Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 69

Archive 65

←

Archive 67

Archive 68

Archive 69

Archive 70

Archive 71

→

Archive 75

Outcomes discussion

There's a discussion here: Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Interchanges which might be of interest to you. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

RE: Carrier Enterprise Canada

Hi folks. Appreciate it if someone could nominate this article for the deletion it deserves.

All text on the talk page of this article acknowledges that this was created by Carrier Canada shills for PR purposes. No reliable sources are cited. The company in question is just some marketing arm of the multinational Carrier Corporation. 121.75.210.240 (talk) 06:12, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Are delete decisions set in stone?

There is a page that was recently deleted even though there were some strong requests to keep it. I strongly disagree with the decision and believe that it should be reconsidered. I know that absolutely nobody will read the talk page although it is still accessible. I already reverted the deletion once and was told off. Apparently the decision has been settled and can never be undone under any circumstances. I am afraid of reverting again for fear of being banned or having the page locked. I do not believe this is a reasonable way to manage pages.

The page is https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fallacy_of_relative_privation&redirect=no

74.109.213.249 (talk) 04:19, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

You'll want to look at WP:DRV. Cheers! DonIago (talk) 05:04, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, 74.109.213.249 please remember that zillions of people have edited WP since it was founded 15 years ago. There is nothing new under the sun here, and the community has processes to deal with pretty much any problem you can imagine. Reverting the deletion decision was a bad move; coming here to ask what to do, was a great move. Please read what it says at WP:DRV carefully and if you file for review, please listen to the discussion that ensues. You may want to re-review the deletion discussion (following the links people provide to policy and etc) before you file. Good luck. Jytdog (talk) 06:22, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Should AFD relists be allowed or disallowed?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should AfD relists be allowed or disallowed? Relevant guideline Wikipedia:Deletion process#Relisting discussions and related RFCs at WT:MFD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.170.46.102 (talk • contribs) 10:02, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

NOTE: I had closed this discussion per WP:SNOW as the creator is banned, however another editor has requested reopening the discussion. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:15, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Allow

• Allow. Our policy at Wikipedia:Deletion process#Relisting discussions is not broken and does not need fixing. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:19, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
• Allow- but encourage AfDs where the only votes are one or two deletes to be treated as seconded PRODs. Reyk _YO! 14:24, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
• Allow - As much as I hate seeing AFDs listed to death which is more or less the common thing here.. there is alot more participation at AFDs/RFDs etc then MFD and consensus isn't always obvious so relisting is needed, Personally I think without the relists it'd just be chaos ... So yeah Relisting is needed here. –Davey2010^Talk 15:53, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
• Allow. If the relisting policy needs tinkering, then fine. But this proposal is overbroad - and doesn't seem to actually address any of the problems people claim exist. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:22, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
• Allow They are often necessary. If there is a problem of overuse, that is a separate discussion. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 16:29, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
• Allow - relists both allow healthy discussions a chance to continue to reach a consensus, and cases on obscure articles which are absent discussion more opportunity to let objection be heard. -Nat Gertler (talk) 16:57, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
• Allow - relisting gives more time for the deletion process to work properly, and gets more eyes on both the article and the deletion discussion. This makes it less likely that bad decisions either way are made, which is surely the whole point.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:10, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
• Allow. Guy Macon has it right - it ain't broken, no need to fix. JohnCD (talk) 14:23, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
• Allow - I don't know why we're doing this. The proposal as worded is apparently to get rid of the idea of relisting? Obviously we're not going to do that. The more nuanced conditions of when, where, why, and what happens afterwards aren't part of the question (and would make for, I think, a more productive discussion if opened separately). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:49, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
• Allow - No argument given why policy and practice should be changed. Robert McClenon (talk)
• Allow. Just like the discussion going on at WT:MFD over relisting, I don't see how relisting a discussion is considered disruptive or in any way favors "deletionists". The only way that makes sense if you believe that every article will eventually be deleted given enough time, when I'd say it's more likely the opposite. Besides, there are discussions where the consensus really hasn't been settled in a week so more time is prudent. The final discussion can always be taken to DRV including a dispute over whether or not it should have been closed differently. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:19, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
• Allow relisting discussions at AfD isn't some sinister ploy so sneak deletions through by proper scrutiny, it just reflects the fact that AfD has fewer participants than we would like and sometimes discussions don't get the attention they should have. The rationale below amounts to a proposal to make it extremely hard to delete anything at all through AfD by massively rigging the process. I don't see any reason to insist on a unanimous verdict of 6-20 people before deleting an article but insisting that discussions must be closed as Keep if someone makes a reasonable argument for that position. Hut 8.5 14:13, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Disallow

• Disallow. Deletionists have enough tools and no one is convinced after a week, then close as no consensus. We need less at AFD not more. 166.170.46.102 (talk) 10:02, 18 February 2016 (UTC) 166 is community banned. — JJMC89 (T·C) 18:41, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
• Disallow the relisting of an AfD that has no participants other than the nominator. Such AfDs should be closed as no consensus. There is a problem of editors flooding AfD with more nominations than the system can handle, apparently in a bid to prevent proper scrutiny of nominations, to sneak nominations through with a small number of participants that do not constitute a sufficient quorum. There should also be a 'cooling off period' during which the article cannot be re-nominated. An AfD that has only one or more valid keep !votes should likewise be closed as keep and not relisted. Allow the relisting of an AfD that has participants other than the nominator and only has !votes for deletion, unless the number of valid delete !votes is sufficiently large that the result is not in doubt (eg certainly not less than half a dozen, and I would really like to see it pushed up to a dozen or perhaps even twenty, in cases of verifiable non-BLPs etc where the only issue in question is the precise meaning of "significant coverage"). This would be consistent with our presumption against deletion. @User:Ivanvector, the proposal is not entirely without support. If no one else has supported this, it might be because it was shut down almost immediately. Most editors won't have had time to even think about what was being proposed. In fact, I didn't even see it till after it was closed. James500 (talk) 01:51, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

@James500: This proposal was created by an editor who is banned by the community and not allowed to edit, and at the time that I came across it not a single editor had expressed support; this was a clear WP:EVADE/WP:SNOW close. If you would like to continue the discussion I'm more than happy to revert my close. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:15, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

• Note: This RfC was started by 166, who is community banned. — JJMC89 (T·C) 18:41, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - If the proposing unregistered editor is a sockpuppet for a banned user, should this RFC be closed as started by a banned user? (I am not making that claim, but other editors have made that claim.) Robert McClenon (talk) 01:10, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

See directly above. I tried that already, but James500 raised a valid argument in support, so I un-closed. This is a real blizzard though. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 01:16, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Move to (re)close

James brings up a good point, but it's outside of the scope of the RfC - if he really wishes to pursue his idea further, it's best to start another RfC about the specific cases, but IIRC there has been at least one such failed proposal here in the past year or two. Back to this RfC: being started by a banned user with no really valid reasoning for his proposed changes and being opposed to such a degree, I think it should be closed per WP:SNOW. ansh666 01:27, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Kanoah Tests proposed for deletion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kanoah_Tests

Why is my article proposed for deletion?

It does have reliable sources, actual people talking about Kanoah Tests

Other editors have submitted similar articles of the same category and nobody proposed these for deletion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TestLink https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TestTrack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HP_Quality_Center https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_Quality_Manager

I feel like I'm being discriminated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amaderna (talk • contribs) 16:47, 22 February 2016‎ (UTC)

Amaderna, this is not an appropriate place to ask questions like this - this page is for discussion of the process more generally. I will leave open a discussion with you on your Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 17:03, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

AfD Plastimetal ?

Sorry folks, not sure how to go about this yet, (yep I know there are help/instructions, but still learning on a steep curve) but perhaps Plastimetal should be listed for potential deletion. Multiple issues as per article tags, which is how I stumbled across it, looking at orphans going back to 2008. I cannot see any relevant WWW references via google but perhaps not too surprising since the company folded in 1998? Eno Lirpa (talk) 14:01, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I think it hangs on "By the late 1960s Plastimetal had become one of the most important companies in Burgos" If that's correct and sourcable, it's a good justification for an article (weak articles on valid topics should be fixed, not deleted). This was the apogee of the company, if it was notable at that point, it's worth keeping. If it couldn't make it then, then I doubt it belongs. es:Plastimetal is no help though.

I think you need the opinion of a Spanish speaker who understands Spanish newspaper archives of a few decades ago in order to judge further.

At present I'd have to vote to delete it (no strong indication to suspect notability, no sources as evidence for it) - but I might well be wrong, as it's outside my language skills.

If you do want AfD BTW, try installing Twinkle (from preferences|gadgets) as it's easier that way than editing multiple pages by hand. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:09, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

the only wayto find out if it should be deleted is to list it at AfD. DGG ( talk ) 23:45, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Help request: Proposed deletion of a first-person essay

I'm here because I'm a version of unsure about Wikipedia:Ignore STRONGNAT for date formats; my gut is certain it should be deleted and my brain is too tired to be certain.

Because of real-life limitations making me unreliable about following-up, at times like this, I have to do a data dump and hope someone else can finish it up. I might even have enough info together, but I can't reliably assess it today. Thanks if you can!

• I think Wikipedia:Ignore STRONGNAT for date formats should either be deleted or redirected to Wikipedia:Ignore all rules.
• It is written in the first person ("As an American of cosmopolitan sensibilities...") by User:ColonelHenry, an indefinitely banned user with a talk page blocked and emptied as well, so he can't be notified and this cannot be moved to his sandbox.
• Its points are made unclear by far too many important-sounding phases, cherry-picked examples rambling on at length, and linguistic jargon.
• For the people who find it oddly fascinating like me, it's already on the Wayback Machine. :)
• The article is often imbalanced and the author seems to feel under attack and also that he's always right, and then doesn't realize his own arguments could be used against his main position. I think.
• Unintended irony and other-people blaming from his Conclusion section:

We are here to share information. If we find ourselves bitching about insignificant format and style changes, we really should reevaluate what our true contribution here is.... The way I write, the format I use, is part of my contributing content. If you want to interrupt that, the onus is on you. There is already more than enough bullshit that keeping people from contributing (i.e., rules, administrators)—that is why we are told to ignore all rules.

However, if you insist on WP:STRONGNAT compliance, I can assure you I will not like you. That "will" is a stronger verb than "should."

This an essay, so take it for what it is worth and "don't be a jerk."

• I've seen it said that essays are personal opinions, but this one is chock full of bad examples for newbies. I think.
• If deleted or redirected, something should also be done about its shortcuts (WP:ANTISTRONGNAT, WP:STRONGNATSUCKS, WP:DATEDEBATE) and its presence on Wikipedia:Essay_directory, Template:Essays on building Wikipedia and the like.

If you can cobble something together out of this and/or your own view, then great! If any of this is wrong, please follow-up here and I'll try to get back here to read your response. Thanks! — Geekdiva (talk) 04:16, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Geekdiva Essay sent for discussion at this MfD page (as it's not an article, deletion discussion belongs at MfD, not at AfD): Noyster (talk), 10:00, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Category for closed AfDs

There should be a category for closed AfDs, put in <noinclude></noinclude> tags on those pages so that the daily subpages they are transcluded on will not be put in that category. An edit should be made to Template:Afd top to automatically put the category on new closed AfDs and a bot should edit the older AfDs to put the category on those ones as well. Likewise, there should be a similar category for closed MfDs. We already have categories for BRFAs, RfAs, and RfBs. The discussion for Category:Archived files for deletion discussions was closed as delete. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 03:22, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

David Wolfe (nutritionist)

Please take a look at David Wolfe (nutritionist). The request for speedy deletion failed and the author was provided time to add sources and substantiate notability; but the result has been an explosion of puffery. More editors are needed to review possible reliable sources and comment on possible deletion.Kyle^(talk) 04:38, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia term "Navel-gazing" usage in deletion debates

I've created an essay page on usage of the term "Navel-gazing" in deletion debates on Wikipedia.

Essay at: WP:Navel-gazing.

Feedback would be appreciated on the talk page, at Wikipedia talk:Navel-gazing.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 20:22, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Why ?

There are many articles that can be either speedily deleted or AFD deleted, but still no one nominates them. Instead many experienced users add categories, decorate the articles with the non-RS source (used by the page creator from their own websites to create the article). Some of the articles would have remained like that if I wouldn't have noticed. There are many new page patrollers who are working hard for a long time, but some only patrols pages, without using google news search and google book search to check notability. I have seen that in new page patrol, one can see pages only 30 days back. That means there are many non-notable pages created before 2016 which doesn't have notability, but remains in Wikipedia.

Question is that If I want to see list of articles created on a particular date, like 19 July 2015 (beyond the 30 days limit), and see the user who created the page (side by side as it is visible in new page patrol), is it possible? --Greek Legend (talk) 17:58, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

April Fools' Day

Today is April Fools' Day. "AFD" appears as initials for both "Articles For Deletion" and "April Fools' Day". GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:29, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I've added a separate section on today's log for April Fools' AfDs. ansh666 02:05, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• I'd like to move that this year we try to leave some of these open rather than close them immediately. My reason for this is that this would just allow people to have a little fun and might prevent repeated attempts to renominate. At the very least we could probably only close the ones that don't look like they'd attract a lot of attention. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• I thought that was what we usually did. ansh666 06:01, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I think we should generally leave these open until after 10:00 UTC on April 2, so that residents of Hawaii have the full day to see them. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:46, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2016

Do not delete the article as its important to keep for infomation it just needs a translation use google translate if required 198.52.13.15 (talk) 10:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. — JJMC89 (T·C) 15:17, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

People posting resumes/startups

All apologies if this is the wrong forum. I will gladly start the topic on the appropriate sub forum. I have noticed many people who've made startup companies creating articles for those companies and their own personal "resumes" as well. Wikipedia is not Linked in, or Tech Crunch. Is there a broader policy or group looking into this? Jay(Talk) 20:14, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

first really have a look. if there is nothing NOTABLE there and it is pure promotion, see WP:G11; if that gets removed by some inclusionist who can't see abuse of wikipedia for promotion if it hit them on the forehead, try WP:PROD, and if that fails and we really have to waste the community's time with an AfD, then you have to AfD it. if there is something NOTABLE there, just clean it up! Jytdog (talk) 20:24, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

An over-detailed résumé or autobiography on a user page, such as we often get from newbies who think this is a social-networking site, can be tagged with {{db-u5}} if the user has "few or no edits outside of userspace". It's helpful to add a talk page message pointing them to WP:NOTWEBHOST. JohnCD (talk) 22:10, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Didn't do it right - can someone help?

Sorry, I thought I had followed the instructions, but my AfD entry isn't showing up. However, I did create the project article, so I don't think I can start over. The page is: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/What_Every_Science_Student_Should_Know. It is missing headers and other boilerplate, so I must not have completed the process. Thanks! LaMona (talk) 01:40, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done. ansh666 02:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Wow, that was quick. Thanks! LaMona (talk) 02:02, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

AfD Stats vote counting

As a result of a recent discussion on a RfA, I changed the configuration of the tool a bit to make "Draftify" !votes equivalent to "Userfy" !votes. Afterwards, at a discussion on my talk page, Rob pointed out that [w]hen a non-notable article is nominated, it's somewhat common to userfy/draftify it if the creator isn't an SPA and thinks it will be notable in the future, and that he would consider a vote to delete to be "correct" (i.e. correct application of WP:N), even if the result winds up being userfy. The question here is whether the tool should consider votes to delete in discussion closed as userfy as correct. Any comments? APerson (talk!) 00:02, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I have a question that might be a little off topic, if a !vote on an AFD disagrees with the outcome of the AFD, is it "wrong"? -- GB fan 00:22, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

No, it isn't necessarily wrong, which is why I put correct in quotes. I was thinking about it in the context of the RfA where I noticed that userfy and delete are considered non-matching outcomes. Whether or not it's right to think this way, I think it's clear most RfA voters consider non-matching to be "wrong". ~ Rob^Talk 00:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

It's "wrong" for the purpose of calculating in what percent of discussions the user is "correct" (which is displayed on the tool), but I agree that given the policy-based nature of AfD (which the tool (of course) can't look at), votes disagreeing with the discussion's outcome aren't necessarily "wrong". APerson (talk!) 00:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Also slightly off-topic, but I've always disagreed with many of the "correct"-markers such as merge vs redirect and merge vs keep/delete. It would be nice if we could define them ourselves when we visit, but that would probably take much more effort than its worth, including making a usable UI and all. ansh666 01:54, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Maybe we could have a bunch of presets (e.g. "original", "Ansh666", etc where each preset is a list of "correct-markers") stored somewhere onwiki which the tool could read from. However, this sort of sounds like a RfC; speaking of that, I am 100% open to having a RfC or something where we could define which votes are "equivalent". I believe the original "correct-markers" were assigned by Scottywong himself, and it's entirely likely that some of them would need updating. APerson (talk!) 02:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

On another note, I'd be supportive of removing the percentages/color-coding and just leaving the matrix. That would hopefully encourage people to dig a bit more into what makes up the stats. ~ Rob^Talk 02:59, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Rob here. I've never understood how delete vs redirect is a "match" and merge vs redirect is a "match" but delete vs merge is a "not-match". Anyone reviewing this output should move rapidly over the numbers and take the trouble to investigate some of the individual AfDs listed below them: Noyster (talk), 09:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. I'd support taking the percentages and colors out as well, if it comes to an RfC. (Sorry to derail the thread!) ansh666 10:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

(No problem!) Do you all want the functionality removed wholesale, or would an option to add coloring that's off by default be okay? APerson (talk!) 11:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I think the issue then becomes "what's the default?" I do like the idea of an opt-in color scheme to encourage editors to do without. How would you all feel about making the diagonal green, no consensus yellow, but also all of these "maybe matches, maybe not matches" yellow as well? Delete/merge, delete/userfy, delete/redirect could all be yellow and the wording could be changed slightly to indicate that a yellow means the AfD stats page can't conclusively tell whether the outcome is "matching" (rather than just "no consensus"). Hopefully, that would push people to look at the specific AFDs more. ~ Rob^Talk 12:45, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Deletion process#Is it inadvisable to relist and at the same time participate in an AfD?

