Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion

Re-listing

I think re-listing is really getting out of hand. Using just today's re-listings, of the 67 pages at AfD listed today, 31 of them are re-listings. A number of them are second (4), even third re-listings (2). Watching some of the rapidity of re-listings is also showing that some editors are not actually reading the AfDs, but are just counting votes. This needs to stop. If you are not willing to read the discussions and weigh the pros and cons of the points raised, then please stop re-listings debates. AfD is most emphatically NOT a vote. If the only thing you're doing is counting votes, then please STOP re-listing. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:35, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

We have the same issue at TfD. I suspect that one or more editors may be gathering "points" for a future RfA. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:54, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Two or three times a year I consider getting back into closing afds, start looking for the oldest unclosed ones, realize that the ridiculous surge in relistings over the past couple years makes that effectively impossible, and decide not to bother. —Cryptic 02:21, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

• Relisting's been a joke for quite awhile now, I agree it needs to stop, Those relisting should either have the balls to close the discussion or leave the AFD well alone. –Davey2010^Talk 02:42, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I've been in favor of that for quite some time. When I started doing AfDs, a relist was rare, and normally only applied in edge cases where the article had undergone massive changes near the end and some more feedback was necessary on that. Other than that, no consensus was just closed as no consensus. I would be entirely fine with placing a one-relist limit. I've seen some discussions with as many as five relists, and still wound up closing it no consensus. I've really seen enough of that. I'm glad people want to help out with doing NACs, and that's helpful for clear keeps, but other than those dead clear ones, leave it the hell alone and let an admin close it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:45, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

And for the 28th, we have 53 (I think, I might have lost count and be off by one or two) relistings of 153. 23 of those 53 are second relistings. I am pinging the relisters for that day @Jo-Jo Eumerus: @Northamerica1000: @Sandstein:. Not trying to single anybody out, but need more eyes in this discussion, especially from those doing the relistings. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 19:12, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

• Here's an example: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yuri Cataldo (2nd nomination). The discussion received no input, so I relisted it. As of this post, the discussion has still received no input (diff), and the timeframe for a second relisting is coming up. So, should this just sit and eventually be closed as, for example, no consensus or soft delete, or would a second relist be in order? Note that while I have not researched the subject as of this point to determine notability, and my example here is not intended to be an !vote, the subject has received some coverage that is listed in the article (e.g. [1]). What about other instances where articles have several sources, a preliminary review suggests notability, but no or very little input has occurred? How about unique instances, such as when English-language sources about a topic are not readily available, but sources in other languages are later found after a relisting has occurred, per users being allowed time to contribute to the discussion? Relisting does have some merits, in my opinion, because it allows for more thorough consensus to be determined. Relisting also enables more accuracy in the process, versus administrators making executive decisions in discussions that have received no or little input. Such executive decisions are okay, and occur at times, but in my opinion, closures based upon an actual consensus are far superior. Perhaps the source of "the relisting problem" is too many nominations for deletion combined with a lack of user participation in the discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:39, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
• Another frequent relister here. While it is true that we don't have stringent quorum requirements for AfD closes, I generally consider that any discussion should receive some chances for sufficient input before basing a close on only few opinions. Generally, for me that means at least three opinions; however, if two relists don't bring any more input I'd expect particular circumstances to consider a third attempt. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:55, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

• I wholly agree.— Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 03:48, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

• I normally relist up to twice if there have been few contributions. I consider this preferable to a unsatisfactory "no consensus" closure.  Sandstein  20:37, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I think WP:SOFTDELETE should be considered more often, especially for AfDs where there was no contested prod and no comments. Having an article that could have been deleted via PROD sit around for 2-3 weeks because it has no comments or 1 comment seems a bit bureaucratic to me. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:57, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I actually started an RfC on this issue a few months ago: /Archive 69#Treat uncontested AfDs as uncontroversial deletions, which failed. SSTflyer 13:22, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I was unaware of that. Thanks for linking. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:13, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

