Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion

RFC: Add Instruction Not to Move the Article

Should the instructions on the template for an article that has been nominated for deletion be expanded from saying "do not blank the page" to "do not blank or move the page"? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:25, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Please enter Yes or No in the Survey with a brief statement. Back-and-forth discussion may be conducted in the Threaded Discussion.

Survey: Add Instruction Not to Move the Article

• yes. Page moves during the AfD confuse the AfD. Also, a page move frequently impacts the scope of the article, impacting the AfD, and possibly even making the AfD nomination rationale moot. If there is a consensus for an important immediate rename, an admin with experience both in RM and AfD should close the AfD and perform the move. I’d suggest a minimum week or two before a fresh nomination at AfD, even if the rename does not seem to speak to the deletion rationale. During the AfD, unimportant title fixes (like dashes), should not be done, but noted and done after the AfD close. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:14, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
• Yes as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
• Yes Draftifying in the midst of an AfD debate is disruptive. Other valid moves can take place right after an AfD is closed "Keep". Cullen328 (talk) 04:42, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
• Yes as moving templates just makes the process more difficult than it needs to be and may lead to a disaster even before the AfD is closed. 172.112.210.32 (talk) 16:34, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
• No I think it should be discouraged, but there are a few cases where a mid-afd move has been beneficial, e.g. Crucifix of San Marcello. If someone makes a page move that disrupts the afd discussion just revert it, at worst that means a request at WP:RM/TR. Further while I respect the concerns, I don't think this is a wide-spread enough problem to warrant such a blunt solution. Nor do I think this would resolve the issues raised. Most of the people that make disruptive page moves are also the ones that don't read the instructions on the template anyway. Regards, 94.50.213.120 (talk) 04:44, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
• No I have done this a very few times, it has been beneficial in re-framing the topic in certain rare cases. For example a BLP about someone who appeared in a meme video fails 1 event. That's true, but simply rename the article to be about the meme video, which is notable. If you have to wait for the BLP to be deleted then recreate the article from scratch with largely the same content because of a bureaucratic no move rule, it adds a lot of overhead and wasted time for everyone voting to delete the BLP. -- GreenC 01:35, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
• No. I see no reason that an AfD should preclude the closure of an ongoing move request; page moves to improve the title of an article can be sometimes handled separately from the question of whether the subject of the article is notable. Additionally, if the title has clear policy issues that need to be speedily addressed (such as BLP issues), then there should not be a reason to think twice about moving it. An instruction along the lines "do not unilaterally draftify the article during this discussion" might be worthwhile, but I don't see a reason to expand that to all page moves. — Mhawk10 (talk) 01:42, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, this happens much too frequently. If it is a minor problem like a typo, that can wait till the AFD is over (if it survives). If it is something substantive, like a repurpose, the AFD should make the decision to do that and not be pre-empted. That applies to the BLP1E example mentioned above. Having said that, it shouldn't be an absolute hard rule. There can always be edge cases, like a slanderous title, which can't be left in place, although I can't say I've ever seen anything that couldn't wait. SpinningSpark 17:10, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion

• I'm not sure. Moving a page during an AfD can be a bad idea in some situations, but what if the move is just to correct an error in spelling or capitalization? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:57, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

  As above seconds ago, note the correction and do it later. Checking page logs at AfD is already complicated, and a mid-AfD page moves makes the log links break, and very confusing. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:16, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

• There have been rare times when it helps in spite of the problems. How frequently is this being done? DGG ( talk ) 05:20, 27 November 2021 (UTC) .
• User:DGG - Most of the times that I have seen an article moved during an AFD, it has been by the originator, to draft space, after having move-warred to get it from draft space into article space. That is, the originator (typically either with a COI or an ultra) has first pushed it into article space, and then, when challenged there, has tried to run away into draft space. Someone always moves it back, but putting "Do not move" on the template would provide a clearer basis for partially blocking the disrupter. That is, moving an article during an AFD is usually a form of gaming the system. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I think draft/userfying is an attempt to game the system. It always fails, is never more than mildly irritating, and won't be stopped by the template because people who are trying to game the system don't care what the template says. If they move-war, block them for move-warring. If they're spammers, block them for spamming. If they're just generally being disruptive, block them for disruption. We already have the policies and procedures needed to deal with these situations without unnecessary WP:CREEP. Regards, 94.50.213.120 (talk) 04:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
• Tangential to the discussion so far: Some closing admins need to take more care to check that a move has occurred during the discussion period. XFDCloser is a nice tool (I’ve used it myself for a few NACs), but lately I’ve had to G6-tag a fair number of articles for which a) the result was delete, b) the article had been moved mid-discussion, and c) the closing admin hit the buttons on XFDCloser without taking a closer look at the article history before doing so. --Finngall ^talk 17:20, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Why does the site not have the capability to deal with vast canvassing?