I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Deletion process#Is it inadvisable to relist and at the same time participate in an AfD?. Cunard (talk) 07:59, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Phone Advertisements

Please see this and this and this and this and this and this. Would someone enlighten me why these articles are fit for being featured on WP AM (talk) 17:30, 23 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashleymillermu (talk • contribs) 17:06, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Having a really quick look at these, they have questionable notability and may not survive if Nominated for deletion. The reason they are on Wikipedia is someone created them and no one has nominated them for deletion. -- GB fan 17:57, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you AM (talk) 02:43, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Strange Problem

So, a younger friend took over my wikipedia account, saying they wanted to try editing. Apparently, they wanted to try articles for deletion, so they recommended some local public library for deletion, and then undid it all? However, I dont think this is the correct way to go about retracting an afd, and im not sure how to clean it up. Could someone help me, i'm not sure if here is the right place to ask? The article is Silver Spring Library — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheepythemouse (talk • contribs) 20:52, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like everything was put back in order--tag was reverted in the article, transclusion reverted in the daily AfD log, and the discussion page was speedily deleted by an admin. Unless there's something else going on that only admins can see, I'd say no harm no foul, except that you should encourage your friend to a) create their own account, and b) do a little more editing elsewhere before diving into AfD matters. --Finngall ^talk 21:01, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Cool, okay, thanks for checking! And i will do that! Sheepythemouse (talk) 21:05, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Improperly formatted deletion discussion

A few days ago, I cam across Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Louis Miller. However, it looks the nomination was not listed correctly at WP:AFD. I'm not sure how to resolve the technical issues here, but I thought I should alert the community about this deletion discussion in hopes that someone will be able to resolve the technical issues. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:20, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I've added a header to the discussion page and listed it on today's log where hopefully it will pick up further discussion. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:40, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Malcolmxl5! I appreciate your assistance with this. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Need Help

As an IP I can't complete even step 1 of the process as the article itself is locked to IPs...Could someone please help me..if they could just copy and paste my statement in the bottom talk section "Article Hugely Problematic" to the AfD discussion page too please(and just say helping IP, not my statement or whatever)..https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Black_supremacy68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:09, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

The ability to create new pages, including AFD pages, is one of the privileges of registered users. As a long-time unregistered editor, you by now know that there are advantages to registering an account. The privacy of pseudonymous registered accounts is far better than that of IP addresses. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:21, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

didn't create account because too lazy, didn't want to remember another password, don't care about having user page..if created username now would just make it my IP address anyway...but want to keep my edit history intact so don't know if can do that (haven't looked into that)..so for now request for help still stands..68.48.241.158 (talk) 01:28, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

You've only been editing for the past few months. Casual editing is fine. I did it for a long time, but if you want to get more involved in things like AfD, time to step up and register. TimothyJosephWood 01:51, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Still in need of the help described in OP please!! (this is the procedure described for an IP. I've explained why I am an IP and will likely remain one..repeating request in case people see the responses above and just assume they addressed what I need. so please help if you'd like though no one is obliged to..)68.48.241.158 (talk) 12:13, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Done as a technical request. -- GB fan 13:57, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Appreciate the help!68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:28, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Delay in Linking Article to Discussion ?

If I nominate an article for deletion, using Twinkle, it takes me to the AFD page. If I go back from there to the article, sometimes the link to the AFD page is redlinked. Is there a delay in completing the link from the AFD banner on the nominated article page to the discussion page? It seems that sometimes the connection then gets filled in. Is this done after the fact by a bot, or what? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:49, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

I think this is a caching issue. If you click on the "red" link, you'll find it will work; or if you purge the page, it will turn blue. JohnCD (talk) 19:54, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Can confirm, caching issue. Happens even if you don't use Twinkle. Purge will fix it. ansh666 05:36, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

APerson renamed to Enterprisey

K6ka renamed the user APerson to Enterprisey. This means that the delsort script for AfDs is now at User:Enterprisey/delsort.js rather than User:APerson/delsort.js. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:06, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Since there's a redirect in place, it still works fine. ansh666 06:24, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I want remove deletion notice

Hi

I have add many resources to my page but somebody nominate it for deletion . I want to remove that notice from the header of my page.Can you tell me how.Akash Dahariya (talk) 07:18, 1 June 2016 (UTC)@AkashDahariya

You are not allowed to do so. Once opened, the discussion must take its course. Instructions on WP:AFD are clear about this. You are free to take part in the discussion itself though. Debresser (talk) 07:38, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 June 2

It looks like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 June 2 has hit a template limit or some other kind of transclusion limit. There are 18 AfDs at the end of the log that aren't displaying in full. What should we do about that?

(If I had to deal with this by hand, my inclination would be to move those AfDs to the following day's log instead. But that's just a last-ditch suggestion, not what I think the correct answer is likely to be.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:20, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Moving them to the following day's log would work for me. The problem is caused by the 100+ relisted Asian games pages. If people could comment on these, we can get these closed. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:56, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I really hate multi-article nominations, but this list is exactly why we have them. Ugh. Most of them seem non-controversial, and already have multiple "Could have redirected per BOLD" comments, so I'm going to go ahead and close some of them per BOLD. Once I do, I'm going to pull them from the log, so that the ones on the tail end get a viewing. How many were we looking at, 18? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:33, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I've moved a bunch to the June 3 log per Malcolm. However, I'm not sure that removing the closed AfDs from the June 2 log (per UltraExact) is the right thing to do. Shouldn't they be kept there as evidence of the day's AfD activity? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 12:53, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Maybe. But the ones I closed (9 redirecting to 2014 Asian Games) are easily tracked down in the history, and in the fact that we'll have a discussion here that shows why I removed them early. The closes are also logged at the talk pages. And of any of them, these are the ones least likely to get or need discussion, since all 9 of the articles were absolutely empty. This also minimizes the number of articles that end up on a different day in the log compared to their start date, and results in sort of a hybrid solution to the issue. Feel free to revert (it'll put us one transclusion short of the limit) if you like, but I don't expect these debates to develop a consensus for anything other than a redirect - otherwise, they would have done so before being relisted. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:01, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sticky Fingers (band)

This particular AfD seems to have been formatted incorrectly, first being put onto Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 June 8. Currently, it shows (or was showing) the following code at the top:

[[{{subst:StickyFingers(band)}}]] ([{{fullurl:{{subst:StickyFingers(band)}}|action=edit}} edit] | [[Talk:{{subst:StickyFingers(band)}}|talk]] | [{{fullurl:{{subst:StickyFingers(band)}}|action=history}} history] | [{{fullurl:Special:Whatlinkshere/{{subst:StickyFingers(band)}}|limit=999}} links] | [{{fullurl:{{subst:StickyFingers(band)}}|action=watch}} watch]

Currently, it only shows {{la|{{subst:StickyFingers(band)}}.

If anyone with technical knowledge could fix this, please do so. Thank you. JudgeRM 00:09, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done; the log talk page should be G6'd soon. ansh666 00:26, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Non-admin closures

Earlier today while looking through the old AfD discussions, I came across a non-admin closure that had been closed as 'delete'. This post is to remind non-admins that WP:NACD says, Non-administrators should limit their closes to outcomes they have the technical ability to implement; for example, non-admins should not close a discussion as delete, because only admins can delete pages.; the exception is at TfD. As it happened, the non-admin also omitted the {{AfD bottom}} template when closing the discussion, which made something of a mess of the log. I reopened and re-closed the discussion. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:29, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Redlink cleanup

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paleorrota left a lot of redlinks, see Book:Paleorrota. Is there an automated way of removing them, please? They've all been inserted by same user: [1]. Thanks. fgnievinski (talk) 01:27, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Splash Proposed Deletion

Hello there, I still think this article should be deleted. Two of the links in the references are still dead. The dead Youtube link didn't really prove any notability anyway. Neither did the other one. What else do we have? They appeared on a Des O'Conner's Pot of Gold show once - that doesn't prove notability. They don't seem to have won it - not according to the reference provided. What else do we have - various low key business adverts which shouldn't be on Wikipedia anyway and the band's own advert. According to user Atalantic306 they've appeared 'regularly on mainstream TV'. Well no proof has been given to show that they have. I request that someone carries forward the AFD process. Thank you.

Splash Talk Page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Splash_%28Scottish_band%29 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.173.225 (talk) 04:54, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I have created the AFD. -- GB fan 10:11, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to delete RJ_Tolson

RJ Tolson is not notable according to WP:AUTHOR. Additionally, most of the content on the page was added by either KickStartWrit or MetaphysicsSoul. These users have both claimed to own the pictures they posted of the article's subject. That suggests that they are either are RJ Tolson himself, his friends, or his publicist. As an unregistered user, I don't have the ability to create a deletion discussion page for the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.104.109.254 (talk) 17:55, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RJ Tolson. shoy (reactions) 19:28, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Guidance needed

I've noticed a huge issue in our capacity to keep up with current events. Gary Byrne, the author of the major best-seller Crisis of Character about the Clintons, still does not have his own article on Wikipedia. Instead, the Gary Byrne page is about some obscure, retried Australian soccer player.

I'm not sure how to proceed. Fellow Wikipedia contributors-- please let me know if I should request that the article on the Australian soccer player be deleted, and then write about the more notable Gary Byrne, or if I should create a Disambiguation or Redirect on the Gary Byrne namespace. JoeM (talk) 17:56, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

If you create an article for the author, just title it Gary J. Byrne, as that's the name he uses as an author. You can then use Template:for to create a tag at the top of the Gary Byrne article letting people know if they're looking for the author, they should go to the Gary J. Byrne page. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:28, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks... Can you assist? We need an article about this subject. However, I'm reluctant to start one myself since it's been a while since I've been a very active Wikipedia editor. JoeM (talk) 18:36, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I started it. Here: Gary J. Byrne. I don't know anything about this guy other than he wrote this book so you'll have to write it. But please use reliable secondary sources, and don't make it into a resume.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:56, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

And with that page now existing, I added the For link to the Gary Byrne page. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:01, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Reformatting delsort notices

As Kvng originally suggested in this discussion on my talk page, the delsort notices (e.g. "Note: This debate has been included in the list of deletion discussion-related deletion discussions.") shouldn't be mixed in with the rest of the !votes, because they're distracting. Instead, they should be placed in their own box on the right, just like we already do with previous AfDs. You can see a mockup of the proposed changes in my sandbox. Pinging Sam Sailor and Odysseus1479, who also participated in the discussion on my talk page. Enterprisey (talk!) _{(formerly APerson)} 04:30, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

They're not just distraction, but the current practice also creates an accessibility issue akin to WP:LISTGAP by breaking what should be one contiguous list into two separate lists. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:05, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

That's a great point. I'd be in favor of either putting the delsort notices in their own box as above, or if we didn't want the visual distraction of a box, place all delsort notices between the nomination and the comments. --Mark viking (talk) 18:48, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I think Mark's second suggestion is best, and would need no development: simply establish a convention that all Delsort notices go below the nomination but above the first !vote, and anyone can move up Delsorts which are placed lower down. People will soon get the idea. JohnCD (talk) 19:20, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed - either between the nomination and comments, or at the very bottom, maybe in its own separate section. ansh666 19:30, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed that all the way at the bottom is the best place for these. Enterprisey (talk!) _{(formerly APerson)} 20:26, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Above the !votes would be better, because many nominators put them there when they file the AfD, and because putting them at the bottom, even in a separates section, would confuse !votera and lead to !votes in the wrong place. JohnCD (talk) 20:45, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to always put the source code after the nomination and before !votes. Can we also format this into a separate box as proposed? ~Kvng (talk) 21:37, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I too would prefer the box; to my eye having the clutter (of small print, blue links & sigs) so contained would actually make it less of a “visual distraction” and interruption of the discussion, being kept to the right-hand side of the page.—Odysseus1479 21:57, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

The problem with putting the delsort notices at the very bottom is that (at the time the delsorts are added) it is no different from what we presently do, and all subsequent contributors to the AFD may not realise that they should post above the delsorts. We might periodically move the delsorts to the bottom again, but then along comes another who posts below them. And so on. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:54, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I wasn’t thinking of putting the box at the bottom myself; my opinion above was based on the mockup in Enterprisey’s sandbox (see link below), where it‘s immediately below the nominator’s statement. JohnCD makes a good point as well.—Odysseus1479 01:59, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

@Odysseus1479: I was responding to the comment "all the way at the bottom is the best place for these" by Enterprisey. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:01, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Redrose64, I agree with your response to my comment, which is why I prefer the box - I was only presenting putting them at the bottom as an alternative. Enterprisey (talk!) _{(formerly APerson)} 01:56, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

It looks like the two options we have are putting it in a box on the right (like the sandbox) or below the nom statement/above the !votes. So far, people seem evenly split between the two - does anyone have a strong preference one way or another? Enterprisey (talk!) _{(formerly APerson)} 01:32, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

In the interim, can we at least put in a hidden text line, as is done with various other templates, that says, "Please add !votes and comments ABOVE this line?" There is so much inconsistency in this that I had no clue what the rules were! Montanabw^(talk) 04:30, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and, I like the box, easier to see and not get mixed up with the discussion. Montanabw^(talk) 04:31, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I feel strongly about the box. The box keeps the announcements from distracting from the flow of the discussion. We can satisfy those who feel strongly about the other option by implementing that too; the are not mutually exclusive. ~Kvng (talk) 15:02, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

• I prefer the DELSORT notices in among the !votes in chronological order, as it provides important information to the closer on WHEN topic-interested editors were notified, vs. just general AfD reviewers. Which of these proposals will preserve that information in as easy a format as we currently have? I'm all for good, readable formatting... but not at the expense of important information. Jclemens (talk) 04:42, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

In the mockup the notices are all date-stamped, and they‘d presumably be added in order. Is that not generally the case? The physical positioning of the notices can’t be of that much help in reviewing a discussion chronologically, since replies (in rebuttal or reinforcement) usually get threaded out of order anyway.—Odysseus1479 05:11, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Of course they'd be in order within the separate section, but yes, having them in chronological order with the initial time the votes were cast was very helpful to me as a closer, in that I would give posts after the DELSORT more weight: people who !vote in every AfD tend to be deletionists or inclusionists, and pretty predictable in their reasoning and logic. The folks who came to the debate after their own little watchlist was ping'ed, which was often done as part of a relisting, generally had more mature, topic-specific insights and were therefore accorded appropriately more weight. They also did tend to be able to come up with sources if they argued for keep, vs. the perennial participants as well. So yes, I do prefer that DELSORT stay embedded. Not the end of the world if it's not, but I still think it would lose the ease of seeing how the inclusion in DELSORT lists change the flow and tone of debate. Jclemens (talk) 05:23, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Jclemens, it's perfectly possible to make a user script to highlight !votes that come in after a certain time or notice - would this be an acceptable change to you in that case? Enterprisey (talk!) _{(formerly APerson)} 00:34, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

A user script to undo the effect of an elective change? Why on earth would that be a good idea? Better to leave well enough alone, although I like the idea of standardizing the DELSORT and relist notices so they're more similarly formatted. Also, if someone DELSORT's a discussion to multiple lists at once (2-4 are pretty common), it would be cool if there was a script that compacted all of the DELSORT notices without intervening non-DELSORT comments into a combined notification, like the multiple issues cleanup template. OK, so I've talked myself out of "leave well enough alone", but I'd still like DELSORT notices to stay in chronological order. Jclemens (talk) 03:47, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

It makes enough sense to me - if the status quo is A, there's consensus for B, and one editor prefers A, why not make a script to make it A for that editor to use? Enterprisey (talk!) _{(formerly APerson)} 01:55, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

If we go with the sidebox option, the notices can land in the source code as they currently do. The vertical position of the box in the indicates where the notifications were inserted. If it is difficult to gauges things in this way for some reason, you can always hit the edit button and view the source code for the difinitive history.

