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 217.150.87.242 (talk) at 17:36, 3 April 2020. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

AFD page moved to new title

I nominated a page for AFD using Twinkle (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S.W. Randall Toyes and Giftes), and a keep !voter later moved the AFD page to a new title. Now the "old AFD" link on the article talk page points to the current AFD instead of the prior AFD; the article main page tag points to a redirect; and I'm not sure if delsorting or any other transclusions/listings are affected (it still appears OK on the delsort list so I think it's OK). I don't have PM and can't move the page back–I'm not sure if moving the page back is even a good idea. Wondering if someone who knows about these sorts of things could review this and confirm whether it's fine the way it is or whether anything needs to be changed? Thank you, Levivich [dubious – discuss] 17:46, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uh oh, error alert.

The log for March 7 still says it has an open discussion, but the discussion is closed. Analog Horror, (Speak) 00:43, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Badly opened discussion

The page WP:Articles for deletion/Multiplicative calculus has been badly opened. In particular, it does not appear in the project page. I do not know how to fix this. Could someone with more knowledge or more rights fix this. Thanks. D.Lazard (talk) 12:21, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the {{afd2}} template. Ideally, the nominator would shorten their wall of text so anyone who isn't a subject matter expert can understand their argument for deletion, but they don't have to. Iffy★Chat -- 12:34, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and this appear in the coment that I have added before seen that this was badly opened. D.Lazard (talk) 13:09, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requests

Hi.

1. Can someone please complete the AfD listing process, per Wikipedia rules, for Armenian Evangelical Peter and Elizabeth Torosian School, with the reason for deletion discussed at Talk:Armenian Evangelical Peter and Elizabeth Torosian School?

2. Also, can someone please complete the AfD listing process, per Wikipedia rules, for Vera El Khoury Lacoeuilhe, with the reason for deletion discussed at Talk:Vera El Khoury Lacoeuilhe?

Thanks. --2604:2000:E010:1100:41F:9F06:5896:638 (talk) 20:09, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Another editor minutes later removed the AfDs awaiting completion, as here, but I have restored them. 2604:2000:E010:1100:1D33:366:E59:3EAC (talk) 23:18, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done for both. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armenian Evangelical Peter and Elizabeth Torosian School and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vera El Khoury Lacoeuilhe --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:44, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Help?

It's been several days since I posted the following, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of highest-grossing kaiju films (2nd nomination). A consensus has been reached amongst editors. How can I now get the nominated page deleted and AFD closed? Armegon (talk) 07:33, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jungle Junction (series 1) and Jungle Junction (series 2)

Could someone please open up a deletion discussion for both of those pages? Two episodes of the show have already had their pages deleted for fancruft and lack of notability, and just like what someone mentioned in their deletion discussions, I don't think it's best to redirect them, which I could have done right now, because they wouldn't be useful for redirects anyway. They also just repeat what's already on the main list of episodes. Thanks. 118.148.82.63 (talk) 23:47, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jungle Junction (series 1) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jungle Junction (series 2) --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:55, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Hi, can someone help create AFD page for Veena Nair? The reason is: "Non-notable person, fails WP:BASIC. Her acting works are all trivial background roles, and no coverage for the dancer, comedian, and TV presenter descriptions. Article is cited with interviews, which are WP:PRIMARY sources and the remaining are non-RS references.". Thanks in advance. 137.97.89.139 (talk) 13:22, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Veena Nair --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:20, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AFD page request

Can someone please create an AFD for the page Jazla Madasseri – "Clearly fails WP:BASIC and WP:ENTERTAINER, a non-notable social activist and TV personality. Her only coverage is as a contestant in the reality TV show Bigg Boss (Malayalam season 2) (WP:1E), no achievements as a social worker, and the flashmob thing was a run-of-the-mill news. There's nothing notable to write about her." 137.97.113.23 (talk) 11:44, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done by RoySmith Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jazla Madasseri --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:48, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AFD page request

Can someone please create an AFD for the page Nikita Dragun - Clearly non-notable youtuber with unreliable sources presents. 103.103.98.170 (talk) 04:01, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nikita Dragun --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:40, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus to get rid of an article but not on whether to preserve some of its content

OK, this is perhaps not the ideal place but pending a better one I'll put my query here. From time to time I encounter AFDs (the most recent one is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barnet Borough Arts Council) which show a clear consensus that an article should go, but no clear consensus on whether to preserve its content somewhere. I've closed them sometimes as delete, merge or redirect depending on the discussion, but sometimes there are not many specific arguments so I wanted to know what folks' feelings is on appropriate closes of such discussions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:17, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • As long as nobody tries to claim, "Consensus was split between delete and redirect, therefore no consensus, therefore default to keep!" I think deleting is fine, and if you're open to restoring if someone asks to merge previous content then that's even better. Reyk YO! 10:29, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be tempted to close as Redirect if the title isn't a silly search term. AfD isn't a great venue for deciding whether to merge something and any decision about a merge made there can be changed later as part of the normal editing process. A redirect gets rid of the article and allows a merge if someone cares enough about it (and if editorial judgement allows it), but doesn't force the issue. Hut 8.5 10:36, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If a reasonable redirect target has been mentioned, nobody's explicitly argued that a redirect would be harmful, and no strong reason to hide the content (WP:BLP, WP:COPYVIO, etc), I'll almost always close as redirect, as a nod to WP:ATD. If it seems appropriate, I'll mention in the close that the history is still available if anybody wants to merge something. My view of AfD is that the only important thing we're deciding is whether we need an admin to hit the delete button. If I'm not going to delete it, then a result which leaves editors the most latitude going forward seems like the right plan. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:29, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AFD page request

