Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→How to handle repeated assertions of notability without evidence: I am an unqualified source on whether you were badgering at AfD.
Line 199: Line 199:
::::::{{u|Valereee}}, you've said exactly what I was trying to but in a better and shorter way. I think my linking to the three best sources essay has been interpreted as me accusing Randy of refbombing, which ''very much'' wasn't intended. I was trying to embody the spirit of "{{green|''That guy wants to help me get the article kept and all I need to do is meet him halfway''}}" because I wasn't seeing the sort of sourcing required to keep the article.
::::::{{u|Valereee}}, you've said exactly what I was trying to but in a better and shorter way. I think my linking to the three best sources essay has been interpreted as me accusing Randy of refbombing, which ''very much'' wasn't intended. I was trying to embody the spirit of "{{green|''That guy wants to help me get the article kept and all I need to do is meet him halfway''}}" because I wasn't seeing the sort of sourcing required to keep the article.
::::::All that aside, even ''if'' it was fair to me for ask for three sources (not necessarily accurate), I'm also getting the sense that I went full badger in the discussion. I'll step aside and let things play out. I appreciate everyone who took the time to give opinions and push back on my question. [[User:The ed17|Ed]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]]&nbsp;[[WP:OMT|[majestic titan]]]</sup> 17:12, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
::::::All that aside, even ''if'' it was fair to me for ask for three sources (not necessarily accurate), I'm also getting the sense that I went full badger in the discussion. I'll step aside and let things play out. I appreciate everyone who took the time to give opinions and push back on my question. [[User:The ed17|Ed]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]]&nbsp;[[WP:OMT|[majestic titan]]]</sup> 17:12, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
:::::::Just to be clear, my description of you "haranguing" was not based on any of the AfDs, but simply on your own description of your situations, methods and goals in this discussion: ''repeatedly [...] refusing to give three GNG-compatible sources when asked''; ''I persist in asking Randy to list the three best sources''. Whether your actual actions reached the level of badgering... well, I'd say that I leave it to others to judge, but I don't even think that is needed at this point; you seem to understand not to badger in the future, whether or not you were in the past. -- [[User:NatGertler|Nat Gertler]] ([[User talk:NatGertler|talk]]) 17:44, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:44, 18 August 2023

WikiProject iconDeletion (defunct)
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Deletion, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.DeletionWikipedia:WikiProject DeletionTemplate:WikiProject DeletionDeletion articles

Help for a Japan Baseball template - cleanup vs. AfD?

Hi, In my wanderings around Wikipedia, I found Template:2013 Tohoku Rakuten Golden Eagles baseball team. Of the athletes listed, many articles are with zero sources & a simple External link. Instead of going through all of these one-by-one, I'm searching for a place where best to post a Cleanup Notice? JoeNMLC (talk) 17:08, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ω Awaiting - Only a few months back, I started helping with PROD, AfD for a small number of articles. Am I posting above question in the right place? Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 21:59, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
JoeNMLC, I'm not quite sure I understand what you're looking for. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan (also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Japanese baseball task force, but it's not very active) might be good places to find editors interested in this subject, but most people have projects of their own and probably wouldn't be too interested in taking on this sort of large-scale work. You can certainly use the AfD process if you think a given article doesn't meet our notability requirements, but be aware that article content doesn't determine notability: for example, Shintaro Masuda is a pretty lousy article, but the Japanese Wikipedia version is far longer and has a number of in-depth sources, showing that he is in fact notable. In cases like that, there's not much you can do besides waiting for someone to come along and expand the article someday (aside from doing it yourself, of course). Let me know if you have any other questions. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:29, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftifying vs deleting

I hope this is a reasonable forum for discussing this. If it isn't, please (erm) tell me where to go.

I've been thinking about editors not being interested in expanding the mass-created stubs, which I've seen referenced multiple times in discussions about the whole thing.

I think being able to create an article is a powerful motivation. I think it's why the creator of the articles that are being discussed right now was so into it, and I think it's why people tend to race to create new articles about upcoming movies, sporting events, etc. Maintaining isn't as exciting and doesn't get the recognition.