What about relists too. They split up lists, can be distracting, can be important in the time line, etc. Why not standardise the format of both and dot point list them too ? Whatever, if there are interruptions to the list of deletes/keeps/comments then make them the similar format. Perhaps relists could also be in a box to the side, even the same box as the delsorts ? Aoziwe (talk) 11:51, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't find the relists to be as distracting. I think it is because they have graphics that go all the way across the page and that clearly indicates, "I am not a !vote." If we wanted to go for consistency, we could look at reformatting the notices to have the same attitude as the relists. Someone would have to propose something. ~Kvng (talk) 15:10, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I'd strongly object to the relist notices being taken out of the debate listing, I think they're fine as they are and they make the job of closing admins and contributors much easier. They mean you can easily identify how many times the AFD has been relisted, and they split the debate in such a way as to make it clear how much the relisting helped increase the level of the debate. They also allow the relisting admin to add comments on their reason to relist, or ping contributors that said they were coming back - this is something I do frequently. KaisaL (talk) 16:25, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I like the idea of separating the delsort notices into a separate box. I know there have been several times that I sorted a discussion into a category that it had already been sorted into because the notice got lost in the discussion. Second choice would be to place delsort notices below the nomination and above the discussion, regardless of when the notice was placed. Either method would require recoding of the various delsort scripts. I agree with continuing to place relist notices within the discussion. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 02:58, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Re-nominating Lima Publishing for Articles for Deletion...

I am re-nominating the article for Lima Publishing for AfD, along with noting the justification for deletion. It was nominated once in the past, with @Callanecc: closing the nomination's discussion with the interpretation of no consensus. I believe that such a closing was a misinterpretation of what was clearly a consensus to delete. My first thought was to oppose/protest the closing by requesting a deletion review of the editor's misinterpretation. However, after talking it over with the editor, I have chosen instead to act in a civil manner & re-nominate the article for deletion. Now, seeing as how I am an un-registered user, I am only able to complete Step I of the process of nominating the article for deletion; as such, I am asking a registered editor to complete the rest of the process. 76.235.248.47 (talk) 01:35, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

It appears to me that you really came on too strong in your approach to the closing admin. In my opinion, you owe that person an apology. The first step before considering a DRV is discussing the issue with the closing Admin first. It doesn't mean coming on like gang busters in an accusatory manner. And then intimating that the next step is DRV - carrying a big stick so to speak.

Also, if as you say, this person had a set of options, then they chose one. Although it is not the option you agree with, it is an option within that admin's purview. Lastly, this is one article out of millions on Wikipedia and one out of thousands that get deleted. Is it really necessary to get all huffy? Steve Quinn (talk) 05:52, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOQUORUM is perhaps useful here. The closer has indeed a wide range of options and, to me, no consensus was a perfectly acceptable one in this case though another relist might well be done today. The nomination was weak because it declared "not notable" as if it were an agreed fact. A justification should have been provided. That's what I would have said at WP:DRV. I won't vote at AFD but delete would be sensible if no further references emerge. Thincat (talk) 06:51, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

 Done, although you may want to explain your rationale further at the nomination page - see WP:JNN. ansh666 18:00, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Newsmax

There's no reason to delete the Newsmax article. It looks just fine to me.

2601:281:8000:4F1B:1ED:F223:9282:CB4D (talk) 15:02, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

I have copied this comment over to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Newsmax. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:42, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Treat uncontested AfDs as uncontroversial deletions

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

When an article is proposed for deletion, the PROD tag sits on the article and the article gets deleted after 1 week of no opposition. However, any editor who later disagrees with the deletion may request for undeletion. When an AfD discussion receives no comments after a week of being open, it is generally relisted to gain higher participation. Usually AfD discussions are relisted a maximum of two times, after which the discussion is usually closed as WP:SOFTDELETE, meaning that any user may request for its undeletion without going through a deletion review. Discussion venues such as WP:RFD and WP:RM follow WP:NOQUORUM, in that nominations which have received no opposition after a week are deleted (in the case of RFD) or moved (in the case of RM). I cannot see why AfD should be treated differently from PROD. Generally speaking, AfD is monitored by more editors than PROD, meaning that an AfD uncontested after being opened for more than one week should have gotten more attention than an article which has been PRODed for a week. I propose that AfD discussions which have been open for more than a week (168 hours) without any "keep" votes (policy-based or not) be closed as soft delete, provided that the article has never been proposed for deletion or soft deleted in the past. This means that the article is deleted but any user, for any reason, may request for its undeletion at WP:UND instead of gaining consensus at WP:DRV. SSTflyer 08:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Support

1. As proposer. If someone argues for deleting an article at AfD, and no editor opposes the proposal, we should not be forced to wait for 3 weeks before the article is deleted. SSTflyer 08:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
2. Support. If an article sits at AFD for a whole week without any keep votes, then it could just have been PRODed and the deletion would've been much easier and faster. Leaving such uncontroversial nominations at AFD for weeks, constantly relisting them until someone participates in the discussion is unnecessary and all it does is clog up the process. If it turns out deleting the page was a mistake, anyone can easily request undeletion and a proper discussion can take place if there are still problems with the article. Omni Flames (talk) 09:16, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
3. Support. Rather than cluttering up AFD, relisting uncontested entries for the sake of process, WP:SOFTDELETE after one week. Makes perfect sense. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 09:25, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

   Support conditionally, with special emphasis that WP:BEFORE has been followed (mostly, for non-notable topics, the nominator must consider merge options), and that the nomination is thorough (says exactly why it should be deleted). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

   Heck, WP:PROD doesn't even require WP:BEFORE to be followed. SSTflyer 13:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

   Well that's an oversight, isn't it? It is not as if WP:BEFORE is onerous. These moves serve to give more ground to the nominator. The nominator should have this basic competency and responsibility. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:15, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

   Withdraw support. Too many sensible opposing points, especially Wikipedia:Deletion_process#No_quorum already allows the closer to delete on their discretion. This proposal appears to reign in that discretion, and I haven't seen a good reason to do that. It would be preferable for the AfD nominator to make a persuasive nomination, noting previous de-PRODding, and leaving it to the closer to apply discretion. The usual choice is for "no consensus" or "soft delete". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:42, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

4. Support as per everyone above - Relisting just for the sake of policy etc is pointless especially when it's had no comments, If it's had no comments after a week then delete it!, This place has become far too bureaucratic and we need less of it. –Davey2010^Talk 13:09, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
5. Support - We don't need to keep relisting articles that no one wants to keep. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:05, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
6. Support perfectly reasonable if nobody contests deletion, and would save the need for relisting Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:07, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
7. Weak Support per WP:SILENCE. If there is a complete absence of disagreement, it is reasonable to assume a consensus to delete. However I would still prefer an article to be relisted possibly at least once before closing the discussion. 1 week might not be ample time to invoke adequate community participation. --Dps04 (talk) 16:36, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
8. Support, if no one saw fit to argue for keeping the article after a week, then consensus by silence applies. We already relist too many articles, and editors' time to participate in AfD discussions is finite. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:05, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
9. Support agree it should be considered a "soft" delete ie recreation is not subject to CSD#G4 since there was no actual reasoned consensus to delete. Jbh^Talk 20:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
10. Support All the XfDs have been suffering from a slow decline in participation. Better to allow the participants to focus their efforts on matters of actual interest than to clutter the pages with relisted, empty discussions. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
11. Support per nom. Also unclogging the system is appealing to me - streamline the bureaucracy per User Davey2010. And editors having the option for undeletion is a good fall back position. Additionally, to possibly see what is happening here on Wikipedia - take a look at the backlog at Category:All articles with topics of unclear notability ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 06:49, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
12. Support if it's considered a WP:SOFTDELETE. But this is exactly how things are handled at WP:RM, and I see no compelling reason why WP:AfD should be treated differently. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:53, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
13. Conditional support in removing the option to close as "no consensus" from WP:NOQUORUM. If an article has been relisted two times and still remains uncontested, the result should be a WP:SOFTDELETE every single time. Closing it as "no consensus" (which is, for all intents and purposes, a keep) makes no sense as the nominator's statement should count as a delete !vote. (Goes without saying that I object to the part of the proposal which advocates removing the option to relist entirely.) Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 07:49, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

    What if the nominator's statement fails to articulate a WP:DEL#REASON? What if WP:BEFORE has not been followed? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:51, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

14. Support For the reason which Omni Flames said. Hamid Hassani (talk) 11:31, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
15. Support a PROD-style WP:SOFTDELETE after one week -FASTILY 21:03, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

    But PROD does not mandate the admin to delete. "PROD-style" means the admin uses their discretion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:51, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

    Agreed. And in any case, an admin is free to !vote keep on any AfD if they feel it should not be deleted, hence my usage of the term "PROD-style" -FASTILY 02:03, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

16. Support per Omni Flames. All the opposing arguments lead me to agree with the nom. Chris Troutman (talk) 12:55, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
17. Conditional Support Only if there is no keep vote after two relisting, it should be softDeleted per the nominator's vote. Darwinian Ape ^talk 21:22, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
18. Support per WP:COMMONSENSE. This is no different, really, from the challenge-response nature of WP:CSD and WP:PROD. If the content is challenged and there is no response in defense of it, it's the same WP:SILENCE situation. SmokeyJoe's "What if the nominator's statement fails to articulate a WP:DEL#REASON? What if WP:BEFORE has not been followed?" concerns are addressed by the fact that any admin (or any would be non-admin closer, or any random editor wandering by) can decide that some fault of this sort is present in the nomination and !vote keep, thereby invalidating the "uncontested" condition. It's a self-fixing issue.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:28, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

    Hi User:SMcCandlish. What is the proposed change here? To my reading, it is to reduce the discretion given to the closer. PROD and CSD and WP:NOQUORUM require the deleting admin to exercise discretion, this proposal does not. If you take the proposal to assuming deleting admin discretion, then what is the usbtance of the proposal compared with WP:NOQUORUM? "any random editor wandering by" - misses the point that more and more AfDs are entirely unparticipated. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:19, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

    @SmokeyJoe: I think I basically already addressed this: The admin still has the discretion, because they can simply add an objection, completely mooting the "unparticipated" scenario. As I observed at the closely related RfC: Allow non-admins to close RfD discussions to "delete"?, this is essentially an editorial desire to register an opinion on the matter, anyway, not an administrative assessment of whether procedures have been followed correctly. If the same admin can prevent the same deletion-by-default result by adding a comment below the nomination saying to not delete, or adding a closure statement saying to not delete, what's the difference? I see two, and they both look good to me: The former scenario may encourage additional comments pro or con, resulting in a more accurate gauge of consensus than just an admin's judgement in a vacuum; and it will end up being closed by a second admin, resulting in two layers of admins' judgement, not just one (and since AfD is no longer a firehose of activity, this is not exactly an administrative burden). All that said, I don't feel terribly strongly about this one, I just lean toward "unbundling" of admin powers, increased good-faith assumption with regard to the competence of the remaining Wikipedians, and a reduction in bureaucracy. If there's strong evidence that low AfD turnout is resulting in the deletion of lots of articles that should be kept, I might back off from support, being slightly more inclusionist than deletionist, at least when it comes to potentially salvageable material (not that my one !vote is liable to make much difference here, especially since I mostly avoid AfD as a drama factory, and have a poor success rate at it [I always seem to pick crap pseudo-articles that have a devoted fan or two, who "WP:WIN" on the basis of improvement promises, and then vanish, with the same unencyclopedic junk still being in place 5 years later. Maybe I should re-AfD a bunch of stuff ...]).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  12:44, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

    PS: I think @SSTflyer:'s response to the first oppose !vote below may better address your concerns, anyway.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  12:47, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. WP:NOQUORUM says that If a nomination has received no comments from any editor besides the nominator (or few in the case of AfDs), the discussion may be closed at the closer's discretion and best judgement. and provides a list of common options including relisting, closing as "no consensus" with no prejudice against speedy renomination, closing in favour of the nominator's stated proposal, soft deletion and redirection. All of these are considered and used by closing administrators. I see no reason to remove the closing administrator discretion and best judgement nor to restrict their options to only soft delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:54, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

   No, despite what the guideline says, closing AfDs with no or little participation after 1 week as soft delete is generally considered inappropriate. For example, User:Hahc21 was criticized for closing AfD discussions with zero participation (while he was still an admin) as delete. In practice, I don't think an admin would currently consider closing AfDs as soft delete after 1 week of no participation. I am not requiring admins to close these discussions as soft delete. I am merely trying to make it broadly accceptable within the community. Of course admins should always use their best judgment. SSTflyer 13:38, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

   I would like to reiterate what User SSTflyer just said because in my experience Admins tend not to favor delete without a sure consensus. I think this if this proposal passes it will help to move things along. Steve Quinn (talk) 06:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

2. Oppose - if no one can defend the article, that means that it should be deleted outright. I could support this fro a no-comment AD, but not a no-keep AfD. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

   @Od Mishehu: Can you clarify, please? Both scenarios boil down to a no-defense AfD. Unless I'm misreading something, this proposal is to make it acceptable to delete (not require deletion) in the event of a no-comment AfD. Meanwhile the result of a no-keep AfD (i.e., an AfD with comments, all of which are to delete) will already result in a deletion under the current procedures (absent extenuating circumstances, like a faulty nomination and all the delete !votes being WP:AADD nonsense). So, your oppose isn't making sense to me.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  12:51, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

   An AfD which no one responded to may be one which few users even looked at; one with supports but no opposes is more likely to be one where there is simply no reason to keep. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:38, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

   Didn't clarify anything for me, since an AfD where everyone !votes to keep, with zero pro-deletion comments, is evidence of no reason to delete, not no reason to keep. But whatever. It's not my intent to WP:BLUDGEON.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  14:04, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

