Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:AFD)
Jump to: navigation, search
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
I don't like this page's name. I want to rename it to Articles for discussion or something else.
Please see Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Rename_AFD. Note that all of the "for discussion" pages handle not only deletion, but also proposed mergers, proposed moves, and other similar processes. AFD is "for deletion" because the volume of discussion has made it necessary to sub-divide the work by the type of change.
You mean I'm not supposed to use AFD to propose a merger or a page move?
No. Please use WP:Proposed mergers or WP:Requested moves for those kinds of proposals.

Reality show contestants[edit]

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

  • LOL, I think that line works just fine. But then again I'm not much for legalese. And for the record, that's a great guideline. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
In general, I'm supportive of the notion for both reality shows and music contests such as singing contests. And have seen discussions supporting the fact that those who come in at a lower level in music competitions are not ipso facto notable. But I have a question -- are you suggesting that if they otherwise meet GNG (though not CREATIVE), they not get an article? The sentence may need some wordsmithing. Also, I believe the place for such a line is in a notability provision, not in OUTCOMES. OUTCOMES is less helpful, as it just documents past treatment, and if relied on solely for a !vote suffers from a wp:otherstuffexists challenge. --Epeefleche (talk) 23:50, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't think that's the suggestion at all. No sensible person would argue that someone notable somehow becomes un-notable just because they were on a quiz show. Reyk YO! 00:14, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Then it would say something along the lines of "other notability per WP:CREATIVE or GNG." Plus, we would have to consider what to do with a person who has GNG-level coverage of their 12th-place finish. Epeefleche (talk) 03:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Here is a relevant discussion re notability of contestants in American Idol and the like. Epeefleche (talk) 03:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Reality contestants would be covered under WP:BLP1E (the event being the show itself), I don't think new language is needed. --MASEM (t) 16:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • @Masem -- I don't think that's clearly the case. If it were, the winner of the show would not be deemed notable -- they are notable for the one event of the show itself. And we routinely view the winner of a notable reality show or music contest as notable. Probably because under BLP1E a person can in fact be notable for one event--if editors do not believe that the person is, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Or editors view the event as significant, or view the individual's role as either substantial or well-documented. By how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources. I think clarification as suggested would be helpful. Epeefleche (talk) 18:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, I mean, as a baseline, if there only coverage is for being on the show, that's BLP1E. If they actually won, and we're talking a notable show (Survivor, American Idol, etc.) that gets routine coverage, then there is usually more details about the person's life that are highlighted, and often that person is referred back in future seasons of the show. But I would also not say that winners are automatically notable, only that the presumption of notability is enough to allow an article to be created and given time to develop. If after a year or so there's nothing new from that winner, then our presumption was wrong and we can delete that article. --MASEM (t) 18:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Epeefleche, your link was very helpful. I think the consensus is pretty clear: you have to rank in the top 10 to 13 slots of a singing contest or reality show to prove as one factor of WP:CREATIVE. There's no rush. Bearian (talk) 20:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Comment On Chinese wiki, we don't keep anyone who doesn't rank in the top five and is only famous for his reality show.-- (talk) 12:34, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Top three is not something I would disagree with. Top five is iffy though I could live with it. But I am having a hard time swallowing presumptive notability for someone who comes in tenth in a reality TV contest. That seems to just stomp all over BLP1E and is far too indiscriminate. -Ad Orientem (talk) 12:46, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
    • I would agree that a presumption of notability can be made for top 3, but no deeper than that. Not that a 10th place finish could be notable for other reasons but there's no presumption of notability for just finishing 10th. Note that this is still a presumption even for top 3: if that top spot doesn't turn into any more demonstration of notability, then it can become a target for removal. But we can make the safe assumption that sourcing could possibly come able to give time for that. --MASEM (t) 14:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Seems to me it's tough to make a real rule here due to the vast difference in the notability of the shows themselves. Is the winner of a season of American Idol notable? Almost certainly. Is the winner of the "Teen LumberJacks" on the "Woodcutter Network" deep in the depths of C grade cable notable? Doubtful.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

List of most downloaded Android applications[edit]

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

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

GATAC deletion[edit]

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

Discussion about wording and formatting of OldAfD templates[edit]

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

Related discussion[edit]

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

Center for HIV Law and Policy[edit]

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

I've restored the tag and placed the appropriate warning on the IP's talk page. If he continues to remove the tag report him to AIV and he'll be blocked.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 22:35, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the help! Ormr2014 (talk) 22:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Given that the speedy deletion has been contested by other than the article creator (see the talk page, and this post [1] as well as mine) I have removed the speedy tag. I think there is sufficient evidence to suggest that the subject may meed Wikipedia notability criteria. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Memory storage density[edit]

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

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

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

Good move. Chillum 19:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Technically, yes, that might have been the more accurate piece of word salad to include. WP:IAR is the "Because I Said So" of policy justifications though, and the idea of SNOWing an AfD so early in the process that it's still a redlink amuses me. --erachima talk 19:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
WP:IAR most certainly is not the "Because I said so" of policy justifications. It is the "this rules was preventing me from improving or maintaining the encyclopedia" of policies. A common misconception. You are right it would have been silly to go through all of that just to meet the letter of a rule, you were right to ignore it.
IAR exists not so that people can do things because they want to, it is so we don't waste time when the rule prevents you from improving or maintaining the encyclopedia. While it is often misused I would say that you used it perfectly. Chillum 19:46, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I know how IAR works, and I am perfectly aware that it actually means "because it was my best judgment that policy does not apply well here." I am referring to the catch-all and unsatisfactory nature of being told that the reason something you disagree with was done is IAR. The parallel to "Because I Said So" is that telling someone you did something due to IAR is similarly uninformative and condescending. Rather than asserting that you did it due to your best judgment, you should explain why that was your judgment. --erachima talk 19:55, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I am the one who said it. I now see you were just explaining why you did not. I agree that when you ignore a rule you don't need to invoke IAR, you just need to explain why you ignored the rule. You did explain yourself well[2] and I was not suggesting you should have linked to IAR.
I only meant without a hint of sarcasm that I thought it was a good move and a good example of IAR working. Chillum 20:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

2018 FIFA World Cup qualification (CONCACAF)[edit]

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

Demet Muftuoglu[edit]

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

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

Shusha massacre[edit]

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

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

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

AfD Nominator Voting in Afd?[edit]

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

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