Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion

Afd: Naeraberg

Non notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.187.172.208 (talk) 23:40, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

AfD: Bill_Walczak

Not notable, voted previous as a keep but improve with no improvement. Deletion message keeps getting blanked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dermato1 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

@Dermato1: (I have moved your comment as new comment sections customary go at the bottom of the page and it might get missed at the top). There are three steps to nominating an article for deletion: 1) Put the deletion tag on the article, you have done that, 2) create the article's deletion discussion page, and 3) add the article to the articles for deletion log page. You need to complete step 2 and 3. WP:AFDHOW gives instructions on how to do this. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:35, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Afd: Global Britain

Haven't nominated for deletion before, so thought I'd post here. Subject doesn't appear notable, has no references to reliable sources, and links to outside sources are broken. [[1]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shtove (talk • contribs)

Hi Shtove. I took a a quick look at the article and my first impression is you may well be right. If you haven't already found it, there is a very useful tool called WP:Twinkle. Once you activate it (directions are at the link) it will allow you to do all sorts of things with just a couple of clicks, including send an article to AFD. I have found it invaluable in my editing. If you decide to send this to AfD I suggest referencing WP:ORG as one of the guidelines it may fail. One of the problems is that this org's name is also a catch phrase widely used in the ongoing debate over Brexit which makes it difficult to get search results specifically for this group. With that caveat, I am not finding much in the form of coverage. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:39, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Cheers - will do.Shtove (talk) 21:49, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I've sent it to AfD. See... Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Britain‎. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:57, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Notification of RFC on proposed amendment to Article Rescue Squadron guidelines

There is currently a discussion to amend the usage guidelines for Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list located here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:12, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

List of Qualcomm Snapdragon systems-on-chip

Should this page exist? Seems redundant with Qualcomm Snapdragon and in violation of "not a directory".

I am affiliated with Qualcomm. I was considering nominating it, but I've never really been certain whether it is acceptable for a COI editor to nominate a page, considering how often someone does so to censor criticisms.

CorporateM (Talk) 15:05, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Goldwasser

Resolved

 – Original question has been answered. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:42, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Need some input here... I came across an article, Goldwasser, with just a single reference and a banner placed on the page in 2009 saying it needs more. Almost all the content is without citation. I thought 9 years was long enough so I put an AfD on it. Within moments it was removed by an editor saying "notability isn't determined by sourcing in the article" Huh? I thought that WAS the point. And in any case, does one editor get to remove an AfD banner without a vote occurring? Please help me understand this. RobP (talk) 15:39, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

@Rp2006: From what I can see in the history you used proposed deletion. A PROD is for uncontrovercial deletions and can be removed by anyone. The next step, if you feel the article does not meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria, would be to nominate it for deletion using the Articles for Deletion process. This process will start a deletion discussion where you and other editors can discuss the merits of the article and the policy based reasons it should be deleted or kept.

Before you nominate an article at WP:AFD you should perform a due diligence to see if you can find sources for the article. See WP:BEFORE for a list of what should be done. Jbh ^Talk 16:07, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I have added one source that confirms basic information. As for the general point of "this article is crap and hasn't been updated in ten years" - I understand that, but it has never been policy to delete articles because nobody can be bothered to improve them. Sometimes you've just got to roll up your sleeves and do the work yourself. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:17, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification on the alternate methods for proposing deletion! Poking my nose here has spurred some improvement so I don't think I will go forward wit the AfD at this time. The subject is not of enough interest to me to spend more time trying to fix the article... I have enough on my plate. HOWEVER, since I took the time to look it over and found it severely lacking in quality, and noticing that after almost a decade with the main citation banner accomplishing nothing, I thought it worthwhile to take the time to point out the specific issues with CN tags so other editors don't have to ponder what needs improvement. (You reverted them all.) Why was this "silly"? RobP (talk) 17:10, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Originally, tags were added because editors believed somebody would fix them. Now we have tags over ten years old, they are effectively de facto vandalism, as they stop the reader from being able to grasp the topic without being interrupted with tags. The general "refimprove" will do for now, as it indicates the entire article needs more references. When I'm improving an article, I generally add sources and review content, then when I am getting close to being done, I will often replace the "refimprove" tag with a few inline "fact" tags. These will be replaced with sources as soon as practical, or the unverifiable content will be removed. Then the article is tag-free. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:24, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

