Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion

Afd request: Adam_Ray

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

There is a current actor/comedian who shares the same name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.200.33.99 (talk) 04:07, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done. Hi. It's perfectly fine if several people or topics share the same name. When it happens, we have a practice called Wikipedia:Disambiguation to figure out what titles to use for each article and how to help readers find the right one. --Bsherr (talk) 05:32, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

AfD request: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The_Jane_Seymour

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

Advertising, non verified reporting sources, non verified company. Fictional Russia diamond mine, with fictional CEO and employee claimed to be owned by a company which does only event promoting, reselling the blue diamond ring for 'charity'. Only known person of this fictional Russia diamond company is a Singaporean of Indian-Origin Karan Tilani.

https://www.rough-polished.com/en/analytics/106693.html Reddotparty (talk) 02:00, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done. Reddotparty, you are autoconfirmed, so you can do it yourself! See WP:AFDHOWTO for instructions to nominate an AfD Hhkohh (talk) 05:50, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

RFC on merging

• Closing AFD as keep with instructions that merge can be handled at the article.

I have seen this more than once on an article at AFD, an example concerning duplicate content at WP:Articles for deletion/Tabiti, that can result in a dictionary entry, when there is clear evidence leaning towards merge, or where merge was a better option, or needed for obvious policy and guideline reasoning, and it was closed as "Keep" supposedly because merge can be discussed on the article talk page.

The lead on this main page includes "Merge": "Common outcomes are that the article is kept, merged, redirected, incubated, renamed/moved to another title, userfied to a user subpage, or deleted per the deletion policy. Disambiguation pages are also nominated for deletion at AfD.".

WP:ATD-M states "If two pages are duplicates or otherwise redundant, one should be merged and redirected to the other, using the most common, or more general page name. This does not require process or formal debate beforehand.". A reason for a merge option at AFD is because local editors (consensus) can turn this into a battle on its own. A note at WP:ATD-M:

• Note that an outcome of "merge and delete" may potentially cause licensing problems if attribution for the merged content is lost in the process. The essay Wikipedia:Merge and delete discusses this, whereas the essay Wikipedia:Delete or merge discusses a different case that causes no such licensing problems..

This clearly shows merge as an AFD option, and if performed by an admin removes battleground issues and listed potential licensing problems.

It does not seem logical to make a process circular so that an end result is aggravation, loss of editor interest, editors not wanting to add merge as an option, and articles remaining that should not exist. On Wikipedia there is "Keep" and "Delete". Any consensus other than "keep" is a delete no matter how you look at it. If an article at AFD has two "keeps", one "delete", and two "Merge" or "redirect" it will likely result in "no consensus". I don't see the confusion because anything other than keep is still a delete so it would seem this would dictate consideration. That is just my opinion but might edge editors to agree more to merge.

There needs to be some clarity on ignoring valid merge criterion and remanding an article back to local consensus for a circular battle. Attempts at cleanup should not have to be so complicated and in fact this is counter to above policy. If there is some Admin reasoning not shared with editors it would be good to know this. Otr500 (talk) 17:47, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

There are problems with the process, but any !vote other than "Delete" (or "Delete and salt", "Delete and trout", "Delete and redirect", "Delete and recreate") or "Sserfy" or "draftify" is "Keep" for most purposes. "Redirect" and "Merge" could be done without Administrative action, and even if the result of the AfD is unequivocally "Keep". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:47, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not sure whether there is any question up for debate here, or simply a request for comments. If there's a clear consensus that an article needs to be merged at an AfD, a merge can be the result. If the consensus isn't clear between Keep and Merge, the discussion should be closed as Keep with directions to continue the discussion elsewhere. No controversial action on the project can be made without consensus; if WP:ATD-M suggests otherwise that should be changed. In many situations, whether it is better to discuss a topic independently is an editorial concern that is best discussed somewhere other than AfD. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:12, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
• Enforcement needed - in cases where the merge is firm consensus, and is obligatory (better option than a redirect), then I feel the merge must be made. That's already in the rules, I believe, but it needs better enforcing. Either the closing editor needs to do it, or we need a follow-up list that gives, say, 2 weeks and then has an admin pop in to see if action is being taken. Where merge is not a firm consensus, then obviously it is optional for the editors to raise it as a discussion or not. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:32, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
• While merge is a common outcome at AfD, when consensus disagrees with the nominator's rationale for deletion, an article should not be nominated for a merger at AfD (unless the nominator is suggesting merge and then delete for good cause. A nominator who believes a standard merge and redirect is needed should handle that as outlined at Wikipedia:Merging.--John Cline (talk) 02:06, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

AfD Request: Anarcho-conservatism

Would someone finish the last steps of nominating Anarcho-conservatism for delation on my behalf? I have posted a rationale on the talk page. Let me know if you need anything additional from me. 69.204.38.35 (talk) 12:56, 20 December 2018 (UTC) I am a registered user editing while logged out for privacy reasons per WP:VALIDALT

• Done! --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:15, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

AfD Request: Valin Shinyei and Martha Speaks (TV series)

Reason (incl. diffs and external sources) for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martha Speaks (TV series) (taken from Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)):

I am starting to doubt the notability of this TV series for a few reasons.
First of all, the author isn't even notable enough to warrant her own article. See this diff.

