletion discussion, "it's not clear under present Wikipedia notability policy that SCOTUS clerks are notable."

Under Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Politicians, it lists the types of political figures who are notable. Law clerks to the Supreme Court do not appear to fit in the criteria. 2600:1700:7822:6190:98AD:B7CE:DD3C:B031 (talk) 18:59, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

 Done. --Finngall ^talk 19:58, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I also want to nominate Thomas H. Fitnam and Frederick Emmons Chapin for deletion, for the same reason: their only reason for notability is that they were law clerks to the U.S. Supreme Court. As was noted in a previous deletion discussion, "it's not clear under present Wikipedia notability policy that SCOTUS clerks are notable."

Under Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Politicians, it lists the types of political figures who are notable. Law clerks to the Supreme Court do not appear to fit in the criteria. I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people). 2600:1700:7822:6190:98AD:B7CE:DD3C:B031 (talk) 20:08, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Same reason as above. 2600:1700:7822:6190:98AD:B7CE:DD3C:B031 (talk) 20:13, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I also want to nominate Clarence M. York for deletion, for the same reason I nominated Frederick J. Haig.

My rationale: His only notability seems to be that he was a law clerks to the U.S. Supreme Court. As was noted in a previous deletion discussion, "it's not clear under present Wikipedia notability policy that SCOTUS clerks are notable."

Under Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Politicians, it lists the types of political figures who are notable. Law clerks to the Supreme Court do not appear to fit in the criteria. 2600:1700:7822:6190:98AD:B7CE:DD3C:B031 (talk) 19:47, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

• One law journal has an entire article entirely devoted to the subject: . I doubt that AfD would get very far. Hut 8.5 20:20, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the one law journal article, which you cite, is "significant coverage" under WP:GNG. 2600:1700:7822:6190:98AD:B7CE:DD3C:B031 (talk) 20:50, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't think you're going to get very far arguing that a 14 page article mainly about the subject doesn't cover the subject "directly and in detail". But I suppose we'll see. Hut 8.5 23:09, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Please see WP:NACDEL for a proposal I'm making to allow WP:NAC to include deletion of pages. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:54, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I just tagged Hackman butterfly knife for deletion. It's just a description of a particular brand of knife, with no indication why it would be special over and above other brands.

Please continue steps 2 and 3 of WP:AFDHOWTO, which I cannot do as an IP. Thanks! ---- 79.223.6.24 (talk) 23:09, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

 Done --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:33, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! ---- 79.223.6.24 (talk) 01:12, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing notable about this building or interesting about this article. This is just a random NYC apartment building. It does not appear to meet the Notability criteria for having its own Wikipedia article. Can someone kindly create the AfD discussion page? I don't know what I'm doing. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.239.30.32 (talk) 21:30, 18 November 2017‎

 Done --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:19, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Violates Autobiography:Creating an article about yourself. Violates Notability. Violates:Biographies of Living People:Maintenance of BLPs. (New here, sorry if this is the wrong format, etc.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:600:9680:3041:89A8:632D:128B:B4F (talk) 01:23, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Somebody will need to complete the deletion process over at Lichess. No substantial citations for most of its content.--76.210.190.130 (talk) 19:28, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Can an admin take a look at this at close this as a speedy keep: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cosimo Commisso. The nominator was not familiar with deletion procedure and wanted to delete the article just because there was another person with the same name Cosimo Commisso (soccer). I've now moved the Cosimo Commisso in question to Cosimo Commisso (criminal) to distinguish the two. Thanks. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 23:02, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

AfD is intended as a consensus-based method to improve the encyclopedia. It also serves as a fun forum for those who enjoy debate. Participants self-select into the participant pool. Often the outcome of AfDs is dependent on the relative participation of folks who are interested to include articles on every video game or every locomotive ever built. While an AfD renders a decision of the group, it is often unsuccessful at curing the problems of articles brought to AfD and kept. Gallons of virtual ink are spilled in defense of the article, claiming that reliable sources are available. A look a couple of weeks after the AfD has concluded show that the article is in the same state as it was before the debate began. Everyone is a critic, but no one makes creative revisions. The process would be improved if there were some obligation on voters to help improve the articles they declare such support to keep. I'm not sure how to do it, but there must be some good ideas in our group to accomplish that. Rhadow (talk) 14:43, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