De facto vandalism? Wow. Who says? Maybe CN stops a reader from blindly believing claims which are unsubstantiated, and may well be false. And again, this particular situation is approaching a decade in age. And one more point: There is a Wiki tool specifically designed to show interested editors (like me) random CN flags in articles so that they may be fixed. It only works with the CN on text, not on the page banner. See [2]. So by deleting the tags I added and which you call "vandalism", you are actually actively delaying these missed citations from being corrected. RobP (talk) 03:07, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Or you could just search for sources and add them. The single refimprove tag tells editors that citations need to be added generally, without cluttering up the article and making it difficult to read. It's not actual vandalism because the tags were added in good faith, but it makes the end user experience slightly worse, so it has the same effect as vandalism. See User:Ritchie333/Don't overdose on citation requests. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:06, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Again, that's one way to look at, and certainly appropriate for some articles. For other articles, it is merely polishing a turd, prettifying crap in a way that doesn't warn the reader. Anmccaff (talk) 17:41, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, that's one way to look at it, defacto vandalism that stop[s] the reader from being able to grasp the topic; another, and, I'd suggest better, way of looking at them, is that the warn the reader the article is to be taken cum grano, and possibly a grain the size of a BFB. Anmccaff (talk) 18:37, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

AfD: East of England Broadband Network

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:East_of_England_Broadband_Network#Deletion_reasons for reasons of deletion. 2A02:C7F:9659:4500:9158:3C4B:7629:188F (talk) 19:40, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

•  Done, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East of England Broadband Network. Thanks, ansh666 20:54, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

AfD: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monovox

Self promotional band page with sources that no longer exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pink noise (talk • contribs) 01:28, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

When did AfDs go from running for 7 days to 6 and a bit days?

As far as I'm aware, unless some criterion for an early close is satisfied, AfDs are still supposed to run for a full 7 days. Pretty much every day we are getting AfDs closed up to a day early, often with minimal participation, with no explanation. Is this a problem with the 'Closing' link of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion taking people to one day later than it should, making them think that they can close any discussion that started on 'this day last week' irrespective of times, or are people just not able to work out what time the full 7 days is up? --Michig (talk) 19:33, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

• I've noticed this too. I personally think it is best if we just wait until all the AfDs lapse into "Old discussions" (so yes, some will sit 8 days, but it's nbd in most cases, otherwise they would have been speedied). I do close some on the 7th day list, but always try to make sure it has been a full 7 days. I do think it'd be easier, though, if we just waited until the day's log became old. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:46, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Again? Ugh. The main AfD page has 8 logs in the "current" section, so it's not that. Looking through, it seems to be Amorymeltzer and Timotheus Canens (only one, and by 30 minutes, so probably an accident there) who are the culprits this time. ansh666 19:51, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't want to pick out individuals as it seems to be a general problem. I've pointed out to a few editors recently that they have been closing discussions with hardly any input very early. Are people just not aware that they need to leave them a full 7 days? I don't know what the answer is - I don't remember this happening so regularly in the past. --Michig (talk) 19:59, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, that's the reason to pick out the individuals and ask them. Otherwise we wouldn't have any idea why they're doing it. ansh666 20:18, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I've raised this directly with three admins in recent weeks, but as it's not just the odd person doing it I suspect telling each person individually is perhaps not the most efficient way to deal with it. --Michig (talk) 20:36, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Hm, that's odd. I'd be willing to chalk it up to bad math and less-than-careful reading of the rules, plus not knowing of the previous discussions about this (Davey2010 comes to mind, though that was NAC). I agree with Tony - let the log tick over to "Old Discussions" first. If an AfD or an article at AfD was actively harming anything in any way, it would most likely have already been speedily closed. ansh666 21:26, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't mind being called out! I've tried to only close the ones with a strong, clear consensus and only a few hours ahead of time for efficiency's sake, but I take the point and shall desist. Not well done on my part. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:26, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