Why not only have commentators who have clearly not come from another site be able to comment? While tabloids' owners can't just use their money to get an individual to manipulate content, they now know that they can get their entire audience to flood every future controversial 'discussion', and one doubts if there will be any result in the future which goes against their desires... if this process isn't fixed... 88.109.68.233 (talk) 13:31, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Having anyone able to edit does make Wikipedia susceptible to promotional manipulation, but it also allows an open and transparent consensus to be reached by not censoring anyone. Editors are encouraged to be vigilant in making sure articles maintain a neutral point of view. Editors with conflicts of interest are required to disclose them, and rather than making edits directly, are asked to submit edit requests for review by a neutral party. See also Wikipedia:About#Strengths, weaknesses, and article quality. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:56, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't mean articles generally, AfDs specifically, with a recent one being the obvious example of how tabloids are able to get the result they want. 88.109.68.233 (talk) 14:14, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Can you link the example? Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:27, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

[1] 88.109.68.233 (talk) 21:35, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

(Redacted), this again. Isn't there a discretionary sanctions regime that applies here? —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 21:38, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I think you saw how the process did deal with it. No way would have a consensus to delete have occurred either way. And it was closed as "no consensus" despite the canvassed "votes" putting the count deeply into "keep" (BTW I did not weigh in). North8000 (talk) 21:56, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

If I recall the close rationale correctly it was because the canvassed "votes" skewed so heavily towards Keep that they closed it as no-consensus, bearing in mind they disregarded the majority of them for not presenting any real argument. (To the IP: Note that "votes" is in quotes; AfD runs off of strength of arguments and not headcount, and so a bare "vote" with no argument or rationale explained is afforded less weight than a detailed argument, doubly so if there's evidence of canvassing. Articles for Deletion is a debate, not a vote.) —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 22:28, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

No idea what you want that's discretionary, but I doubt swearing was necessary. And sure, it's theoretically not a vote, but tabloids mass canvassed and got their way... point is, I doubt the deletion discussion system is structurally sound to resist any future tabloid brigading, and it not being a vote remains a hypothesis at that point too, as it was here. 88.109.68.233 (talk) 09:56, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mass killings under communist regimes (4th nomination) has one of the best AfD closing rationales I have ever seen, and hence this is a poor example of any perceived problems. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:24, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Ritchie, I agree the close was comprehensive and tried to address the negative effects of canvassing, but if there was actual canvassing, I do think it's still a problem we need to address. Any editor who was canvassed to an AfD from somewhere offwiki should at minimum be disclosing that. —valereee (talk) 10:43, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

No comment on the close because it's partially mine. But yes, "we know this discussion was canvassed to hell and back but since we can't tell how much of it was canvassed so we can't tell whether there was a consensus and thus declare it as no consensus" is a sign of a problem if outside campaigning can make it impossible for a discussion to conclude. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:03, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

That is why I thought the process doesn't function in the first place, though... and how, if nothing is done... a repeat is more than inevitable. No consensus isn't a fix, to be sure... and practically, in the eyes of the tabloids, it's clearly equivalent to their canvassed support for no deletion, which will only encourage them further if indeed the process' structural foundation isn't somehow repaired (and nominally discounting canvassed opinions isn't that repair, at all... while the process is on-going they inevitably affect other commentators e.g. - so the leak needs to be closed at the source, and while no one can stop external sites from doing similarly, a wiki should surely still have safeguards against such intense brigading... without waiting until the end). 88.109.68.233 (talk) 11:17, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

IP, I went looking to try to figure out what tabloids canvassed people to that AfD, but it's too long and no one seems to have used the word 'tabloid' in the (unexpanded) page. Can you clarify where people were being canvassed from, with a link if possible? —valereee (talk) 10:39, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

It's in its AfD talk page under "This discussion has been mentioned by multiple media organizations"... quite a long list. It was practically an army of canvassed readers, and I don't think (Ritchie333) the close rationale was even consistent (as I mentioned previously) due to both saying it discounted the canvassed opinions, and then promptly claiming it doesn't... which is why I'm wondering how a process such as this is even workable, and how in the future this could at all be avoided (and I don't think it really could, not unless the AfD is at least prevented from being edited by absolutely everyone... it might not seem to be in the spirit of wikis to do that, but the majority of the people brigading a discussion didn't even know what it was about, let alone considered any spirit of good faith whatsoever... with the tabloids, of course, being the vanguard of bad faith accusations). 88.109.68.233 (talk) 11:11, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I'd missed that there was even a talk. Quite the Who's Who of the batshit right. —valereee (talk) 12:28, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Also, I do not agree that the close was inconsistent with respect to its treatment of canvassed !voters. The key point is that we can't gauge how much was canvassed and how much was non-canvassed input. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:03, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree that it can't be gauged, which is why it can't really be discounted after the whole process is complete... which is the reason I think it's a hole in the process that needs to be patched. As it is it can't really be said to be an honest discussion when a regular of the process/site/article comes onto a page already full with e.g. 100 points all in the same direction... there's no way, under the usual psychological, human impressions, that that 1 will go against 100 already there, and while external sources might be late to these pages... even within a few remaining days, with their millions of readers, they could easily overwhelm the tide of opinion... I'm actually surprised they haven't noticed this 'hole' before now, but after knowing that with their combined sites they managed to get the longest discussion in all these years, and to go their way... this is the problem I'm trying to highlight. After this they're surely aware that they can sway consensus. 88.109.68.233 (talk) 13:16, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Burden of Proof and Expertise