Can someone please create an Afd discussing for the page The Hungry Syrian Wanderer - Clearly non-notable youtuber, and lacks of content. 92.37.129.176 (talk) 08:24, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Hungry Syrian Wanderer (2nd nomination). Regards SoWhy 08:33, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It will be my last edit, I just recently updated it. Thanks User:SoWhy, I just moved it to another column to avoid confusion. 92.37.129.176 (talk) 08:36, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request Rogue Fitness

Can an experienced editor please take a look at this article and put it up for AfD? Article fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. The article was tagged in September 2019 for relying too much on primary sources but still has not been improved. I have carried out WP:BEFORE, and from my research, I can only find passing mentions, adverts, and unreliable sources. Could someone also look into a possible WP:COI? Many of the ads and unreliable sources seems to centre around this Bill Henniger person and his social media platforms. He is apparently the founder/owner of the company. Thanks.78.105.200.199 (talk) 23:42, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yeah, the article is pretty spammy, and could use some TLC, if not WP:TNT. But, my gut feeling is they're a notable company. I found some good sources[1][2][3][4]. Inc and Men's Health look really solid, PopSci seems pretty good, Columbus Underground marginal. But, I think that's enough to get by WP:NCORP. Disclaimer: I'm a customer of theirs. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:06, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed it could use better sourcing on the page itself, but a proper WP:BEFORE shows over 6,000 G-News hits (and take out the blogs and CrossFit-specific pages, you still get over a thousand such as this one from a few days ago). As to your accusations of COI – are you accusing an admin of 12 years (Jauerback, the main contributor and article creator) of being Henniger? Seems like a stretch. The second highest contributor was the one who tagged it in 2016, followed by myself — but mostly in an anti-vandalism and MOS capacity. I see no mention of Henniger's social media platforms anywhere on the page, with the odd exception of a LinkedIn profile on the company itself (which probably is not needed to verify it is American). Yosemiter (talk) 00:41, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sourcing could definitely be improved. I haven't given much thought to the article in a few years, so as pointed out, there are definitely more up to date and independent sources even now from when I first wrote it. As to the claim of WP:COI? That's amusing. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 17:42, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "How This Air Force Vet Tapped Into the Lucrative Business of Making Super Heavy Things for Gym Rats to Lift". Inc.com. Retrieved 29 March 2020.
  2. ^ "How Rogue Fitness Founder Bill Henniger Built His Company". menshealth.com. Retrieved 29 March 2020.
  3. ^ "Massive Rogue Fitness Facility Starting to Take Shape in Milo-Grogan - ColumbusUnderground.com". ColumbusUnderground.com. Retrieved 29 March 2020.
  4. ^ "Building a barbell for 1,000 pound deadlifts takes careful engineering and lots of testing". Popular Science. Retrieved 29 March 2020.

Predicting AfD outcomes

This paper is pretty fascinating particularly in its analysis of AfD outcome prediction:

Mayfield, Elijah; Black, Alan W. (November 2019). "Analyzing Wikipedia Deletion Debates with a Group Decision-Making Forecast Model". Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 3 (CSCW): 206–1–206:26. doi:10.1145/3359308. ISSN 2573-0142.

via Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2020-03-29/Recent research (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 01:08, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A really interesting paper. Highly recommended. I wonder if some conclusions about "how to succeed at AfD" could be drawn from it. Vexations (talk) 12:30, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wow I never would figure the AfD process would be the subject of a scholarly article! It would be interesting if we could draw some useful suggestions about how to succeed, echoing the above editor. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 18:21, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think we would all benefit if people stopped thinking about "winning" an AfD. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:37, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct. I was thinking more in the sense of why AfDs are successful or not, from a scholarly point of view. Particularly contentious ones and their closes. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 02:40, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
turns out that that the best predictor of the result is the !vote count for keep vs. delete. But the real interest of the paper is in trying to analyze the other factors. DGG ( talk ) 04:34, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AfD essay/guideline?

It seems like the nominations are getting more popular each year, so I was thinking that it wouldn't be a bad idea to have something that gives some dos and don'ts. I started this - feel free to add or edit it. I don't want to stop the nominations or anything, just try to make them a little less disruptive, since this year it seems like some are adding speedy and PROD tags to articles. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:46, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:ReaderofthePack, well we have WP:APRIL which probably has more eyes and could do with beefing up? ——SN54129 13:58, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Help complete deletion nomination AfD

Hi there, can someone help complete the AfD nomination page for the subject Maurice Kremer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.150.87.242 (talk) 17:24, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Help complete deletion nomination AfD

Hi there, can someone help complete the AfD nomination pages for the subjects Milton H. Biow & Joy Silverman? 217.150.87.242 (talk) 17:36, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion&oldid=948905113"