Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion

A bold but I think obvious addition

Someone who spends too much time at Afd, I was surprised to see a certain point about Afd format not in the guide. It's so surprised me, and I thought it was so obvious, but I have gone ahead that I have just gone ahead boldly entered it. If anyone has a problem, please revert and we'll discuss. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:41, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

• @TonyBallioni: -- thanks Tony! Just rushing here, doing too many things at once. Well I guess we see why I shouldn't be writing policy! :-) thanks for the key typo fix... Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:45, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Not a problem. As to the edit itself: I think the guide does kind of imply already the point when it says You can explain your earlier recommendation in response to others, but do not repeat your recommendation on a new bulleted line., but I also don't see the harm in making it extra clear not to !vote 5 times. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:49, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

God, there it is. My eye just missed it. No, it shouldn't be in two places so I just modified the existing line a little. See if this works. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:55, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I have no objections to your most recent change. Concise and makes the point clear. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:56, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

No, I think it actually makes it worse Tony because a wikilawyering editor may try to claim it only applies to those two options. So I pulled those. I think things were pretty much fine the way they were. My apologies for wasting your time. I should have opened a discussion here first. Lesson learned. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:58, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that edit. The edition of bolded makes it clearer. Agree with keeping d/k out of it, since AfD can get the Wikilawyers involved. Thanks for your initiative here. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:02, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

• Although I think I did manage to make one actual improvement: there's still the addition of "bolded" in "...but do not repeat a bolded recommendation." Because editors can and do reiterate recommendations in the Afd exchange. It's only repeated bolding of same that is discouraged. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:05, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
• Noting that the custom against repeating only applies to recommendations, and not to other types of common bolded statements, like comment, update, question etc. – Uanfala (talk) 21:08, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes and I thought that was clear enough. But want me to try adding a second line? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:10, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't go into that much detail. We should leave enough to common sense. – Uanfala (talk) 21:36, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
      • I agree. We've used the term "recommendation" here -- and not "comment" -- very deliberately. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:38, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Article may not meet notability requirements

Józef Juraszek Ślopek doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG. Only thing I found was a blurb from the 1970s. Didn't nominate for deletion since it has been around since 2009 and maybe Polish sources exist. AuroralColibri (talk) 10:49, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm confused. If the article subject is not notable, it must be deleted. If there are enough Polish sources to push it over GNG, it can be kept. A deletion nomination would have been the perfect place to find out whichever is the case (unlike this talk page). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:57, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Since when is that a reason to nominate at Afd

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Omer Dekel User:DarjeelingTea nominated the Omer Dekel article for stated reason "not really certain Professor Dekel passes our GNG". As I understand things, unless a nominator is sure an article does not meet criteria, they should refrain from nominating them. Debresser (talk) 11:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

This message makes an amusing contrast with the message thread immediately above this. However, holding someone to be absolutely certain that something does not meet GNG before requesting deletion is not a reasonable standard, as an editor cannot possibly check every possible reliable source; one can go by what is in the article and what one can find online and find a lack of evidence of notability, but should be open to the idea that there is notability to be found elsewhere and it may be put forth during an AFD discussion. While some may put it forth in different ways, saying "Fails GNG", "I'm not finding any sources that makes this meet GNG", and "not really certain subject passes GNG" suggest more different communication strategies of the editor rather than making factually different statements. (Having said that, in any of those cases it would be nice if there was some statement that suggested that WP:BEFORE had been done.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:43, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

There's nothing in life I'm "absolutely sure" about, sadly. DarjeelingTea (talk) 17:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I understand the idea of both editors, but just saying that you are not sure about notability should not be enough. The nominating editor should at least claim to seriously doubt the notability. Debresser (talk) 18:05, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Understood. I've upgraded my concerns from "not certain" to "seriously doubt" [1]. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. DarjeelingTea (talk) 18:28, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh come on, it's all semantics. If there is a question about whether an article is notable, then someone can bring it to AfD, no matter what words they use to describe it. ansh666 19:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Words carry meaning, Ansh666, which is why we have to choose them carefully. That is not just semantics. Debresser (talk) 21:38, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

We should be careful about unnecessarily demanding too much uniformity in the way that matters are discussed; that can have the effect of excluding certain groups. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:16, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Maybe in other cases, but not here. "I'm not certain this passes GNG" and "I seriously doubt this passes GNG" are more or less identical in expressing the nominator's concerns about the article when nominating it at AfD. The degree to which they are uncertain does not matter. ansh666 00:35, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