It seems that the burden proof that an article should not be deleted is upon the author and not the one proposing that it be deleted. This is a high bar as it can be difficult to prove that an article is worthy of continued inclusion - especially for less well known topics. Furthermore, I've seen that people proposing deletion may have no apparent expertise in the subject area in question. I propose that anyone who nominates a deletion should demonstrate their expertise in the subject area at hand. Bryan MacKinnon (talk) 22:51, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

On the same principle, why not ask that people demonstrate their subject-matter expertise before they can create articles in the first place? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:42, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

The burden of proof always moves back and forth, generally falling on the party which is more capable of showing evidence if their side is "right". For example, the nominator has an initial responsibility for giving a policy-compliant rationale for why the article should be deleted, usually because it fails GNG. Then the burden is on the "keep" side to present sources purported to satisfy GNG. Once that is done, the burden falls back on the "delete" side to argue why those sources fail to meet GNG. If neither side is clearly stronger, then the "keep" side "wins" via a "no consensus" close because the burden was on the "delete" side at that point. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:12, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Great response /summary North8000 (talk) 14:47, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't think you should have to prove your expertise in a topic to nominate an article for deletion, but I've felt that there was a slight burden of proof that the article should be deleted, such as a BEFORE search. Though I like King of Hearts explanation as well. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:38, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

However, in that situation (where the nominator claims failure to meet the GNG), we do expect the nominator to have done some work to see if sources clearly exist, per WP:BURDEN. To what degree this is necessary/valid is context dependent, but the onus there is on the nominator to show that sourcing doesn't likely exist. This may be difficult for topics that are pre-2000s (before the Internet) and in parts of the world not regularly covered in English sources, where it may be actually necessary to search local print archives for the topic. --Masem (t) 01:50, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

AfD log page issue

Why is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 December 2 in Category:AfD debates (Science and technology)? It looks like a debate-sorting template is improperly transcluded, but all the listed AfD's are closed and the category contains no closed AfD pages. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:07, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

@LaundryPizza03: It's coming from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020 Kamchatka earthquake, specifically this edit [2], which added the category to the page. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 18:22, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Botho von Wedel

This article has no sources for 7 years. But recent edit in 2021, and reverted as unsourced material. --49.150.112.127 (talk) 05:15, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

listing sources at AfD instead of just fixing the article?

Today I stumbled across yet another AfD where a participant had listed under their Keep argument more than a dozen sources to prove notability but made zero attempt to fix the article with those sources. I've seen multiple AfDs where this has happened before and no one ever bothered to fix the article. The AfD ends Keep, but remains in the same sorry shape that led to the AfD in the first place. I am baffled by this. It must have taken at least as long to come up with those sources and make a list of them as it would have taken to just fix the article and then go vote "Keep, I've fixed it." I kind of feel like this isn't okay, but OTOH I don't want to discourage people from finding and listing sources if that really is the best they think they can do, like maybe they aren't comfortable writing in English or something? (Although in this particular case, that's not the problem.) —valereee (talk) 13:56, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

It's standard practice that as long as sources have been identified (and verified as appropriate) such as at the talk page or the AFD that that is considered sufficient for the sourcing purposes. Yes, they really should be added to the article, but it would be silly to AFD the article again knowing those sources exist from the last AFD. Of course, one can review those sources and see if they are actually good ones and if they are weak or just passing mentions, challenge them again via AFD. --Masem (t) 13:59, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I know that it's enough to show sources exist. But why would anyone write this instead of fixing the article? And shouldn't we be discouraging spending that amount of time and effort on the argument instead of the actual fix? —valereee (talk) 14:02, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it would be far better for that to be added directly to the article, particularly with the effort that it seemed to be given, but we can't force that. --Masem (t) 14:05, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I know we can't force it. And it would likely be counterproductive even if we could. But can't we at least find a way to encourage it? Or to encourage the closer to at minimum copy those sources over to the talk page? I mean, our culture here should value fixing the article rather than winning the argument. The next person to come across that article, think it needs AfD'd, but notice there was a previous recent AfD that ended Keep might have no idea that, hey, go check that AfD, maybe someone added 14 sources there but didn't bother to add them to the article or the article talk. If I hadn't come along, rolled my eyes, and fixed the article, all that work could have just basically been wasted.

Sorry, I don't mean to be arguing with you. I just find this frustrating, and more so because I know goddamn well this probably happens regularly: someone focuses on winning the argument rather than fixing the article. —valereee (talk) 14:20, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

"someone focuses on winning the argument" Exactly why I don't edit when it is at AfD. SusunW (talk) 14:27, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

There's enough "politics" on AFD to understand why some will just dump a lot of sources to make sure articles are kept but have no interest in actually working them in. There's other cases where editors may be worried that adding the sources to the article may be disruptive to those that regularly edit it. And I can see a multitude of similar reasons. The only case that doesn't make sense is that if one is a routine editor of the article and are the one that identifies sources that those don't get added is just being lazy (but there can be good reason that doesn't happen immediately, such as due to being real-life busy to not have the time to do it properly.

