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 76.107.171.90 (talk) at 01:39, 15 June 2015. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Nomination completion request

Please could somebody create the deletion-discussion page for "2015 Reclaim Brixton protest", and add it to the log.

{{subst:afd2 | pg=2015 Reclaim Brixton protest | cat=S | text=Non-notable local protest that lasted barely an afternoon. Fails [[WP:NOTNEWS]], [[WP:N]].}} –[[Special:Contributions/146.199.151.33|146.199.151.33]] ([[User talk:146.199.151.33|talk]]) 03:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, 146.199.151.33 (talk) 03:50, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:16, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

nominating articles you want to keep

We have a situation I've never seen - someone nominating their own articles for deletion, yet insisting they do not them to be deleted: Fail AfD is fail. Apparently this was done by nominator/article creator to make a WP:POINT because his feelings were hurt over edits to the article, and something about he was doing it because the other person failed to do it first (?). I explained the WP:G7 situation that nominating your own articles brings up. The discussion reached new levels of WP:LAME with nominator and his sidekick (with a shiny new account) arguing that nowhere does it say that if you nominate an article, you have to want to delete it, and that AfD was a perfectly suitable venue for discussing the article and if it should be nominated for deletion. For the life of me I can't understand why someone would not understand the whole point of nominating an article for deletion. Do we need something on the page that 1) explains that by nominating a page, you are supporting it being deleted and 2) you should not create AfDs for pages you really want to keep just to generate discussion/get feedback - that's what talk pages are for. It seems to me a waste of time to have an AfD discussion when nobody has actually proposed the article be deleted. —МандичкаYO 😜 14:17, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • If the article creator does not want the article to be deleted, then you do not have the right to place a G7 on their behalf. That's the exact opposite of what they said they want, and you don't get to put words in other peoples' mouths just because they might have started a discussion in the wrong place. There's already a longish thread about this at ANI, where literally everyone disagrees with you. Reyk YO! 00:13, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely not. Anyone should be able to nominate for AfD, whatever their opinion, whether they were involved in the article or not, simply because they think that raising the article for wider debate at AfD will achieve a useful consensus. Sometimes this can be as simple as to silence a disruptive editor on a talk: page sniping "this ought to be deleted", when consensus then produces an obvious consensus to keep it. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think that nominating an article for deletion with a rationale that supports keeping it is questionable - if someone is genuinely arguing that an article should be deleted, they should do it themselves, giving their own rationale, in their own words. And if they aren't prepared to do that after a reasonable discussion, they have no legitimate grounds to continue to argue that the article in question merits deletion. As for the suggestion that self-nominating is somehow equivalent to WP:G7, this is not only unsupported by policy, but Wikilawyering nonsense of the worst kind. AfD discussions are discussions, and not some sort of automated vote where mere participation somehow overrules ones explicitly stated opinion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:22, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs where the nominator has expressed a desire to keep should theoretically be closed as speedy keep if nobody else has commented, though since they'd realistically only do that if someone else said it should be deleted (in essence, completing a nomination for someone else, which I do all the time), it's probably better to let it stay open. ansh666 01:41, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing should be closed as "speedy" anything, if no-one else has yet commented. Speedy closure is there for when consensus has become obvious by its volume. If there is no outside comment yet, let it run its course to the expected time. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Using AfD to establish a consensus without a nominators rationale that the article should be deleted, is an interesting topic. AfC creates an article but doesn't really create a consensus that it should exist. It seems unfair to only allow those who wish to delete an article a path to establish a consensus, though creating an AfD discussion while supporting its existence could be viewed as a waste of time (if no one is advocating for it to be deleted). If someone is advocating for an articles deletion on the articles talk page, it seems reasonable to want to get ahead of the horse and establish a consensus. The AfD page doesn't explicitly prohibit starting a deletion discussion while advocating for the article to be kept, but the process is called Articles for Deletion. A theoretical "Article for Retention (AfR)" process would fix this issue, but would lead to unnecessary discussion and more oversight. Many would want to gain consensus for articles that are not contentious, simply for the sake of consensus (as consensus is generally what Wikipedia "runs" on). So we could add the caveat that there had to be advocation for its deletion first, such as discussion on the articles talk page or a proposed deletion. Then again why not add/allow that within the current AfD system, and avoid the theoretical hassle of creating and integrating a new system? Can anyone clarify if nominating an article for deletion (to establish consensus) is allowed if you don't think/advocate that it should be deleted? I read the project page, but it wasn't necessarily clear to me one way or the other. —Godsy(TALKCONT) 04:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't find anything in policy that prohibits the creator of an article from starting a deletion discussion when they themselves don't think it should be deleted. And I see nothing wrong with starting such a discussion in cases where, for example, other people have suggested the article should be deleted and the creator would like to get a consensus - they might be planning to do more work on it, but want to find out first whether that might be wasted, for example. Mr Potto (talk) 08:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • CREEP. ––146.199.151.33 (talk) 13:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is an unusual process, although there are other situations where an editor starts an AfD discussion without suggesting that the article be deleted. For example, a procedural nomination after a previous result has been overturned at WP:DRV. Or as a courtesy to an IP editor who cannot complete the process. So there is no policy which states that nominating an article at AfD necessarily implies a desire to see it deleted. In this case, i gather, that some other editors indicated in talk messages that they felt the article should not exist, and the creator wished to get a clear consensus decision one way or the other. I see nothing wrong with that, although it may not turn out as the creator had hoped. But the idea that doing this amounts to requesting a G7 speedy deletion is nonsense, a kind of formalist letter over spirit concept foreign to Wikipedia. And even if we were to look only at formal policies, a G7 is only available where there are no substantial contributions by any editor other than the creator, which is not the case here, so any G7 speedy would have been clearly out of process, and subject to prompt overturn at WP:DRV -- which would probably have started an Afd discussion anyway. I htink Wikimandia should drop this procedural argument and simply concentrate on the merits -- or lack of them -- of the article in question. DES (talk) 17:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs and blocking...