A deletion discussion should normally be allowed to run for seven full days (168 hours). With the number of hours written into the guideline, the specification is clear. Identify the offending AfDs and the closer. This should be fixed. Trackinfo (talk) 20:03, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Most of the time it isn't worth reopening these, to be honest. At the same time, I do think we should wait and that the easiest way to be sure we're waiting is just to only close AfDs once it hits the old discussions page. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:21, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Rules are rules. I remember being miffed by missing a debate by an hour. Put a count-down clock on the Afd page. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:21, 14 February 2018 (UTC).

Not that I disagree that they should run the full time, but “rules are rules” isn’t really an argument worth making. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:56, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

That being said, it seems that the community has generally frowned on IAR regarding this particular rule. It seems to go back before the AfD running time was even extended to 7 days back in 2009 - see this discussion, for example. FWIW, I supported not having the strict 168 hour limit (or at least not sanctioning closers who violate it) in a certain discussion that I can't find anymore, but I do think that it should generally be followed except in, well, exceptional circumstances. There is no deadline, after all, and there's no harm to keeping the banner up a few extra hours. ansh666 08:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

To be clear, I do agree, unless there is an overwhelming consensus one or another there’s no real reason to close early. Oddly, by my recollection it used to be the opposite, with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old routinely having dozens of things listed. Beeblebrox (talk) 09:46, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Yep, there was a time when AfDs would go 10+ days regularly...and then people (mostly non-admins, including me at the time) discovered the joys of relisting, and now people go through the logs the moment they get to the old section, relisting everything that isn't immediately obvious... ansh666 07:51, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

• Michig does not seem to provide any examples. Anyway, the usual way of challenging this would be to raise the issue with the closer and, if still dis-satisfied, take the matter to WP:DRV. Andrew D. (talk) 10:08, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
• Unless it's WP:SNOWING, it's best to let it sit until it hits the oldafd list. There's no particular benefit from closing an AfD a few hours early. What does happen is you give people an excuse to drag things to WP:DRV. And then you waste more time arguing over silly procedural things like whether it was closed on schedule. Better to just let the clock run out. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:33, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
• Several years ago the problem was more that people would relist debates over and over and over again even after a workable consensus had been reached. Funny how things go in cycles. Reyk _YO! 08:47, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

  Err...that's still happening. A lot. Just people have gotten better at catching and closing 2-3 relist AfDs, so they don't go on for-freaking-ever anymore. ansh666 09:09, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

  We have both extremes - relists when there's never going to be more consensus, and unsafe closes after 7 days with only 2 or 3 participants, often without good arguments for keeping/deleting. --Michig (talk) 09:16, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

• Six early closes by Jo-Jo Eumerus today to add to the list. --Michig (talk) 18:19, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

  I generally close on the seventh day. It probably has to do with the fact that there is no list of things eligible for close other than AFD/Old and that's a backlog list (since it's empty most of the time) and that my impression was that "closing on the seventh day" is the normal procedure for AfD closes, not a down-to-the-hour thing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:15, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

  AfDs should run for a full 7 days as a minimum unless a criterion for an early close is met. What are you clicking on that takes you to the log in question (12 Feb)? I just looked at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Old/Open_AfDs and the latest day listed in both is the 11th, i.e. nothing on there that hasn't yet run for a full 7 days. --Michig (talk) 19:32, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

  The 12th, and I know I am not the only one who goes there (I don't think all these closes fall under early close criteria). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

