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?
Correct. Please use WP:Proposed mergers or WP:Requested moves for those kinds of proposals.


Wikipedia:WikiProject Orphanage[edit]

People looking to clean up marginal articles in the encyclopedia may be interested in joining WikiProject Orphanage. We have over 100,000 article that are not linked to by any other article. Some just need to be linked or merged in but a fair number are orphans because they appear to have WP:NOTABILITY issues. ~Kvng (talk) 14:56, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Question on an AfD procedure...[edit]

I saw an AfD where the following things occurred, in this order:

  1. Listed by nom.
  2. Delete vote.
  3. Relisted by User A (not nom).
  4. Two more delete votes.
  5. Relisted by same User A as previous relist.
  6. User A posts a keep vote three minutes after relist.

I'm leaving out links and names unless this is actionable, but I see several issues here. Oftentimes, one delete vote in the absence of voting has been taken as "consensus", and I think three delete votes (in addition to the nom) in the absence of keep votes is definitely consensus. For a user then to relist the AfD in those circumstances and then cast a keep vote seems a bit questionable to me. Thoughts and an appropriate course of action would be appreciated. MSJapan (talk) 20:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Yeah - that's not good. It should have been deleted at the time of the 2nd relist. 3 delete votes (4 if you include the nom) are plenty as long as they're related to deletion policy. Did the relister give any reason for the 2nd relist? Black Kite (talk) 20:05, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
It looks questionable to me - WP:RELIST says that "if at the end of the initial seven-day period, the discussion has only a few participants (including the nominator), and/or it seems to be lacking arguments based on policy, it may be appropriate for the closer to relist it" - which implies that the action is taken as a potential closer. To then switch hats and immediately participate in a discussion by !voting might be seen as gaming the system. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, if the relister wanted to participate, they should have just placed their Keep vote and left it for someone else. I can't really say more than that without seeing the AfD - the "delete" votes may all have been nonsense. Edit: I've found the AfD, and yes, it should have been closed as delete. It's just expired again with a 5/2 consensus, so this time I have closed it. Incidentally, whilst looking, I've found a few more the same. I appreciate that this is probably someone scanning AfD, seeing a discussion and thinking "hang on, this looks notable to me", but IMO if you're voting in a discussion you shouldn't be doing anything else to it. We probably need a guideline on this. Black Kite (talk) 22:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Relisters relist, closers close. I see no conflict. We have no clear policy saying that things can't be relisted at a time when they could instead have been validly closed, it's a judgement call. OTOH, relistings should carry very little weight when judging a closing argument. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
The issue isn't relisting when a close might be seen as appropriate - that is, as you say, a judgement call. The relister shouldn't be !voting afterwards though - it can give the impression (particularly when they are !voting against an apparent consensus) that they relisted because they didn't like the way the discussion had gone, and they wanted to extend it to give it a chance to go the other way. That may not have been the intent in this case, but the potential for gaming the system is there. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
That's not the issue here (otherwise you'd be quite correct). What you shouldn't be doing is coming across an AfD leaning 4/0 to delete, relisting it, and then voting keep. The re-listing itself is wrong (unless the delete votes are quite terrible) because there's clear consensus, but voting the opposite way afterwards then gives the impression that you re-listed it purely because you wanted to vote against current consensus and give others with your view time to join in. Black Kite (talk) 06:36, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't actually see relisting and then !voting against a consensus at that time to be a problem. You're certainly permitted to !vote the other way, right up to closure. Relisting I still see as too trivial (in the final judgement) to have an influence, thus a conflict. If it's relisted to give time for some CANVASSing to take effect, then that's a different story - but we'd have to judge that because of the canvassing, not because of the relisting. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:00, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the input (and the action). I didn't want to see this boil up into an RFC, which is why I was vague about it. A guideline would be a great idea, and it would just need to be simple, like "if you are performing any administrative action on an AfD, you may not participate in it." Would this need to go to VP? I wouldn't mind taking a shot at writing something up in any case. MSJapan (talk) 06:14, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:RELIST is a guideline, a bold edit would be enough, I think. Is there actually a policy on discussion closure anywhere? WP:INVOLVED doesn't really cover it. Black Kite (talk) 06:36, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Relists should only be done when there genuinely is no consensus, but there is a prospect of consensus being established with another week of debate. I'm seeing a lot of relists where it's obvious that the relister doesn't like the way the discussion has gone and is hoping that someone will wander by and vote the other way. I found the debate in question and it really does read a lot like "FINE! If no-one else will vote keep, I guess I'll have to do it myself!" Reyk YO! 07:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I think it genuinely does not matter unless that particular editor is relisting repetitively on multiple discussions in order to make a point. Even then I am ambivalent about it. Poor articles will be improved, kept or deleted in a reasonably consistent manner, and some will slip through as imperfect keeps or imperfect deletes. Since there is no real deadline for anything on Wikipedia with the exception of the removal of true defamation or true copyright violations, despite repetitive relists being frustrating when we just know the 'correct' outcome, it;s interesting, but not important. In the end I trust the consensus to be correct more often than incorrect, and the timing is whatever it is. Fiddle Faddle 10:09, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't even really object to it if there genuinely was No Consensus on the AfD. If an AfD is showing, say, one keep and one delete after 7 days, relisting it is obviously correct and therefore I don't think anyone would think voting on it afterwards was at all problematic. However, when an AfD is showing clear consensus - especially after 14 days - it should be closed. Not relisted. Or, the user could simply place their vote, and leave it for another admin to close/relist. It wouldn't be a pointless exercise - I have in the past relisted debates where there's something of a consensus but the side with the numbers doesn't have as convincing an argument as the other. Black Kite (talk) 11:16, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Muneesh Sappel[edit]

