Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion

RFC: Add Instruction Not to Move the Article

Should the instructions on the template for an article that has been nominated for deletion be expanded from saying "do not blank the page" to "do not blank or move the page"? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:25, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Please enter Yes or No in the Survey with a brief statement. Back-and-forth discussion may be conducted in the Threaded Discussion.

Survey: Add Instruction Not to Move the Article

• yes. Page moves during the AfD confuse the AfD. Also, a page move frequently impacts the scope of the article, impacting the AfD, and possibly even making the AfD nomination rationale moot. If there is a consensus for an important immediate rename, an admin with experience both in RM and AfD should close the AfD and perform the move. I’d suggest a minimum week or two before a fresh nomination at AfD, even if the rename does not seem to speak to the deletion rationale. During the AfD, unimportant title fixes (like dashes), should not be done, but noted and done after the AfD close. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:14, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
• Yes as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
• Yes Draftifying in the midst of an AfD debate is disruptive. Other valid moves can take place right after an AfD is closed "Keep". Cullen328 (talk) 04:42, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
• Yes as moving templates just makes the process more difficult than it needs to be and may lead to a disaster even before the AfD is closed. 172.112.210.32 (talk) 16:34, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
• No I think it should be discouraged, but there are a few cases where a mid-afd move has been beneficial, e.g. Crucifix of San Marcello. If someone makes a page move that disrupts the afd discussion just revert it, at worst that means a request at WP:RM/TR. Further while I respect the concerns, I don't think this is a wide-spread enough problem to warrant such a blunt solution. Nor do I think this would resolve the issues raised. Most of the people that make disruptive page moves are also the ones that don't read the instructions on the template anyway. Regards, 94.50.213.120 (talk) 04:44, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
• No I have done this a very few times, it has been beneficial in re-framing the topic in certain rare cases. For example a BLP about someone who appeared in a meme video fails 1 event. That's true, but simply rename the article to be about the meme video, which is notable. If you have to wait for the BLP to be deleted then recreate the article from scratch with largely the same content because of a bureaucratic no move rule, it adds a lot of overhead and wasted time for everyone voting to delete the BLP. -- GreenC 01:35, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
• No. I see no reason that an AfD should preclude the closure of an ongoing move request; page moves to improve the title of an article can be sometimes handled separately from the question of whether the subject of the article is notable. Additionally, if the title has clear policy issues that need to be speedily addressed (such as BLP issues), then there should not be a reason to think twice about moving it. An instruction along the lines "do not unilaterally draftify the article during this discussion" might be worthwhile, but I don't see a reason to expand that to all page moves. — Mhawk10 (talk) 01:42, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion

• I'm not sure. Moving a page during an AfD can be a bad idea in some situations, but what if the move is just to correct an error in spelling or capitalization? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:57, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

  As above seconds ago, note the correction and do it later. Checking page logs at AfD is already complicated, and a mid-AfD page moves makes the log links break, and very confusing. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:16, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

• There have been rare times when it helps in spite of the problems. How frequently is this being done? DGG ( talk ) 05:20, 27 November 2021 (UTC) .
• User:DGG - Most of the times that I have seen an article moved during an AFD, it has been by the originator, to draft space, after having move-warred to get it from draft space into article space. That is, the originator (typically either with a COI or an ultra) has first pushed it into article space, and then, when challenged there, has tried to run away into draft space. Someone always moves it back, but putting "Do not move" on the template would provide a clearer basis for partially blocking the disrupter. That is, moving an article during an AFD is usually a form of gaming the system. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I think draft/userfying is an attempt to game the system. It always fails, is never more than mildly irritating, and won't be stopped by the template because people who are trying to game the system don't care what the template says. If they move-war, block them for move-warring. If they're spammers, block them for spamming. If they're just generally being disruptive, block them for disruption. We already have the policies and procedures needed to deal with these situations without unnecessary WP:CREEP. Regards, 94.50.213.120 (talk) 04:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
• Tangential to the discussion so far: Some closing admins need to take more care to check that a move has occurred during the discussion period. XFDCloser is a nice tool (I’ve used it myself for a few NACs), but lately I’ve had to G6-tag a fair number of articles for which a) the result was delete, b) the article had been moved mid-discussion, and c) the closing admin hit the buttons on XFDCloser without taking a closer look at the article history before doing so. --Finngall ^talk 17:20, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Why does the site not have the capability to deal with vast canvassing?