What we should encourage is that if there is a source dump and !voters agree these are good sources, someone should drop a note on the article's talk page to wave a big flag "Lots of sources at the AFD!" so that regular editors of the page (who may not necessarily watchlist the AFD) know where more sources are. But basically per DEADLINE, once sources are identified, we just simply cannot force them to be included at any time. --Masem (t) 14:35, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

A source dump, lol, I like that. Yes, exactly. Just something to prevent those sources being completely overlooked. —valereee (talk) 14:43, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

The far bigger problem at AFD is the lack of WP:BEFORE searching done by nominators, often they just assert "no sources" because they don't like the quality of the sources in the article. Iffy★Chat -- 14:14, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Long story short, unless WP:TNT applies, if sources show that the topic is notable, it is allowed to remain in whatever sorry shape it is, although various maintenance templates including Template:Notability (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (to be used on topics where notability is not apparent from the article) can be added. Listing sources at AfD and not fixing an article is common and not bad - not everyone has time to fix it. I'll however note that some editors do list bad sources (WP:GOOGLEHIT results...), and a few make a habit of this - and recently one or two of such offenders got topic banned from deletion for, among others, this offense. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict):::Valereee I can only speak for myself. I always have a list of articles I'm working on. For the last year and continuing into this one that is women's nationality. Thus, time is the constraint, as I cannot finish my own commitment if I am drawn into others. I rarely go to AfD and when I do it is because something randomly came across my radar. I am unlikely to edit an article while it is at AfD, mainly because those discussions are often heated and it seems likely that editing during that period is likely to spill over to editing the article. I have done it, but it makes me extremely uncomfortable. If the topic is a living person, it is unlikely that I will do more than list sources in my rationale, especially if they were easily attainable. If, however, it is kept, the person is deceased, and if the sources were difficult to come by and I know my training in research will allow a complete article, when the AfD closes, I will edit the article and add those sources. SusunW (talk) 14:16, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

@SusunW, and I do get that there could be any number of reasons someone prefers to just pull up sources. I'm more concerned that once the AfD ends, those sources don't just get left buried in that AfD. Even just adding the sources to the talk page would be useful. —valereee (talk) 14:30, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Totally agree. SusunW (talk) 14:33, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, I know that it's enough to show sources exist. But why would anyone write this instead of fixing the article? And shouldn't we be discouraging spending that amount of time and effort on the argument instead of the actual fix? – this is regarding an edit I made to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dog bakery. Here is more context about why I do not always fix the article.

  someone focuses on winning the argument rather than fixing the article – I have been discouraged from rewriting articles from my past AfD experience. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin L. Tan, I spent two hours finding sources and five hours rewriting the article. I was accused of having a conflict of interest, and the article was deleted. I had no conflict of interest with the subject and had no prior involvement with the article until I had commented in the AfD. If I had focused on "winning the argument" rather than also "fixing the article", I would have wasted only two hours on the AfD instead of seven hours.

  At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Little Cleo (2nd nomination), I searched for sources (which took two hours) and rewrote the article (which took at least three hours). I do not always have five hours to spend on an AfD I find sources for. I may have external commitments, other AfDs I want to participate in, or other articles I want to write.

  If I remember and have time, I do add sources to articles that need improvement after the AfD has been closed. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Novemthree Siahaan (3rd nomination) was closed on 14 December 2021 and I added sources on 30 December 2021. Cunard (talk) 15:16, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

  I apologize, @Cunard, I didn't mean to use the thing as anything more than example. I didn't come here intending to criticize you. Finding all those sources is definitely an unmixed very good thing. I've just stumbled across total crap articles that were closed as keep, and when I looked at the AfD, I found a bunch of sources no one had bothered to add to the article or even copied to the talk. It's infuriating to see that amount of work just go to waste unless it gets stumbled across because someone was curious as to why such a crap article had closed as keep. —valereee (talk) 17:11, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

  No worries, thank you for the clarification. You make very good points. When an article is in a very bad state as was the case at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Novemthree Siahaan (3rd nomination), I try to add the sources either during the AfD or after the AfD though I don't always remember or have time to do that for every AfD I comment on. Cunard (talk) 00:28, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

If trying to save an article it is tactically wise not to add references to the article before the AFD has been closed but only to list them in the discussion. If you add references to the article and it goes on to be deleted (maybe without anyone considering the new references) any subsequent recreation is vulnerable to WP:G4 unless even more references are found. Some (many) admins judge G4 against the state of the article at the time of AFD closing. References added to the discussion do not prejudice recreation. Thincat (talk) 16:54, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Exactly, adding references to an article is time-consuming if it is done properly instead of just dumping them in anywhere and if the article is still deleted it will be a waste of time and enable G4. It is as much the responsibility of the nominator and the other AFD participants to add the references and extra information they contain as it is the person who completed due diligence. Also to the OP see WP:DIY Atlantic306 (talk) 08:42, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@Atlantic306 if you had bothered to check, you'd have seen I did do it myself, and before I came here. I also added the sources, some of which I couldn't get to during the fixing process, to the article talk, which I then mentioned in the AfD. Look, all I want from this is that these sources not get buried when the AfD is closed. I'm saying the closer or the finder of the sources or some other participant at AfDs should make sure that doesn't happen. —valereee (talk) 17:04, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I find it completely demoralizing that we have to consider strategy at AfD. Seriously that just sucks. FWIW, I've done some WP:Heymann work and have not had that experience. —valereee (talk) 17:12, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Ugh, yes. -sche (talk) 22:27, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