  • Delete This article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muneesh_Sappel doesn't look genuine. It looks like more of the publicity of himself. He says: I am Indian and International production designer, art director, costume designer, hair and make-up artist, but i dont see much about him on search engines. There is not much about him on given External links and References on his wiki article.David 08:51, 5 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ManishSrivastava1 (talkcontribs)
@ManishSrivastava1: This is the wrong venue. To nominate the article Muneesh Sappel for deletion, please follow all three steps at WP:AFDHOWTO. I notice that yesterday, you followed step I, but failed to follow steps II and III, which is why you were reverted. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:47, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
I've examined the article and went ahead and AfD it as a vanity project. Pax 10:46, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Dirty Water Brass Band[edit]

I have nominated the article Dirty Water Brass Band for Speedy Deletion three separate times, on the grounds that it is about a small street band with no real significance, written by an individual with a direct connection to the band, which also constitutes as promotional. The first two times, the tag was removed by someone using a proxy IP address (I'm assuming the article's author) and the third time by someone who asserted the addition of references constituted notability.

References alone are not sufficient to make an article encyclopedic in nature and simply including a bunch of references should not be construed as establishing significance or notability.

Update - The tag was again removed and I was instructed to bring it here, so I am doing so. Ormr2014 (talk) 18:34, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
@Ormr2014: See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Nominating_article.28s.29_for_deletion for instructions on how to nominate an article for deletion. --NeilN talk to me 18:37, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
@NeilN: Thanks, but I am not nominating this article again. I have done so in good faith on three separate occasions, because I believe this article is an attempt to gain notability for a small relatively unknown band, by individuals directly connected to this band and as such, has no place in an encyclopedic work. But each time, my nomination has been removed with no real discussion. This is not my fight and I will not turn it into some sort of campaign or vendetta. You guys can judge whether or not this article is encyclopedic... Ormr2014 (talk) 18:44, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
@Ormr2014: I think you're misunderstanding the processes. You nominated for speedy deletion. If someone disagrees then the next step is to have a full discussion about deletion. That discussion won't happen on this page. It will only occur on a separate "Article for Deletion" page. You create this by following the instructions I linked to. --NeilN talk to me 18:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: Sorry I'm not very familiar with the whole AFD thing. I hope I did everything right. Ormr2014 (talk) 19:08, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

@Ormr2014: Not quite, but other editors fixed what was missing. If you're going to nominate more articles for deletion in the future you may want to use Twinkle which does all the steps for you. If you have questions, just post to my talk page. --NeilN talk to me 19:13, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Please complete article for deletion process[edit]

Could someone with a registered account complete steps II and III for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockette_Morton

this Article does not meet Wikipedia Notability Guidelines ...Samat lib (talk) 09:11, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

You have a registered account, so you can do it yourself! I'll fix the page for you this time, though. Cheers, ansh666 09:43, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Succès de scandale[edit]

Succès de scandale has a broken first nomination and an active 2nd nomination on today's Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2015_May_10. Could someone knowledgeable fix this please? Thank you in advance. GermanJoe (talk) 21:15, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. ansh666 21:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

VFD[edit]

What does "VFD" stand for, and why does it redirect here if it isn't even mentioned on the page?

