Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by WhyWeAll (talk | contribs) at 21:25, 1 July 2023 (Undid revision 1162913008 by WhyWeAll (talk)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Is it time yet?

Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Rename AFD no longer reflects the way we use AfD. There are a large number of BLAR->Revert->AfD articles. That technically fails WP:SK criterion 1 as written... but that's silly--community discussions involving alternatives to deletion, specifically merge, redirect, and/or draftify, have been increasing, and I think giving us much better outcomes overall and less contention in the process. I suggest we consider crafting an AfDeletion -> AfDiscussion RfC, despite PEREN. Thoughts? Jclemens (talk) 06:58, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jclemens, even after I have edited heavily for 14 years, I find your acronym and jargon filled proposal confusing. BLAR and SK? WTF? Articles for Deletion seems just fine to me, and I have been recommending redirects and merges in a small number of cases for many years without confusion or problems. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Cullen328 (talk) 07:07, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
AfD is "broke", in quite a few ways. There are several large discussions going on right now, so I've been holding off, but my intent is to start an RFC in the future concerning this, and a bit more. - jc37 09:20, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The problems with AfD are not the result of its name. Cullen328 (talk) 16:07, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'd agree that that's not top of the list, at least... - jc37 17:06, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cullen328 I'm sorry you found reference to common deletion-related acronyms confusing. Might I suggest that if you don't know, off the top of your head, what BLAR and SK refer to, you might benefit from reviewing deletion processes. Of course, this is an idea, not a proposal; a trial balloon, not a blueprint. It is targeted not to VPP, but to people who have AfD watchlisted: an audience I expected would be fine with the acronyms. To the extent that that's not you, I apologize if the technical jargon was a barrier to understanding and considering my statement. Jclemens (talk) 23:43, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jclemens, I have participated in thousands of AfD debates going back 13 years with a very high rate of accuracy and I do not remember BLAR or SK or unlinked acronyms being used. I am thoroughly familiar with deletion processes. Cullen328 (talk) 23:56, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I expect we've participated in many such discussions together, which is why I found the comment on the acronyms confusing. I've taken to not linking acronyms unless I know I'm talking to one or more newbies. I assume anyone reading this is capable of seeing "BLAR" and thinking "WP:BLAR" if they really needed to look it up. Now, having said all that, can you comment on the substance of the proposal: Articles for Deletion often and correctly leads to non-deletion outcomes including redirection, merging, and draftifying. Given this diversity of outcomes, and the benefits of priming all participants to consider alternatives to deletion for articles that don't meet current criteria, do you have a non-tradition-based reason why AfD should stay Articles for Deletion? Not that there's anything wrong with the "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." objection, but that's a universal objection to changing anything; I was hoping to elicit actual non-obvious arguments against the idea. Jclemens (talk) 00:05, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jclemens, I wonder if others find this comment as condescending and off-putting as it came across to me. I hope not. — Jacona (talk) 00:10, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have absolutely no idea, in that I neither know how condescending and off-putting you find it, nor how other people might. I'm quite capable of being very obviously snarky in writing, and this was simply not one of those times, so anything you're seeing is not something I put there on purpose, although I do admit being puzzled at the general lack of substantive engagement with the topic. I welcome your critique of my style on my talk page. Seriously--feel free to take me to task there and suggest how I could have said this better. Jclemens (talk) 01:03, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have not hesitated to use this conversation here to take others to task, whether it's an individual for not having what you perceive as the proper level of knowledge of AFD or the group for not giving you the style of responses you were looking for. If the statements you've been putting on here are not ones that you're putting here on purpose, perhaps you should step away from the keyboard until you have it better under your control. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:12, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jclemens, I believe that the current name is just fine, perfectly serviceable, and is not the cause of any confusion or problems. In other words, there is nothing wrong with the name and I do not believe that you have put forward any convincing argument to change it. I was recommending "merge" and "redirect" in AfD debates 10 years ago, and I do not recall anybody saying, "No, it must be either keep or delete." To me, obvious objections should come first, and I feel no need to wrack my brain to come up with something that would meet your personal standards as a "non-obvious argument". Cullen328 (talk) 00:29, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if I didn't make it clear by linking to WP:PEREN that I was signalling awareness of those arguments. Thanks for clarifying. And again... my apologies for presuming that those responding here would be interested in curiously exploring the topic. Jclemens (talk) 01:03, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The "A" and the "D" in AfD refer to the substance of the article and the deletion, not the form that they take. Users come to AfD when something that either is or looks like an article deletion is challenged by someone else who thinks there should be a standalone article in mainspace. There isn't any reason to change the name to reflect any misunderstandings around this as nobody is coming to AfD seeking something that isn't some kind of functional deleting of an article. Iffy★Chat -- 17:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For versions of deletion that include redirection, merging, and draftifying, sure. But how is that scope that includes those not-precisely-deletion alternatives qualitatively different from any of the other "... for discussion" processes? (WP:CfD, WP:RfD, WP:FfD...) Jclemens (talk) 00:08, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Articles for Discussion is a lousy name, as all articles are eligible for discussion. That's why we have Talk pages as standard items. "Deletion" makes it clear that there are larger stakes, even if not all of them are precisely deletion. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:24, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and draftify/userify !votes with a valid rationale technically preclude SK1. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:16, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, first of all, changing the name of the process will involve moving about half a million pages and potentially fatally shitting up the Oracle for Deletion, as well as a number of other tools which interface with AfD pages and processes. Is anyone willing to spend the hundreds of hours necessary to fix Twinkle, XfDcloser, userscripts, &c. that this proposal would require? jp×g 04:19, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bulk BLP deletions