3. Oppose If nobody else saw reason the article should be deleted, then that is a sure sign it shouldn't. Also per Malcolmxl5's argument. Debresser (talk) 15:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
4. Strong oppose. We should make every effort to gain the broadest possible consensus before deleting even the worst article. If few editors are participating in AfD discussions, then the solution is to bring more editors to AfD discussions. I also want to point out that the comparisons in this thread between AfD discussions and PRODs are misplaced; they are entirely different processes that serve different (albeit related) functions. PRODS are for non-controversial deletions, and they are not discussed in a centralized forum because editors are supposed to send the articles to AfD if there is any debatable issue. The underlying premise of AfD is that debates occur because a colorable argument for keeping the article exists. If a deletion is truly uncontroversial, then editors should utilize PRODs or CSDs. In other cases, we should not rush to judgment. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:09, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
5. Oppose per Od Mishehu, also noting that there are other options at AfD than just "delete" and "keep". ansh666 17:54, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
6. Oppose - unfortunately there is insufficient participation at AFD so extending discussion to three weeks for uncommented discussions is necessary, sometimes articles pick up three or four comments in their third week. If this proposal does go ahead, support the soft delete element. Atlantic306 (talk) 18:36, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
7. Oppose. Proposal is "I propose that AfD discussions which have been open for more than a week (168 hours) without any "keep" votes (policy-based or not) be closed as soft delete"... there's hella differecne between "AfD discussions which have been open for more than a week without any 'keep' votes and 20 'delete' votes" and "AfD discussions which have been open for more than a week without any 'keep' votes and 2 'delete' votes" and "AfD discussions which have been open for more than a week without any 'keep' votes and also no 'delete' votes". The proposal as written includes AfD's with no delete votes, possibly even advisory AfD's, and I can't favor deleting articles which no one wants to delete except a single proposer. Herostratus (talk) 01:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
8. Oppose per my comment in the discussion section below. It is not uncommon at all to see an AfD result in an alternative to deletion that wasn't considered in the first 7-day listing. It's not that no editors see fit to oppose the nomination in the first 7 days, it's usually that no editors have actually seen the nomination. On a typical day, at least 60-70 pages are nominated to AfD. AfD patrollers typically only look at today's log—generally, comments to AfDs are made on the day they are nominated and on the day of each subsequent relist. Because of the high volume of nominations, a nomination will sometimes slip through the cracks and get overlooked. The current approach of relisting twice is in line with our policy to require a consensus before deleting articles. It allows those who have comment but did not get a chance to voice it to do so. Mz7 (talk) 05:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
9. Strong Oppose - AfDs that go a week without comment do so because they haven't been seriously looked at yet. I've currently taken up looking at some AfD's during slow times at work, and I can say for certain that if I have the time to look at an AfD, I will comment on it. If I think it should be deleted, I'll say so, if I don't, I'll say so. If I don't say something, it's not because it's uncontroversial... if I think it's uncontroversial, I'll say something like "this should have been prodded" or if the prod was already contested "speedy delete this despite authorial objection". If I don't say something, it's because I haven't looked at it, because my spare time at work to look through AfD's is limited! There are FAR too many AfDs to look at in a day, and if I may be so bold, it's my opinion that some users of Wikipedia are a little more delete-happy than is warranted. These AfDs really NEED to be looked at. Now, three relistings going to soft delete is fine. That's enough chance for eyeballs to get on it. But one week simply isn't enough time. There are far, far, far too many articles on AfD to give each one a fair shake within a mere week. Fieari (talk) 06:56, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
10. Oppose Warnock's dilemma applies here. As a long time AfD patroller, I typically only look through the daily logs and may only have time to research and comment on a small number of the dozens of open discussions. Because of real life, it is entirely possible that I miss the original posting or don't have time for it that day. Then the article goes forgotten or unobserved until there is a relisting. I will often try to comment on relisted articles first, as these are the ones that have fallen through the cracks. I suppose if this proposal goes through, we will need to treat AfD like PROD and register placeholder keep votes if we think deletion the slightest bit controversial, just to keep the discussion going until we have time to weigh in. --Mark viking (talk) 10:20, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
11. Oppose. I appreciate the sentiment behind this, and I almost went for support. Typically, I do close such discussions as soft deletes. However, I think that we need to leave some discretion for admins to act in unusual cases where despite the lack of a "Keep" opinion, soft deletion might not be the logical answer. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:30, 14 June 2016 (UTC).
12. Oppose - Some editors may only watch certain WP:DELSORT lists and never look at the entire daily log. I know there have been times that I have relisted a no-comment AfD that had never been assigned to DELSORT categories and used WP:FWDS. What do you know, there were comments soon after! This proposal seems to take away some of an admin's discretion; I take it to mean that a no-comment AfD MUST be soft-deleted after 168 hours, rather than an admin deciding to relist and delsort or close as no consensus. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 12:33, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
13. Weak oppose - Uncommented AFDs should default to no consensus. The AFDs that I see going uncommented are the edge cases or the more niche topic area where more care is needed to find or interpret sources, not the slam dunk obvious deletes. I would rather err on the side of caution and have those close as no consensus with no prejudice against renomination. shoy (reactions) 13:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
14. Oppose. Too many AfDs simply don't attract input, and in my experience this is usually because they are 'difficult' subjects rather than generally non-notable subjects. AfD has problems at the moment with lack of particpation and poor quality of participation, and this proposal would simply be unsafe. --Michig (talk) 15:05, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
15. Oppose. This suggestion seriously misstates the present position. It says "the PROD tag sits on the article and the article gets deleted after 1 week of no opposition". But that is wrong. An admin decides whether or not to delete after 1 week. Likewise for CSD, there is no requirement for the admin to delete. Judgement is allowed (and required). So a stipulation that the only permissible way to close an uncontested AFD is by deletion is , I think, highly unsuitable. If on the other hand the proposal means that after 1 week an admin is allowed to close as delete or softdelete following an uncontested AFD, that is already explicitly allowed under WP:NOQUORUM. It is argued above that such deletions have been objected to. Surely that is because the closer's judgement is being questioned, not whether the deletion was contrary to policy. If any conscientious admin wanted to close but was only allowed to close by deletion, they could simply !vote and let another admin apply a reasoned closure. Thincat (talk) 22:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
16. Oppose. The proposal is worse than the current documentation at WP:NOQUORUM. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
17. Oppose Too many solid articles will get deleted due to lack of participation at AfD. Hobit (talk) 22:37, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
18. Oppose: Admins already have the discretion to enact the outcome that best fits the consensus and the best interest of the encyclopedia, and this includes this type of deletion ("soft deletion"). If this is enacted, then admins will lose this discretion. — Esquivalience (talk) 23:16, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
19. Oppose  This proposal would make more sense if AfD nominations were typically sincere efforts to prepare the community for a deletion discussion.  Instead, AfD is a wild wild (American) west, where admins willing to protect the AfD volunteer community from improper nominations have been afraid to go for years. 

    We also have the contradiction here that arises because some editors have been pushing to load down AfD with non-deletion redirect discussions (see WT:SK).  We know for a fact that AfDs opened with the rationale of a non-deletion redirect discussion can result in a deletion.  So this proposal explicitly seeks to soft delete articles brought to AfD for non-deletion redirect discussions.  Relatedly, it would soft delete proper AfD nominations for "Delete and redirect". 

    Another point to consider here, is that if the community has no interest in an AfD nomination, then the community has spoken, and what it has said is that there is no need for a discussion. 

    In summary, I could support this proposal were it limited to AfD nominations that explicitly state that they are proposing deletion, and were the closing administrator to stipulate that the nomination had sufficiently prepared the AfD community as per the edit notice give to AfD nominators.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:46, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

20. Oppose - any deletion may remove information people might find useful, creates a prejudice against ever recreating the article and may drive away people keen to contribute to Wikipedia but who don't understand the notability system. While puffery and articles on non-notable people are problems, they do not merit this. If an article is blatantly a hoax, advertising or whatever, it can always be speedied. Blythwood (talk) 10:32, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
21. Oppose: To delete something that should be kept is normally more harmful than to keep something that should be deleted. There are enough articles nominated where a general WP:BEFORE turns out to have either not been performed or not been performed properly. Apart from wider participation, what would help keep the queue down is fewer poor nominations (particularly by regular nominators and where the nomination is based on the current quality of the page rather than available sources). If the nom lasts for a couple of relists without comment, however, a supervote and soft delete from an admin who performs proper confirmation/research and lists this in their deletion rationale could be ok. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 10:44, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
22. Oppose: People who don't haunt the AfD noticeboards often don't pick up on these early on, also per Blythwood, deletion creates a "scarlet letter" of sorts, and frankly AfD often is overused with inadequate BEFORE and too much emphasis on article quality and not topic notability. Montanabw^(talk) 08:13, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
23. Oppose Per Jkudlik, unscintillating, and Michig's arguments. Jclemens (talk) 22:33, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
24. Oppose per Shoy's argument above. I can understand the frustration of Admins patrolling AfD who want to close these kinds of issues promptly, but Wikipedia's coverage has passed the point where any reasonably-informed person who is not an expert in the specific field can read an article & decide if it fails our standards for inclusion. And I suspect this lack of confidence in judging unfamiliar topics is an unmentioned systemic problem. Specifically, who is eager to do a peer review (or GA review, or FA review) for an article in an area one knows little or nothing about, especially if one has limited time for Wikipedia? I suspect that's one reason for similar backlogs in those fora. -- llywrch (talk) 18:12, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
25. Oppose per Warnock's dilemma and the fact that WP:SOFTDELETE is not as soft as it may appear since there's no directory of what's been deleted and no means of assessing content prior to WP:REFUND. ~Kvng (talk) 20:27, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
26. Oppose any debate with no keep votes, like most WP:SNOW deletes would be forced as WP:SOFTDELETE - would we need the devil's advocate to validate our consensus and throw a single keep vote to not have to run the Afd ad infinitum? The onus is one someone recreating deleted material to show why it merits inclusion. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:30, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
27. Oppose There are quite a lot of AfD discussions that don't attract enough participation, and for those where editors participate, I agree with Michig's point on the poor quality of participation. AfDs without any participation after two or three re-lists should just be closed as no consensus without prejudice to a further nomination. st170e^talk 15:28, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
28. Oppose This proposal assumes two things not in evidence: (1) That all article creators have figured out the maze that is Wikipedia, or even that they actually have a voice in the process if their creation gets slapped with AFD; (2) That the nominator of an AFD is correct by default. There are all kinds of motivations aside from adherence to Wikipedia policies. Not the least of these is "targeting", an editor, an idea, a subject matter, anything, and wording it well enough that the nomination doesn't look like targeting. — Maile (talk) 20:58, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
29. Oppose - If there's not enough consensus to warrant a deletion, then it shouldn't be deleted. Even if these AFDs lack activity, that's not a reason to automatically deleted such articles. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:13, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
30. Oppose very strongly. Ditto Maile66 above. Also often not enough BEFORE. Ditto St170e above. Ditto Debresser above. And ditto pretty much most other oppose comments too. Aoziwe (talk) 15:30, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
31. Oppose PROD is for uncontroversial deletions not unlike speedy deletion. AfDs are for if the nominator believes there would be a reasonable case for keeping the article. I think we should keep our current policy here. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 04:16, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
32. Oppose per Malcolmxl5. AfD has for quite some time been a virtual ghost-town in terms of participation in the actual !voting/discussions. Automatic deletion would set a very very dangerous precedent and result in the deletion of many many valuable articles just because no one had looked at that particular AfD. The solution to non-participation is to continue to re-list, and to garner participation by whatever means necessary -- neutral WikiProject posts, and/or any other way folks can think of to increase AfD participation. Softlavender (talk) 09:20, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
33. Oppose- As someone said above, AfDs that have no participation must be closed as "no consensus" because, well, not to be obvious about it, no consensus has been established. A single person's opinion is not a consensus, and deleting an article should be treated more seriously than throwing away a used tissue. BMK (talk) 05:28, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
34. Oppose The existing language gives the closer leeway to determine if uncontested deletion is appropriate or not on a case-by-case basis. It should not be an automatic delete if there's no response. --MASEM (t) 13:47, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
35. Oppose Deletion of an article should require affirmative consensus. If no one agrees with the nominator -- zero, zilch, nada -- then there is no consensus. Alansohn (talk)
36. Oppose AfDs that persistently have no clear votes at all after being relisted a couple of times should be closed as no consensus. A discussion needs a quorum and no discussion is no quorum, hence no consensus. AfD is not designed as a venue for unilateral decision by an admin in the absence of opinion by the community. Any nominator who remains seriously convinced that an article should be deleted can relaunch a new AfD after the elapse of a reasonable time.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:00, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
37. Oppose Wikipedia already has 2 venues for deletions with less discussion, which should be sufficient to remove clearly unsuitable articles. I don't see the need to hurry in less clear cases. Also - and it may come as a shock :) - a lot of editors and interested readers don't visit Wikipedia every week. 3 weeks seems like a reasonable middle-ground to give these users atleast a chance to participate. While WP:SOFTDELETE works for regular editors, for casual readers it's yet another obscure process, that most probably don't even know about. GermanJoe (talk) 07:27, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Comments

What happens if an article come up that has previously had a PROD is nominated and no one objects in the 7 days? Now we have an article that has been effectively Prodded twice. -- GB fan 10:12, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps add a condition that an article may only be soft deleted once? There are many possible solutions. SSTflyer 13:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I have modified my proposal to reflect this suggestion. I suspect that closing admins should be able to use their judgment and check for previous deletions/PRODs prior to closing such uncontested AfDs. SSTflyer 13:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• Suggest ... Previous PRODs, like previous AfDs, must be disclosed, and listed (could this be automatic like previous AfDs?), and the de-PRODder pinged. This should, sufficiently, at least, alert the deleting admin to take a slightly closer look. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:28, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• I do not think it could be automated. There are to many ways Prods are added and removed. Many Prodded articles have a {{oldprodfull}} tag added to the talk page, but not all. Most Prods are added or removed with descriptive edit summaries but not all. -- GB fan 10:41, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• I wrote a support comment, but on second thought I think this proposal might be overreaching; it's a bit complicated, and proposes to treat these discussions differently only under specific conditions. Why not just say that a seven-day AfD with zero participation is, for all intents and purposes, an expired PROD? I mean, essentially that's exactly what it is. Then it would be dealt with through the WP:PROD process, including being [soft] deleted, redirected, deprodded or whatever at the closing admin's discretion, just like an expired PROD. As for what happens if such an article has already been PRODded, who cares? WP:NOTBURO. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:48, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• I don't know about this. The volume of AfD discussions is large enough that if a discussion goes 7 days without comments, it's not that no one will object to the nomination, but that no one has seen the discussion. The current approach of relisting twice is to allow users who have a comment but didn't get a chance to voice it to do so. Many AfDs result in an alternative to deletion that wasn't considered in the first 7-day listing. Mz7 (talk) 21:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• This is pointless: even if this were to pass people would start to patrol AfD and oppose on principle. Waste of time. Jytdog (talk) 23:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
• I would like editors to take a look at the current backlog of articles tagged for notability, of which there seem to be 61,000. This is according to a bot count in the right hand column of this page-->[2]<-- after scrolling part way down. This page is organized by month and year - and goes back to 2008.

Why should we expend so much of our good will, energy, and volunteer hours when there are an ocean of articles where the notability criteria has been sidestepped? The point of having notability criteria is to build an encyclopedia, not a collection of whatever people's desires tell them post on this project.

I think, if the process can be made more efficient then that helps us - who are obviously dedicated editors who care about this project, as well as all the other however many other dedicated editors that are part of this project. Anyway, that's my two cents. Also, I just discovered WikiProject Notability if anyone is interested. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 03:52, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

• I think closing administrators should be allowed to close voteless discussions as delete, but should not be required to. Consensus is based on strength of arguments, not a head count, and if a nominator makes a good case for deletion backed with ample evidence then a closing admin should be able to close the discussion accordingly. Reyk _YO! 05:51, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

  I don't think that's what usually happens. My non-scientific recollection of things that end up in the situations covered by this proposal are that the two characteristics that define a poor-participation AfD are 1) poor nom that doesn't make a compelling case, 2) on a topic no one really knows or cares much about. Well-argued AfD proposals tend to succeed, in my experience, unless rebutted with even better objections. Jclemens (talk) 05:56, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Notability in Knight's Cross Holder articles

A quick note on the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Notability in Knight's Cross Holder Articles that may be of interest to the members of this project. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:46, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

RfC

There is a discussion now taking pace at the village pump that may be related to the subject of this policy/guideline page. Interested editors are encouraged to join the discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:04, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Non-admin closure as "delete"

Contents originally posed to User talk:Tokyogirl79#AfD instructions are a bit confusing

The following was originally posed to User talk:Tokyogirl79#AfD instructions are a bit confusing On the AfD page it says under "Procedure for non-administrator close (other)": "For a result "Delete", "Merge", "Redirect", or "Transclude", the procedure is basically the same, with the differences listed in WP:Articles for deletion/Administrator instructions#Carrying out the AfD close". This gives the impression that non-admins can close as delete, and on Wikipedia:Non-admin_closure#Appropriate_closures, under "Inappropriate closures" it says: "The result will require action by an administrator: Deletion (except for certain TfD discussions)". That's the opposite, if I'm understanding it correctly.. From experience, I've found that what the WP:NAC page says is what people normally act on, should the short line on the AfD page be changed to something like: "Non-admins are not allowed to close AfD discussion as delete, but they are allowed to close discussion as both redirect and merge.". -- Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:42, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

To stop confusion, would it be possible to change the sentence on the AfD page? -- Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:07, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

• Writing it like as follows might be helpful as well:

"For a result of "Merge", "Redirect", or "Transclude", the procedure is basically the same, with the differences listed in WP:Articles for deletion/Administrator instructions#Carrying out the AfD close". "Delete" results should typically not be carried out by NAC except in certain circumstances.