Attys (talk) 22:10, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

@Attys: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion - the predecessor to AFD. [1] --NeilN talk to me 22:13, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Nomination completion request[edit]

Please could somebody create the deletion-discussion page for "2015 Reclaim Brixton protest", and add it to the log.

{{subst:afd2 | pg=2015 Reclaim Brixton protest | cat=S | text=Non-notable local protest that lasted barely an afternoon. Fails [[WP:NOTNEWS]], [[WP:N]].}} –[[Special:Contributions/146.199.151.33|146.199.151.33]] ([[User talk:146.199.151.33|talk]]) 03:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, 146.199.151.33 (talk) 03:50, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:16, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

nominating articles you want to keep[edit]

We have a situation I've never seen - someone nominating their own articles for deletion, yet insisting they do not them to be deleted: Fail AfD is fail. Apparently this was done by nominator/article creator to make a WP:POINT because his feelings were hurt over edits to the article, and something about he was doing it because the other person failed to do it first (?). I explained the WP:G7 situation that nominating your own articles brings up. The discussion reached new levels of WP:LAME with nominator and his sidekick (with a shiny new account) arguing that nowhere does it say that if you nominate an article, you have to want to delete it, and that AfD was a perfectly suitable venue for discussing the article and if it should be nominated for deletion. For the life of me I can't understand why someone would not understand the whole point of nominating an article for deletion. Do we need something on the page that 1) explains that by nominating a page, you are supporting it being deleted and 2) you should not create AfDs for pages you really want to keep just to generate discussion/get feedback - that's what talk pages are for. It seems to me a waste of time to have an AfD discussion when nobody has actually proposed the article be deleted. МандичкаYO 😜 14:17, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

