Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion

Part Time

Hi, someone at the Teahouse suggested I come here to ask if the article Part Time should be deleted. He also said "Personally, I think the article should be deleted." I agree. Anyone else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.125.177.124 (talk) 16:16, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Have you read through WP:BEFORE or WP:DEL-REASON? And specifically around musical acts, WP:NMUSIC. Ideally, it would be best if any rationale for deletion could be articulated using policies and guidelines, and we don't know at this moment whether the article couldn't be improved with better sources.

At a quick glance, I can't say that it looks like a good article. Most of the search results I found ended up containing quotes of the WP page, and the others were blog posts, promotional in nature or were completely unrelated to the subject. p.s. when commenting on talk pages, etc… try and remember to sign your posts by typing four '~' characters (or click the button in the editor). ogenstein (talk) 00:05, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I took a look and to me there are obvious issues that I addressed on the talk page. That would be the location to address issues and seek solutions, or request comments that might include seeking an AFD. Otr500 (talk) 02:54, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

No link to discussion in app

When an article that has been listed at AfD is viewed in the Android app, there is a message "This page is being considered for deletion on accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy." The only link is to Wikipedia:Deletion policy, and there is no easy way to find the discussion. I don't have any way at the moment to work out why this is happening. Awkward42 (talk) [the alternate account of Thryduulf (talk)] 20:11, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Adding an alternative: Ask the relevant WikiProject for advice

I'd like to see something like this added to WP:BEFORE. If you aren't sure whether to nominate an article for deletion, you can ask an editor with an interest in the topic. For example, it may be difficult for you to assess the notability of an academic journal if you don't have access to the indexes and databases that can help assess notability. Ask at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Academic journals

• As an example of the dialog that can go on before an article is created or goes to AfD, take a look at the Istorija section at the bottom of https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Academic_Journals&oldid=898237895#Istorija The link Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Academic Journals#Istorija will also work until that section gets archived. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:11, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Please complete nomination

Can someone please complete the nomination for deletion of Kiwi Pro Wrestling? I have put the reasons for deletion on the talk page. 2001:8003:594A:6800:808A:2E4A:F0DE:B8DC (talk) 06:18, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done TonyBallioni (talk) 06:27, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks heaps! 2001:8003:594A:6800:808A:2E4A:F0DE:B8DC (talk) 06:38, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Please complete nomination

Please complete the nomination for deletion of Atlantic International University. Its been deleted twice prior but it keeps being created on Wikipedia. See here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Atlantic_International_University. [ Lewistheeditor (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:47, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Restored this deleted request (see history - a "bad faith" allegation with zero evidence is no reason to delete other editors' messages). No stance on the request. Someone uninvolved should look into it please. GermanJoe (talk) 22:50, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

And restored again. I have no opinion on this case either, but he IP should not be deleting this post and the talkpage posts. Meters (talk) 23:12, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

 Not done Bad faith nomination. University established as notable and not fake as alleged in others edits here and here seeking to delete the article that way. This AfD request is no different. (Happy now, you two??) 2001:8003:594A:6800:E548:78F9:A5F7:C787 (talk) 23:51, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi,

I'm providing information as to why this article should be considered for speedy delete. The school does not meet WP:ORG, and Wikipedia has a explicit guideline concerning schools/universities and secondary schools must satisfy WP:ORG.This appears to be original research, coming from the schools web site; unreliable sources from directories; non-reputable articles from African, and Oman news papers. Moreover, this school has previously been deleted twice before. This will be the third nomination. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Atlantic_International_University_(2nd_nomination)Lewistheeditor (talk) 16:29, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't see any valid reason for a speedy deletion (I cannot see the deleted versions so I cannot verify that this version is substantially different from what what was previously deleted, but the author claims it is an independent article). Questioning the organization's notability is not sufficient for a speedy. The article makes a credible claim of notability, and that is all that is required.to avoid a speedy on notability grounds. I disagree that all of the independent sources are non reliable. They are not great sources about the organization, but that's a matter for AFD, not speedy. And a degree mill, if that's what this is, may indeed be notable if the sources exist. Notability has nothing to do with whether any organization is respected, or liked, or successful, or non-fraudulent. Meters (talk) 18:37, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Please complete nomination