MultitrackStudio

I'm really confused here. I tagged this article for speedy, but since removed it per discussion with the author. But it may, of course, still be nomd for AfC. What's really confusing is that, per bot, the article was already nominated here with no consensus for deletion. So...how is it that the article was just created today? TimothyJosephWood 15:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

It was speedied on Jan 19 2015 per G11. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:24, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Strange that it should survive AfD and then fail CSD. TimothyJosephWood 15:28, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

The AfD preceded the CSD by two years. We don't know what the article looked like in 2015. I have seen articles turned into gross spam over time. It's also possible that someone saw the same article as AfD and said "obvious advert" and a sympathetic admin was the one who looked at the nom. In any event it's back and I have tagged it for crappy referencing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:32, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Amusing book

Someone (not I) wrote a python script that downloaded the names and rationale for all the non-notable artists discussed at AfD. They put it together in book form.96.127.247.21 (talk) 01:41, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

That was very amusing. Thank you for sharing. Rebbing 02:31, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Direct link for the PDF of the book is here.96.127.247.21 (talk) 03:35, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I bet we'll soon be seeing someone claim that inclusion in this book puts them past the WP:GNG requirements... --Nat Gertler (talk) 12:33, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Essentially the subject will be notable for being "non-notable" on Wikipedia. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:37, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Should this be added to Wikipedia:List of really, really, really stupid article ideas that you really, really, really should not create? Coolabahapple (talk) 17:52, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Theory of Collaboration

Hello, The Wikipedia page identified as "Theory of Collaboration" is marked for deletion. I'd like to suggest that instead of deletion the page be improved. Rather than using only the word "collaboration" consider including the word "cooperation". In 1949 psychologist Dr. Morton Deutsch (Columbia University) proposed a theory of cooperation that is the foundation of a number of successful practices such as, but not limited to, shared decision making, cooperative learning (in education), and Quality Circles. Doyle and Strauss wrote a comprehensive document explaining how to make meetings work by using collaboration / cooperation, entitled "How To Make Meetings Work". Although it was written in the '70s it remains accurate and effective as a productive practice leading to consensus in business as well as education. David W. Johnson and Roger T. Johnson (University of Minnesota Twin Cities) have extended and applied the theory of cooperation to educational practices, to conflict resolution, and to peacemaking practices. DeVries, Edwards and Slavin have also contributed to educational applications of cooperation among students. There is a very long and impressive line of research demonstrating the effectiveness of cooperation / collaboration in educational settings. Often "collaboration" is used when discussing practices among "adults" while "cooperation" is more likely used when discussing interactive practices between and among children and youth.

Deutsch, M. (1949a). An experimental study of the effects of cooperation and competition upon group processes. Human Relations, 2, 199–231. Deutsch, M. (1949b). A theory of cooperation and competition. Human Relations, 2, 129–151. Deutsch, M. (1973). The resolution of conflict: Constructive and destructive processes. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Deutsch, M. (1985). Distributive justice: A social psychological perspective. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research. Edina, MN: Interaction. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2003). Social interdependence: The interrelationships among theory, research, and practice. The Center for Cooperative Learning, The University of Minnesota. Slavin, R. (1977a). Classroom reward structure: An analytic and practical review. Review o Educational Research, 47: 733-650. Slavin, R. (1977b). How Student Learning Teams can integrate the desegregated classroom. Integrated Education, 15: 56-58. Slavin, R. (1977c). A Student Team approach to teaching adolescents with special emotional and behavioral needs. Psychology in the Schools, 15: 77-84. Slavin, R. (1978). Studet Teams and Achievement Divisions. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 12: 39-49. 72.192.155.108 (talk) 21:19, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

You need to say the above on the actual deletion discussion page, not on this page. This page is for general discussion fo the AFD process, not particular articles.96.127.247.21 (talk) 21:41, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I believe that the page you are looking for is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/General theory of collaboration --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:26, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I have now copied this post over to that page, so that it can be included in deletion consideration. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:49, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Kashmiri Proverbs

Hello fellow users. I just came across article Kashmiri Proverbs. I am on the borderline to nominate this for AfD, but then thought I should seek for independent opinion. Suggestions are welcome. Thanks, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 12:40, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I would not nominate it for deletion. It's a stub on a topic that seems suitable and has a good reference. It obviously needs work, but that's what stubs are for, to suggest an article that needs expansion.--agr (talk) 13:08, 7 October 2016 (UTC).