Why not only have commentators who have clearly not come from another site be able to comment? While tabloids' owners can't just use their money to get an individual to manipulate content, they now know that they can get their entire audience to flood every future controversial 'discussion', and one doubts if there will be any result in the future which goes against their desires... if this process isn't fixed... 88.109.68.233 (talk) 13:31, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Having anyone able to edit does make Wikipedia susceptible to promotional manipulation, but it also allows an open and transparent consensus to be reached by not censoring anyone. Editors are encouraged to be vigilant in making sure articles maintain a neutral point of view. Editors with conflicts of interest are required to disclose them, and rather than making edits directly, are asked to submit edit requests for review by a neutral party. See also Wikipedia:About#Strengths, weaknesses, and article quality. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:56, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't mean articles generally, AfDs specifically, with a recent one being the obvious example of how tabloids are able to get the result they want. 88.109.68.233 (talk) 14:14, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Can you link the example? Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:27, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

[1] 88.109.68.233 (talk) 21:35, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

(Redacted), this again. Isn't there a discretionary sanctions regime that applies here? —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 21:38, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I think you saw how the process did deal with it. No way would have a consensus to delete have occurred either way. And it was closed as "no consensus" despite the canvassed "votes" putting the count deeply into "keep" (BTW I did not weigh in). North8000 (talk) 21:56, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

If I recall the close rationale correctly it was because the canvassed "votes" skewed so heavily towards Keep that they closed it as no-consensus, bearing in mind they disregarded the majority of them for not presenting any real argument. (To the IP: Note that "votes" is in quotes; AfD runs off of strength of arguments and not headcount, and so a bare "vote" with no argument or rationale explained is afforded less weight than a detailed argument, doubly so if there's evidence of canvassing. Articles for Deletion is a debate, not a vote.) —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 22:28, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

No idea what you want that's discretionary, but I doubt swearing was necessary. And sure, it's theoretically not a vote, but tabloids mass canvassed and got their way... point is, I doubt the deletion discussion system is structurally sound to resist any future tabloid brigading, and it not being a vote remains a hypothesis at that point too, as it was here. 88.109.68.233 (talk) 09:56, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mass killings under communist regimes (4th nomination) has one of the best AfD closing rationales I have ever seen, and hence this is a poor example of any perceived problems. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:24, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Ritchie, I agree the close was comprehensive and tried to address the negative effects of canvassing, but if there was actual canvassing, I do think it's still a problem we need to address. Any editor who was canvassed to an AfD from somewhere offwiki should at minimum be disclosing that. —valereee (talk) 10:43, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

No comment on the close because it's partially mine. But yes, "we know this discussion was canvassed to hell and back but since we can't tell how much of it was canvassed so we can't tell whether there was a consensus and thus declare it as no consensus" is a sign of a problem if outside campaigning can make it impossible for a discussion to conclude. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:03, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

That is why I thought the process doesn't function in the first place, though... and how, if nothing is done... a repeat is more than inevitable. No consensus isn't a fix, to be sure... and practically, in the eyes of the tabloids, it's clearly equivalent to their canvassed support for no deletion, which will only encourage them further if indeed the process' structural foundation isn't somehow repaired (and nominally discounting canvassed opinions isn't that repair, at all... while the process is on-going they inevitably affect other commentators e.g. - so the leak needs to be closed at the source, and while no one can stop external sites from doing similarly, a wiki should surely still have safeguards against such intense brigading... without waiting until the end). 88.109.68.233 (talk) 11:17, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

IP, I went looking to try to figure out what tabloids canvassed people to that AfD, but it's too long and no one seems to have used the word 'tabloid' in the (unexpanded) page. Can you clarify where people were being canvassed from, with a link if possible? —valereee (talk) 10:39, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