It would help if nominators made the effort to look for sources themselves and use them to improve articles, rather than expecting someone else to do it. Perhaps the obligation to add sources identified during an AfD should be on those making bad nominations, and then they might stop wasting so much of other editors' time. We get far too many articles brought here just because they have issues (not enough sources, poor prose, long-standing maintenance tags, etc.) and not because the subjects are not notable. --Michig (talk) 15:47, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello Michig -- The suggestion that an AfD nominator makes an "effort to look for sources themselves" is well described in WP:BEFORE. This, however, is contrary to the policy that "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material." It is reasonable that a nominator claim that no sources were easily found, although I can understand claims of laziness on the nominator's part. It is unreasonable to expect a nominator to prove that no sources exist. Articles with substantial text and numerous assertions did not appear magically. The editor made a decision to create an article of original research, or simply use undocumented sources. Whatever sources were available at the time of creation could have been inserted easily. It is unreasonable to expect an editor to reconstruct entire groups of articles. It would be a herculean task to reconstruct every assertion made in articles like these: Rhadow (talk) 16:18, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

• DB Class 614
• DB Class 610
• DBAG Class 612
• DBAG Class 648
• DRB Class 41
• Bavarian C VI
• Bavarian G 3/4 H
• Prussian G 7.1
• Prussian G 8.1
• DRG Class 56.2–8
• Bavarian G 4/5 N

Yes, WP:BEFORE is not policy, but if adhered to prevents the wasting of a lot of other people's time, so should be strongly encouraged. Editors who nominate dozens of articles for deletion each week and only manage to get a fraction deleted are simple wasting the project's resources. The burden on editors to ensure content that they add is verifiable should really be enforced earlier in the article's life, as without that we end up with large backlogs of articles with various issues, and too many editors that see those issues as sufficient cause to bring the articles to AfD, often claiming a lack of notability simply on the basis of the state of those articles (which is often easily proved wrong from a quick Google search). The burden to improve articles on notable topics, and to delete articles on topics that don't merit inclusion, should be on every editor. --Michig (talk) 16:34, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree that AfD is a fun sport for critics, but does nothing to turn critics (nor defenders, for that matter) into actual editors who fix problems. The Inclusionist-Deletionist debate, which has endured for well more than a decade, has driven editors away from the actual fixing of articles. Far too many fixable things are nominated for deletion; far too many of them are deleted despite being fixable. Fundamentally, I think we need to socially penalize those who nominate things for deletion that are deemed to be fixable, but we don't: they just move on to a different topic with less 'defenders', because they believe that the best way to improve Wikipedia is to remove poor quality articles. We do not recognize actual editors nearly enough--and by that, I mean those who are willing to reorganize, merge, split, and/or reformat articles, not just fix a grammar or punctuation error here or there. Lots of fictional topics need to be merged and trimmed; that's my area of interest. And yet, neither the critics nor defenders ever (for the most part) lift a hand to do this. Rather, we get "Fix this or I'm AfD'ing it" "NODEADLINE" "I warned you..." sort of talking past each other. Anyone have any remotely workable ideas on this? Jclemens (talk) 16:35, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Topic bans for the most incompetent/lazy/pointy contributors to AfD would help. --Michig (talk) 16:41, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. The only reason there hasn't already been an AN post seeking one for Rhadow is that I've been too busy organising a gin festival this weekend. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:10, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I'd start with all the chuckleheads who go "speedy keep, no argument for deletion" on AfD nominations that very clearly do contain one. Reyk _YO! 13:26, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I am wary of any such requirement, as it may discourage the involvement of some very useful people - the folks who are not Wikipedia editors at heart, but are very knowledgable of some small topic - enough that they can point to ways in which the topic is notable even if they aren't interested in or able to work on the article itself. (This includes people who are not native or comfortable users of English.) The more we discourage their involvement in even the small ways they may be useful, the harder we're pushing Wikipedia to be merely a catalog of the things that the sort of people who edit Wikipedia care about. AfD is not in general intended as a way to police and improve the quality of a given article (although it can have some useful fallout in that direction), but to make sure that the topic is appropriate and that the content provides at least a seed toward what may grow to be an article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:43, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello Jclemens -- What you measure is what you improve. If we could do a better job identifying the real editors (new articles retained after three months, big edits, and reorganizations), separating back-benchers in AfD debates, that would go a long way. There is a start in the WP:NPP page feeds, which gives an overview of editing history beside the new article entry. That would be an expansion of the class system at WP. It's already started: we have ranks of rights. We are demanding automatic review of new articles by new editors. If we could increase the price of nominations and votes, that would help too. For every vote, you need to make a constructive edit, etc. Rhadow (talk) 16:59, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