Looking at similar articles in Category:Lists of phrases, it seems like there are a few redirects to wikiquote, a list of (English) proverbs, and an article about Spanish proverbs. Considering that there isn't a wikiquote page about this, the soft redirect wouldn't make sense. The content of the article itself is probably better suited as a list (List of Kashmiri proverbs?) than an article, as the Spanish article is about proverbs as a whole. ansh666 18:38, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks agr and ansh, I think Ansh's idea is good (renaming the page). What do you say? Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:11, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Seems like a good candidate for a list, once it's more than a (tautological) Wiktionary entry. TimothyJosephWood 12:05, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

• So what does everyone suggest? Shall we move the page to List of Kashmiri proverbs as suggested above? Pinging @ArnoldReinhold:, @Ansh666: and @Timothyjosephwood:. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 09:01, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Improve the article first. Then change the name if needed to reflect the new content.--agr (talk) 13:45, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Notability and Deletion

Hi everyone,
I'd like to have an article's notability checked. Is the request for deletion the only procedure to do that by? I'm not really interested in having the article deleted (I don't care if it is either), so I am a bit unsure about how to proceed.
In case anyone wants to know which article I am talking about (I do understand that this is not the place to lead the notability discussion itself), it's this one. The impressive collection of templates on top will inform you right away about some of the article's issues, and I have - after some attempts at improving the article - added a few more on the talk page. I don't expect a lot of participation and discussion over there though. --84.190.85.67 (talk) 14:37, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

84.190.85.67, have a look at WP:PROD, that's probably the best place to start. I don't think our speedy deletion procedure will bear fruit, as, although unsourced, it does make a 'credible claim of significance'. If the prod is removed, and the article is in no way improved, then the 'Article for deletion' procedure remains, although only logged-in users can begin this process. Also, regarding the PROD, article improvement, including the adding of citations, is also an option beforehand._Muffled ^Pocketed 15:08, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Personally I wouldn't start with deletion. Many PRODs don't get looked at, it's a bad idea to assume that notable subjects will get deprodded. Now, is this notable? I dunno. The determination of notability comes down to looking for what sources exist for the topic, not just what sources are (or in this case aren't) already present in the article. User:Joe Decker/IsThisNotable may be a more approachable explanation of what Wikipedia is looking for, and it's all about the type of sources that have deep coverage on the subject. Finding sources, possibly non-English ones, can be a non-trivial task. You could also ask folks at the relevant WikiProjects, such as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Companies, for guidance. Best of luck! --joe decker^talk 15:18, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Mmmm, briefly looking for sources, though, I'm not optimistic about this one being notable. --joe decker^talk 15:34, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. Blogs galore! and passing mentions. _Muffled ^Pocketed 15:36, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

There isn't really any mechanism for raising concerns about an article's notability other than tagging with {{notability}}, raising the issue on the article's talk page or nominating the article for deletion. There used to be WP:N/N but that's now historical. I suppose you could try WikiProject Notability. From a very brief look I agree this subject doesn't sound very notable. Hut 8.5 16:03, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I would think that a company operating for over 100 years likely has something written about it. I've taken the liberty of tracking some sources down, using the name the company uses on LinkedIn. I've applied them to the page as bare translated links, and pending approval by better eyes than my own, I'll format them correctly and scrub out the COI cruft. BusterD (talk) 18:25, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

They do appear to be PR for the company, though some of the news outlets seem at first glance to be RS. Still think a company around for that long has to have been written about somewhere. Newspapers.com and JSTOR have nothing. Unless sources are found, I could see this up for deletion at some point soon. There are better searchers than myself, especially in the arena of WP:ORG. BusterD (talk) 18:41, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for all your replies!