It's in its AfD talk page under "This discussion has been mentioned by multiple media organizations"... quite a long list. It was practically an army of canvassed readers, and I don't think (Ritchie333) the close rationale was even consistent (as I mentioned previously) due to both saying it discounted the canvassed opinions, and then promptly claiming it doesn't... which is why I'm wondering how a process such as this is even workable, and how in the future this could at all be avoided (and I don't think it really could, not unless the AfD is at least prevented from being edited by absolutely everyone... it might not seem to be in the spirit of wikis to do that, but the majority of the people brigading a discussion didn't even know what it was about, let alone considered any spirit of good faith whatsoever... with the tabloids, of course, being the vanguard of bad faith accusations). 88.109.68.233 (talk) 11:11, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I'd missed that there was even a talk. Quite the Who's Who of the batshit right. —valereee (talk) 12:28, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Also, I do not agree that the close was inconsistent with respect to its treatment of canvassed !voters. The key point is that we can't gauge how much was canvassed and how much was non-canvassed input. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:03, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree that it can't be gauged, which is why it can't really be discounted after the whole process is complete... which is the reason I think it's a hole in the process that needs to be patched. As it is it can't really be said to be an honest discussion when a regular of the process/site/article comes onto a page already full with e.g. 100 points all in the same direction... there's no way, under the usual psychological, human impressions, that that 1 will go against 100 already there, and while external sources might be late to these pages... even within a few remaining days, with their millions of readers, they could easily overwhelm the tide of opinion... I'm actually surprised they haven't noticed this 'hole' before now, but after knowing that with their combined sites they managed to get the longest discussion in all these years, and to go their way... this is the problem I'm trying to highlight. After this they're surely aware that they can sway consensus. 88.109.68.233 (talk) 13:16, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Nominated article for deletion on "Notability" grounds

I have nominated the following page for deletion on grounds of notability and possible self-promotion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jana_Amin

Please provide feedback about completing the process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.31.13.129 (talk) 05:13, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Listing a page at AFD

Hello, please could someone list the page MediaWiki extension for discussion with the following rationale:

I am unconvinced that the topic of MediaWiki extensions has any independent notability outside of the topic of MediaWiki. The article sourcing as it stands is in a terrible state, I did a WP:BEFORE search and was unable to find much better. Over half the references here to primary sources, mostly other WMF wikis. We have comments in WP:TFD Discussions, bugzilla reports, random pages on Meta, Mediawiki Categories and the Mediawiki manual all being used as sources here, all of which are both primary and user generated sources. Almost all The remaining sources seem to consist of papers where a developer is writing about a specific extension they have written for Mediawiki, again I'm fairly sure that most of this would count as primary sourcing (because it's the developer writing about what they've done) but more importantly these are only examples of specific extensions, there doesn't seem to be much, if any, discussion of the extensibility of Mediawiki as a topic. Perhaps it would be sensible to selectivley merge some of the content on specific examples of extensions to MediaWiki#Extensibility? 192.76.8.80 (talk) 00:08, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, 192.76.8.80 (talk) 00:08, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Per WP:AFDHOWTO, please complete step 1, note the justification for deletion on the article's talk page, then re-open this request so that an editor may perform steps 2 and 3 for you. Cheers! —Sirdog (talk) 01:35, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@Sirdog: Done, though I don't understand why you're making me waste my time copying and pasting this to different talk pages for the sake of bureaucracy instead of just nominating the page for deletion. It may not have been in the right place but everything you need to start the AFD was listed right here. 192.76.8.80 (talk) 01:46, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done The requested AfD can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MediaWiki_extension. I am not familiar with the process of submitting AfD's, and so I thought that you completing step 1 was required for me to know everything necessary to submit the nomination by proxy successfully. I now see that is not the case. It was not my intention to make you go through bureaucracy needlessly, and so I apologize for the inconvenience. Having had this experience I will be capable of fulfilling similar requests in the future without needing to request such a thing. I wish you well! —Sirdog (talk) 02:10, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@Sirdog: Thank you. Those instructions could really use an update, they're probably about 10 years out of date. In my experience these days it's easier for the editor listing the page for deletion to just copy the article title and rationale into WP:Twinkle, which then creates all the pages, log entries, and notifications automatically. 192.76.8.80 (talk) 02:14, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Ya know, retrospectively, as someone who has Twinkle and RedWarn that probably would have been the smart thing to do here. Well, ya know what they say about hindsight... —Sirdog (talk) 02:18, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Burden of Proof and Expertise