I think that a teensy bit more clarification might be helpful, as someone could see the delete close as general housekeeping as part of a foregone conclusion. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, the "certain circumstances" under which a non-admin can close a discussion as delete are basically if an admin has deleted the article (speedy or not) but not closed the AfD. So while it's not really the same procedure (the non-admin isn't actually deleting the article, just recording the result), it's not completely disallowed. Not sure what kind of language could convey this concisely, though; Tokyogirl's is probably sufficient enough as it's rare enough that this happens that most editors won't come across it. ansh666 01:55, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Coming back to this, I think we should remove all of the lists of possible outcomes from all of the closing instructions, admin or non-admin. Consensus is not railroaded into these outcomes; some closes are much more complex and don't fit neatly into any of the listed ones. The relevant pages at NAC and NACD have all the relevant info for non-admin closes anyways. ansh666 20:56, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

@Tokyogirl79 and Anarchyte: any thoughts? ansh666 18:27, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't entirely mind, as long as the contradictions are removed or changed. Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:41, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I've gone ahead and done it. I tried to resolve the contradiction by changing it from For a result "Delete", "Merge", "Redirect", or "Transclude" to For any other appropriate result; the first sentence in the section has a link to Wikipedia:Non-admin closure#Appropriate_closures which should hopefully suffice. ansh666 19:38, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Editing old afds

Are we allowed to edit old afds to fix the old AfD listings? The series of afds for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daigo Umehara have an additional listing called Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daigo Umehara (third nomination) that just redirects into Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daigo Umehara (3rd nomination) for some reason.--Prisencolin (talk) 19:35, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

The old AfD listings are transcluded from Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daigo Umehara, so there isn't any way to remove the redirect without deleting it. ansh666 02:00, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Redirects can be removed by adding |hideredirects=1 (but only to transclusions, not to links), something that wasn't possible when the AFDs were active; the question is whether it should be done where redirects such as this exist. Peter James (talk) 20:05, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I can guess at some reasons why we wouldn't want to do it automatically for all AfDs, but in cases like this, it's just cluttering up the box, so sure. And to answer the original question, there's no problem with editing old AfDs and such for formatting or things like that, it's just the content that shouldn't be touched. ansh666 20:16, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Resurrected article?

CK Morgan (singer) seems to be a new version of a self-written article that was deleted twice before (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CK Morgan (2nd nomination). Has he become more notable since? --Chirlu (talk) 02:50, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Deleted by NeilN. It was way more than twice before, see the AfD. JohnCD (talk) 21:44, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Re-nominating Graham McCann for Articles for Deletion...

I am Graham McCann, the subject of this article, and I am renominating it for deletion on the grounds that I am not well-known as a public figure, am not a significant author, am not even a current author, and the existence of this article is genuinely causing me, as someone who is very protective of my privacy, immense distress. I also regard the text of the article as insubstantial, lacking many basic dates, facts and references, and also a potentially damaging misrepresentation of my past career.

I apologise if I'm placing this in the wrong place - I have no idea about this process but was advised to post a message on this page. My apologies for any inconvenience. [I was also advised to post my reasons for deleting on the Talk page of the article. Again, I hope this has been executed correctly]

Graham McCann 92.23.93.50 (talk) 17:40, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

92.23.93.50| Mr. McCann, thank you for your note and welcome to Wikipedia. If you wish I will complete your WP:AfD nomination for you. However, I believe it is unlikely to be successful. A quick glance at the article which you object to suggests that you do in fact meet the encyclopedia's criteria as a notable person. Specifically I believe you pass the guidelines found in WP:NAUTHOR. Please let know if you want to proceed with the nomination for deletion. Thanks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:08, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Never mind. I see that it has already been done. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:15, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

If you genuinely believe that this article is causing you harm, please contact WP:ORTS about it. ansh666 18:52, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I think that the article of Mr. McCann is quite unorganised and it seems to be the work by his friends or students. It definitely needs some editing. Wetitpig0 (talk) 02:56, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

List of Unicode Characters

This page is already covered in numerous articles (Redirection to main articles), which cover different blocks of Unicode. As a result, it has fallen into kind of disrepair. Therefore, I suggest deleting the tables of Unicode, which is covered in articles like Latin script in Unicode. Only the script map and the redirections to other pages should be kept. Wetitpig0 (talk) 02:35, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Another way is to demote this page into a category page. Wetitpig0 (talk) 03:21, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

@Wetitpig0: This talk page is for discussing the Articles for deletion process. If you want to nominate a page for deletion through AfD, please follow the instructions: WP:AfD#Nominating article(s) for deletion. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:21, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

List of companies listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange

This list is actually found in HKEX List of Securities. Also, this list is incomplete and may mislead those who just look at Wikipedia for the whole list of Hong Kong Securities.Wetitpig0 (talk) 03:16, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I'd suggest bringing this up at Talk:List of companies listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hong Kong. Since being listed on a major stock exchange is an indication of notability, a list of such companies is itself notable. But I agree, this list could probably use some work. That's not a reason to delete, however. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:35, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry

I did delete something on the Benson Browne but it was just an extra reference thing that I had to get rid of FootballFan8 (talk) 15:14, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Beauty pageant RfC

This may be of interest to folks here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Beauty Pageants#RFC on creation of consensus standard. Montanabw^(talk) 19:09, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Austin Petersen again

The Austin_Petersen is up again. This article has been deleted numerous times but it keeps coming back. I am not knowledgeable of the deletion process, but thought someone should look into it, once again. Bunco man (talk) 18:28, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Article for deletion: Luis Garza

I would like to submit the Luis Garza article for speedy deletion. This page has only one citation. The person is not of relevance to the Catholic Church nor to the Legion of Christ nor to society at large. For example, I could create many articles on many priests around the world, but that would not be of relevance. Luis Garza has never written a book, never has been the president of a school, and he is not "the second highest ranking person in the organization" like the article alludes to. During my research, I found that he is simply a Mexican priest who happens to live in the United States and is part of the Legion of Christ. In my opinion, there is no reason for this article to exists.24.216.70.255 (talk) 19:29, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think speedy is appropriate here, so I've nominated it for you at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luis Garza. ansh666 20:18, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Individual stub pages for Catholic Bishops

as per wikipedia notes on Religious leaders notability :

In general, an individual is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple verifiable independent, reliable sources. In particular, an individual will often meet notability guidelines if they: Are the head of a major Religion. Played an important role in a significant religious event which itself received considerable coverage in sources. Made a material contribution to the Philosophy of religion that is indisputably attributed to them. Were recognized by their peers as an authoritative source on religious matters/writing. Conversely, brief descriptions in genealogical records or church histories of specific individuals are not considered specific indicators of notability. To this end, more than just a church record of a Bishop existing is required to establish notability.

I believe these Bishops are best presented in a list, rather than have individual pages. Raabbustamante (talk)

Anscar Chupungco ‎,Ruperto Santos ‎,Miguel García Serrano Ephraim Fajutagana ,Bernardito Auza Jose C. Abriol ‎ (notability issues) Dennis Villarojo ‎ Sergio Utleg ‎ Jesus Tuquib ‎ Diosdado Talamayan ‎ Pedro Paulo Santos ‎ Francisco San Diego ‎ Alberto Ramento ‎ Alberto Jover Piamonte ‎ José S. Palma ‎ Eduardo Hontiveros ‎ James Hayes (bishop) ‎ Patrick Cronin (bishop) ‎ Horacio de la Costa ‎ Fernando Capalla ‎ Antonieto Cabajog ‎ Ramon Arguelles ‎ Paciano Aniceto ‎ Dionisio Deista Alejandro Jose Advincula Florentino Lavarias Antonio Ledesma ‎ Leonardo Legaspi ‎ Honesto Ongtioco ‎ John F. Du Jesus Dosado Rafael Donato ‎

This issue began when Raabbustamante (talk · contribs) tagged these articles with {{afd1}}, but did not indicate why they should be deleted and did not create debates or add them to the log. So when 32 articles popped on WP:BADAFD, I reverted the redlinked tags and asked Raabbustamante to come here and discuss the matter. If there's a precedent for similar articles being deleted, a mass nomination might work - though note that some of these individuals may have additional claims to notability, perhaps under WP:PROF or as scholars. Otherwise, I'd suggest 1 or 2 nominations to set precedent, followed by the rest. No comment on the merits. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:43, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

• for info, i have just left a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism notifying them of this discussion. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:44, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

No !voting please. This is not a formal AFD.

Keep – For the Anscar Chupungco article I did a few updates & added missing WP to the talk page. For Ruperto Santos article, I stubbed as well as added updates & added WP to the talk page. IMO rather than deleting this group of articles, I would rather see them: 1. Tagged as stubs if needed 2. Add WP Catholicism & other missing WP to the talk page. This way they will be included into a class & importance where additional editors can work to improve, add content, etc. Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 17:45, 12 August 2016 (UTC) Keep: this seems to be a tagging of Filipinos from both the Philippine Independent Church and Catholic Church. There is enough content to have at the very least stubs. By randomly checking articles, I see verifiable content that would disappear in a list article. Each subjects notability does not seem difficult to establish. Moreover, the articles are about people from a part of the world that, I think, is generally neglected. WP:CLERGY states that "bishops of major denominations are notable by virtue of their status". –BoBoMisiu (talk) 18:15, 12 August 2016 (UTC) Keep They seem well written to me. I expect each to have a biography in the Catholic Encyclopedia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:20, 12 August 2016 (UTC) Keep as per WP:CLERGY and historic consensus at afd , instead of deleting improve the articles Atlantic306 (talk) 21:44, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

@JoeHebda, BoBoMisiu, Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), and Atlantic306: Please don't !vote here, this is not a deletion discussion. The discussion is about whether a formal WP:AFD should be initiated. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:44, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I believe the matter has been resolved from Raabbustamante's point of view. User_talk:NeilN#need_help_regarding --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:47, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree, no need for an AfD. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 23:52, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

duplicative separate AFDs "Israel at the 1954 World Cup" etc.

A whole bunch of nearly identical AFDs were started today that should have been handled in one multiple-item AFD. Some edit summaries suggested the editor was having trouble with Twinkle, so I think these were all/mostly created by Twinkle. Editor has replied to my request at their talk page that "There's already discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israel at the 2015 FIFA Women's World Cup. Page creator posted a notice on most AfDs saying to take discussion there, but apparently missed that one. So let's talk there instead if you want." So there may be notices at most of the articles saying "don't discuss at this AFD, discuss elsewhere". But I and other editors are arriving at the AFDs themselves. There needs to be notices at every one of the AFDs "don't discuss here". In other words, all the AFDs should be halted.

Since the editor not doing this right, when they should have done it manually if necessary, is going to cause confusion in discussion including about where the discussion is taking place, I suggest all of the AFDs be stopped and cancelled right now. Acknowledge some value to other editors' time. Come back later with one AFD on the topic addressing just one article, to start with. --doncram 21:42, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

There are such notices at all the AfD's, except for one which the page creator apparently missed and you landed on. Looks like he got the rest and I got that one. Smartyllama (talk) 22:12, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay, good. But there are more than 60 of these AFDs where it is requested for there to be no discussion. In other words, besides "Israel at the 2015 FIFA Women's World Cup" none of those AFDs should exist, and they are cluttering up Today's AFDs. I call for all but that one to be cancelled. I propose this is something any administrator could do, right now, with no need for further discussion. I suggest simply deleting the AFD discussions, then deleting the tags at the articles, rather than taking all steps to close them regularly. --doncram 23:05, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Redirecting would work too, if a non-admin wants to do it. I'm on mobile, or I would. ansh666 02:26, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

 Note: The extra discussions have been closed, and the article AfD notices now point to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israel at the 2015 FIFA Women's World Cup. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:16, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Cryptozoology and Cryptid

Hey folks. Before I begin, please take a look at this post:

• "A Long-Term Wikipedia Fringe Problem: Wikipedia as a Cryptozoology's Pókemon Database"

A few things to know: cryptid is a term used exclusively in cryptozoology, a cut and dry pseudoscience. Folklorists do not use this term (and, for that matter, like academia in general do not often even acknowledge that cryptozoology exists). Unfortunately, for a long time we've had a serious problem with cryptozoologists using Wikipedia as a promotional platform, largely due to an apparent lack of folklorists on board with the project. With the assistance of others, I'm trying to do something about this.

Is this the right venue to discuss what to do about cryptid versus cryptozoology? Currently the former article has only references from cryptoozologists and, frankly, I see no reason why the term isn't just handled over at cryptozoology. It only seems to exist as a sort of promotional devices for adherents to the pseudoscience. Ideally, it'd just be a redirect, but I've run into problems with cryptozoologists edit warring for it to remain. Any advice? :bloodofox: (talk) 21:34, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I would open a merge discussion on one of the talk pages. ansh666 22:19, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

There's currently discussion going on at the first link above. However, there's nothing to merge—the sources are bad. What then? :bloodofox: (talk) 22:22, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

That's what a discussion would be for - you don't get to unilaterally decide that the sources are bad. ansh666 22:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

No offense but did you miss the plethora of discussion above? :bloodofox: (talk) 22:47, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I read the discussion and nowhere was there discussion of all of the sources in the cryptid article. Two of the sources (the academic journals) look pretty reliable to me. ansh666 23:03, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad this discussion has been raised. What I don't understand is that Cryptozoology can cover the yeti (pseudoscience) but also the Okapi - which clearly exists. There seems to be a huge problem here. 22:40, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

We can definitely use more eyes. The articles have been dominated by cryptozoologists for a long time now. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:47, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

My own view is that there is room for the article - "-ology" means the study of - people who go looking for the Loch Ness monster, etc. (I am not arguing it exists), but we need to separate this from animals that clearly do exist. DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:53, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

We definitely need cryptozoology but why cryptid when only cryptozoologists use the term? :bloodofox: (talk) 22:57, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Im not a cryptozoologist and I use the term. Its not that obscure. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:01, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm also not a cryptozoologist, but I might be tempted to use the term "Cryptid" if I was discussing something like the Beast of Bodmin which is plausible, although there is no categorical evidence. DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:17, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, I'm not here to prescribe your usage but I recommend giving using the term some strong consideration before using it. There's a reason it's not in use in academia, primarily due to its false and wrong-head premise (but hey, maybe it's a hidden dinosaur). :bloodofox: (talk) 00:58, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

But doesn't "Cryptid" simply mean hidden? Or is it one of those terms that carries a hidden meaning with it? (sorry - no pun intended!) DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:36, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

The term was coined in cryptozoology circles to refer to the subjects of their searches (usually fabulous things without any biological basis and generally plucked from the folklore record). As per its coinage, the implication of the term is that a being may simply be hidden rather than explained by various other factors, such as the usual processes that result in the development of the myriad beings and entities of from the world's folklore. Useful for monster hunting but bad for any serious analysis. For their part, folklorists use the Aarne-Thompson classification systems for classification and comparative purposes and, of course, biologists have well-developed taxonomy. That said, puns are always welcome. :) :bloodofox: (talk) 00:05, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the explanation. I will state for the record that I do not believe the yeti or the Loch Ness monster exist (I remain open minded that an escaped puma might be roaming over Bodmin Moor but I am amazed there are no indisputable photos of it!). Is the question whether there should be space for an article on these fictitious creatures, or is it the way in which we add content in what appears to be a scientific way? DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:49, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

No problem. The main issue is that we have a few articles covering the same thing. You can read more about the discussion going over at the cryptid talk page, if you're interested. Currently the consensus is to merge cryptid and list of cryptids. However, I don't see why they're not just both redirected to cryptozoology, especially now that we have a reliable source simply stating that any creature that isn't "proven" to exist is considered a viable target by the pseudoscience (albeit they've focused on a few beings from the folklore record in particularly, namely the Loch Ness Monster and bigfoot). :bloodofox: (talk) 23:40, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

• First of all on the whole issue of cryptozoology and pseudoscience, we cover notable subjects, and whether or not they constitute pseudoscience is irrelevant. There are plenty of sources covering the topic of cryptozoology, and they are certainly not all by cryptozoologists claiming these creatures exist. We certainly shouldn't have articles claiming these creatures exist when there's no accepted evidence that they do, but we also need to get away from this idea that anything considered pseudoscience is automatically not notable and should be deleted, which has sadly been a repeated argument at AfD in recent years. Pseudoscience articles shouldn't be deleted because they're not real science any more than articles on religion or pokemons should be deleted because they're not real science. That's the AfD-relevant issue as I see it. If you're asking whether two articles should be merged I don't think that's a discussion for this page, although should a discussion be initiated elsewhere I would favour merging to cryptozoology. --Michig (talk) 18:00, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

To be clear, not a single user is arguing for the deletion of the cryptozoology article, nor has anyone proposed it. Of course we need to cover it. Its status as a pseudoscience has no bearing on the need for us to cover this topic. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:37, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Requested move crosspost

I am posting here to notify you of a requested move I made regarding a bunch of deletion discussion templates. The discussion is at Template_talk:Cfd-notify#Requested move 21 August 2016 Pppery (talk) 23:30, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

A few company pages

The following company articles were brought to my attention and may have notability/promotion problems such that an AfD discussion is relevant, however I wish to remain semi-retired. Hopefully someone else will take a few minutes to take a look.