Does anyone but me wonder if it's possible deleting would actually create more motivation among other editors than draftifying/userfying, and might actually increase the likelihood these article would be recreated well? To clarify, I'm not making a definite argument for deletion. I'm just kind of wondering if it might actually be productive as a way to get editors to consider recreating articles, and I kind of wondered if maybe it's something to discuss. Valereee (talk) 20:02, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This has been raised in a few discussions, although I don't think there has been any firm conclusions. There is definitely a bauble for article creation, which is part of why we get stub spams. For an established editors, I do think creation is often more likely than improvement. This is not just due to baubles, an uncreated article is 'missing', its absence promotes questions that might lead to research and writing, especially if a redlink is spotted. A blue link does not convey this need for action. Conversely, I suspect that for casual editors, piecemeal additions might be more likely. CMD (talk) 01:26, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:ABANDONEDSTUB; I found that it is rare for articles, particularly articles on obscure topics, to be expanded if the creator doesn't do it.
However, in this specific context I don't see a difference between draftification and deletion. If editors want to create a new article they are free to do; they aren't compelled to work on the draft. BilledMammal (talk) 04:55, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating Julian Trevelyan's article for deletion

Julian Trevelyan is descended from Lord Trevelyan, the creator of the Irish potato famine, and has almost certainly written the page himself under the username Friendlyyours137. He is probably not important enough to have a Wikipedia article. 2603:7000:D03A:5895:F5FA:1CA5:3B:8A1C (talk) 17:08, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Partially undone: This request has been partially undone for the reason: Probably nonsense/meaningless request. ☀DefenderTienMinh⛤☯☽ (talk) 17:11, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone relist Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Artem_Kuchkov?

For some reason the relist option in the XFDCloser tool is not working for me.   ArcAngel   (talk) 21:20, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Help listing Coutts Bank

Would someone please help finish the nomination, since IIUC if redirects are opposed an afd is needed to restore them.

Rationale "This is an inappropriate split of a small amount of content that is better covered in the main article so the original redirect should be restored. If someone wants to split some of the revisions to a draft to improve later I think that should be OK though"

Thank you. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:95E2:A362:5B6B:9B86 (talk) 14:33, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Create a nomination, please

Please create a nomination for Mahjong Competition Rules. My rationale is at the talk page. 123.51.107.94 (talk) 03:12, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mahjong Competition Rules. Iffy★Chat -- 13:33, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Way too many Life of Joseph Smith pages

How are any of these notable enough for their own articles? Can someone please do the nomination process for me? 2A00:23C8:7B9D:B701:39AE:7356:EAB9:378F (talk) 11:50, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned in this talk page discussion, Joseph Smith is a clearly notable figure with a long and complex life story. The reason for so many articles is because if they were all one article it would be absurdly long, necessitating a WP:SPLIT. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:46, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The sourcing for some of the articles looks very questionable to me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:48, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Group notice for talk pages?

I've noticed some infrequent but persistent cases where people will attempt to "vote" on an AfD entry within the talk page rather than on the main page. You can see some examples of this here. I wonder if a group notice to try and push people towards the right place would be a good idea, so I've come here to get some opinions on the matter.

I'll be busy for most of this morning, so I'll come back later to read the responses here. Deauthorized. (talk) 15:01, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge?

Hello, I think Agata (dog) should be merged to the ‘Famous Labradors’ section of Labrador Retriever but i’m not sure how to nominate it for discussion. Sorry for bothering you SpookMew (talk) 16:34, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey SpookMew that should be handled through a merge discussion rather than AfD, ideally. WP:MERGEPROP has the instructions on how to do so. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:00, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please create a nomination for this page

Please create a deletion request for the page List of Russo-Ukrainian War military equipment. This page contains a large number of poorly sourced items that essentially treat the page as one long linking list, without much particular further information imparted, unlike other similar pages. This is discussed in the talk page, with a large number of items made with no references or poor sources.

A better alternative to this page would be to use category tags to list the specific sides and use for this equipment, rather than providing just a static unwieldy list, in addition to the two existing well sourced articles on both parties active respective military equipment. 222.152.243.181 (talk) 12:35, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, an AfD is unlikely to be created for that list. Note that among the first sources referenced are sources that explicitly address the variety of weapons used in the war. That said, improves to the list should be made. Instead of trying to delete it, try to improve it. ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:22, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tool for leaving notices on WikiProjects?