It seems that the burden proof that an article should not be deleted is upon the author and not the one proposing that it be deleted. This is a high bar as it can be difficult to prove that an article is worthy of continued inclusion - especially for less well known topics. Furthermore, I've seen that people proposing deletion may have no apparent expertise in the subject area in question. I propose that anyone who nominates a deletion should demonstrate their expertise in the subject area at hand. Bryan MacKinnon (talk) 22:51, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

On the same principle, why not ask that people demonstrate their subject-matter expertise before they can create articles in the first place? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:42, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

The burden of proof always moves back and forth, generally falling on the party which is more capable of showing evidence if their side is "right". For example, the nominator has an initial responsibility for giving a policy-compliant rationale for why the article should be deleted, usually because it fails GNG. Then the burden is on the "keep" side to present sources purported to satisfy GNG. Once that is done, the burden falls back on the "delete" side to argue why those sources fail to meet GNG. If neither side is clearly stronger, then the "keep" side "wins" via a "no consensus" close because the burden was on the "delete" side at that point. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:12, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Great response /summary North8000 (talk) 14:47, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't think you should have to prove your expertise in a topic to nominate an article for deletion, but I've felt that there was a slight burden of proof that the article should be deleted, such as a BEFORE search. Though I like King of Hearts explanation as well. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:38, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

However, in that situation (where the nominator claims failure to meet the GNG), we do expect the nominator to have done some work to see if sources clearly exist, per WP:BURDEN. To what degree this is necessary/valid is context dependent, but the onus there is on the nominator to show that sourcing doesn't likely exist. This may be difficult for topics that are pre-2000s (before the Internet) and in parts of the world not regularly covered in English sources, where it may be actually necessary to search local print archives for the topic. --Masem (t) 01:50, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

AfD log page issue

Why is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 December 2 in Category:AfD debates (Science and technology)? It looks like a debate-sorting template is improperly transcluded, but all the listed AfD's are closed and the category contains no closed AfD pages. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:07, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Botho von Wedel

This article has no sources for 7 years. But recent edit in 2021, and reverted as unsourced material. --49.150.112.127 (talk) 05:15, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

listing sources at AfD instead of just fixing the article?

Today I stumbled across yet another AfD where a participant had listed under their Keep argument more than a dozen sources to prove notability but made zero attempt to fix the article with those sources. I've seen multiple AfDs where this has happened before and no one ever bothered to fix the article. The AfD ends Keep, but remains in the same sorry shape that led to the AfD in the first place. I am baffled by this. It must have taken at least as long to come up with those sources and make a list of them as it would have taken to just fix the article and then go vote "Keep, I've fixed it." I kind of feel like this isn't okay, but OTOH I don't want to discourage people from finding and listing sources if that really is the best they think they can do, like maybe they aren't comfortable writing in English or something? (Although in this particular case, that's not the problem.) —valereee (talk) 13:56, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

It's standard practice that as long as sources have been identified (and verified as appropriate) such as at the talk page or the AFD that that is considered sufficient for the sourcing purposes. Yes, they really should be added to the article, but it would be silly to AFD the article again knowing those sources exist from the last AFD. Of course, one can review those sources and see if they are actually good ones and if they are weak or just passing mentions, challenge them again via AFD. --Masem (t) 13:59, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I know that it's enough to show sources exist. But why would anyone write this instead of fixing the article? And shouldn't we be discouraging spending that amount of time and effort on the argument instead of the actual fix? —valereee (talk) 14:02, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it would be far better for that to be added directly to the article, particularly with the effort that it seemed to be given, but we can't force that. --Masem (t) 14:05, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I know we can't force it. And it would likely be counterproductive even if we could. But can't we at least find a way to encourage it? Or to encourage the closer to at minimum copy those sources over to the talk page? I mean, our culture here should value fixing the article rather than winning the argument. The next person to come across that article, think it needs AfD'd, but notice there was a previous recent AfD that ended Keep might have no idea that, hey, go check that AfD, maybe someone added 14 sources there but didn't bother to add them to the article or the article talk. If I hadn't come along, rolled my eyes, and fixed the article, all that work could have just basically been wasted.