If an editor hasn't done the work to prepare the community for an AfD nomination, and hasn't yet himself/herself decided about notability, why is that not a matter for the talk page of the article rather than AfD?  Unscintillating (talk) 02:13, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

What particular turn of phrase the nominator has used or how certain we think they are in their opinion that an article should be deleted is much less important than how they have arrived at that opinion. It would really be helpful if nominators were a bit more consistent in disclosing where they've looked for sources so that subsequent participants don't duplicate the effort. – Uanfala (talk) 03:01, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Irish slaves myth

Fyddlestix has used the AfD template for Irish slaves myth but apparently meant it to be a request for a merge or redirect. What's the process here? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

The article was subject to major edit-warring over whether it should exist or be replaced with a redirect (for which its primary creator was blocked), and has just been restored against consensus. Under the circumstances, an AFD quite appropriate. Please let the discussion run its course. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:58, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Question

First I am new to this areas, so please forgive my ignorance. If the article clearly has no WP:RS that means it was approved mistakenly at WP:AfC, right? If that is so, should we speak to the editor who approved something that didn't meet the most minimum of standards? Seems like that would save everyone time. On the other side, I think some of the articles on WP:AfD were nominated and clearly meet the requirements to stick around and no good faith effort was made to reach out to the article creators to fix sourcing problems or look for better WP:RS before making the submissions. That should be discouraged. I'm shocked how many new submissions are on WP:AfD daily, which either (1) got approved and should not have (2) are slated for deletion but appear to have enough WP:RS. My feeling is that if WP:AfC is working correctly, we should have very few WP:AfD requests, right? Am I missing something? --David Tornheim (talk) 05:53, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

@David Tornheim: A great many articles are created directly in article space and bypass AfC altogether. These are the ones likely to have no sourcing. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:57, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN: Thanks for reply. How are they able to bypass WP:AfC? --David Tornheim (talk) 08:08, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

@David Tornheim: Any registered editor can create any page in articespace. For example, if you click a redlink you're immediately dumped into the create article interface. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 08:29, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

BTW, if you want to spend a few hours reading up on the history of efforts to restrict who can create an article, Wikipedia:The future of NPP and AfC is the place to go. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 08:41, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:36, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi David. I have created many articles and not once have I gone to AfC. I have also never had an article deleted or nominated for deletion. I have created articles in two ways. First, as NeilN suggests above, create a red link and then start creating the article direct into article space. The second way (my preferred method) is to create the article in your sandbox and then when you are happy with it, create the red link and copy-and-paste from your sandbox. DrChrissy ^(talk) 13:16, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Just one caveat to what DrChrissy had to say, it's usually a better idea to actually move a draft from user or draft space into article space, rather than copy/pasting, since this preserves the edit history of the page. It's not technically required if there's only been one contributor, but it is required if there's been more, and if a body is going to get into a habit, the one that is always correct is the better of the two. TimothyJosephWood 13:31, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Problem at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 February 19

Can someone check the AfDs at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 February 19. There seems to be a formatting issue in a closed AfD somewhere causing a list issue.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 02:43, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Should be fixed now. Jenks24 (talk) 03:08, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Find Sources AFD template

Would anyone mind if we changed the way {{Find sources AFD}} handles parentheses? When a Wikipedia article includes parenthetical article-title disambiguation, a literal quoting of the entire article title is almost never the best search we're looking for: For article "A B C (X Y)" we get {{Find sources AFD|A B C (X Y)}} which pretty much matches nothing. If instead we did {{Find sources AFD|A B C|X|Y)}}, with each word of the parenthetical disambiguation an additional search term rather than part of a literal phrase, we should be able to get better search results by default. Thoughts? Jclemens (talk) 04:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Seems reasonable Jclemens, but the gain perhaps needs demonstrating with a range of test cases - I tried the links at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danny Duncan (musician): standard web search doing it your way brings up fewer apparent mirror sites, otherwise no clear gain; but when you come to Google Books, the alternative search displays a lot more book references for musical Danny Duncans than the present link. Similarly on Highbeam - 12 listings for the alternative, zero for the present link. The change could be proposed as a requested edit at Template talk:Find sources. As a caution, relevant search results are likely to be thin on the ground in these cases, however you tweak the search terms: that is why they're at AfD: Noyster (talk), 12:32, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• I agree with Jclemens's point. I use a similar template on talk pages now: {{friendly search suggestions}}. This seems to handle parentheses in the way that JClemens suggests. For example, see Talk:John Clerk (physician). I suggest that the logic of these templates be harmonised. I might do it myself when I get a chance but am too busy right now. Andrew D. (talk) 14:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