It takes a LOT longer to edit the article properly, incorporating the sources that have been found, than it does to simply list them in the AfD discussion. People who moan about this are usually editors who nominate articles without carrying out a WP:BEFORE search, who invariably think it's someone else's job to fix the article. Even if sources are added to the article, it doesn't guarantee that it will be kept, so surely it's understandable that editors would be reluctant to spend the extra time fixing the article only for it to be deleted anyway? Editors who find and list sources in an AfD discussion are simply doing what the nominator should have done before taking the article to AfD, so maybe any frustration should be directed at the serial offenders when it comes to lazy AfD nominations. --Michig (talk) 11:45, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@Michig, but how long does it take to copy those sources to a talk section to make sure they don't get buried in a closed AfD? Five seconds max? —valereee (talk) 17:14, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

There will be a link to the AfD discussion on the talk page anyway. --Michig (talk) 20:41, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

If I am highly confident that I can save an article that's at AfD, then I will add references, add content and so on. If the viability of the article is borderline, then I just link to the sources at AfD and see how things shake out. Cullen328 (talk) 20:57, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I have seen instances where an editor advocating for deletion of an article contests (and reverts) the addition of sources to the article, sometimes based on rather flimsy rationales for removal. BD2412 T 21:49, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I've also seen that. But that is crossing the line into one of many types of really bad behavior.North8000 (talk) 22:04, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, if someone objects to high-quality sources being added to an article at AfD, that person shouldn't be working at AfD, period. That's behavior that should get a warning at user talk. —valereee (talk) 13:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Y'all missed the most obvious explanation. It's about 10 times easier to just link to a source at AFD than to integrate its contents into the article as incorporate it as a reference for the material.North8000 (talk) 21:25, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I can attest to that behavior as well. Which is why I think it makes sense to have a "strategy", if you will, at AfD. Of course it is a god idea to add sources to an article and clean it up, but it makes sense once the AfD is over so you don't waste your time. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:39, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Only thing I can think of (short, obviously, of a guideline directly requesting anyone who pastes sources to an AFD to also paste them to the talk page, which seems unenforceable without having the effect of discouraging people from making keep !votes at AFD lest they be trouted/sanctioned for mentioning sources without copying them over) is to have a guideline that closers should copy sources over to the talk page before closing the AFD, so the AFD stays open until someone has time to do that copy-paste operation as part of the closure, but.. this would only seem to have any useful effect if people also stop deleting talk pages when they delete articles; otherwise, the sources are less accessible on a deleted talk page than they are on the AFD page, which is at least kept around, no? -sche (talk) 22:27, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment. @ valereee Many editors who regularly locate references at AFD are themselves primarily invested in contributing at AFD (i.e. patrolling AFD as their primary editing contribution). I often contribute relevant sources to AFD discussions as I patrol AFD. I don't comment on AFDs without doing my own searches for sources. I often do add those references to the articles in question and take time to improve them, but not always. This is particularly true for topics I find boring, too complex/ beyond my scope of expertise, or controversial/have a history of edit warring (i.e. likely to run into conflict with other editors). I also may not add sources to articles if I am busy with other projects both on or off wiki. Regardless, I don't see this as a problem as the sources remain available to the community through the archived AFD for those interested in editing in main space. Lastly, WP:NOTCOMPULSORY is our guide here. We can not force people to edit articles or add sources, nor should we add further policies at AFD per Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep. In short, accept that we can not control how people contribute per core policies. Adding sources as evidence in an AFD discussion is valuable to AFD and the encyclopedia even if those sources do not immediately translate to edits in mainspace. @-sche I'm not sure copying sources from AFDs is a wise idea, because bad sources are often presented as evidence at AFD. Putting a blanket copying policy would create problems. I wouldn't feel comfortable asking closers to evaluate sources either as that would increase their workload and potentially multiply the AFD backlog. Best to leave the process as it currently stands.4meter4 (talk) 22:33, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think there's any need for written policy. I do think it needs to be part of our culture at AfD: if you believe these sources are actually good ones but don't have time or interest yourself, it's best practices to copy them to the article talk so that people who aren't as familiar with our processes can easily find them. I copied those sources to the talk, and then I made a comment about that at AfD. Et voila! I've just indicated to a dozen other people that, hey, this is a helpful thing you can do if you think the sources presented here at AfD are useful. —valereee (talk) 12:48, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