Sorry, I don't mean to be arguing with you. I just find this frustrating, and more so because I know goddamn well this probably happens regularly: someone focuses on winning the argument rather than fixing the article. —valereee (talk) 14:20, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

"someone focuses on winning the argument" Exactly why I don't edit when it is at AfD. SusunW (talk) 14:27, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

There's enough "politics" on AFD to understand why some will just dump a lot of sources to make sure articles are kept but have no interest in actually working them in. There's other cases where editors may be worried that adding the sources to the article may be disruptive to those that regularly edit it. And I can see a multitude of similar reasons. The only case that doesn't make sense is that if one is a routine editor of the article and are the one that identifies sources that those don't get added is just being lazy (but there can be good reason that doesn't happen immediately, such as due to being real-life busy to not have the time to do it properly.

What we should encourage is that if there is a source dump and !voters agree these are good sources, someone should drop a note on the article's talk page to wave a big flag "Lots of sources at the AFD!" so that regular editors of the page (who may not necessarily watchlist the AFD) know where more sources are. But basically per DEADLINE, once sources are identified, we just simply cannot force them to be included at any time. --Masem (t) 14:35, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

A source dump, lol, I like that. Yes, exactly. Just something to prevent those sources being completely overlooked. —valereee (talk) 14:43, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

The far bigger problem at AFD is the lack of WP:BEFORE searching done by nominators, often they just assert "no sources" because they don't like the quality of the sources in the article. Iffy★Chat -- 14:14, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict):::Valereee I can only speak for myself. I always have a list of articles I'm working on. For the last year and continuing into this one that is women's nationality. Thus, time is the constraint, as I cannot finish my own commitment if I am drawn into others. I rarely go to AfD and when I do it is because something randomly came across my radar. I am unlikely to edit an article while it is at AfD, mainly because those discussions are often heated and it seems likely that editing during that period is likely to spill over to editing the article. I have done it, but it makes me extremely uncomfortable. If the topic is a living person, it is unlikely that I will do more than list sources in my rationale, especially if they were easily attainable. If, however, it is kept, the person is deceased, and if the sources were difficult to come by and I know my training in research will allow a complete article, when the AfD closes, I will edit the article and add those sources. SusunW (talk) 14:16, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

@SusunW, and I do get that there could be any number of reasons someone prefers to just pull up sources. I'm more concerned that once the AfD ends, those sources don't just get left buried in that AfD. Even just adding the sources to the talk page would be useful. —valereee (talk) 14:30, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Totally agree. SusunW (talk) 14:33, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, I know that it's enough to show sources exist. But why would anyone write this instead of fixing the article? And shouldn't we be discouraging spending that amount of time and effort on the argument instead of the actual fix? – this is regarding an edit I made to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dog bakery. Here is more context about why I do not always fix the article.

  someone focuses on winning the argument rather than fixing the article – I have been discouraged from rewriting articles from my past AfD experience. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin L. Tan, I spent two hours finding sources and five hours rewriting the article. I was accused of having a conflict of interest, and the article was deleted. I had no conflict of interest with the subject and had no prior involvement with the article until I had commented in the AfD. If I had focused on "winning the argument" rather than also "fixing the article", I would have wasted only two hours on the AfD instead of seven hours.

  At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Little Cleo (2nd nomination), I searched for sources (which took two hours) and rewrote the article (which took at least three hours). I do not always have five hours to spend on an AfD I find sources for. I may have external commitments, other AfDs I want to participate in, or other articles I want to write.

  If I remember and have time, I do add sources to articles that need improvement after the AfD has been closed. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Novemthree Siahaan (3rd nomination) was closed on 14 December 2021 and I added sources on 30 December 2021. Cunard (talk) 15:16, 2 January 2022 (UTC)