Can someone please complete the nomination for deletion of Slade Mercer? I have put the reasons for deletion on the talk page. 2001:8003:594A:6800:B4D4:8F80:7EAE:5041 (talk) 07:47, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slade Mercer --DannyS712 (talk) 07:54, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Please complete nomination

Please complete the nomination for deletion of Howie Hawkins 2020 presidential campaign. The campaign is not notable enough for an article. 99.203.14.6 (talk) 06:16, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

The page has been redirected to Howie Hawkins. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:47, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Alternatives to deletion

Several times I have run into AFD discussions closed with an Admin admonishment that AFD is the wrong venue for merge proposals. AFD is a venue for discussing if an article should have stand alone status on Wikipedia. This project, in the opening paragraph of the lead, explains: "Common outcomes are that the article is kept, merged, redirected, incubated, renamed/moved to another title, userfied to a user subpage, or deleted per the deletion policy.". There is a sometimes overlooked fact that any option decided on except "Keep" is a delete of that subject as a stand alone article and any option other than "Keep" or "Delete" is an al

The Deletion policy covers this under the section Alternatives to deletion and specifically under the subsection on "Merging" that particularly mentions the option of merge or delete.

While most cases of potential merging should and can be handled through the normal merge request there may be reasons to seek AFD. When certain policy issues are involved like What Wikipedia is not then this should be considered paramount to "Merge doesn't belong at AFD", that is simply not correct.

• A better statement would be "AFD is not cleanup" but even that essay states "...but if a page is failing Wikipedia policy, it should be discussed and fixed.".

Other reasons could possibly involve local consensus or possibly even project consensus, not being in-line with a more broad community consensus. A main issue is that consensus is not a vote but many times is equaled to one. If there are 2 delete !votes and one editor feels the article does not deserve stand alone status, but may consider a merge a better option as an alternative, a merge !vote will likely result in a "Delete". The same can happen in the reverse when "Keep" is decided on because "AFD is not for merge discussions".

What brought me here was a Article for deletion discussion (pinging those involved) that even included an admin weighing in for "Merge". We could attempt to psychoanalyze if the Nom actually changed his\her mind, opting for an alternative, or just trying to use AFD for cleanup. I am not disputing the closing, that could have been handled by contesting it, but the confusion that an essay brings to the table results in a mixture of decisions possibly not supported by policy or consensus. I do believe that what could amount to mass nominations either way, that might include deletion but also alternatives, can be handled at AFD. Otr500 (talk)

Is merge an option at AFD?

If merge is a viable option to deletion, as seems apparent by the above links that include policy, then using the rationale of an essay to squash clear consensus seems detrimental to the process and needs far more clarification. Otr500 (talk) 11:14, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

• AfD is a venue for discussing whether articles should be deleted. If a nomination to delete an article is made and a consensus to merge subsequently emerges from the discussion, that’s fine. Nominations that propose a merge are not fine, these belong on the article talk page. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:42, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

  Malcolmxl5, I included the article since I wasn't sure of the target. Also, it was borderline GNG to me so it can be merged or redirected. Or even deleted. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:10, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

• This seems to be a consistent source of disagreement, as for many years different policy pages said different things. The last time we discussed it on this page, there was a clear consensus that AfD is an appropriate venue for discussing contested redirects, and the policy pages were updated accordingly. I think we can apply the same logic to merges. – Joe (talk) 13:29, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  • No we can't, merge disputes are classic content disputes that keep the article around, whatever the result. If nobody wants the page deleted or redirected, then AfD is not the next step in resolving that dispute. Iffy★Chat -- 13:50, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Making "AFD" From "Articles for Deletion" to "Articles for Discussion" (as to include merge, split and other things) is a WP:PEREN. The rationale is that any of the other options do not require the admin bit to execute, whereas deletion does. --Masem (t) 13:55, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

• I don't believe that an AfD should be open as a merger request, we have procedures for doing that which are IMHO preferable. But yes, merge is an acceptable outcome instead of deletion or keep. Doug Weller talk 15:55, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

• Doug Weller, I had a feeling AFD is used where the target of the merger is unknown but the article doesn't pass GNG. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:23, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