Is there a tool that makes it easier to leave AfD notices at WikiProject talk pages? Pinging @A. B.: since I just asked them the same question but they were not aware of any. S0091 (talk) 17:58, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leetcode

Leetcode should be nominated for AfD since it does not show why this website is notable. The only reliable source here is the Business Insider article, which is not enough. 93.72.49.123 (talk) 00:35, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm highly skeptical that a nomination for Leetcode would fail to show notability, but you can tag the article for improvement by adding the {{Notability}} tag to the top of the article. Suriname0 (talk) 15:54, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An AfD discussion and somebody's guess of the outcome of a hypothetical future AfD discussion are different things. 93.72.49.123 (talk) 20:31, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, definitely. You're welcome to nominate it: see WP:AFDHOWTO. I see you already posted your justification reason on the talk page of Leetcode, so you just need to complete step I and another editor should finish creating the nom for you. Suriname0 (talk) 04:26, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. 93.72.49.123 (talk) 04:41, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Sceptic

"If you are unsure whether a page should be nominated for deletion, or if you need more help, try this talk page or Wikipedia's help desk."

So I'm confused by the whole deletion process and am not a Wikipedia expert. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daily_Sceptic clearly qualifies for G10 on the Speedy Deletion Criteria page but someone on its talk page is not just contesting that, they're also defaming the site on the talk page - further evidence that the article has no legitimate purpose and is in fact an attack on a website that posts content that some people do not like.

Because deletion is contested the speedy deletion process doesn't seem to apply but I can't work out how to nominate the article for deletion - or indeed, how to assure that the 'community consensus' isn't overrun by the very people using Wikipedia to attack a website.

Help. 81.110.254.162 (talk) 07:44, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So, two issues here. First, this is a common misunderstanding of speedy deletion. WP:SPEEDY says: "Administrators should take care not to speedily delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases." G10 would be acceptable if the page was purely an attack with no evidence of encyclopedic value. That's clearly not the case here: there is sourced information in the article e.g. about the blog's history. That means WP:AFD is the appropriate process for deletion. Second, you ask about "how to nominate the article for deletion". For that, you should read WP:BEFORE. In particular, I would draw your focus to the comment "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD." If you think the subject of the article is not notable and should be deleted, you would follow the steps at BEFORE and include in your nomination why the currently-cited sources in the article don't indicate notability. Otherwise, you should engage in normal editing and discussion on the article's talk page. Suriname0 (talk) 16:56, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, blatant attack pages pushing political agendas are acceptable on Wikipedia. Noted.
I'll add it to the list of reasons Wikipedia is losing credibility on a daily basis. 81.110.254.162 (talk) 07:17, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If Wikipedia is actually losing credibility on a daily basis, then explain why it remains a top ten website worldwide, with billions of monthly page views? With whom is Wikipedia losing credibility with precisely, and what is your evidence for that assertion? Cullen328 (talk) 07:24, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(here from ANI) If you have an NPOV issue with the article, try to fix that. There is some blatant editorialization (juxtaposing claimed vs explained WP:WTW, i don't care if they're full of it, that's a NPOV issue) that should be fixed, but the page itself is relevant and shouldn't be deleted. DarmaniLink (talk) 11:51, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please complete a deletion nomination for me?

Hello, as an IP editor I am unable to complete the required steps to nominate this page, please could someone perform the nomination for me?

The article in question is Mickey Charles Award

The deletion nomination is as follows:

This article came to my attention when I noticed a TFD nomination for it's associated navbox. Having looked at the article and done a WP:BEFORE search I am really struggling to see how this award is actually notable. The article as it stands contains a single source from The Sports Network, this is not independent coverage because the award was created and awarded by The Sports Network's CEO.

Doing a few further searches turns up a bunch of republished press releases from The Sports Network, e.g. [1], [2], [3] and some posts by the college the winner attended [4]. I can't see any evidence of third party coverage existing to satisfy WP:N. 192.76.8.66 (talk) 21:01, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, 192.76.8.66 (talk) 21:01, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Partly done: Not on the related page, but I've opened an AFD request for you. Check Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mickey_Charles_Award -Lemonaka‎ 01:06, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lemonaka Thank you very much, that's perfect. 192.76.8.66 (talk) 01:13, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should The Crux (band) be nominated for deletion?

