Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.

Daily AfD pages are getting too long[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

  • This talk page is about the AfD process and policy. It is not a forum for opinions about content quality or inclusion. Protonk (talk) 23:40, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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


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

Lighter templates[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Hey Fram. Can you think of a reason why {{Cent}} is transcluded into the AfD log (it is on the 16th and the 15th)? Is this done when the day's log is created? I'm guessing we should remove it but I'm not sure how. Protonk (talk) 15:07, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • nvm looks like it is added by mathbot. Off to raise an issue on that talk page. Protonk (talk) 15:12, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Why relist?[edit]

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

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

I need help for deletion[edit]

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

Need User to complete AfD[edit]

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

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

Cem Dinc[edit]

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

This article can be deleted, because it is of no relevance. The person does not meet the notability criteria for basketball. He was for a very short time with a TBL-team (which is not listed in the criteria-leagues), but did not play at all. The article is not up to date. Also some links are broken. The first part about his "Early Life" is not based on facts. He never played for the Turkish national team. Again sources are missing. So I propose to delete the article. (talk) 12:29, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Need help for completing an AFD[edit]

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

  • should be fixed now. The bot transcluded it and I replaced the subst bits. Protonk (talk) 17:52, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gospel Book[edit]

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

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

Complete AFD[edit]

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

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

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

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

Not sure what to do here.[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

"Gutting" an article during deletion discussion[edit]

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

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


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

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

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

WP:AFDHOWTO says "If you are unregistered, you should complete step I, note the justification for deletion on the article's talk page, then post a message at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion requesting that someone else complete the process." I have completed these steps and am now requesting assistance on Steps II & III. Thank you. (talk) 18:05, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Need Help with AFD[edit]

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