• Tyw7 in such cases it's still a deletion discussion, with merge being an option only if someone finds a suitable target. If you know a target you should start a merge discussion. Doug Weller talk 16:56, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

  Doug Weller, this is what I suggested at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nike-Nike but the "merge" votes counted as "Keep" --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 17:47, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

• @Tyw7: Merge !votes are not inherently counted as keep !votes or as delete !votes. Also, AfDs are not a vote count, the closer in the AfD you link to could have treated the Keep !voter's argument with more weight than the merge arguments. Iffy★Chat -- 18:05, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

  Iffy, well the closer says "The result was keep. There is clearly no consensus to delete this, even from the nominator. AfD is the wrong forum for merge proposals. Please use article talk."

  So it's obvious that the admin counted "merge" as "keep". --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:12, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

• You can always contact the closure on a case like this and say "Do you feel the consensus was for a merge?" or other similar questions. Hopefully, they would agree, amend the close message, and thus give you the appropriate start to BOLDy merge as necessary using the AFD or the closer's add'l comments as the reason. We would want closures if they see something that is like a merge or redirect, or other similar non-admin post-close action, to be clear if there was consensus for that in the close, but that doesn't always happen. What I think I am trying to say is if that if it is clear the AFD backed a merge option as consensus, you shouldn't have to initiate a merge discussion on the article's talk page, but should be able to rely on the AFD closure to spell that out. --Masem (t) 18:19, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

• @Tyw7: if I think an article isn't notable but can be merged I vote "Delete and merge". That makes it clear. Doug Weller talk 18:31, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

’Delete and merge’ is rarely an option because the history of the ‘merged-from’ page is required for attribution purposes. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:07, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

• I wish I was more modern on the comment indention. I so like the possibly archaic "same author same indention" for: 1)- the ability to identify the respondent, 2)- so the page doesn't float to the right so fast.

I like the solution per Doug Weller ("Delete and merge") but it seems a redundant patch solution considering the realization that even the newest editor to AFD should have read the lead. Then again, I have run into AFD closing admins that either missed this and champion that any move to mention merge is not relevant to AFD, OR per Tyw7, that a merge consensus could be considered a keep. I don't argue that a merge can not be construed to be more close to a "keep" than "delete" because any "too close to call" should be "no consensus.

Since consensus can change it seemed irrelevant of past decisions, since practice can actually lead to change that causes policies and guidelines to be outdated. I think the proper procedure would be to seek such a change through the proper channels but bureaucracy sometimes slows things and necessitates periodic discussions. This is not just for clarity of current policies and guidelines but determine if "change" has in fact occurred and the several pages affected need updating to reflect this, or that consensus by silence ends when the silence is broken as contested.

As far as I understand, the entire concept of Wikipedia revolves around consensus. An argument as presented by User:Iffy was negated by the closing statements that "AfD is the wrong forum for merge proposals. Please use article talk". As far as I understand in closing procedures an "admin will determine if consensus exists, and if so, what it is". The leaning towards some idea that mergers can only be handled by a merge request or that consensus cannot determine a result at AFD is not policy based. I agree that AFD is not the place to start a merge discussion but as evidenced above, unless changed, merge does show to be one option in a deletion discussion. That is the issue and is also the question of this sub-topic. Otr500 (talk) 05:59, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I chanced upon this - on watchlist but don't usually read unless I am involved. I need/want to nominate a permastub/GNG/Geoland failure for merge to a long-standing list article created exactly for the purpose, but the originator is traditionally hostile; it's been mentioned at Talk two years ago, and I need an admin-weight presence to mitigate any potential hostility (meat puppet and racist allegations against me, for instance, again years back). So anticipating more of the same (a tirade ensued at Miscellany for deletion in April). Therefore 'fresh eyes' are needed, so AfD with preference for redirect is the way; avoiding canvassing to obviate allegations of meatpuppetry; if few editors are/would be involved in an article Talk/merge, a venue outside of the 'norm' is needed.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 21:14, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