• Sometimes, not hugely often but often enough, the "sources" dumped into an AfD will be garbage and the reason they don't make it into the article is that they're actually useless for that. The purpose there is not to improve the article but just securing a "keep" result by throwing shade at nominators and delete !voters who are so bad at BEFOER they didn't see all these blog posts, advertising pamphlets, inaccessible google snippets, and partial text matches to some of the words in the title. Reyk _YO! 22:41, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
• Here's a real solution: If an article is nominated for deletion, appropriate sources are identified (speaking to Reyk's reasonable objection, above), and the article is kept after the discussion, then the nominator must incorporate those sources into the article in question before opening an AfD on any other article. Since very few articles are kept at AfD, this shouldn't be a burden on any nominator who does any amount of WP:BEFORE work, should it? Jclemens (talk) 04:35, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

  That seems punitive and probably counterproductive. I've seen sources added at AfD that were absolute pure junk. If seen others that were inaccessible to me online. And some nominators may not feel competent to write. I could totally see some editor pulling up fifty bullshit or inaccessible sources just to make a nominator they think is too much of a deletionist stop nominating future articles. We don't want to chase away well-intentioned nominators. —valereee (talk) 12:57, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

• Well, if we're just going to make up rules here, no, the burden should not be heaped upon the nominator to evaluate a participant's data dump for possibly useful citations. Let's place that onus on the data dumper, in that they may not weigh in on another AFD until they utilize their new sources to improve the current article enough to raise it one notch on the quality scale. ValarianB (talk) 13:01, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Both of you fail to note that your objections mirror Reyk's, and that my proposal already addresses it: appropriate sources are those which sway the consensus at AfD to keep. If there is some anomaly, a DRV would be appropriate, but my experience is that a raft of inappropriate sources is rarely found compelling in AfD. If I'm wrong, I'd welcome counter-examples. Jclemens (talk) 20:05, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I feel like I'm channeling an inner Tom Holland's "oh, we're using our made-up names" Spider-Man in asking, but, were we supposed to treat your proposal seriously, or as something pointy? ValarianB (talk) 20:58, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

First, proposals aren't pointy; actions are. But yes, I am serious about this as being a process improvement. Right now there is no formal consequence for a stupidly pointless AfD nomination that ignores BEFORE and if unchallenged by other editors would damage the encyclopedia, or if challenged ends up wasting a lot of people's time. There is nothing wrong with well-thought out deletion nominations--the ones that do and document BEFORE and propose ATDs are a relative pleasure to deal with, even if I disagree. I'd like to highlight Piotrus' recent work in this area: even if I disagree with some of the nominations, he has been setting the stage for intelligent discussion on the sources that are available. On the other hand, some nominations are so bad that a simple Google news/newspapers search yields plenty of usable and reasonable sources. The goal is neither inclusion nor deletion, but optimization of both the coverage of the articles we do have and editor time invested in actually improving the encyclopedia vs. stupid back-and-forth in XfD's, right? So if a nominator who blatantly fails to find easily found sources is assigned the responsibility for adding them to the article he or she nominated, thus following up on the work of those who found them, then that serves to both preserve the effort made in finding the sources, and guarantees an investment of the nominator in actually improving the article they found wanting. Of course, if they don't want to clean things up, that'd be fine... but with the natural consequence of them not getting to start future AfDs until they do.

But the relative excellence (in my well considered opinion, at least) of this idea is entirely separate from the likelihood that it ever will be adopted, which is low. I mean, sure, it might take on some life as a template "Since the article you nominated was kept, you might consider adding sources found in the AfD..." but that would fail to shame those at whom it would be targeted and would likely be construed as incivil. If this serves as the genesis of a discussion on a more community-supported way to give AfD nominators "skin in the game" for poor nominations, I'll consider it a worthwhile thought experiment. Jclemens (talk) 00:50, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Lets not punish the source finder or the nominator, adding the references to the article is best done by someone with an interest in the subject and with a competence in assessing reliable sources, adding references and expanding articles, Atlantic306 (talk) 15:24, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

As a matter of policy, I agree. As a matter of shaping behavioral expectations, I believe my proposal has merit in encouraging BEFORE work and discouraging nomination of articles that have potential for improvement. Jclemens (talk) 20:05, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

The real fix to this and several other issues would be to base notability decisions on what is in the article. Another one of the problems that it would solve is the hugely asymmetric workload / burden on volunteers at AFD and NPP. It takes about one minute to create a bad title ("article") and then about an hour of volunteer time at New Page patrol and AFD to "prove a negative" to get rid of one that should not exist. Finding sources should be part of creating an article. North8000 (talk) 14:29, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, although I doubt there would be enough community support to make that change.4meter4 (talk) 14:46, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's a terrible idea which would see many articles on encyclopaedic topics deleted for want of a little time spent adding sources. I would support putting more onus on article creators to source their articles properly though (as we already do for BLPs). --Michig (talk) 16:41, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Don't you mean article titles deleted? :-) North8000 (talk) 17:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Michig is correct, but doesn't go far enough. WP:NOTHERE applies to those who aren't bought into WP:IMPERFECT. Jclemens (talk) 20:05, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

• hi Valereee, mea culpa most of the time, i find it is a lot quicker/easier to list at afd then do that and improve the article, for example at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annetta Kapon, getting the info together for my "keep" took around 10mins, adding it (properly referenced of course:)) to the article took over 50, fortunately i was listening to decca's scenes and arias from la boheme so the time kinda flew. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:53, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

  Hey, @Coolabahapple, I think the general feeling in this section is that most people think if you also add those sources to the article talk, you've done what's required to keep the sources from being lost. None of us has unlimited time, and no one should be blamed for not rewriting an article they have zero interest in. But don't just let the AfD close without getting those sources in front of more eyes. valereee (talk) 17:06, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

thanks, will try and remember to do so in the future. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:37, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Requesting a page for AFD

The page in question is Paloma Dawkins.