• Openda
• Plex Systems
• CGram

CorporateM (Talk) 15:27, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

United Patrioyts Front

I'd lik e to nominate United Patriots Front and Blair Cottrell for deletion based on th efact that they really are not noteworthy enough for encyclopedia inclusion. I put a propsed deletion on the UPF page but as advised that it was not the right way to go about it, so here I am, asking for consensus. DO people think that this small group is noteworthy enough to warrant inclusion? This was the concern I listed on the proposed deletion: lack of relevance - this group is nowhere near as significant as they would have people believe, this article or more of less just one of their forms of advertising themselves and trying to appear more relevant and better established than they are. the people are nobodies and the group will soon be forgotten. they really are not a significant part of Australia and will not be historically recorded. for a nearly unknown group to use wikipedia as a platform to further their own cause seems wrong, also I believe the group tried to register as a business, which would make this advertising anyway, albeit advertising that only appeals to idiots and racists... What do people think and how do we proceed from here? Thanks in advance to anybody willing to help an amateur. I try my best ;) Panglossx (talk) 15:12, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I seem to have put this in the wrong place, could somebody help neaten this up? Cheers Panglossx (talk) 15:13, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Further to my previous points on this topic, I'd like to point out that I was the creator of the Blair COttrell page, in an effort to maintain balance knowing the methods the group using for promotion. I never considered Cottrell worthy of inclusion in any legitimate encyclopedia, but he was intending to create one himself for promotional erasons, so i simply got in first. FOr the sake of complete transparancy; No, Iam not a fan or supporter or follower of the group. It should be evident how I feel about them. They are scumbags. Just being honest on my personal opinion before I'm accusesd of some kind of bias. Panglossx (talk) 15:17, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

@Panglossx: To nominate an article for deletion, see WP:AFDHOWTO. You should probably read WP:DELETE first, together with WP:GNG. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:32, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Beacon Reader

Requesting someone to take off the speedy deletion tag for Beacon Reader. On the talk page, is a lost of notable sources is provided and a rationale for it's notability. I got a few edits done with more work to do. For the record, I have no connection to the organisation at all. Travelmite (talk) 15:06, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

 Done: I removed the CSD tag because I think there is barely enough to meet the very low bar for A7, i.e. importance vs notability. That said, as of right now I have serious doubts that the subject rings the WP:N bell and would not care to wager money on its surviving an AfD nomination. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:48, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Shonda Schilling

Can someone please nominate Shonda Schilling for deletion? There is nothing that indicates that she is notable. Except that she is married to a famous person, and had cancer, and helps charities, and runs marathons. If any of that is important, it can be in his article I guess. Appreciated. 199.102.168.8 (talk) 21:58, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

 Done - See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shonda Schilling 199.102.168.8, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 22:04, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

AfD voting templates

I notice that a number of templates have been created by Wetitpig0 (talk · contribs), that are apparently intended for use when voting in WP:AFDs, see Category:Articles For Deletion Voting Templates. I'm pretty sure that there was consensus some time ago that such templates should not be used. Does anybody recall where that was agreed? If so, should we send them to WP:TFD? --Redrose64 (talk) 08:54, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

• @Redrose64:: This one? _Muffled ^Pocketed 09:28, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

That's very retro. Here you go:

• Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 December 29#Vote-_templates
• Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 December 12#Template:Keep
• Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 May 17#AfD_voting_templates
• Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 February 7#Template:KeepVote
• Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 May 3#Voting_templates_yet_again
• A DRV in April 2006
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/Deleted/November 2005#Template:Vote_and_all_derivatives
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/Deleted/June 2005#Template:Support_and_Template:Object_and_Template:Oppose
• Wikipedia talk:Straw polls/Archive 1#Voting_via_templates (April 2005)

Ah, the good old days.  — Scott • talk 09:34, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Voting templates offers advice on the matter. Took me awhile to find that. I remembered reading it, but couldn't put my hands on it, or rather, my pointer.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 09:44, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Nice find. That was an orphan until now!  — Scott • talk 09:53, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, nice one Godsy. All, since that is currently an essay, is it worth- as per this edit summary- to re-propose it as policy? Much has probably happened in the last six years tip change viewpoints; all those discussions, for a start. _Muffled ^Pocketed 10:14, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I think it would do well with a higher status than an Essay. These type of templates are created in one incarnation or another every now and again, perhaps in part due to their use on other Wikimedia sites, and the community has seemingly consistently rejected the idea.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 10:21, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I've relabeled it as an information page rather than an essay and linked to it from overleaf. That doesn't seem like it should be controversial.  — Scott • talk 10:56, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

• I've speedied them all. This set of templates has stayed listed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Perennial requests longer than any other page except John Bambenek, and gets reconfirmed either there or at an independent WP:TFD once or twice a year on average. I think the most recent was at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 December 30. —Cryptic 12:30, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks all, I didn't expect it to be cleared up whilst I was at work. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:51, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Alternative option

For those like who do prefer seeing the little pictograms in front of the different !votes (at XfD and elsewhere too like DRV, RfA, RM/MRV, etc.), this user script works wonders: User:Ais523/votesymbols.js. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:06, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Justin Gullett

I don't think winning an online competition for a TV show that flopped big time and being second Unit director on a few films makes him notable enough for a WIkipedia page.

Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.84.45.140 (talk) 08:26, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I've completed the nomination on behalf of the above IP editor. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justin Gullett. --Finngall ^talk 16:03, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Constant bullying by administrators

Despite of me providing valid links for my film Balloons, some of wikipedias admins are constantly bullying it by constant deletion reporting. Please look into the matter.Preetiahluwalia (talk) 15:01, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

No Admins, just editors adding a speedy tag which this editor and another new account only editing Balloons (2016). However, a real Admin has declined the speedy. Doug Weller talk 15:17, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm wrong, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gubbaare. Interesting, the editor who created that was blocked as a sock. I'll look into that. Doug Weller talk 15:22, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Preetiahluwalia has also been blocked as a sock. Doug Weller talk 18:19, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Doug, it does happen :) I've been meaning to get back to you on that talk page matter. I hope to do so soon. Steve Quinn (talk) 13:58, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

2016 Nice attack and International comments on the 2016 Nice attack

Not really sure what to make of this lot. The article Reactions to the 2016 Nice attack was the subject of an AfD, which was closed by Thryduulf with a consensus of merge. Since it was mostly a quote farm anyway, most of the article was transferred by me to the Wikiquote page, and what little prose was present was incorporated into the main article.

It seems that Corriebertus has taken issue with this and taken it upon themselves to paste 45k of the previously deleted reaction article on to the main, and then immediately remove the same content for being too long, to create International comments on the 2016 Nice attack. Effectively unilaterally undoing the AfD and converting it into a name change. TimothyJosephWood 12:15, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• I've speedy deleted it as a recreation of a deleted page (WP:CSD#G4). Thryduulf (talk) 14:47, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

The Lucky Man (2016)

Please do not delete my wiki page guys/gals. I am working on making it better every week with new content, and references. My new movie, The Lucky Man, is set to be released soon. I have put a lot of work into the pages.

I love Wiki, and I am a donor.

Thank you kindly,

Norman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcguiresys (talk • contribs) 21:35, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• Hi Norman. Thanks for the note. Unfortunately the article The Lucky Man (2016) has some serious, and potentially fatal flaws. Please read WP:COI. I suggest you send the article to WP:AFC for review in order to minimize the COI issue. They may also be able to help with other issues raised in the PROD notice. Thanks for your contributions to the project and best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:43, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Ping Mcguiresys. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:59, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• I am declining the PROD and moving this to AFC so that if anyone wants to they can work on it there. Steve Quinn (talk) 00:19, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• For anyone interested, the article (or page) is now located at Draft:The Lucky Man (2016). I doubt I will be working on it - just wanted to help out with the move. Steve Quinn (talk) 00:41, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I think that should solve the problem for now. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:06, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

"Kept as it is"

I agree with Corriebertus here: in principle I suppose any article could be improved, but it is not incumbent on any particular editor to do so, so the article may be kept as it is (it is permissible to keep the article without improving it) - but if you disagree please discuss here: Noyster (talk), 12:00, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I think though “kept and improved” is better for a couple of reasons. First it is an alternative to deletion, as discussed at WP:ATD. If the reasons for deletion can be addressed by editing then the article should be edited to improve it. For example sometimes an article is nominated for deletion because of lack of notability. Another editor might be able to find sources that support the subject’s notability, and they should be added to the article, to improve it and head off further nominations.

The other reason is the encyclopaedia is never finished. An article nominated for deletion is unlikely to be a good or featured article (if it is the AfD is often speedily closed as unlikely to succeed), so can and should be improved. Saying it can be “kept and improved“ encourages this, but does not mandate it. It can be improved but at the same rate as the rest of the encyclopaedia, whenever someone gets around to it.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 12:37, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree with JohnBlackburne. "Kept as it is" might alsy be misunderstood as suggesting that editors shouldn't revise it. I can see this happening with a new editor creating an article that goes to AfD and sees a result "Kept as it is" and thinks that means the new editor's version shouldn't be changed. Doug Weller talk 14:02, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Howabout something like "kept and allow to be improved", which doesn't state that it will or must be improved, but leaves open the idea that it will be improved, for surely that is always the goal. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:07, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the phrase "kept as it is" is misleading in that it may encourage the author of the article to engage in article ownership, and that "kept and allowed to be improved" or some similar phrase is good. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:18, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Why pass judgment at all? Individual AFDs are hardly ever closed as "keep as-is" or "keep and improve"; they just say "keep" without implying anything further either way, and so should the lede at WP:AFD. —Cryptic 15:42, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I am now very tempted by the word "maintained", as it means both "kept" and "tended to". --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:50, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Cryptic's solution seems simplest and best. I do agree though that "keep" !voters, if they prevail by producing good sources, should proceed to incorporate those sources in the article, not leave them buried in a closed AfD: Noyster (talk), 09:17, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think that the AfD page should include a list of outcomes, since there isn't a finite set of possibilities, and if it does (e.g. in the how-to-participate section), it should clearly indicate that it's not limited to those options. I've already removed the list of outcomes that had been presented in the closing instructions per this discussion. ansh666 18:20, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Wording changed to simply "kept" per Cryptic, and met Ansh666 by stating that the outcomes listed are "common outcomes": Noyster (talk), 11:31, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

DeviceAtlas and WURFL

Please complete the process of proposing for deletion DeviceAtlas and WURFL on the same grounds as 51Degrees (notability). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiwiprof (talk • contribs) 10:47, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

@Kiwiprof:As a registered Wikipedia user you could nominate these articles for AfD yourself - a process greatly facilitated by installing and using Twinkle - and if wished you could expand on your reason while doing so: Noyster (talk), 11:47, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Hindu temples with no reliable source

Whenever someone constructs a temple in any Indian small town, they create a wikipedia page. I ignored a few articles, but now I am nominating them for deletion if they are not mentioned in reliable sources. --Marvellous Spider-Man 02:00, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

@Marvellous Spider-Man: OK; have you informed WT:WikiProject Hinduism and perhaps WT:WikiProject India as well? --Redrose64 (talk) 07:36, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Hank Matthews (Voice actor)

I would like to nominate Hank Matthews's page be deleted since there isn't even a single citation on the page nor are there any photos that proves this person really exists. This leads me to speculate that all the information in Hank's biography are nothing but purely made up stories. One more thing, his page obviously doesn't meet the notability criteria, so even if Hank was real, his page should just go poof. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 08:57, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

You can do this nomination yourself - see WP:AFD#Nominating article(s) for deletion. JohnCD (talk) 14:42, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the help. I shall see to it that the nomination be made. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 08:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Delete a deletion subpage/redirect

So, I wanted to open an AFD but the process was a little bit confusing. Ofc I ended fucking it up. Basically I created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apprentice (video game) (2nd nomination) under the wrong name, as I left out the (2nd nomination) bit. I then moved it to the current location and added it into the main afd list page. The problem is: there is now a REDIRECT at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apprentice (video_game). I have no idea if I broke something with that move, so can this Redirect get deleted? I have no idea how to do that, PROD is only for articles, and I dont think an AFD is necessary for that. Can some admin perhaps delete the redirect? (: Dead Mary (talk) 19:38, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think so. I retargetted it to point to the first nom, to avoid confusion. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:51, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

We could probably delete it but I don't think it's causing any harm so I won't. I've retargeted a few links in the AfD as a result of the move. Hut 8.5 20:52, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

The presence of the (retargetted) redir is beneficial, as without it, this wouldn't work. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:56, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Well thanks, as long as nothing is broken anymore, its good. Dead Mary (talk) 22:59, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Participation

We have a relatively small problem where article for deletion pages do not get enough participation. Currently process is made a bit easier by the sorting pages etc. but the layout still only allows for individuals to see the title of the article and not what its about. We would probably get more participants if a notice was added describing what the topic is about. Therefore I suggest that we automatically include what category the page (if any computer programmers are watching) or provision that the nominator adds a short notice on what the article is about. Pwolit iets (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:45, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Or you could simply look at the article... ansh666 00:19, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Gage Skidmore

I have not nominated an article for deletion before, so I thought rather than launching in to a full nomination, I would discuss it here first. The article Gage Skidmore appears to be about a photographer of limited notability. He takes photos of a limited part of society (politicians) in just one country (the US). Is this really notable enough for an article? DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:51, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

@DrChrissy: I think the result could go either way. There are some references on the page, but nothing that seems too noteworthy. Does just being a photographer that has gotten some press become notable? That is to be determined. I am leaning more towards a delete, but it is a weak delete. Maybe if the article states with references that the photographer is more notable than just taking pictures of a few politicians and they have used his photos, then we could change my support to a weak keep. We don't keep articles of actors or actresses with only one role, although they have gotten coverage, so why should this be any different? Chase (talk) 19:41, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for this @Chase:. I tend to be an inclusionist on WP, which is why I raised this discussion rather than launching an AFD. I agree that if it could be shown that the photographer has notably published in other areas, this would be a weak keep. DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:50, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Isn't the article just a BLP!E case ?, They're only notable for taking photographs and not much else , Personally I'd go with delete per my reason as well as per the above. –Davey2010^Talk 19:53, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I think this is a WP:BLP!E case, but also is there more than one occassion that the photographer has gotten coverage? Or better yet, what would make a photographer become notable? Do they have to do other things besides being a photographer, or different subject? Chase (talk) 20:19, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

If the photographer has been covered for his or her body of work, or multiple photos have won prizes, or if a single photograph has won a major prize (e.g. Pulitzer), then those are all cases where BLP1E doesn't really apply. Review WP:WI1E if you want some of my thinking on why. Jclemens (talk) 20:35, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

So if they have been covered they become notable? Or only if they win prizes? Chase (talk) 20:41, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:GNG is the general rule, WP:CREATIVE gives specific guidelines for artists and other folks such as photographers. Jclemens (talk) 20:57, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I stand by my Delete support after reading all of the related material. Chase (talk) 21:09, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Folks, if you want to delete that article, it's time to stop trying on this page and either do an AfD or at least start preliminary discussions on the article's talk page, where interested editors will see it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:53, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I have already raised the issue on the Talk page. However, it is best that discussion takes place on just one page. This discussion is about whether an AfD should take place, not about deletion of the article. DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:13, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

DrChrissy, thanks for letting me know about this discussion. I can't see any reason to nominate the article. His photography has become well-known within certain circles, and the sources range from 2012 to 2016, so it wasn't a one-off burst of coverage. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:26, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

That sounds fair enough. I have very little experience of biographies so I shall defer to your experience and I will not be nominating the article at AFD. Thanks All for the constructive discussion. DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:49, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Delete This is patent BIO1E and another example of over-coverage of American politics. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:42, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: this is not a formal WP:AFD. If one is initiated, it will be at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gage Skidmore. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:24, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Understand :) I was just stating my opinion that this is a BIO1E. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:36, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

AFD log bug?