I've been looking at the article for over an hour, checking its sources, looking for more information, etc. I genuinely don't know if this is notable enough for Wikipedia. Aside from a few obviously unreliable sources like IMDB and trivial mentions, the vast majority of citations are for one alternative newspaper from the North Bay: the North Bay Bohemian. There are also a few citations for The Press Democrat, another North Bay alternative newspaper. My hesitance to simply nominate the article for deletion myself is because I don't know how criterion 1 under WP:BAND works for bands like this where only a couple local newspapers have covered them. I find no national or state news sources mentioning the band; it's only this specific part of California. Are these alternative newspapers considered reliable? Does this band meet criterion 1 under WP:BAND? AnAbandonedMall (talk) 03:56, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At a quick glance, those sources look reliable to me, but if you have doubts about their reliability, then I'd go to WP:RSN about the reliability of the sources and then go from there. Iffy★Chat -- 17:06, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Afd nomination request

Gilgit Baltistan United Movement please list this article up for afd as I am unable to do it myself.

Here's the deletion reasoning already written at talk page: "No proof of notability of this article, let alone sustained coverage. Had only unreliable references which do not even mention the subject, which were cleaned up by me." 175.107.224.105 (talk) 08:56, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - UtherSRG (talk) 15:47, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Caplin

This photographer might barely be notable under WP:PHOTOGRAPHER because he worked on a New York Times bestselling book about Justin Bieber.[5] He also has at least a few photo credits in the NYT archive. But I've been checking the references in this article and searching for more; only a couple of the given sources might be reliable (a NYT interview and a profile from food blog Serious Eats), and I'm having trouble finding others. I don't really doubt his credentials or work experience, but I'm wondering if the available reliable sources provide enough notability for a standalone article about him. It might be best to move the salvageable information into an article about the book he photographed for, which somehow doesn't have a standalone article yet. What do you think? AnAbandonedMall (talk) 15:54, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest keeping. There's an Observer article[6], this Athens News article[7], Naples Daily News[8], and this from the Columbus Dispatch [9]. Those are just from Google, without hitting the library. Jahaza (talk) 19:51, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, will add these to the article and rewrite based on the reliable sources. :) AnAbandonedMall (talk) 20:57, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

XFDcloser

I relisted 7 or 8 discussions from the 8/10/23 page and they weren't moved over to the 8/17/23 page. So, I had to cut and paste them manually. Is this happening for anyone else? This could really mess up the flow of discussions and result in discussions getting "lost". Liz Read! Talk! 03:20, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so the discussions were relisted. But to the August 16th page, even though it became August 17th UTC hours ago. I've seen this with other relistings that have been posted to the wrong day. Liz Read! Talk! 04:47, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Huh. I've sometimes noticed AfDs being on the wrong page by a few minutes, but never by much more than that. I'd suggest asking at WP:VPT if it happens again. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:16, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How to handle repeated assertions of notability without evidence

