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 89.252.128.80 (talk) at 20:12, 11 June 2012 (→‎Shawn Welling: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Please help. The John Austin (songwriter) page should not have been deleted.

The following article should not have been deleted:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John_Austin_%28songwriter%29

All of the information contained in the article "John Austin (songwriter)" is factual. John Austin meets the notability requirements, having worked with many artists of notability, and having released publicly documented works for over 20 years. Paste Magazine has written feature articles on John Austin, and JA's album "Busted at the Pearly Gates" received an honorable mention in Paste Magazine as one of the most important albums of 2002. Please contact Paste Magazine's editor-in-chief Josh Jackson to verify.

Please put the article John Austin (songwriter) back up on Wikipedia. Thank you.

98.117.242.142 (talk) 16:43, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the place to contest deletions. Talk to the deleting admin or file something at WP:DRV. Hut 8.5 16:51, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An editor evading AfD by creating redirect

An editor has created an identical page Misha B (singer), to one that was subject of an AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Misha Bryan (singer). They have made Misha Bryan (singer) into a redirect. They have effectively created an inappropriate article (the editor has a history of this) and deleted an AfD notice for an ongoing discussion, disrupting the process. How should this be resolved? Delete Misha B (singer), maybe using speedy A10? Recreate Misha Bryan (singer)? Transfer the AfD to the new page?? Sionk (talk) 23:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CSD G4 is the criteria for deleting pages that are recreations of previously deleted ones, so I've tagged it as such. The admin reviewing it can compare it with the deleted page to verify it's a copy before deleting it so it should not be deleted inappropriately. The redirect can be targeted at the article for the series once that's done.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 23:46, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The previous article hasn't been deleted yet. I would've thought A10 would be appropriate. A redirect from Misha Bryan is already targeted at the X factor article. Sionk (talk) 23:55, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A10 it is.—Kww(talk) 00:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, sorry, I interpreted 'subject of an AfD' as that it had been deleted (I glanced quickly at the AfD discussion but clearly too quickly). Yes, while the discussion is underway the page should not be moved, made into a redirect or recreated. Yes, A10 in this case.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 00:19, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, no problem, I impress myself sometimes ;) There are a series of these reality TV star articles being continually created for spurious reasons. It gets complicated! Sionk (talk) 00:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Wade

Hey, I don't know if anyone will see this, but i have put several tags on the page Mark Wade (rugby league) requesting deletion that have been removed by various people. I am the original author of the page, have made all the major edits to the page & it is now eligible for deletion as the player has not played any first-grade football & has left the first-grade club for a local side so the page is not notable anymore. I want it deleted but can't seem to get anyone to do it. Josh the newcastle fan (talk) 10:49, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's now nominated for deletion. I can't say for myself whether it's really notable or not, as I know nothing about rugby, but other knowledgable editor should be able to say. Josh, if a person will only be notable if they get a particular sports contract, you shouldn't make the article until they get it - if he isn't notable now, he wasn't notable before, since Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.

D O N D E groovily Talk to me 12:20, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou. Yes, someone told me about the notability guidelines a few months ago so now any new page I make, is only for a player that has played in a top grade game. Josh the newcastle fan (talk) 13:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

anon voting

Are anons allowed to vote in AFDs? I recently noticed a couple of anons getting reverted and blocked for no apparent reason and I am raising concern for people who edit anonymously so they don't become a victim so I am going to bring up the issue here. 74.102.131.196 (talk) 15:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anons are allowed to vote in AfDs, though the use of sockpuppets or meatpuppets is forbidden (possibly that is what you saw). Hut 8.5 16:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You may also see that the opinions of anonymous editors are discounted during the closure even if their comments were not explicitly redacted. Again, the problem is sockpuppetry - too many discussions were being "hijacked" by what appeared to be fraudulent "votes" (and sometimes were confirmed to be fraudulent).
That said, it is important to remember that we are not voting even at AfD. An anonymous editor who makes a detailed comment that is firmly based on Wikipedia policy and precedent will have his/her opinion considered. An editor making a simple "keep" or "delete" opinion without explanation or elaboration (whether anonymous or established) will likely be ignored. Rossami (talk) 17:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copied Article Adolf Borsdorf

Hello everyone, i came by this article Adolf Borsdorf which was created by User:Mbak Dede today who had actually just copied and pasted it from Simple English Wikipedia (see https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Borsdorf) without any attribution and also did not change any content either, only 100% copy paste. I was not totally sure what criteria will apply so i have asked it here. Will the article be expanded/modified or will it be deleted for being a copy and paste from another Wikipedia ? As the same is done on the Simple English Wikipedia when articles are copied and pasted from English Wikipedia, they are then deleted soon. TheGeneralUser (talk) 20:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing necessarily wrong with copying text from the Simple English Wikipedia provided the text is attributed. Admittedly the author of this article didn't attribute it, but I've now fixed that problem. There's no need to delete the page. Hut 8.5 20:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The History??