Provided citations are mostly of low quality or from a website so obscure it isn't rated for reliably, from a quick glance at least one seemed to be written by apparent friend of Dawkins and therefor counts as a massive COI, none really establish the notability of Dawkins as a person and most are about Dawkins' projects rather than themselves. Article is a total of three sentences, has had no significant edits in several years, is unlikely to receive any in the future and has been orphaned since it was written.

Probably should be deleted, a previous deletion proposal undone by the article author which isn't allowed from my admittedly limited understanding. I haven't gone through the first AFD step of tagging the article because I want to see if anybody else agrees first. 109.78.131.54 (talk) 18:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Have a question

I am a user who creates articles (redundant, perhaps), which sort you can infer by my name. I chose to use the AfC process for one article, worried that I didn't have enough refs, but this was later not the case as I was able to find some. it was too late, as I chose to submit to the review and consultation process.

Many of these articles are stubs or *starts*, similar to the one rejected but have not been afd'd.

So... from this the question, is the AfC process tighter than the AfD process? Bokoharamwatch (talk) 12:06, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Link to specific article?

Speaking generally, AFC is a bit stricter than mainspace. For example, we require at least some references before we will approve an article.

Keep in mind though that just because an article of yours in mainspace hasn't been AFDd yet, isn't necessarily an endorsement of it. Mainspace reviewing (by WP:NPPs) has a backlog of up to 3 months. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:15, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

(To answer the question: Draft:gombe kidnap attempt, Bokoharamwatch (talk) 13:30, 8 January 2022 (UTC))

Seems like those reviewers gave reasonable feedback. One said the article should be merged into another, the other said that it violates WP:NOTNEWS. I agree with their assessments. If a kidnapping is only covered for one news cycle, it fails WP:PERSISTENCE. It can still be covered on Wikipedia, just not in a standalone article, but rather as a sentence or paragraph in a parent article somewhere. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:05, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

The process should not be stricter than AfD—a threshold often used by AfC reviewers is "does this stand a 50%+ chance of surviving an AfD?"—but in practice you will find strictness depends on the reviewer a lot, both at AfC and New Pages Patrol (NPP). In my opinion, the nature of the processes can lead to unconscious biases towards the easiest action: at AfC, the easiest thing to do is decline and point out a flaw, but at NPP the easiest thing may be to tag the article with content problems and leave it in mainspace, or to draftify it. The AfD process, which mandates that a reviewer do a thorough BEFORE search (even though this is not done by many reviewers), is the most time-consuming action at NPP. — Bilorv (talk) 13:06, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

My view is that AfD asks "should an article on this subject exist in mainspace?" and AfC asks "should this version of the article exist in mainspace?". This is sometimes not true (WP:TNT, reviewers at AfC who strip out promotional content from a draft and then accept it, etc) but I think it's a pretty useful heuristic for what will/won't be kept. Rusalkii (talk) 20:36, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion on Notability ground

Hello, please could someone list the page Andrew Onraet for discussion on notability grounds as outline on that page's talk section? Thank you kindly — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7E:3438:AD00:A9C0:5E81:5251:4075 (talk) 10:19, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Done Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:09, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

No consensus

Why are articles kept when the vote is "no consensus?" If there is no consensus to delete an article there is also no consensus to keep it. Surely the burden is on the keepers to show why an article should be kept. TFD (talk) 04:16, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

"No consensus" means "no consensus to change the current state of the page". Which for an article at AfD is "the page exists". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:59, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

No consensus is only used when there was a split between keep and delete votes, and neither side had a stronger policy based argument over the other. If you feel there was a stronger policy based argument that was ignored, you can always challenge the closer’s decision at deletion review. Best.4meter4 (talk) 14:45, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

On the fence about this one

I'm not sure that List of last descendants of notable individuals is a worthwhile article. It borders on WP:NOTCATALOG, it's extremely broad, and it seems like a magnet for fancruft & trivia. There's also a lot of uncited material in there. But there might be some value in it, which is why I'm putting this here to see what other experienced editors think. Thanks, all. - Special-T (talk) 14:30, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Besides being insanely broad and sometimes inconsistent with its own description, it doesn't seem to satisfy WP:NLIST since none of the sources actually talks about the topic of the list. They are all either about specific people or tangential matters. So if you are asking whether it deserves an AFD nomination, I'd say yes. --RL0919 (talk) 21:04, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks - I just AFD'd it. - Special-T (talk) 15:10, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I need help to stop delatation process

"Arfius Al-din" page need to improve please help.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arfius_Al-din — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dadu1212 (talk • contribs) 10:42, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

The place to comment is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arfius Al-din. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:04, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

John R. Drake (California politician)

I am an inclusionist on Wikipedia and, especially in the realm of politics, I believe more articles is better. However, I have been troubled by the sudden creation of a badly put together page for a young political candidate: John R. Drake (California politician). This candidate did not receive more than 1% of the vote in their only election, has not received notable news coverage outside of that race, and has never held any public office.