A since-blocked sock called User:Gamsbart created lots of BLPs on non-notable ski mountaineers (they seemed to be a fan of this sport) like Sigrid Tomio. They did make some decent articles, but certainly, a lot of their stubs (even in non-ski mountaineering) have borderline notability. The problem is that they created hundreds of articles. Do I need to AfD these one-by-one, or is there a way to batch-nominate, or even have a special group investigate it and judge it as a batch? I don't want to clog up AfD if there is a better way. Aszx5000 (talk) 18:28, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you need to nominate them one by one. Several of the BLPs I checked had an Authority Control which for some (like me) counts as an indicator of notability. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 02:08, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, they seem to have based these articles on a variety of different sources, rather than using a single comprehensive source. If it was the latter we are creating a process that could have handled them as a group (See WP:LUGSTUBS, User:BilledMammal/Mass Creation Draftification), but it isn't well suited to cases where sources are only infrequently repeated as in this case. BilledMammal (talk) 02:20, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay and understand. Thank you for that. Aszx5000 (talk) 08:58, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The example you give looks like it would be eligible for WP:PROD; you may want to try that with a few of these, and see if there is some contingent likely to object to such deletions. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 19:13, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating Shain Neumeier

I have nominated Shain Neumeier for deletion. I request somebody create the AfD. I left a rationale at Talk:Shain Neumeier indicating that there aren't many sources, and that sources from the past seem to be mostly self-published articles or unrelated to them. 2620:8D:8000:1040:AD0E:F45F:9F64:727F (talk) 20:52, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating SportsChannel Cincinnati

I have nominated SportsChannel Cincinnati for deletion for being redundant with Bally Sports Ohio. 100.7.44.80 (talk) 23:43, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decided to change it to a merge proposal per here. 100.7.44.80 (talk) 02:40, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Onus on refs

Why don't we ask "Keeps" to name their three refs that support their !vote, and "Deletes" to name the "Keep" refs that they refute (if there are "Keep" refs). I used to !vote as an IP on AfD and got into the discipline of doing this (otherwise, as an IP you will be ignored). It would be easy for an AfD OP to summarize for a closer all the listed "Keep" refs, and the "Delete" case (if any) against them. Sometimes this happens, but in lots of AfDs, there is little discussion on the refs. Why not make it policy, or your !vote can be struck? Aszx5000 (talk) 10:57, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because not all arguments at an AfD are ref count based, and not all people with things worth adding will be doing so strictly on the strength of references? -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:56, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can see there are instances where is it not purely 3refs based, but I think the vast bulk of AfD (+75%) is GNG (or derivative versions for subsectors) related, and thus it is about the 3refs. We could make it that a GNG !vote had to be accompanied by the 3refs they considered met GNG? I know that many editors can refer to some other editor's !vote, but then you find that person's !vote only has 1ref. I think if a GNG-type !vote had to quote the 3refs, then it could help shorten/increase focus of most AfDs? Aszx5000 (talk) 15:11, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are suggesting a higher bar in Wikipedia expertise to be involved in discussion than I think we want. We need expertise in closers, who get to weight the arguments, but not in the arguers themselves, who may bring insight from beyond Wikipedia systems. And if editor A says Keep because The Poobah Press is actually a Pulitzer-winning paper and serves as an RS, and editor B says Keep because 43 Minutes is the leading ad-supported TV newszine, and editor C says Keep because The Okefenokee Glee & Perloo Society is actually the paper of record for Lower Slobovia, then we have perfectly cromulent argument for keepification even if no one editor made a full argument. "shorten/increase focus" is not inherently a good thing here; there is much to be said for robustness. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:56, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is an interesting angle Nat Gertier, which makes sense to me. Thank you. Would it be helpful if those individual contributions where classed as "Comments", and not classed as a !vote until one of them was able to bring all three strands together, into a "Keep". More emphasis being placed on the criteria to get to a valid GNG !vote? Anyway, thank you again for your relpy. Aszx5000 (talk) 07:37, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I could see that concern if they were votes, but they're !votes. As I see it, they are more for clarity and conciseness than for weight, and adding more rules and hoops to the conversation won't improve things. But perhaps your view of the !vote differs from mine. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:33, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are many good reasons people might not men thattion specific sources in a keep vote, even if the argument is based on sources:
  • They're trivially easy to find (first page of Google or Google Scholar, etc.)
  • There are so many that arbitrarily picking examples serves no purpose
  • They're already cited in the article
  • They've already been mentioned by other participants
  • The argument is based on the existence of a general body of sources (e.g. "there must be sources in Gaelic", "19th century newspaper archives are likely to have coverage of this"), without specific ones being identified
– Joe (talk) 14:46, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree Joe, there are exceptions. But my perception is that over 50% (and maybe even higher) of AfD !votes are GNG-type, and quite a few AfDs, you will not find a single !vote that covers the 3refs that GNG is based on. Maybe what I am thinking about is just too distracting, but if every GNG-type "Keep" (otherwise make it a "Comment") has to include the 3refs that they base their "Keep" (and visa verse for "Deletes"), that could improve quality/discipline of the AfD? Aszx5000 (talk) 15:23, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, AfD doesn't seem to have incorporated the "notability = three references" meme to the extent that certain other areas of the project have. I don't think that's a bad thing. – Joe (talk) 13:04, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re: PRODs on AFD survivors