I too would have expected a company that old to have some literature around, but so far, the article drew a blank. I must admit that my personal involvement with the article will not go so far as to search Spanish libraries for sources, and so I tried to find what I could on the internet - which was near zero, except for that one online shop and a couple of WP mirrors.

BTW, I am all in favor of article improvement, which is why I started out that way. There is only so much you can do without sources though, and it's not so much fun putting a lot of effort in an article that is eventually going to get deleted anyway. Also, I must admit that I find it somewhat annoying when someone dumps something like that here and leaves it to well-meaning users to make an article of it. No company information, no sources, dubious notability... hm.

Thanks to BusterD for that research. For some reason I can't see the translations, but my limited knowledge of Spanish leaves me with the impression that at least the first two might be o.k. as sources. I can't quite figure out No. 3 and No. 6, and No. 4 looks a bit like a promotional magazine. No. 5 appears to actually have some company information and numbers, which are completely missing in the article up to now.

It also helps to have the original name, though there isn't any article by that name in the Spanish WP either. Why isn't that the name of that page, BTW? Shouldn't it be? --84.190.85.67 (talk) 21:12, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi again,
I stumbled upon another one that basically raises the same question. The thing is, I am not at all interested in having this deleted, but nonetheless, I do have my doubts about the notability of this group, with its mentioning each individual name of six private persons as founding members and the invention of the two-table potluck system.
I am still a bit at loss about how to proceed in such a case. I looked at the WikiProject Notability recommended above which seemed like a good idea for this situation. But a page that keeps maintenance lists from 2008 does not seem very promising. --84.190.89.103 (talk) 16:55, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks 84.190.89.103 for the heads-up here; I've had a tinker with your other one. Cheers! _Muffled ^Pocketed 17:41, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Whew! If you call that a tinker, I wonder what you do when you seriously rework an article! :-)

The article certainly is much more encyclopedic now. Though, strictly speaking, the question of notability remains unanswered. --84.190.89.103 (talk) 21:02, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Transwiki-ing original research.

The sister project to Wikipedia, Wikiversity exists. I hope that more original research is transwiki-ed there rather than just being deleted. Michael Ten (talk) 22:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Strategy for seventeen stub articles mirroring main article?

@Mojo Hand and Dallyripple: A series sub-articles now totaling seventeen have are created without discussion made up of copy-paste mirror of the main article Virginia Conventions. There is no additional research associated with any sub-article. They are listed at the disambiguation page Virginia Convention.

One can imagine expanded discussion in the sub-articles in the future addressing the historical context of each convention, and greater elaboration of the following events, including more detail on their Constitutions than is addressed in the main article Virginia Constitution and its subsection on “Historic constitutions”.

One can imagine each sub-article noting that the main article is Virginia Conventions and linking the participants directly to the sub-articles, generally ten to thirty members for each of the seventeen Conventions with biographical stubs or better presently on Wikipedia.

But none of this was discussed, and at first I objected to their creation. But now I would prefer to consult for a larger policy view of the situation. Should they all be remerged or redirected to the main article Virginia Convention, with the disambiguation page Virginia Convention redirecting into each main article subsection? Or should time and space be allowed for the expansion of each sub-article, simply tagging them that they need expansion? Thanks in advance for any input. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:36, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I'd suggest discussing this on the article talk page. It is very common to split large articles up into shorter sub-articles, but the decision as to whether to do so in any particular case is down to editorial judgement. Hut 8.5 14:54, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

@TheVirginiaHistorian: This edit will not have notified either Mojo Hand or Dallyripple, because modifying an existing post is not sufficient: you need to make a new post which includes the links and your signature, all at the same time. However, this edit will have notified them. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:00, 25 October 2016 (UTC)