@Rocknrollmancer: I have not seen anything on what you are commenting on. Nobody seems to have commented and without diffs I would have to explore. A problem is the implications of drama. Unsubstantiated allegations of meat puppet and racist allegations would be serious on my part either requiring a total solution or the more extreme of finding something else to do with my time. A step towards assuming good faith would be not having concerns of what happened in the past, and if it arises again, not being drawn into any drama web but seeking a final solution. I do not have near the edit history of some, but I have been around a little while, and suppose I have been blessed or lucky, or maybe just good at avoiding drama. There has certainly been some trying incidents but I have not had a bad experience. As far as "avoiding canvassing" that is not hard because those with opinions from both sides of the isle are required for true consensus. I certainly can live without encountering anyone "traditionally hostile" and feel Wikipedia is not the place for any "hostilities". 14:43, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I can understand it's difficult to absorb when outlined as an abstract example; this (absence of detail) was deliberate, to highlight that an article Talk page suggestion for merge may not be adequately controlled at that location, and to give a reason why. A final solution would be desirable - that is a topic ban for the defiant, hostile individual (actually WP:SPAs - note plural - got away with it!); there was a block-threat regarding the 'racist' aspect and other rants two or three years ago. This is historically a bad faith individual who gets away with it, and wants me blocked. I have to avoid interaction with this editor - almost a self-imposed Iban. I cannot be more specific, publically. I'm also seeing some other concerning posts (eg., see WP:FRAM, "I have taken a look at several conflicts you’ve had over the years with other community members as well as Foundation staff, and I have noticed increasing levels of hostility, aggressive expression—some of which, to the point of incivility...). Again, I chanced upon this as I have BU Rob 13 Talk on my Watchlist, but don't understand any of it (or similarly this), and it will take all my time to try to grasp, considering the verbosity. I hope that from these examples that you may be able to infer why I have to be vague? Hostility is IMO endemic and escalating within WP, and this is just one reason why I seldom now submit much in the way of prose - the potential risk for time-consuming 'drama' is unacceptably high. Which was the point I was trying to make - a deletion-venue, mooting a preferential merge discussion, as potentially a more-policed sequence, with un-involved individuals, rather than those with an interest in the dedicated topic-area only, at article Talk. I hope I haven't made things more unclear, but I suspect I have.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 00:50, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Things can seem abstractly tragic and I am glad that ARBCOM does not appear to be afraid of some kind of reprisal that you seem to fear. This is above my proverbial pay grade but I think transparency is important in politics no matter if in the real world or the Wikipedia editing world. Otr500 (talk) 03:22, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Articles for discussion (again)

Poorly advertised because of the weird name in the header, but renaming AfD to “Articles for Discussion” is being talked about again with someone thinking there’s consensus at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Rename_"Articles_for_Deletion"_to_"Articles_for_depublication". TonyBallioni (talk) 16:51, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• Discussion was subjected to an early close because there is overwhelming consensus against any change. Otr500 (talk) 03:08, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Nominator unwilling to notify users who monitor AfD discussions about nomination for deletion

As the Nominator for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saint Thomas Anglicans will not complete step 3 of the nomination process despite being reminded of it, could someone kindly complete step 3 (Notify users who monitor AfD discussions)? I would have tried to do this, but the irony is that, I believe this nomination is ill-conceived and argue for keeping this article. Regardless, it is irresponsible to leave the article tagged forever without notifying anyone about it.--Tharian7 (talk) 07:06, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done, I've added it to today's AFD log. Iffy★Chat -- 08:56, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Please complete nomination

Please complete the nomination for deletion of Paweł Urban. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.177.1.164 (talk) 15:28, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:41, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Please complete nomination

Please complete the nomination for deletion of Club X: In May the PROD was disputed by Michig claiming obvious notability, and I found the first and only reference for an upgrade from {{unreferenced}} 2011 to {{refimprove}} 2019. That's in essence all that happened since 2011, and in a quick WP:BEFORE plausibility check today I only found two references confirming NN as successor of Network 7 or The Tube:^[1][2] –84.46.52.138 (talk) 06:17, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Anna Ben

I would like to nominate the page for AFD. Could someone please help create AFD. Reason: "WP:1E, notable only for one film. There's no guarantee that she would continue to appear in notable roles in future. For now, it WP:TOOSOON". 137.97.73.32 (talk) 12:10, 8 July 2019 (UTC)