  • If the article creator does not want the article to be deleted, then you do not have the right to place a G7 on their behalf. That's the exact opposite of what they said they want, and you don't get to put words in other peoples' mouths just because they might have started a discussion in the wrong place. There's already a longish thread about this at ANI, where literally everyone disagrees with you. Reyk YO! 00:13, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Absolutely not. Anyone should be able to nominate for AfD, whatever their opinion, whether they were involved in the article or not, simply because they think that raising the article for wider debate at AfD will achieve a useful consensus. Sometimes this can be as simple as to silence a disruptive editor on a talk: page sniping "this ought to be deleted", when consensus then produces an obvious consensus to keep it. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Personally, I think that nominating an article for deletion with a rationale that supports keeping it is questionable - if someone is genuinely arguing that an article should be deleted, they should do it themselves, giving their own rationale, in their own words. And if they aren't prepared to do that after a reasonable discussion, they have no legitimate grounds to continue to argue that the article in question merits deletion. As for the suggestion that self-nominating is somehow equivalent to WP:G7, this is not only unsupported by policy, but Wikilawyering nonsense of the worst kind. AfD discussions are discussions, and not some sort of automated vote where mere participation somehow overrules ones explicitly stated opinion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:22, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
AfDs where the nominator has expressed a desire to keep should theoretically be closed as speedy keep if nobody else has commented, though since they'd realistically only do that if someone else said it should be deleted (in essence, completing a nomination for someone else, which I do all the time), it's probably better to let it stay open. ansh666 01:41, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Nothing should be closed as "speedy" anything, if no-one else has yet commented. Speedy closure is there for when consensus has become obvious by its volume. If there is no outside comment yet, let it run its course to the expected time. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Using AfD to establish a consensus without a nominators rationale that the article should be deleted, is an interesting topic. AfC creates an article but doesn't really create a consensus that it should exist. It seems unfair to only allow those who wish to delete an article a path to establish a consensus, though creating an AfD discussion while supporting its existence could be viewed as a waste of time (if no one is advocating for it to be deleted). If someone is advocating for an articles deletion on the articles talk page, it seems reasonable to want to get ahead of the horse and establish a consensus. The AfD page doesn't explicitly prohibit starting a deletion discussion while advocating for the article to be kept, but the process is called Articles for Deletion. A theoretical "Article for Retention (AfR)" process would fix this issue, but would lead to unnecessary discussion and more oversight. Many would want to gain consensus for articles that are not contentious, simply for the sake of consensus (as consensus is generally what Wikipedia "runs" on). So we could add the caveat that there had to be advocation for its deletion first, such as discussion on the articles talk page or a proposed deletion. Then again why not add/allow that within the current AfD system, and avoid the theoretical hassle of creating and integrating a new system? Can anyone clarify if nominating an article for deletion (to establish consensus) is allowed if you don't think/advocate that it should be deleted? I read the project page, but it wasn't necessarily clear to me one way or the other. Godsy(TALKCONT) 04:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I can't find anything in policy that prohibits the creator of an article from starting a deletion discussion when they themselves don't think it should be deleted. And I see nothing wrong with starting such a discussion in cases where, for example, other people have suggested the article should be deleted and the creator would like to get a consensus - they might be planning to do more work on it, but want to find out first whether that might be wasted, for example. Mr Potto (talk) 08:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • CREEP. ––146.199.151.33 (talk) 13:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • This is an unusual process, although there are other situations where an editor starts an AfD discussion without suggesting that the article be deleted. For example, a procedural nomination after a previous result has been overturned at WP:DRV. Or as a courtesy to an IP editor who cannot complete the process. So there is no policy which states that nominating an article at AfD necessarily implies a desire to see it deleted. In this case, i gather, that some other editors indicated in talk messages that they felt the article should not exist, and the creator wished to get a clear consensus decision one way or the other. I see nothing wrong with that, although it may not turn out as the creator had hoped. But the idea that doing this amounts to requesting a G7 speedy deletion is nonsense, a kind of formalist letter over spirit concept foreign to Wikipedia. And even if we were to look only at formal policies, a G7 is only available where there are no substantial contributions by any editor other than the creator, which is not the case here, so any G7 speedy would have been clearly out of process, and subject to prompt overturn at WP:DRV -- which would probably have started an Afd discussion anyway. I htink Wikimandia should drop this procedural argument and simply concentrate on the merits -- or lack of them -- of the article in question. DES (talk) 17:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

AfDs and blocking...[edit]

I recently nominated an article for deletion here. It was a second nom, because I stumbled upon the article somehow, and in the interest of trying to copyedit it, I found there was no substantive coverage to back up anything in the article. However, the previous nom had been closed keep because one person voted keep and claimed substantive coverage via Google. Myself and two others clearly found that to be untrue in the followup. The user who voted in the previous nom not only explicitly stated an inclusionist bias, but has since been CU blocked indefinitely.

It leads me to wonder if there is a way (or a strong enough reason) to go back and look at recent AfD votes of indeffed users. In this case, the voter gave no actual proof of his coverage claim other than to cite Google, and was indeffed 2 weeks later. OTOH, nobody pressed the user to offer proof of the vote, and we are supposed to substantiate all votes. To be fair, there was no other input whatsoever on the AfD. Nevertheless, it seems to me like it was a bad-faith vote from the get-go, reinforced by the user's own page. However, I'm saying that in hindsight, and having looked at it. Is it too time-consuming and unwieldy to not take votes at face value or to discount votes with no substantiation as a matter of course? MSJapan (talk) 07:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the AfD discussion referenced above as the previous nom was closed as no consensus (by another admin), rather than as keep, likely due to a lack of adequate participation in the discussion. North America1000 07:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes. "Keepers", if their argument turns on the existence of acceptable sources, should explicitly specify some sources in their contribution, or see their vote discounted. Cases similar to this one should be examined, and if sources cannot be found, the article should be renominated drawing attention to the inadequate discussion the time before: Noyster (talk), 09:40, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I disagree. There is no similar burden of proof on delete votes, which often simply state "fails GNG" when there is clearly sufficient coverage. I don't support putting up obstacles for one side. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)