The latest (and only current, open AfD) in which I've used this is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Imperial Guard (Warhammer 40,000), but it's got a lot of applicability in any cultural media context, where the specific root term is clearly notable: 'common pithy name (tv show episode)', 'creature name (dungeons & dragons)', or the like, which is where I tend to work in AfD most. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All Things Are Possible (Hillsong Church album) (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dukat (Star Trek), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cy (Cylon). In these cases, I actually refined the find sources template further, either based on my knowledge of the topic or after review of the article in question, but I see no programmatic way to do anything of the sort, hence my proposal to parse the parentheses. Jclemens (talk) 17:37, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

"The result was delete."

Is it acceptable, and if so, when is it acceptable, for an admin to close a contested AfD as simply "The result was delete." (or v.v.) with no further explanation. It is usual that both sides have made some good points and it is necessary for the closer to evaluate and judge their balance. "Just delete" gives no indication of this - did the closer make the necessary effort to judge this, or did they just try to cull a backlog? Why were some editors' views rejected?

If there are two sides to the AfD and no overriding consensus, I do not believe it is adequate for the close to close without some better comment than this.

Pinging @Kurykh:, as this is largely in reference to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fictional locations in The Railway Series, although it's a long-running issue. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:01, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I heartily endorse Andy's view. Admins must provide some elaboration as to why the decision was as it was. Even "The result was delete because Delete votes outnumbered Retain" would show that it was nothing more than a simple count of votes, in which case some Users may want to challenge the decision. A four-word response from the closing Admin is nothing more than summary justice. Dolphin (t) 11:32, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

In this case there was a decent nomination and a well-argued but strongly contested keep vote, then a relist to get a better idea of consensus. All subsequent opinions were to delete, with good arguments. A more substantial closing statement would have been nice, but the result IMO was correct. There'd certainly be no chance of overturning it if you took it to DRV. Reyk _YO! 11:50, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

This thread isn't DRV. But no. The nomination has holes in it and the one substantive complaint was fixed between nomination and deletion. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:02, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

That's your view, but the other participants obviously did not agree and consensus was very clear. As I said, a more substantial closing statement would have been nice, but I don't see much point complaining about a correct close. Reyk _YO! 12:12, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

If you find the closing statement lacking then ask the closing admin for elaboration. I think most will be happy to do so, either in talk or in the AfD, as they have probably only used a terse statement as they thought the reason was obvious, and like all of us they were trying to use their time efficiently. If you still find their reasoning lacking then take it to deletion review, but the first thing to do is ask the closing admin.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 12:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. And remember too, quite a few editors only interact with AFD when they have an article nominated. So what might be an obvious close to admins who deal with AFD all the time might not be so obvious to the average editor. Offering quick explanation in the close, or later on request, is a good habit to keep - but it's enough, usually, that the admin is willing to explain their reasoning if asked. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:15, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

A full and complete rationale for a contested close is always a good idea. One thing I would like to see more of is admins explicitly stating why WP:ATD options were inapplicable for things seemingly covered by them (e.g., a fictional element of questionable notability with a valid merge or redirect target). Jclemens (talk) 17:41, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Response by closing admin: Closing admins are supposed to determine if there is consensus to delete or to engage in some other action. The default reason of a closure is that the closing admin finds that the consensus of the discussion is the stated outcome. What Andy is asking me to do is to lay out the rationales for deletion using my own research, which turns me into a participant of the discussion rather than an evaluator of consensus. This is a wholly inappropriate task for someone who is supposed to impartially determine whether consensus exists. Rationales are added when the presence of consensus is debatable and further explanation is needed, but that is not the case here. Andy laid out his keep arguments, and other participants saw those arguments and rejected them. --Kurykh (talk) 01:32, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting. Do I have this right though: you are not permitted to explain your conclusion? Can you then please explain why so many other admins do this? Perhaps they are spending more than a minute on each deletion close (Special:Contributions/Kurykh).