I think this page, as well as talking about the AFD works, it should also explain how we got to this point. I had to do a lot of sleuthing, and finally came to this page: History of wiki deletion process at Meta-Wiki

Like, i didn't even know that the page was called "votes for deletion" until it was changed to AFD sometime in the past. Plus, I've always wanted to know how the AFD/VFD have evolved over time. I think this stuff is really interesting and should be included on the page, or there should at least be a link to the that page from this one.--Coin945 (talk) 11:23, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is the default for "No Consensus" between "Delete" (the article) and "Redirect" (the article)?

I have a quick question. What is the default for "No Consensus" between "Delete" (the article) and "Redirect" (the article)? There is no discussion of this at WP:NO CONSENSUS? This comes into play regarding Priscilla Chan (physician)--Jax 0677 (talk) 02:22, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • You're conflating a couple things. (And also quoting an essay, which is neither policy nor guideline.) If a closer truly closes "no consensus" the default is keep. On the other hand, if there's a question in the closer's mind as to the correct outcome of an AfD where arguments are made only toward delete and redirect arguments, and nothing else, well, the content is going to be deleted (there's a consensus for that) and the question of whether a redirect should be placed is a matter of balancing "redirects are cheap" vs. any consequences that might arise from a redirect that go towards WP:BLP, WP:V, or perhaps WP:NPOV. FWIW, my answer here written without having examined the Chan AfD, so my answer may miss particular umm, particulars of that case. Cheers, --joe deckertalk to me 02:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In a non-BLP, non-copyvio, non-promotional article, the usual answer would be a redirect per WP:ATD. If the content is problematic in and of itself, such that it should not be available to non-administrators, it should be deleted, then redirected. Either way, the consensus is clear in the hypothetical situation you propose that the content not be kept in its current form. Jclemens (talk) 02:57, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is very simple if you remember that "redirect" is always a form of "keep". If there is no consensus in an XfD decision, then the default is to keep the pagehistory. That is, do not delete the page. The next part of the decision is whether to keep-as-is or to keep-as-redirect. That, however, is an ordinary-editor decision. To the extent that an AfD debate ends with a recommendation to redirect, that conclusion should be given the same deference that an equally-well attended debate on say the article's Talk page. Both a "delete" and a "redirect" opinion can be reasonably interpreted as against "keep-as-is" when evaluating that consensus, though. Rossami (talk) 03:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the result of an AfD is to "keep" is the "redirect" proper? And if no AfD is even made - but an editor simply decides to redirect even with opposition, what should occur? Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:56, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • If the result of the AfD is "keep" in any form, then we keep the pagehistory and ordinary editing of the page resumes. A new editor can come across the page and, like with any other page in the encyclopedia, make changes including adding content, removing content, merging content to a new page or even redirecting the entire page. You could do all that before the AfD and you can do all that after the AfD.
        That said, any large edit should always consider the prior discussions about the page and its contents. That discussion most often exists on the article's Talk page and counts as a "consensus" for the page's fate that should not be changed without some reasonable idea that the consensus has changed. If/when your bold edit is reverted, hash it out on Talk. The prior AfD counts just the same as a prior discussion on the Talk page with the caveat that AfDs tend to be well-advertised and well-attended by experienced editors - the comments in the AfD should be given due weight recognizing that expertise.
        Your question about a bold decision to redirect without an AfD is an entirely different question but it is a completely legitimate edit. Any editor can turn any page into a redirect if they truly believe that makes the encyclopedia better. If other editors disagree, they will revert your edit and you all sort it out on Talk - that's the essense of the bold-revert-discuss cycle. AfD has no bearing on that decision since it doesn't delete the pagehistory and doesn't require special admin powers to execute or to reverse. An AfD nomination with a request to merely to redirect the page would be summarily closed as irrelevant. Turning a page into a redirect is not "deletion" as we use that term on Wikipedia. Rossami (talk) 17:33, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The same deletion discussion for two articles on the same topic?

Someone created an article titled Shouryya Ray. Then someone nominated it for deletion. In the AfD discussion, people are talking about whether this person is "notable" and whether the news media reports about him are true or just exaggerations. Then someone created a page called Shouryaa Ray, and then someone started an AfD discussion about that one. In that discusion someone wrote:

That discussion hasn't been closed yet, but the above is phrased as if it had closed with a decision to delete.

