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.


When the conclusion of a DRV is to relist at AfD[edit]

If such a deletion discussion is closed an no consensus, would the default option be to keep or delete the article? --Fauzan✆ talk✉ mail 11:33, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Generally I'd say it would default to keep, same as a normal AfD. But it would also depend on why the article was relisted. Reyk YO! 11:59, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • by relisting drv is implicitly setting the previous afd to one side so the outcome would be the article remains undeleted. Spartaz Humbug! 12:15, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia Page: Biochemical Predestination[edit]

Hello. I have read the Wikipedia entry for the book by Dean H. Kenyon and Gary Steinman; "Biochemical Predestination", and I'm not sure it actually merits an article. Surely the book has to be noteworthy in some way? Upon seeing the reviews in the "Reception" section of the article I noted that all of the reviews referred to were from other Creationists. Thinking that perhaps this was simply a deliberate omission, I ran a Google search, but could find not a single review from any source other than Creationists. I then looked at Amazon and found one review which did not actually review the book on US Amazon, no reviews on the UK Amazon. As I came to the page in the first instance to check some claims of a Creationist regarding Dean Kenyon's scientific pedigree, it rather looks as though the article is little more than a constructed prop to bolster the credentials of certain controversial "academics". Certainly, if one were to remove the Wiki-mandated spectacles of "assumption of good faith", one might conclude that the entire piece was a carefully crafted piece of Creationist PR. Does it really merit an article? Would it not be more appropriate to simply refer to it in the Publications section of the authors own pages? I must admit that I am not as familiar with the Wiki guidelines as I might be, so perhaps my reasoning here has been errant. But even should the page not be deleted, there are still some entries of concern that need to be addressed IMHO.Tarquin Q. Zanzibar (talk) 19:10, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

May I suggest that you take this to the Fringe Theories Noticeboard. Alternatively you can just nominate the article for deletion if you think the article does not meet our guidelines. I haven't looked at it but based on what you have noted above, the article may be problematic. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:33, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Follow up I note that the article was created by a highly experienced and respected editor, so I seriously doubt it is a deliberate WP:PROMO piece for a Fringe Theory. That said you have raised some legitimate questions that should be addressed. Creationist issues are usually dealt with on the noticeboard I linked above. Thanks for your efforts to improve the project!. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:41, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced AfD?[edit]

Looks like this AfD [1] was misplaced in today's AfD log. Could someone more knowledgeable fix this please? I would just break more stuff trying to do it myself :). GermanJoe (talk) 08:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. ansh666 09:49, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Please complete article for deletion process[edit]

Could someone with a registered account complete steps II and III for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_%C3%93_Ruanaidh (resumé)

  • OK, done. Reyk YO! 11:40, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Article moves during the discussion[edit]

I just came across an article that was moved to Draft: space during the discussion. Ignoring the merits of the article itself, what is our policy on such a move? How, if at all, does it affect the AFD process?

I see this to be very similar to the blanking of an article during discussion, and the idea of a move to Draft: being an outcome of the discussion. It would be useful either to enshrine this in policy or to see what the policy says, please. Fiddle Faddle 22:18, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

AFAIK any move of an article to any name (including to another namespace) whilst it is at AfD is discouraged, since the templates on the AfD page then point to the wrong location, and bots get confused. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:24, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Miapolis[edit]

@ThoseArentMuskets:, the article Miapolis does not seem to be listed properly at WP:AFD. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:37, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

@Jax 0677 and ThoseArentMuskets: It's because it was done incorrectly - a previous AfD existed, so this should have been left alone and a fresh nom raised. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:05, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Reply @Redrose64:, agreed, now @ThoseArentMuskets: needs to fix the issue since that user started the AfD. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:21, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Fixed. Very easy to do. ansh666 03:29, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Request for auto-sorting of closed entries[edit]

There may be a better place to pose this, but here goes anyway: Could Wikipedia's boffins put their heads together and come up with an encoding scheme which auto-sorts closed AfDs (the "blue" ones) to the bottom of each day's list so that the remaining unclosed entries bob to the top? Is is annoying to see something like "20 April (Monday) (13 open / 38 closed / 51 total discussions; open: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13)" ...and realize I'm going to have to open up thirteen tabs (sucking up that much more site bandwidth), or go back and forth 26 times, or spend a lot of time down-clicking. Pax 06:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

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)