There was no consensus here, certainly not one based on policy. Two obvious WP:IDONTLIKEIT and unexplained claims that the three secondary sources added are somehow "primary". This is not an obvious and easy close, so it warrants an explanation from the closing admin as to why at least some editor's comments have instead been excluded on a reasoned basis. I don't believe you did this; you just counted the bolded words and rubber-stamped it "delete" because you are in such a hurry to bulk close AfDs (thanks for that, as backlogs are indeed a problem). But now when asked to explain this, you refuse because you're "not allowed" to explain why. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:38, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I believe the point Kurykh is making is that the debate itself lays out the reasons for deleting the article. If you're asking them to justify the close with something that isn't in the debate, then you're asking them to cast a supervote - and, at that point, they should just comment and let someone else close. That's not how this works. I'd add that weak reasons to delete that go undiscussed are still reasons to delete - and the closing admin can evaluate them on the merits. But it's not the job of the closing admin to debate those weak reasons - it's the job of other editors. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:31, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Usually, when someone have a question of what a person said, they simply ask for clarification rather than put words in people's mouths and create nefarious intent from thin air in blatant violation of WP:AGF. In any case, UltraExactZZ has it exactly right. --Kurykh (talk) 19:13, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Quite frankly, from what you have said thus far in this thread (the second paragraph in your response to me was very telling), your real problem is with the outcome of the AfD rather than the process itself. That's fine, but that's a WP:DRV question, and it doesn't belong here. Also, if you're trying to imply something from the speed by which I'm closing AfDs (I'm using User:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD, and it's great), then you should say it explicitly and allow me to address it directly. I add explanations when I believe they are warranted or if I believe that my closure will be contentious under normal circumstances, and if you look through my closures like you urge others to do, then you would have seen that I actually do add explanations when the occasion warrants such. --Kurykh (talk) 19:34, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

My problem is with the process itself. I have seen far too many discussions result in a simple "The result was delete," leaving me to wonder if the closing administrator even (a) looked at the article in question, and (b) paid attention to the arguments presented instead of simply counting votes. These have looked like the following:

• Delete - not notable
• Delete - per GNG
• Delete - per previous arguments
• Keep - Since this AfD began, I have added several reliable references to establish notability
  

There may be another vote or two on each side, but the result for this sort of debate is almost always "The result was delete." I would argue that there is a definite need to add a closing rationale, as the first three votes were not even about the state of the article at the end of the debate. If the closing administrator finds that the article should be deleted, he or she must be prepared to explain that decision in light of the sources that have been added. If an administrator is not willing to do so, he or she should avoid working in AfD. Similar situations exist with sockpuppetry, canvassing, etc. A one-word rationale doesn't work, and it's a slap in the face to editors who work hard to bring articles up to the notability requirements. I have pretty much stopped trying to rescue articles, since that work is frequently ignored by administrators who seem to do nothing more than count votes. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:49, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I suggest that where some of the Deletes were specifically based on policies such as WP:BLP that the "no consensus = keep" belief is errant. Where WP:BLP concerns are found by a closer to be valid, then the simple "delete close" is absolutely proper. I further note that "state of the article" is irrelevant to the requirements of WP:BLP. Policies outweigh votes. Collect (talk) 00:01, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, this is a BLP now? Andy Dingley (talk) 01:59, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I believe Collect is talking about the general issue, rather than the specific AfD you mentioned. ansh666 02:15, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I also have a problem with the process. On Wikipedia, we encourage all Users to briefly explain why they are doing whatever it is they are doing, not wait until someone asks. For example, all Users are encouraged to leave an adequate Edit summary on all their edits, so others can see the reason for their actions. Wikipedia doesn't say Don't bother leaving an edit summary. If anyone wants to know why you made that particular edit, they will ask.

I think it is highly inconsistent to suggest Administrators can close a Deletion debate with nothing more than a four-word summary to explain their action. It is particularly inconsistent to imagine that when people want to know why an Administrator made a particular decision, those people should ask, by leaving a message on the Admin's Talk page! Dolphin (t) 11:40, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• One reason why it's good for closing admins to use bare four-word closures is that if they tried to explain their rationale they would run the risk of making it clear they haven't understood the arguments in the discussion. – Uanfala (talk) 02:27, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Collect - I'm not sure what you mean by "state of the article is irrelevant". My concern is that delete votes can be piled on an article that doesn't meet GNG, but if the article is brought up to GNG standards during the discussion, closing administrators rarely seem to pay attention to the delete votes were in regards to what is, essentially, a completely different article and are therefore irrelevant. However, since many closing administrators seem to be little more than number counters, the irrelevant delete votes are given enough credence to outweigh valid votes cast on the improved version of the article. In this sense, I believe the "state of the article" is not only relevant, but of the utmost importance in guiding closing administrators. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:10, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I had specifically referred to cases where WP:BLP is concerned - and in such a case, an article violative of WP:BLP and noted as such in a deletion discussion is deletable. A BLP-violating article with 10,000 "cites" can still be deleted. This is specific to that policy, which is not negotiable. Is this more clear? Collect (talk) 15:40, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

(1) If the BLP-violating text is removed during the deletion discussion, WP:BLP would no longer be a valid reason for deletion. (2) If the article has reliable sources, then it would make sense only to remove BLP-violating text rather than deleting the entire article. (3) Either way, stating the reason in the closing rationale is important. "The result was delete" would still be useless. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:58, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Close as transclude?