Hi, Going through this log I've noticed all the afds that have second or third noms simply say "(2nd nomination)" instead of "X (2nd nomination)", When I click on some of the AFDs some will say "X (2nd nomination)" whilst others say "(2nd nomination)", It's never happened before so not sur if it's a bug or what, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 00:37, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

• Nevermind posted at VP/T (here). Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 00:47, 26 September 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)

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. [3]). 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)

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)

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)

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)

Hello,

I'm sorry if creating these new pages violated any Wikipedia policy regarding community discussion or insufficiently credited VirginiaHistorian's contributions to the Virginia Conventions page, which are amazing and substantial. I admit I've added no additional research; I have no background in Virginia history and don't expect I will do so. I believe each convention is notable enough to merit its own Wikipedia page. I created them for two reasons:

First, to clarify things for folks following incoming links. As someone who doesn't know the subject, when I read that, say, Robert Bolling attended the Virginia Convention, I would rather find a clear and specific link telling me what Virginia Convention he attended, rather than one discussing everything from the American Revolution to living memory, just as much as a link telling me he was born in Virginia shouldn't take me to Thirteen Colonies.

Second, for readability. The Virginia Conventions page has some long, unbroken sections corresponding to each convention. I find the shorter articles more readable and have begun introducing sections.

Notwithstanding all I've said about splitting the article, I think a page titled Virginia Conventions has real value as an exploration of the democratic tradition linking together two hundred years of conventions. I also believe that if the individual articles I've created are deleted - which I hope they're not - the Virginia Convention page should be changed to a single redirect to Virginia Conventions and not a list of links to sections of the same article.

Dallyripple

@Redrose64, Hut 8.5, and Dallyripple: Thanks for the replies. Although I originally despaired at collaborating with Dallyripple, I did not want to pull the trigger on deletion of the articles here because I could already imagine the benefit to shorter articles (on second thought) that Dallyripple now points out. At some level, I take it as a compliment that each of the Conventions might be notable enough to merit their own article.

I think on balance I now prefer the use of both the shorter articles Dallyripple has created that maintain the debate detail in each convention, with individual's bio links directly to the shorter articles, --- and then keep the main article, which might be better summarized in an encyclopedic style since the detail of the debates are held in each convention article. But I do not believe that this ongoing effort should derail the efforts to bring the main article here to GA status.

They should over time, take on their own elaboration in greater detail both in historical context and in discussion of their constitutions. Even the Secessionist Convention produced a proposed Constitution that failed referendum under the Confederate regime…neither the Virginia Conventions nor Virginia Constitution main articles are likely to address it in any detail. I'll post this at TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:17, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Nominating a huge number of articles at once?

Hi, I recently started contributing to AfD discussions and I have a question (I hope this is the right place). While going through random articles I came across this page: Florida State Road 134. I think this article completely fails to have any notability. Normally I would simply nominate the article for deletion, but this seems to also apply to a truly enormous number of similar articles in this article's Wiki Project. Many of these articles that I've seen fail the project's own guidelines on this matter. What should be done about this? --♫CheChe♫ talk 14:19, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

If you think that "a truly enormous number" of articles qualify for deletion, then everyone here appreciates you asking about it first. I don't know how you would do it except by spending a truly enormous amount of time on it to do each one manually or with a tool like Twinkle, but I can speak to the notability issue. Generally speaking, roads are generally considered notable if they are maintained by a state-or-higher-level authority. National/state/provincial highways, Interstates, etc. are generally notable, while local numbered roads (regional and county roads, numbered city streets) generally are not unless they are notable for some other reason. If there are still some you're considering nominating, have a look at WP:ROADOUTCOMES first, that will probably narrow down your list significantly. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:48, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

It's possible. I did a mass AfD back in 2014. And I will also tell you it was a pain in the @$$ and I doubt I would ever do one again. But if you want directions on how to do it, go here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:05, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

AFDs may not even be required. Primary project page is WP:WikiProject U.S. Roads, whose notability criteria are here. They provide Rockland County Scenario and Michigan Plan as examples of ways to handle roads of limited established notability. Suggest discussing at their Talk Page first, particularly given that the road you've used as an example has been rated as Mid importance. You may just be able to merge and/or redirect with reference to the discussion if uncontroversial. If, finally, you find the discussion outcome unsatisfactory, then you can propose merger or deletion where appropriate, with reference to the discussion. There's 450+ Florida state roads, so the fewer AFDs the better. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 00:56, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

This is probably the best way to handle a large group of related pages, approach the Wikiproject generally responsible for it. It will not be as "clean" as I could envision one wanting, but it is the easily, least troublesome method of determining problems on a large number of articles. I will point to the previous ARBCOM case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2 as what not to do if you see to have a large number of articles deleted in good faith. --MASEM (t) 01:34, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: @Ad Orientem: @Hydronium Hydroxide: @Masem: Thanks everyone. I see now most of the articles don't qualify for deletion. WP:ROADOUTCOMES was exactly the kind of get-out-clause / specification I was hoping for --♫CheChe♫ talk 10:34, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Please complete this deletion process

I nominated this article for deletion, with my rationale on talk page: Turkic people of Iran.tnx.112.120.188.231 (talk) 17:04, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done TonyBallioni (talk) 17:36, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

A page I found that had a AFD put up in September that was never relisted or anything

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ed Ross, found this guy on the new page feed and the afd oddly was from September! Wgolf (talk) 03:10, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Looks like the nominator didn't do it right or something. Wgolf (talk) 03:11, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

• I've refactored it to contain the template, found the closest thing I could to the nominator's deletion rationale, and listed it at AfD. It could probably be closed keep immediately, but I'll leave that decision to someone else. We get maybe 1-2 a month like this that slip through. Most are caught after in their second month, but occasionally they linger around longer. Monty₈₄₅ 03:22, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Looks like an anon IP added the AfD tag, then tried to add a justification in the form of a prod tag, but did no further followup and therefore it never was transcluded. Defenders of the page "created" the discussion page by adding their input, but probably nobody uninvolved ever saw it until now. I also track old nominations complied at Wikipedia:Article alerts/Problem entries/Old and have thereby found and fixed several badly-formed nominations like this one, but this even slipped by the bot which populates that page. Odd. --Finngall ^talk 03:31, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

@Finngall: My secret source is User:DumbBOT/TimeSortedAfD, mostly its discussions with multiple relists, but it gets everything with an old AfD tag on the article itself. Just check the ones more than 40 or so days old. Monty₈₄₅ 03:47, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Never seen that list till now, interesting! Wgolf (talk) 03:44, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Wow-one is nearly 3 months old that is listed! Wgolf (talk) 03:54, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Formatting issue at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2016_October_31

There seems to be a problem with one of the closures that messed up the formatting. Can someone please fit it? Bearian (talk) 00:48, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of experiments from Lilo & Stitch (4th nomination)

The list that will not die: bot seems to be taking an awful long time to carry through deletion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of experiments from Lilo & Stitch (4th nomination)? Still currently a blue link, 4+ hours later. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:23, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

It needs a steward to delete. —Cryptic 02:28, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, now into day 2, for this the 4th Afd, for this list that seems to have Keith Richards-like staying power. I'm curious: has @MBisanz:'s closure as delete been challenged or subject to further review in some other forum? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:40, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I've put in a request here for a steward to delete it. Hut 8.5 15:13, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't aware of that 5000+ revisions threshold, which is all beyond my ken. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:16, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

We've had problems in the past with people deleting pages with enormous numbers of revisions, such as the sandbox, and causing the servers to lock up, so normal admins aren't allowed to delete them any more. Hut 8.5 15:23, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, WP:DDMP#Historical context. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:41, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Hilarious. Well, I won't ask who it was! thanks. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:02, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

How do I find an old VFD discussion

There is an article, WilTel Communications, that was prodded. Looking through the history I found something that looks like it survived, no consensus, a VFD in February 2004. I can't find the actual discussion. The history of WP:AFD only goes back to May 2004. Does anyone know how to find old discussions? -- GB fan 00:35, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

History from May 2002 to May 2004 is at WP:Votes for deletion archive May 2004. The last revision that mentions that article is this. —Cryptic 00:47, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

In those days, closure was performed by physically deleting the discussion from the VfD list (they weren't copied to an archive first). What I do is to look at the edit where the notice was added to the article, and look at that user's contribs from around the same time. These two edits are the nomination. Similarly for the closure, but here the two events were 35 minutes apart with 15 intervening edits by the same person. --Redrose64 (talk) 01:02, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. First time I have come across this, -- GB fan 01:11, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Missing logs

Does anyone know why the logs for 2 and 3 November are not showing up under the Old discussions? They still have AfDs that have not been closed. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:31, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

@Sarahj2107: Because Mathbot (talk · contribs) - which updates Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old - hasn't run since 9 November. Notifying Oleg Alexandrov (talk · contribs), the bot-op. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:07, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:54, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposal: AfD with no participants should be relisted indefinitely, not closed, until there is at least one other participant

See here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:40, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Rfc on upgrading the NAC essay to a guideline

Interested editors can comment on the Deletion process talk page. Thanks. Lourdes 05:52, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Yamie Chess

Hi, can someone please fix the AFD for Yamie Chess, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 17:11, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done Hut 8.5 17:15, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 17:28, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Patrolling kept articles

An issue came up at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#When will a wiki page appear in google search? As Wikipedia:New pages patrol says: "pages that are still not patrolled are not indexed and cached by Google or other search engines". Kudpung closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Hillmann as keep but Bill Hillmann was not patrolled so it still had noindex (I checked the html source). The oldest unpatrolled pages at [4] are 30 days. Many new articles are AfD'ed and kept within that time frame. Should we ask closers to check whether kept pages need patrolling? Or just accept that it may take weeks until somebody else does it? Or could a tool flag AfD keeps which haven't been patrolled? PrimeHunter (talk) 20:24, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: An interesting question to which there is a simple answer: All noinexed pages whether tagged for anything or not are automatically released for indexing after 90 days.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:28, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

• Bear in mind that NPP patrollers are supposed to check a number of things besides whether the article should be deleted. The fact that something survived an AfD doesn't necessarily mean it's in a fit state to be patrolled. Hut 8.5 10:35, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

nomination failure

I just tried to Nominate Caffeinated Concert Tickets with Twinkle and received the error: Creating article deletion discussion page: Failed to save edit: The article you tried to create has been created already. In todays Log it placed a prior closed discussion. Can someone straighten this out? MB 20:29, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

@MB: Twinkle is a pain, I always do it manually. You need to follow the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO, step I, first bullet, small print. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:54, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't asking how to do a nomination, I have done nearly 50 with Twinkle and couldn't imagine doing it manually. I was asking how to clean up after this failure. The article has the banner at the top that says it has been nominated, but there is actually no open discussion. MB 00:23, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Probably just revert your last couple edits that are related to the nomination, since it didn't create a page. Looks to me like Twinkle is confused because a prior nomination was moved and a redirect is in its place now. You'll probably have to do this one manually. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:28, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

@MB: never mind, this was going to be confusing anyway because of the redirected discussion. I went ahead and created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caffeinated Concert Tickets (3rd nomination) and fixed the links to point to that page instead. Should be good to go now but you'll have to edit the AfD page to add your deletion rationale. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:39, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: Thanks for straightening this out. I've put my deletion rationale in. MB 00:48, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Please explain how to

I'm sorry but your explanations aren't understandable, 38,512 bytes. Xx236 (talk) 14:07, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

The procedure isn't exactly simple, but the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO seem quite adequate for the task. I've completed the nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Panchayat Cricket Ground‎ on your behalf. --Finngall ^talk 15:34, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I've posted a notice on the page creator's talk page, so that they are aware of the nomination. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:05, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Rangoon Point

Could someone please complete this nomination, which I, as a non-logged-in user cannot? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

On it. --Finngall ^talk 22:15, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rangoon Point. --Finngall ^talk 22:24, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2016_Aliah_University_Protest

I closed this discussion some time ago, but it keeps popping up on the list of old, unclosed AfDs. I don't know enough about the technical end of things to diagnose the problem. Joyous! | Talk 16:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Could it be because it was moved from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Aliah University Protest SAVE ALIAH, which now redirects to it? I changed the entry on the November 15 log which might fix it. There is something else weird on that day's log. There are two delete !votes that don't seem to be part of any AfD and they are signed by a link to the talk dab page. I can't figure out where they are coming from. Sarahj2107 (talk) 16:27, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

That seems to have done the trick. Thank you. Joyous! | Talk 20:12, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Complete deletion proposal for unregistered user

I have submitted a deletion proposal at 100 Women (BBC) and the associated talk page. Please may a registered user finish it off: I am unable to do so? 2A00:23C4:A683:6A00:C414:D65C:FA3:A059 (talk) 16:01, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done TimothyJosephWood 16:07, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! 2A00:23C4:A683:6A00:C414:D65C:FA3:A059 (talk) 16:25, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Afd process proposal submitted to Village pump

I submitted a proposal for use of a checklist, like the {{DYK checklist}} for the Afd process at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Afd process. It would be great to get your input on this idea!--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what the hell is going on...

With the edit war over this section, but please stop it. It clearly does not belong here. ANI is this way. Further disruptive edting will result in an invitation from me to that forum. Thanks... -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:28, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

It would be great if we could figure out a way to get them to leave and not come back. I don't think that is going to happen. - GB fan 17:38, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Vote {X} for change has an inexhaustible supply of IP addresses. Just delete. Doug Weller talk 18:01, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Diesel fuel tanks in trucks

Someone...figure this out. I have a strong suspicion it should probably be deleted, but I'm not entire sure how to put it. AfC creation by globally banned User:Ktr101. It's such an incredibly vague topic so as to be practically meaningless, and I'm not entirely sure its even definable beyond the scope of the Fuel tank article, given that Truck is such a stunningly broad term. TimothyJosephWood 21:12, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Well it's an article about the design and manufacture of fuel tanks. Diesel or trucks are scarcely mentioned at all (that's not entirely the creator's fault, Ktr101 moved it to this title from "Truck Fuel Tanks"). This is a pretty solid argument for it to be deleted or merged somewhere else. Hut 8.5 21:41, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

• Send it to AfD and let "consensus" see to it.

I'd delete it. The content is either self-evident (quality of welding is obviously necessary) or unsourced and dubious. Most what's in here is so narrowly specific that it implies (unsourced) that there is only one single way to make a fuel tank, which is a US-centric view and far from universal. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:58, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

One place to start is with all of the unsourced OR material. Take that out and you basically have a stub. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:46, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Query regarding WP:ATD

WP:DISCUSSAFD states that alternatives to deletion should be considered, which in turn states: "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." WP:DISCUSSAFD also gives the option to !vote as "Disambiguation". I tried the earlier option at the Magsi AfD, by suggesting to keep it as a surname list article, as it satisfied all the relevant criteria. But my advice was rejected & the article was deleted. When I asked for clarification from the closing admin, their response was dismissive. Recently, I tried the latter option at the Joon Afd. But again the article was deleted. And again I got dismissive response from the closing admin. It's noteworthy that both the admins had no problem with my suggested alternatives.