---Before we take this debate any further, lets be clear about User:Rhadow. A simple glance at his contributions shows that he is clearly not an "editor at heart". Instead he is firmly in the ranks of the AfD/tagging for improvement, and does little to improve articles. His main objective is to stir up others into improving articles that he has either tagged for improvement, or simply PROD-ed. He has little intent on making improvements to the articles that he nominates. - Morphenniel (talk) 10:27, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello Morphenniel -- We should all be careful about making assumptions about others, in real life and especially in an anonymous forum. Gender, objective, and motivation may not be apparent in an editor's contributions. An editor is "a person who is in charge of and determines the final content of a text, particularly a newspaper or magazine." Some of us write; some of us redact. A closer study will show that I do both. I agree with you that a better system of rewards and disincentives needs to apply to editors to stimulate more organization of existing articles, better sourcing of most articles, elimination of the detritus, and less effort spent on discussions like this one. Social pressure in the form of threats of ANI changes the focus from the work to the person. That's not healthy. It is the result of twenty years of assumption of equality for editors. Where admins and new page patrollers are concerned, we have the beginnings of structure and it seems to work. We don't need a comprehensive hierarchical structure; that will result in an "boys club" that excludes many. Making an editor's vital statistics public might help. Then, when you and I come to blows about an article, others could judge whether your experience should carry more weight than mine in a debate. For the time being, I will let others judge by the content of my mainline contributions, my small effort to clean out the backlog of 200,000 unreferenced articles, and the quality of my arguments in fora such as this one. Rhadow (talk) 12:44, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

@Rhadow: - For an "editor" that has only been on Wikipedia since June, you have much to learn. You have mentioned the "200,000 unreferenced articles" multiple times, so it seems clear to me that your only purpose on Wikipedia is to lead "crusade" to either have the references added, or to have the articles deleted. If your passion for ensuring that all articles are notable (another word used frequently by you) then I suggest you wade through the articles on the simpsons (every episode/character), and then come and talk to me about the lofty aims of an encyclopedia. Another area you could focus on is adult movie stars ... does Wikipedia intend to be a one-stop-shop for all XXX movies??? Morphenniel (talk) 13:04, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

My problem with Rhadow's nominations is that they are simplistic and not content-based. The algorithm behind them is clear: find articles with old unsourced tags and nominate them, without seeking other sources or objectively judging likely notability first. We could have 'bots doing this work, the fact we do not is an indication that it is not considered an appropriate way in which to work. We recognise that editorial judgement is needed, not merely rote. Stopping human editors acting so simplistically is why we have BEFORE. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:19, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Article Partuition is a misspelled page Parturition. Could someone please complete the steps to delete the page. This request is asked following the wiki guide for page deletion for unregistered users. 213.236.211.20 (talk) 09:08, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

You have proposed the page for deletion using WP:PROD. No further action is needed, the article may be deleted if the message remains in place for seven days. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Redirects are not eligible for PROD. If you want it deleted, you'll need to discuss it at RFD. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:24, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Redirects from misspellings should be tagged as such. In this case, because "Partuition" is a misspelling of "Parturition", it should have been tagged with {{R from misspelling|of=Parturition}}. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:42, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

These two redirects go to different articles. I've listed both at WP:RFD to resolve the error. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:17, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

This article has been created and deleted twice before already; it's back up for a third time, yet still does not contain anything of notability that justifies its creation. Just as with the first two times, it reeks of WP:PROMO, among many other things. 104.52.53.152 (talk) 23:06, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

 Done. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Moates (2nd nomination). Beeblebrox (talk) 23:17, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

In conjunction with the above request to nominate Michael Moates for deletion, so too do I nominate this page. It's Moates' website, similarly of no notability whatsoever, and its entire page is self-promoting and full of citations from the website itself. I also recommend that those who take up these AfD's look into a possible WP:COI for User:Jamesharrison2014, since they created both of these articles. 104.52.53.152 (talk) 23:09, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

 Done. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nation One News Foundation. You can post about the potential conflict at WP:COIN. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:20, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Reason: I believe that this page violates a series of WP policies such as content forking and the inability to create a neutral point of view. This was nominated for PROD and CSD before but a thorough discussion is required, hence this AfD. The page has been created to disparage the subject by quoting news sources that have speculative data. WP:CRITS essentially recommends that such pages that are "dedicated to negative criticism of a topic is usually discouraged" and I think these are valid reasons to discuss its existence.

Request a fellow user to please complete the AfD process. 2405:204:A8:6E73:CD9F:5090:40C2:251D (talk) 12:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Working on this. --Finngall ^talk 17:50, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

 Done. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Reliance scams. --Finngall ^talk 17:56, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I’m biased here as I am one of the main editors of the tropical cyclone WikiProject of which the Typhoon Season is one of our 8 main articles each year. However, something doesn’t feel right with the editor who nominated it for deletion. The person created their Wikipedia account in September and nominated a redirect for deletion, as one of his first edits which was quickly closed for procedural reasons. His next edit is too nominate 2018 PTS for deletion citing WP:Crystal even though the season starts in 10 days time. Maybe it’s me but something isn’t right here and I would be grateful if an administrator could take a look.Jason Rees (talk) 14:16, 21 December 2017 (UTC)