When the page was flagged for possible speedy deletion, the notation was removed and no further action has been taken. I want the consensus of the Wikipedia community on this: should the page be flagged for deletion? It has just a singular source, and it was a source that I added.

In the meantime, I will continue to work to improve the page. I believe that more Wikipedia pages overall is better for our community, and I know the pain well of creating a page that gets taken down. Want to prompt a discussion here. PickleG13 (talk) 08:51, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:NPOL does not presume notability of candidates unless they meet GNG. Found some local sources in the San Luis Obispo Tribune and Sacramento Bee (paywall) but I wouldn't say that's enough to meet GNG. Starting an AfD would be appropriate as there's no obvious evidence that this subject meets notability guidelines. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:29, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:XFDcloser § RFC: Priorities for XFDcloser development in 2022

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:XFDcloser § RFC: Priorities for XFDcloser development in 2022. Evad37 [talk] 00:14, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Second article added later

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caffeine (data page) (Jan 14), I have added a 2nd article Butadiene (data page) on Jan 15. For this I did subst {{Afd2}} and then manually removed its extra code (such as ==-header), looks fine. But what with {{afd3}} in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 January 15? Not done so far, so announciation in there is missing. Any corrections (there) or clarifications (for me)? -DePiep (talk) 12:29, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Mass deletion request - Category:Lists of National Football League draftees by college football team

1. ) This seems to be a WP:NOTMIRROR violation (nearly all the pages cite this as their sole source)
2. ) Is also a WP:NOTSTATS violation (as nearly all of the pages contain no prose whatsoever)

What would be the most effective way to deal with this? Large nominations are not unheard of for categories and category trees, but this many pages for an AfD is not something that is often seen. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:59, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Mass nominations are usually a bad idea because editors are likely to perceive differences among the specific articles. For example, they might think this list (about a handfull of draftees from an obscure school) is not in the same situation as this list (a featured list about hundreds of draftees from a school with numerous championships). --RL0919 (talk) 22:20, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Agree, a mass deletion of these is not a good idea. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:26, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Both of these pages fundamentally look the same. Half of the Oklahoma Sooner's prose is just plain generic and could be copy pasted to all of the others:

Each NFL franchise seeks to add new players through the annual NFL Draft. The team with the worst record the previous year picks first, the next-worst team second, and so on. Teams that did not make the playoffs are ordered by their regular-season record with any remaining ties broken by strength of schedule. Playoff participants are sequenced after non-playoff teams, based on their round of elimination (wild card, division, conference, and Super Bowl).[6] Before the merger agreements in 1966, the American Football League (AFL) operated in direct competition with the NFL and held a separate draft. This led to a massive bidding war over top prospects between the two leagues. As part of the merger agreement on June 8, 1966, the two leagues would hold a multiple round "Common Draft". Once the AFL officially merged with the NFL in 1970, the "Common Draft" simply became the NFL Draft.[2][3][7]

Otherwise, whether the school has numerous championships or not doesn't justify multiple WP:NOT violations. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:36, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I think you may be missing the key point of the advice: "editors are likely to perceive differences". If you mass nominate a group of articles that includes both of these, you will probably not get the result you want. --RL0919 (talk) 22:47, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

This. I don't think I've ever seen a nomination with more than 2-3 pages succeed. I know they exist, but there's like an inverse log relationship between the number of articles per nomination and the chance of a delete outcome. Jclemens (talk) 01:12, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

@Jclemens: I've had success with up to half a dozen to a dozen (ex. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Italian presidents by longevity) when the issue like here is not truly failing GNG but also failing NOT. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:21, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I do think a batch of six is OK, especially if the batch is selected for similarity of the pages. No one is saying you can't nominate these lists for deletion individually or in small batches. We're just discouraging a big nomination – personally I would say keep it to single digits, but different folks will have different ideas about what is a reasonable maximum. --RL0919 (talk) 17:33, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Expanding on comments

I don't think the exhortation If you want to expand on your own comments, add further text to your existing comments in preference to creating a new section is actually a good idea. Editing one's previous comments can make a mockery of subsequent discussion. This is especially true if it is done in response to a valid criticism. If the problem is no longer there, it leaves people baffled by what the later editor is talking about. This can make someone look very stupid.

Also, what is meant by "creating a new section"? It is not normal to create sections within an AFD anyway. Surely it means "adding a new line". SpinningSpark 17:20, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Procedural close needed

I am requesting a procedural close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ernie Toshack with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948, which was nominated by me. Hopefully this is the right place to ask? It's gone way off the rails and I'm tired of hearing "speedy keep, inappropriate nomination". Thanks. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:09, 21 January 2022 (UTC)