• Note the second sentence of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion: "Articles listed are normally discussed for at least seven days", and in the "How an AfD discussion is closed" section: "A deletion discussion should normally be allowed to run for seven full days (168 hours)." I would say that's clear enough, but maybe people are not reading it? Does it need to be more obvious at the top of the page? --Michig (talk) 20:40, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

  My own personal theory is that people don't pay attention to the hours because Afd closes are seldom if ever appealed for having been half a day early. I've closed probably over two thousand AfDs and never has anyone complained either on my talk page or at deletion review about it being a couple of hours early. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:57, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

People don't complain because it takes too much effort to grind through the administrative processes. Remember that editors are volunteers with limited time. They don't want to get involved in unneeded administrative tangles. It would help everybody if you would close debates exactly as the rules say they should be closed. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:45, 19 February 2018 (UTC).

I am rather dubious that people wouldn't complain even for a few hours sake. But yes I've been a bit cavalier with the timing, I'll pay more attention to the timestamps in the future. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:32, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Ivan Magrin-Chagnolleau

New to this, but I'm thinking this article, Ivan Magrin-Chagnolleau, does not seem notable. It looks like the only editors have been the subject and a few bots. There are some claims of importance though, so I don't think it would qualify for A7 speedy deletion. Would adding it to AfD be appropriate? Ethanbb (talk) 16:46, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Google scholar shows very respectable cite numbers here so the article would probably be kept at AFD, so it would be better to improve it rather than pursue deletion, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 17:31, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roman Filipov

This discussion is over eight days old, and needs to be concluded by an administrator. The keep/delete consensus is unanimous, which should make the process easier. Thanks for the help. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 00:16, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:58, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Mikael Deschenaux

As an anonymous user, i can't nominate this. 37.157.105.26 (talk) 05:28, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

You'll need to provide a rationale if you want someone else to do it on your behalf. Hut 8.5 07:39, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Michael Mackmin

Michael Mackmin has been prodded and de-prodded before in July/August 2015. One of the two article references however is certainly a primary and the other is a bio from a source which doesn't seem independent to the article subject. A cursory search only finds passing mentions. Notable? Cesdeva (talk) 04:04, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

It certainly sounds as though it doesn’t meet the significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject criterion. P.S. The prod was a BLP prod for BLPs without sources rather than the regular prod that might be used for lack of notability. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:13, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I see, thanks for the links and help. AfD isn't my usual haunt so i've tagged/highlighted the article for notability until myself or another editor gets around to nominating it for AfD based on GNG. Would you agree that deletion requires a higher threshold than A7 in this instance? Cesdeva (talk) 05:05, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

It’s probably not eligible for A7 because the fact that he is the editor of a ‘notable’ magazine i.e. one that has an article, is an indicator of importance or significance (though the notability of the magazine looks doubtful to me too). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:47, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

AfD: The Chiltern School

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Chiltern_School#Deletion_reasons for reasons for deletion. 2A02:C7F:9659:4500:945C:527D:BBD6:528E (talk) 14:24, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• I have completed the nomination for you. Reyk _YO! 13:32, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erin Hanson (2nd nomination)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erin Hanson (2nd nomination) doesn't seem to have been started properly or listed anywhere. Could someone kindly fix? (I'm sure I could learn how, but it might take me some time) Thank you, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:39, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. It'll run for a week from today. ansh666 18:32, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

AfD: Jorge Alberto Rodriguez (2nd nomination)

Hoax article. Talk:Jorge_Alberto_Rodríguez#Fabricated biography — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.90.44.25 (talk) 16:17, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

 Already done, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jorge Alberto Rodríguez (2nd nomination). Regards SoWhy 16:48, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

AfD: JBoss SSO

No references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.13.181.1 (talk) 16:33, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done. Not a valid reason for deletion. The lack of references in the article is not itself a reason for deletion. Regards SoWhy 16:47, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Please, see these two points from the list of reasons for deletion:

* Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed

* Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP, and so forth)

It has been 10 years waiting for reliable sources. I think it is enough time.