From the top of the page:

Common outcomes are that the article is...transcluded into another article (or other page)...

I don't follow AFD extremely closely, but I can't recall having ever seen a discussion closed as "transclude" before. Our transclusion information page includes a link to a discussion where the general sentiment is that transclusion of article content is a bad thing. Should we remove the phrase from that sentence, or is there a more recent discussion regarding this matter? — Train2104 (t • c) 00:44, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I've just had a look and couldn't find any AfD that has been closed as Transclude, ever. There are a few where someone discusses it as a possibility. There are cases where article content is transcluded into other articles, mostly because they both have some section in common and it isn't worth maintaining two copies of it. In any case it clearly isn't a common AfD outcome and I suggest we remove it. Hut 8.5 13:38, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Agree, that does not match any outcome I’ve seen, or even recommended in a discussion. Articles should not normally be transcluded in other articles, it just makes editing them, monitoring them, discussing them harder.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:25, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Agree. I don't remember ever seeing that as a close before. Reyk _YO! 14:59, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Since this doesn't seem controversial, I've made the edit. [2] — Train2104 (t • c) 18:02, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Opening a Second AFD on an article

Hey, is there a template for that? Wasn't sure, couldn't find the procedure. South Nashua (talk) 14:51, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

There should be instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO, but the long and the short of it is that when you create the AFD template at the article, you add (2nd nomination) or whatever to the link - then create the debate at the "ARTICLENAME (2nd nomination)" page as normal. If it still gives you trouble, let us know here and someone will help sort it out. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:24, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Deletion discussion at ANI

Input is welcome at Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents#Call for dissent, which potentially involves the deletion of a large number of articles. TimothyJosephWood 13:08, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Abbreviation AfD

Please stop using the abbreviation AfD. It is commonly associated with a political party in Germany with racist tendencies, which are gaining prominence. They are proposing a Chancellor for the upcoming elections, which would be the successor of Merkel. Even the use of majuscules and minuscules are the same ("Alternative für Deutschland"). --94.217.191.110 (talk) 06:30, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey, hey, we started using it first! Tell them to stop it! ansh666 06:48, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

If only we hadn't freely licensed that abbreviation... we could have charged a fee and funded the site for at least a few hours. Alas. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:39, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I oppose the removal of the page of artist Frany Dejota

I oppose the removal of the page of artist Frany Dejota, collaborate and check on Amazon: Electronic Music Albums and Singles by Frany Dejota at Amazon Roumo Roumo (talk) 07:05, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I've advised this user where they should leave AfD comments. Hut 8.5 07:31, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I oppose the removal of the page of artist

I oppose the removal of the page of artist Frany Dejota, collaborate and check Biography and information about the artist Frany Dejota on Google Play Roumo Roumo (talk) 11:12, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Roumo, the correct place to voice your objection is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frany Dejota. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:05, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Proposing 'Jordan Fung' for deletion

I have completed step 1, and request that someone else complete the deletion process for Jordan Fung. Please see Talk:Jordan Fung for reasons for deletion.220.246.180.78 (talk) 13:52, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done. I've completed the steps and listed this debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jordan Fung and at today's log. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:13, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Hitachi Furyumono

Hitachi Furyumono was a wrong redirection to Hitachi City. I think that it should be deleted. Best. --Toyotsu (talk) 00:24, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Possible AfD

Is Joshua Evans (YouTube personality) notable? I don't see how he satisfies WP:ENT. Social Blade ranks him 18,969th on YouTube, although he ranks 2,128th by subscriptions. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:11, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Need help

I think the article Nations and intelligence should be nominated for deletion. The article has so many problems, som of them is POV, original research]] and SYNTH. The Swedish article on the same theme was deleted recently. EnWP is the only wiki with this article. We allready have the article Race and intelligence that covers this subject. Dnm (talk) 12:33, 11 March 2017 (UTC)