I'm at a bit of a loss here, but I explicitly don't want to canvas anyone, so I'm not going to link to any AfDs (and please don't look for them or participate if you're reading this). What's the best way to handle a single editor repeatedly asserting notability across a number of AfDs and refusing to give three GNG-compatible sources when asked? Is it to walk away and let the closing admin judge the keep argument for themselves? Thanks. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:20, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If it is clear that the question has been asked and not answered on an individual AfD, I would leave it to the individual admins to close. Past issues with AfD contributions that extended to disruptiveness have reached the noticeboards, although there would need considerable disruptiveness for such a report to be worth the time and effort. CMD (talk) 04:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If this is repeated behavior, I would suggest taking it to ANI; without seeing the discussions, it sounds like disruptive WP:IDHT behavior, with the editor refusing to accept notability guidelines. BilledMammal (talk) 04:42, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ed's talking about the Ruth Cleveland page, which has plenty of sources, and three very good ones were just added before Ed's post above (actually two of them were formatted by Ed himself). The sources are detailed, plentiful, and right there on the page. The page is even linked twice in today's feature article. If they can be read on the article under review, which they can be, then Ed should admit this and close his AfD without asking editors to repeat cites for him. It should be the job of the nominator to dispute each and every reference on the page, and now the page contains many more references than when the nomination started (and don't get us started on that story). Randy Kryn (talk) 04:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, good thing no one took that to ANI, because that might well have been a BOOMERANG. Really, The ed17, if Randy Kryn is correct in that that AfD is the germane one, I find your characterization of his behavior somewhat at odds with what I read in that AfD. Unless there's been some revision going on to change the tenor of that discussion, I don't see any refusals to cite anything or any assertions of notability that make no reference to actual sources. If he just added two book sources as he said he did, your should be capable of perusing the recent article history to verify that and further investigate those, rather than demanding that he repeat them in the AfD discussion. Jclemens (talk) 05:36, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It should be the job of the nominator to dispute each and every reference on the page, and now the page contains many more references than when the nomination started (and don't get us started on that story). I haven't looked into the AfD, but as a general principle I would dispute that. Refbombing is disruptive behavior, and if after reviewing a sampling of sources the editor cannot find any WP:SIGCOV it is entirely appropriate to ask editors who support keeping the article to list the best WP:THREE or similar. BilledMammal (talk) 05:44, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Although having just glanced at the article, it only contains eight sources - not enough for me to consider it refbombing. BilledMammal (talk) 05:45, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jclemens: To your general point, I gave my personal opinion and avoided mentioning names or articles in an effort to better understand what options are available because ANI is very obviously not suitable for this.
Diving into this particular situation: this is indeed is one of four recent AfDs where, in my opinion, Randy has refused to move beyond assertions of notability without satisfying WP:NRV. I'm unclear how you read the !vote beginning "a prominent individual" and not see a textbook WP:ASSERTN, bullet point 4. In particular, the second sentence is unsupported by article citations.
At the risk of litigating the AfD here instead of on the page itself, I did peruse the book sources after Randy imported them from Frances Cleveland, and neither appear to meet WP:SIGCOV. One is a biography of Ruth's mother, in which Ruth is discussed on several pages in the context of her mother and how she wished to keep her children away from public eyes (I judged that as running into WP:BIOFAMILY problems), and the other includes one short paragraph about Ruth on the page given. (This has also been since been touted as a "major source" even though it includes one single paragraph of background information about Ruth the child.)
So, I persist in asking Randy to list the three best sources they think support Ruth's notability. I don't think that's unreasonable; I'm fully on board with User:RoySmith/Three best sources and would love to see the article kept if we can find the sources to support it. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:05, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You may be fully on board with the "Three best sources" essay, but that doesn't make it anything close to policy, and it is inappropriate to harangue an editor into jumping through a hoop you choose to erect. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 07:04, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with BilledMammal that 8 sources isn't refbombing, and with NG that complying with a request for the three best sources to support a claim to notability isn't required by policy. However, complying with such a request (which should be easy to do if you know the sources) is a good collaborative move in an AfD. AfD should be about persuading other editors, and the easiest way to persuade is to just point to the refs you think best support a claim to notability.
And requiring a nominator to dispute each and every ref on any article at AfD is a real problem when there are editors who do respond to AfDs with actual refbombing. I've seen articles with 20+ sources end up with 80+. Valereee (talk) 12:29, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Valereee, you've said exactly what I was trying to but in a better and shorter way. I think my linking to the three best sources essay has been interpreted as me accusing Randy of refbombing, which very much wasn't intended. I was trying to embody the spirit of "That guy wants to help me get the article kept and all I need to do is meet him halfway" because I wasn't seeing the sort of sourcing required to keep the article.
All that aside, even if it was fair to me for ask for three sources (not necessarily accurate), I'm also getting the sense that I went full badger in the discussion. I'll step aside and let things play out. I appreciate everyone who took the time to give opinions and push back on my question. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:12, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, my description of you "haranguing" was not based on any of the AfDs, but simply on your own description of your situations, methods and goals in this discussion: repeatedly [...] refusing to give three GNG-compatible sources when asked; I persist in asking Randy to list the three best sources. Whether your actual actions reached the level of badgering... well, I'd say that I leave it to others to judge, but I don't even think that is needed at this point; you seem to understand not to badger in the future, whether or not you were in the past. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:44, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion&oldid=1171040271"