So, it seems to me that the closing admins consider redirect & merge as the only valid alternatives to deletion. And if that's the case, then the WP:DISCUSSAFD should clearly mention the same. It will be helpful for comparatively inexperienced AfD participants like me, who make fool out of themselves by !voting as "Disambiguation". - NitinMlk (talk) 20:05, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I'll leave it to others to respond to your main question, but if you are going to discuss other editors, you should let them know. Doug Weller talk 20:16, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Ah, you did mention it to one of them. I only looked at Sandstein's page. I notified him. Doug Weller talk 20:19, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! - NitinMlk (talk) 20:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, but I don't see how this concerns me.  Sandstein  20:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I just wanted clarification for the personal sake. And that's why I didn't notify you. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:24, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

You seem to be slightly misunderstanding the role of closing administrators. They don't go through all the opinions and pick what they think is the best one to act on. Rather, they judge the discussion as a whole and determine the consensus of the participants. Though it isn't just a vote count, several well-argued delete opinions pointing to lack of reliable sources are not going to be overruled by one editor who wants a disambig instead. So it's not right to say that "closing admins consider redirect & merge as the only valid alternatives to deletion", rather, that the AfD participants did not go for other options. Reyk _YO! 20:34, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

• The proper venue for this complaint is WP:DRV, but don't expect an outpouring of sympathy there. Opinions like Reyk's are as common as they are wrong and harmful. You are reading ATD correctly, but most closing administrators do not. Jclemens (talk) 20:37, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Jclemens, thanks. At least you understood my point. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:42, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Jclemens, this page has nearly 1600 watchers. And one of them should be easily able to clarify my simple query. So, I won't post it anywhere else, as it's a general query. In fact, if I won't get any reasonable response here, I will take your comment's last sentence at face value. BTW, thanks for the clarification! - NitinMlk (talk) 21:10, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

A disambiguation page already existed, the logical thing is to move that here, not copy paste that over this article. Claiming that admins/editors who disagree with one's opinion are wrong and dangerous doesn't make that so. —SpacemanSpiff 07:06, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

You are amazing in other areas but your this comment shows that you don't understand WP:ATD. If X satisfies the disambiguation criteria & a primary topic doesn't exists, then X (disambiguation) is needed to be created & redirected to X, as per WP:DABNAME. In the case of Joon, Joon (disambiguation) already existed & there was no primary topic. So, you just needed to redirect Joon (disambiguation) to Joon instead of deleting the Joon. In fact, I've explained all that already at the Joon AfD. BTW, your comment simply means that you don't consider disambiguation as a valid alternative to deletion.

PS: I guess user Jclemens clearly & boldly explained the AfD scenario. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:23, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Like I said, if you are confident you understand things perfectly while others don't then go for WP:DRV and see what the community has to say, just claiming that you are right isn't going anywhere, and claiming that any opinion to the contrary is harmful is disingenuous and absurd at best. Like I've said before, I did consider disambiguation but your method is wrong, simple as that.—SpacemanSpiff 05:03, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I have to agree. It is annoying when someone claims to be asking a question, then insults and criticises people for giving an answer they don't like. It would have been more accurate to title this section ==Expostulation regarding WP:ATD==. Reyk _YO! 08:56, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

SpacemanSpiff, please read my opening query. I want overall clarification regarding the application/scope of WP:ATD during the AfDs. I mentioned Magsi/Joon Afd just to give the context of my query. DRV will turn it into an individual case & therefore won't serve the main purpose of my query. BTW, I neither claimed that any contrary opinion is "harmful" nor did I claim that disagreeing "admins/editors" are "dangerous".

Reyk, you have summed up your understanding of the WP:ATD in your following comment: "Though it isn't just a vote count, several well-argued delete opinions pointing to lack of reliable sources are not going to be overruled by one editor who wants a disambig instead". So, now please let the others express their views. - NitinMlk (talk) 18:52, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

It's precisely because I want others to be able to express their views that I am asking you not to shout at them for disagreeing with you. Reyk _YO! 19:40, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned chunk of discussion

On Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 December 6, there is a decapitated chunk of discussion just below Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knowledge tree training. I'm not sure what article it belongs with. It's just....hanging there.... Joyous! | Talk 01:39, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Venture capital firms and venture capitalists

Hi,

I've been voting on several articles about venture capital firms and venture capitalists and it seems that there is a school of thought that if an article is created about them it is SPAM.

I just want to make sure I'm not missing something - which is entirely possible. Is there a special way that I should be viewing these subjects that I may be missing? A guideline, perhaps, that I am missing - or school of thought about these type of articles?--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:11, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh, there seems to be a similar issue with people in advertising and the media - which is understandable based upon the nature of their business - but I am wondering if there is a much higher threshold beyond notability, GNG, etc. that I need to understand.--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:14, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

No there is no "higher standard." Articles are not presumptively SPAM because of their subject. But they do need to meet GNG and/or one of the related guidelines correlated to WP:N. Sadly, we do get a lot of corporate and self promotional SPAM so some subjects tend to attract closer scrutiny because of this. But as long as the article rings the WP:N bell and doesn't appear to have a lot of WP:UNDUE or WP:PROMO material it should be fine. People doing a lot of articles on corporate and business related subjects should also be aware of WP:COI. I hope that helps. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:29, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

That absolutely helps, thanks so much!--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:29, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

The quality of sources needs to be checked properly though (See WP:SPIP). "Contributor" articles on many websites are not considered reliable sources for the purposes of notability. Neither are redressed press releases/churnalism. In many ways the notability requirements for companies has a higher threshold of WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:CORPIND. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:13, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Lemongirl942 Yep, thanks - Except for one thing, I am good on the points from the guidelines.

It seems churnalism can be subjective, unless it's a word-for-word copy of a press release - and there is a copy of the press release that can be found so one can compare the two. If a journalist uses a press release as a springboard for an article, I don't see anything wrong with that. That's essentially a theoretical point, because how do we know that there was fact-checking done and it's not just a rewrite or summary of the info? A lot of times for venture capital firms, the info in the articles are event-driven. In those cases, I would expect that the details in newspapers would be the same: dates, amounts of money, key players / orgs.

However, as it's stated in the churnalism article, there's a prevalence of churnalism across the media for economic reasons. What does that mean, then, that event-driven media coverage should be ignored? Hmmm.

I absolutely see an issue of taking a press release verbatim - or summarizing it without any sort of editorial intervention - which then means it's publication of a primary source. My head is spinning a bit at the moment on this, but I will absolutely add that to my consideration, do more scrutinizing there, and I'm sure I'll be able to process this better with a smidge of time. It's too bad that due to lack of funding churnalism.com had to shut down, at least for now. That would be a good resource, it seems.

That was an issue that came up on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sherpa Capital's discussion, so it's fresh in my mind.--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:07, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

One afterthought, perhaps earwig copyvio detector would be helpful in these cases to find word-for-word comparisons. If there's not an essay about this already (I'll look), this might be a good essay to write.--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:13, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

What do you know, there is an essay, Wikipedia:Churnalism - and it makes some of my points more eloquently. It has suggestions for how to determine if it's churnalism. That's helpful.--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:34, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

CaroleHenson The quality of coverage depends. Churnalism is a problem because it games the system. Our notability guidelines rely on the fact that someone independent of the subject has taken the initiative to write about the subject (and in a substantial way). Generally, mainstream newspapers such as NYTimes which rely on full time staff members, usually do not indulge in churnalism (and they have a much rigorous editorial review). However, a lot of the sites particularly TechCrunch/Venturebeat (and other "new media" focusing on startups) are vulnerable to churnalism. Essentially these sites rely on "contributors" who bring "news". All company PR executives have to do is to contact a contributor and get a news up. (On a personal note, I had interned at a startup where part of my responsibility was publicity. All I did was write 5 different versions of an article, made sure each had some information the others didn't and then sent it to different contributors. I made a deal that they could retain the copyright and credits as long as they didn't modify the content. All of my "news" got published verbatim). These new media websites don't have a stringent editorial process. And just about anything (as long as it isn't controversial or defamatory) will get published. Btw, some of the "event driven coverage" that you are referring to may actually just be routine news such as mergers/acquisition/profit/employee hiring etc. These usually don't have a lot of content about the company. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:39, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl1942:, thanks for linking to the "Churnalism" article. I was trying to explain this phenomenon to a Wiki editor during an AfD discussion and the person wasn't buying it. Now I have something to back me up and to help me explain it. Also, your experience of writing five different variations specifically for contributors to publications is also helpful for explaining the downward slide in authentic journalism. This is gaming the system and is pervasive. Local TV stations seem to use these type of press releases a lot - because their budgets have been slashed as corporate owners are more interested in profits. So, thanks for that also. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:06, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Lemongirl1942, First of all, yikes! about the 5 different stories point.

• I agree with your points about selection of sources (see Talk:Sherpa Capital#Sources), and only kept TechCrunch as one of the editors sources because I had researched them and found that over the past year or two, their editorial staff had become more vigilant - and I found the info in major news sources that backed it up. It was replaced, though, due to a comment on the Afd discussion. I look to Forbes, Fortune, New York Times, LA Times, Wall Street Journal for info about financial issues if I'm writing the content.
• I'm trying to square The quality of coverage depends. Churnalism is a problem because it games the system. Our notability guidelines rely on the fact that someone independent of the subject has taken the initiative to write about the subject (and in a substantial way). and All I did was write 5 different versions of an article, made sure each had some information the others didn't and then sent it to different contributors. I made a deal that they could retain the copyright and credits as long as they didn't modify the content. All of my "news" got published verbatim). because couldn't these look like one another? How do we know if we're getting real journalism or spoon-fed PR? The churnalism article made it sound like all mainstream media can be susceptible to this kind of reporting.
• By event-driven coverage of venture capital organizations, I meant significant events about funds - their being established, etc.--CaroleHenson (talk) 05:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Steve Quinn and CaroleHenson. Unfortunately, these days even the mainstream media companies may be vulnerable (particularly the hosted news blogs). In addition, it is much harder to figure out whether the news is actual coverage or PR. From my experience, most PR executives do prepare different versions in a "newsy" style before submitting to different contributors. (This is also because contributors always check for copyvio/close paraphrasing, due to potential harm to their reputation from publishing a lightly redressed PR). I generally tend to avoid "new media" sources, particularly articles about funding, CEO interviews and product launch announcements. These are some of the most susceptible to churnalism. Another problem with these new media sources is their tendency to publish even minor details (particularly about new startups). That kind of defeats the purpose of relying on media to find a company which has genuinely received attention. Most notable companies do receive coverage in mainstream media and this coverage is often about a significant impact the company had. I prefer to rely on these kind of sources as it explains about the company in depth. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:39, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Ardit Toli

The article about a football player Ardit Toli should be nominated for deletion because he fails Wikipedia:GNG and Wikipedia:FPL. Eni.Sukthi.Durres (talk) 17:58, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chip Gaines not being added to the log

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chip Gaines was nominated for deletion but never added to the log for today. I tried to add it and for the life of me can't figure out what is wrong with the formatting for it. I normally nominate via Twinkle, and when I have completed nominations for IPs or new users I added it to the top of the list like I did for this one and its worked. If anyone has any idea on how to fix it, I'd appreciate it. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:29, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Never mind, the AfD did not have the correct formatting inside. I completed it for the nominator. If someone wants to check to make sure there was nothing in the wikicode I messed up, that'd be great, but I think I have it done. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:43, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Akshar Pathak

Can someone please proceed the step 2 & 3 from Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_nominate_a_single_page_for_deletion for Akshar Pathak as I am an unregistered user here. Regards. I will present my arguments in the discussion (which is primarily this being a self promotional article) --182.75.175.230 (talk) 06:18, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done TonyBallioni (talk) 06:58, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Bernstein Medical and Robert M. Bernstein

Can someone please complete the deletion process for Bernstein Medical and Robert M. Bernstein? I have done all I can. Thank you. --2604:2000:E016:A700:D4E1:E2A1:3568:3C85 (talk) 18:44, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done TimothyJosephWood 19:10, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Poker players

There are various categories of poker players but the biggest by far (531) is Category:American poker players. Looking at these, I distinguish (roughly) three types of article. One would include people who are notable for some other reason but are also enthusiastic or noted poker-players e.g. Ben Affleck. Fair enough. A second is of professional, or semi-professional poker players who have received a fair amount of coverage and would seem to me to have good grounds for meeting general standards of notability, e.g. Joe Cada, Amarillo Slim. But a third category consists of people who just happen to be listed on a poker website somewhere, and about whom there is at the most some anecdotal information. poorly or not at all sourced; sometimes there is a listing of pots they have won and their places in a tournament, even if they have never won a tournament or been placed high. these don't seem to me to qualify in anyway under GNG. Examples: Brandon Adams (poker player), Crandell Addington, Saif Ahmad, Daniel Alaei, James Van Alstyne, Jesse Alto, Howard Andrew, Sam Angel, Mickey Appleman, Josh Arieh and Joe Awada - and that's just from the As. Do other editors perhaps agree with me that this third category is not notable and not suitable for WP articles? Can we set out standards that would determine notability for poker players and then perhaps proceed to delete those who don't meet it?--Smerus (talk) 19:13, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't have an answer to your question, but I think Crandell Addington fits better with the second list than the third. I would think that induction to the Poker Hall of Fame would establish notability. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

@GaryColemanFan:. Thanks for this, but it needs a bit of further thought I think. the Poker Hall of Fame is a merchandising initiative by a casino owner with less-than-clear criteria for nomination and acceptance; basically it appears to be given at the discretion of the guys that run it. Whilst the Hall of Fame itself might justify an entry in WP, it's by no means clear that those who are nominated to it automatically deserve an entry themselves. On that sort of argument, you might include everyone who has ever received the Order of the British Empire or any other sort of award as deserving of a WP article.--Smerus (talk) 07:42, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

We disagree. GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:14, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Noted and thanks for your contribution.--Smerus (talk) 23:49, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Amy Wechsler

Can someone please complete the deletion process for Amy Wechsler? Thank you. --2604:2000:E016:A700:951:D485:DE63:C416 (talk) 17:54, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done GermanJoe (talk) 18:00, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Various

Can someone please complete the deletion nominations of Dowling Stough and Miles Galin and Leo Wollman and Ava Shamban and Charles Perniciaro? Thank you. --2604:2000:E016:A700:951:D485:DE63:C416 (talk) 20:37, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

• Maybe I shouldn't have, but I've removed the Afd banners leading to redlinked discussion pages. Until such time as someone wants to perform this service for him, the templates needlessly clutter up the page and confuse our readers. Most experienced editors use automated tools to apply the Afd template anyway, so having one there or not is not a time saver. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:27, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

AFD Request for Bernhard Rosenberg

I recently came across this orphan article for a rabbi, which appears to have directly been written at his behest, and would like to call the attention of registered users to the matter. 2604:2000:1304:402F:6D63:2020:CD6B:18F0 (talk) 22:40, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Can someone please complete this request. Thanks 2604:2000:1304:402F:C8B1:F3F5:CF4:CE95 (talk) 05:18, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done by User:JJMC89 TimothyJosephWood 11:04, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Addressing shading and other decorative elements in AFDFORMAT?

Should we update WP:AFDFORMAT, which already forbids label templates, to put a stop to this sort of thing, where an editor uses shading to emphasize his comment? Comments at Afd should be judged on merit, not the decorative skills of editors. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:47, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I think that particular editor was merely attempting to ensure his lengthy and rather intricately structured comment would be read as just that - a single comment. Still, there is merit in the proposal as it would prevent people inadvertently or otherwise impersonating a closed discussion. Triptothecottage (talk) 05:17, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Tour articles

Just putting this here in case someone has a strong opinion about it, or is aware of specific precedent for tour articles. A new editor has been spamming mostly unreferenced tour articles, and has created at least a dozen over the last three days, not including some which have already been deleted per their talk. I'm not sure if this is blatant enough to mass AfD, or if anyone is aware of socky behavior that would qualify for mass deletion by fiat. The user is obviously not new, since they are well versed in formatting (infoboxes, tables). It's also...not entirely clear that this may not be a sideways copyvio, since they basically all seem to just replicate tour dates from (some) source without adding any information, but I know copyvio of list information is...not a clear issue, as has been brought up regarding some Forbes lists, and more recently at the BBC 100 article. TimothyJosephWood 14:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

They seem to be complete (or attempting to be complete) lists of factual information, so there is no copyright issue. Whether they are notable is another question. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:38, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

AFD request at Keith Johnson (author)

Please may someone create the deletion discussion for this page? 2A00:23C4:A688:DB00:D4F6:B412:33B8:ACD1 (talk) 19:19, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the page for deletion discussion is not linked to the article, or the page for deletion discussion does not exist. Steve Quinn (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I know: because I am unregistered, I cannot create the page. I made a note on the article's talk page and a request on this page for a deletion discussion to be created and my reason copied over, as specified elsewhere. 2A00:23C4:A688:DB00:D4F6:B412:33B8:ACD1 (talk) 20:08, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done. --Finngall ^talk 21:34, 16 January 2017 (UTC)