As I'm already aware, the rule goes that articles can only be PRODded once before they get sent to AFD. However, for articles that have survived AFD scrutiny but have fared little better since, is PRODding them still possible nonetheless? --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 19:31, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, once they have been to AfD they are ineligible for WP:PROD even if they were previously deleted at AfD,Atlantic306 (talk) 20:41, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PROD is only for uncontroversial deletions; surviving an AfD is proof that deletion of that page qualifies as controversial. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:20, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2001 Myrtle Beach tornadoes

Please finish the AFD on the tornado. Reason for deletion provided on the talk page.144.178.5.26 (talk) 17:23, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot ask for an AfD to be closed that does not exist as an AfD. And you can't ask via {{help}} templates. Nor is this an appropriate place for the request. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 22:17, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@144.178.5.26: Okay, the instructions for unregistered users do indeed tell you to post here but the {{help}} template was not needed. I'll see if I can complete the nomination. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 00:43, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AFD List View

Can someone link me to that AFD page in list view where it shows a general list of the existing AFD discussions and the votes for deletion for or against it? I recall there was a page like that setup by a bot I believe but I can't find it. Nintendoswitchfan (talk) 03:23, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating Tekin Salimi for deletion

Hi. I am nominating Tekin Salimi for deletion. Can someone please help with the AFD process?

My reason is as follows:

Article fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. If you look at the sources you can see there's barely any actual coverage on the person himself. There seems to be more on promoting dao5 which isn't even notable enough to have it own article. And that's assuming you can even use such sources which I don't think is possible since they seem to not be independent. A few are flat out interviews which cannot be considered independent. I'm also getting some WP:PROMO vibes from the article. 210.6.154.3 (talk) 15:21, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Discussion can be found here. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 17:18, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ivan_Katchanovski_(2nd_nomination)

This has fallen through the cracks somehow. I opened it 5th June. Can someone close it please? Nangaf (talk) 01:14, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/Today is semi-broken

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/Today, which normally reproduces the current day's list of AfD nominations, is just showing a link to the current day's list instead. That's because the current day's list is too big to be transcluded. Perhaps people shouldn't nominate quite so many articles for deletion. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:44, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've [1] asked politely for one major nominator to reel back these for consideration in a more reasonable manner. It hadn't occurred to me that not only would it tax the human review system, but that it could break the technical system as well. Jclemens (talk) 23:20, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Copying my comment from AN:
For the record, and to give some perspective here, note the Oracle for Deletion table for June (User:JPxG/Oracle/2023-06). More or less every day of the month has seen somewhere around 40 to 60 nominations (which has been the stable daily average for some years), except for the 26th, 27th, 29th and 30th of this month, all of which have more than one hundred nominations. No day in the entirety of 2023 has had more than a hundred so far, and four of them in a row -- this is not sustainable. jp×g 04:08, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Adding this: is there any sort of restriction on nomination rates? This shows one person making 66 noms in three days, which seems extremely undue to me (22 nominations is on its own about half of a normal day's backlog). jp×g 04:14, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia:Welcoming committee—among other things—maintains a set of a set of welcome templates aimed at new users. Many of these templates include a list of helpful links. A proposal to drop the link to Help:Your first article from en-wiki welcome templates has been opened. AFD folks may be well-suited to comment based on your experience with new editors whose articles may end up here. Your feedback would be welcome at WT:Welcoming committee/Welcome templates#Proposal: drop 'first article' link from all templates. In addition, please see the proposal discussion subtopic at § What evidence can we bring to bear?. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:47, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion&oldid=1162913157"