I went ahead and redirected the latter page, Shouryaa Ray, to the correct spelling, Shouryya Ray.

Are the precedents or standard procedures for this anomalous situation? Michael Hardy (talk) 16:20, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The simple solution would be to nominate the second version for deletion under WP:CSD A10. If the target of the redirect is deleted, an admin may also delete the redirect. As for the delete per other AfD statement, AfDs are only precedent as to the exact same topic, and as it hasn't closed yet, I would treat that as saying delete for the reasons outlined there, rather then delete per the outcome there. Monty845 16:57, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the right solution. Yes, it's a duplicate article, but it's also a plausible redirect, which is why A10 should almost never be used. Redirecting was the correct action. I've closed the AfD as redirect and instructed anyone who might stumble across it to see the real AfD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dondegroovily (talk • contribs)
I agree that A10 is not the preferred answer. The forked article should have been redirected to the first version with a note added to the first AfD. If the AfD is closed as "keep", the redirect is probably plausible. If the AfD is closed as "delete", then the redirect gets automatically deleted under criterion G8. Either way, it's only one discussion. Forked articles are bad. Forked deletion discussions are even worse. Rossami (talk) 20:46, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Grow

My prod of this BLP was removed - but I still rather think that being a publications director for a church does not meet Wikipedia notability guidelines. I fear the person who removed the prod may think I am after "him" which is not the case - so can anyone else determine if I am right or wrong on this please? The use of a press release naming him as publications director does not impress me as showing Grow's notability. Cheers and thans. Collect (talk) 12:55, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Auto purge?

Very often I see XfD'd articles with a red link on "at 'this article's entry' on the XfD page". The same may be true of speedied articles with Talk pages, I'm not 100% sure. It goes blue if you put ?action=purge on the URL, but a beginner wouldn't know that. It looks less confusing if it's blue I think. Is there a way the templates or application of them can somehow auto-purge the page? --92.6.202.54 (talk) 19:13, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I see this a lot when closing AFDs. I review the article and the AFD link is red. This might discourage some editors who come across the article from participating in the AFD because they think the page doesn't exist and therefore the only !votes come from those who follow it from the AFD log pages. It also might lead some inexperienced editors into removing the tag from the article because they think that nobody bothered to create the discussion page. I wonder if a bot can do an "action=purge" on these? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:11, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Most bots (including mine) use the API to read and write page content. I'll have to check whether it's possible to initiate a purge via the API. I'll look into it when I get a chance. -Scottywong| spill the beans _ 14:17, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, you can purge from the API. User:Joe's Null Bot does this, e.g.,
    my $apires = $mw->api( { action => 'purge', titles => $thistitle} );
or
   http://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=purge&titles=ThisTitle
Cheers, --joe deckertalk to me 15:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

new tool for capturing deleted articles

every 1/2 I pickup articles marked for deletion https://code.google.com/p/wikiteam/wiki/SpeedyDeletion James Michael DuPont (talk) 07:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck to you, but be mindful that you're not grabbing the copyvio deletions as well. That's still something that could cause trouble wherever the text is hosted, here or there. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:56, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I understand the purpose of what appears to be a lot of work. -Scottywong| squeal _ 14:05, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose is that there is no place else on Wikipedia that has the potential to do as much damage as speedy deletion. This is where articles are deleted that no one has ever seen. This is where we can lose good editors before we even have them. Having this wiki will be a huge benefit, allowing editors to audit speedy deleters and ensure that articles with real potential don't land in the scrap heap. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:01, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would be grateful if someone could complete nomination process

I have nominated the page List of Roman Catholic cleric–scientists for deletion. As per the AFD process for un-registered users I have listed the reason on the article's talk page. As I cannot create a new page I would be grateful if someone could complete the process. --86.147.248.29 (talk) 21:53, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done jcgoble3 (talk) 22:01, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stuck on 3 June

The links on this page are stuck on 3 June. It is now 10 June. 94.116.5.189 (talk) 18:05, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They're not stuck on 3 June, the problem is at your end. Try purging the cache. Hut 8.5 20:15, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn Welling

I just nominated Shawn Welling for deletion. Since I'm not registered, the WP:AFD instructions said to come here and post a message asking for help: "If you are unregistered, you should complete step I, note the justification for deletion on the article's talk page, then post a message at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion requesting that someone else complete the process." Can somebody reading this please finish the nomination process for me? I have listed reasons why I think the article should be deleted on the talk page. Thank you. 89.252.128.80 (talk) 20:12, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion&oldid=497113756"