I recently nominated an article for deletion here. It was a second nom, because I stumbled upon the article somehow, and in the interest of trying to copyedit it, I found there was no substantive coverage to back up anything in the article. However, the previous nom had been closed keep because one person voted keep and claimed substantive coverage via Google. Myself and two others clearly found that to be untrue in the followup. The user who voted in the previous nom not only explicitly stated an inclusionist bias, but has since been CU blocked indefinitely.

It leads me to wonder if there is a way (or a strong enough reason) to go back and look at recent AfD votes of indeffed users. In this case, the voter gave no actual proof of his coverage claim other than to cite Google, and was indeffed 2 weeks later. OTOH, nobody pressed the user to offer proof of the vote, and we are supposed to substantiate all votes. To be fair, there was no other input whatsoever on the AfD. Nevertheless, it seems to me like it was a bad-faith vote from the get-go, reinforced by the user's own page. However, I'm saying that in hindsight, and having looked at it. Is it too time-consuming and unwieldy to not take votes at face value or to discount votes with no substantiation as a matter of course? MSJapan (talk) 07:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the AfD discussion referenced above as the previous nom was closed as no consensus (by another admin), rather than as keep, likely due to a lack of adequate participation in the discussion. North America1000 07:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. "Keepers", if their argument turns on the existence of acceptable sources, should explicitly specify some sources in their contribution, or see their vote discounted. Cases similar to this one should be examined, and if sources cannot be found, the article should be renominated drawing attention to the inadequate discussion the time before: Noyster (talk), 09:40, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. There is no similar burden of proof on delete votes, which often simply state "fails GNG" when there is clearly sufficient coverage. I don't support putting up obstacles for one side. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If there is clearly sufficient coverage, it should be easy to prove it. You can't demand a similar burden of proof for delete voters claiming there are no sources, because it is inherently much harder to prove a negative, and it is quite sufficient for someone to say "I looked, and couldn't find anything I consider suitable". Reyk YO! 04:09, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The burden for delete votes is the "I looked" part. Though it is of course impossible to prove that without browser history or something. ansh666 21:50, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:AfD debates relisted 3 or more times - listed for deletion

Category:AfD debates relisted 3 or more times has been nominated for possible deletion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Steel1943 (talk) 04:28, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scrapy

Complete steps II and III with regards to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrapy Article does not meet notability guidelines — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.68.7.120 (talk) 18:19, 2 June 2015

 Done, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scrapy. Hut 8.5 20:20, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please help

I've nominated Merovingian (The Matrix) for deletion, but I need someone to help me complete the process. I've posted my deletion rationale on the article's talk page. --110.20.234.69 (talk) 22:51, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Merovingian (The Matrix). ansh666 23:56, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! --110.20.234.69 (talk) 00:25, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Articles with Arabic titles

I would like to see a policy to the effect that articles with foreign-language titles that have english translations can be deleted.

My beef is this: I keep coming across articles about aspects of Islam that rely heavily on arabic terminology. These articles are typically written in ungrammatical english, and are peppered with arabic technical terms that are not defined in the article. Frequently these technical terms link to a page with an arabic title, which in turn relies on a slew of arabic technical terms.

I hasten to point out that I am not proposing the mass-deletion of articles about Islam; on the contrary, these are articles that I have tried to read out of interest. Rather, I am suggesting that articles in the english Wikipedia should be written in english, and should not require a knowledge of arabic (or any other foreign language) in order to be understandable.

MrDemeanour (talk) 09:07, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MrDemeanour: This is not the correct page to start a discussion about terminology. Try WP:MOS or WP:VPP. --Hegvald (talk) 10:23, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that MrDemeanour is asking about terminology. If the article is in Arabic, and an English-language page also exists, mark it {{db-foreign}}; if the article is in Arabic but an English-language page doesn't exist, mark it {{notenglish|Arabic}} and send it to WP:PNT. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:19, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'm not referring to articles that are written in a foreign language, but to articles that make extensive use of unexplained foreign terms or have foreign-language titles, where those terms or titles could have been rendered in english. MrDemeanour (talk) 07:57, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If it's got an Arabic title, but is otherwise in English, WP:MOVE it to the English title. If that already exists, propose a WP:MERGE. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:39, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@MrDemeanour: could you give a few examples? It's not that I don't believe you, but it would be useful to see some of these firsthand. Thanks, ansh666 22:42, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This page needs to be looked at.

There are no Anti-Blank pages for any other nation in the Balkans yet other faced persecution. This article should be deleted. Nothing but propaganda aimed and distabalizing factual views and justify war crime and behavior. Anti-Serb Sentiment— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackiechan321 (talk • contribs)

There's nothing necessarily illegitimate about such an article, take a look at those in Category:Anti-national sentiment. "We don't have an article on X" won't go down well at AfD, at best that's an argument to write that other article. Hut 8.5 19:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Ultimate Matrix Collection

Please help me complete the deletion discussion for The Ultimate Matrix Collection. I have posted my rationale for deletion on the talk page.--110.20.234.69 (talk) 22:19, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Ultimate Matrix Collection created and added to the daily log.--Finngall talk 22:44, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tachikawa-ryu

Could someone please complete the second and third step for me? Thank you. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 01:38, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion&oldid=666985875"