Second of all, even one one Wikipedia editor referred to Martha Speaks as "not even meet[ing] notability guidelines".
Third, it relies heavily on first-party (primary) sources for its essential (important) information. There are only three second-party sources - two of them are dead links, the third was published 10 years ago. Thus, the editor above could be right about the TV show failing WP:GNG. As an ordinary children's show, it probably would never get worldwide significance and recognition. Exponentially far more TV shows have worldwide recognition than do — and the difference between a show that gets an article and a show that doesn't is not a matter of "any show gets to have one as soon as an editor actually takes the time to make one", but of "shows only get one if their characters actually receive real-world coverage and analysis of their significance". Unfortunately, Martha Speaks failed the test, big time.

The characters list was redirected in a deletion discussion a month ago. Additionally, the characters's individual articles have been redirected for lack of notability:

[1][2][3][4][5]

Even think about it, think about more notable shows like VeggieTales and Danny Phantom. Those shows warrant articles and character lists because of their massive notability. If you even asked me, Daniel Fenton, Bob the Tomato, and Larry the Cucumber themselves would be notable to warrant their own articles. But as seen in the much above more discussions, Helen Lorraine, her Daniel Fenton-inspired father, and Mariella clearly aren't even notable to warrant any. Arthur (TV series) is much more notable and has its titular protagonist warrant an article. Just because Martha Speaks is affiliated with a notable TV show doesn't mean it is just as notable.
A search of Martha Speaks on JSTOR provides 0 sufficient results. The show is mentioned in some RS but they aren't independent of the topic in question. Zero results on Google News also.
Additionally, would you expect to find an entry for Martha Speaks in a paper encyclopedia such as Encyclopedia Britannica or even in a book about television? Even check WolframAlpha: [6][7][8]

Here are some reasons why I can argue that Martha Speaks is not notable. Being an average and now cancelled TV show, it would take a long time for it to reach notability standards, unlike VT, DP, and Arthur. I have added the

tag to the top of the page.

[signature]

Reason for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valin Shinyei is that the topic of the article is mentioned in reliable sources, but they aren't independent of the topic is question; thus failing the topic of WP:GNG.

However, I think another suitable option is merging Martha Speaks (TV series) and Martha Speaks (book) into the current dab page Martha Speaks. Some TV programs based on books share the article with the book that inspired the series.

I don't know if this should be bundled or not; I don't know what to decide, but if you need to, then that would be okay. Thanks. 2407:7000:A269:8200:B006:D94F:9517:2380 (talk) 03:18, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

I certainly won't be the one to waste my time sorting through this request to find something that can be posted on an AFD page for Martha Speaks. It's a blatant speedy keep. It meets WP:NTV as a show that ran for six seasons (and remains in reruns) on a national network. US News and World Reported noted it as one of the "highly regarded programs that frequently turn up on recommended lists." It received four Emmy Award nominations, and won various other awards. It has been noted, it is notable. Please consider rescinding your request. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:51, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Nat. The does meet Nobility. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 05:10, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Note - my reluctance should not be taken as a call for others not to help this editor with their AfD. It may be unwise, but it is legitimately requested. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:29, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

• • Agree, it seems a waste of time as it is an obvious keep Atlantic306 (talk) 20:49, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

AfD request: CSV application support

 Done

• CSV application support (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Please see Talk:CSV application support#AfD: Nomination for deletion. 84.250.17.211 (talk) 18:58, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Another "articles for discussion" RFC

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This ain't happening.∯WBG^converse 14:10, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

---

Why not rename this to "Articles for Discussion", and then fold Wikipedia:Requested moves, all of the {{Merge}} stuff, all of the {{Split}} stuff, and possibly WP:DRAFTIFY into one AFD process? I'm sure that there are one or two other process that could easily fit under an "articles for discussion" umbrella, as well. De-emphasizing deletion as the primary mechanism, even if it is only a "psychological" de-emphasis, certainly couldn't hurt anything though. Most importantly however, simplifying and centralizing 4-5 different processes into a single discussion forum could only help all of us as editors, I would think. Kamafa Delgato _(Lojbanist)^{Styrofoam is not made from kittens.} 00:03, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

• oppose merge RM and undecide on merging PM If we move RM to here, AfD daily log is too messy and also if IP wants to open an RM, they need auto-confirmed user assistance, that is too complex Hhkohh (talk) 01:06, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose no no no. There's already too many different types of discussions at AfD; throwing in several more things is an awful idea. WP:DRV (as an appeal process of AfD) obviously can't be included; if the whole thing wasn't certain to fail quickly I'd ask that be removed. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:04, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Yes, the OP hates RM (see userpage). No, it’s not broken and it actually works better than AfD. Please close this. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:51, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
• This has been extensively discussed in the past with far more detailed reason given to support the rename. In this RfC the proposer is basically asking "Why not," the answer is Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Rename AFD. I hope this should be SNOW-closed as it does not put forth fresh argument to consider. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:24, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - does not provide any particularly good reasons for why such a complicated change in the most vulnerable aspects of the site should be made. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:28, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Each forum has its own purpose and different people participate in discussions for RM and AfD. Support ban on Lojbanist from making proposals. (see Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion for multiple terrible proposals + this pointy TfD, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Social media addiction; and that's a few examples just from the past month or so). Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:05, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

  Galobtter, can you also comment on WT:TfD#Proposal: move template and module rename nominations from RM to TFD? Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 11:38, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - Waaay too complicated, Articles for Deletion has worked fine for many many years. –Davey2010^Talk 11:39, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Of the various XFD boards, AFD is the one that gets by far the most nominations as it is, typically more than all the others put together. For example, the figures for 21 December 2018 (including relisting of older noms) are: AfD - 103; TfD - 9; FfD - 8; CfD - 10; RfD - 8; MfD - 8. Bringing in non-deletion matters will only swell the numbers at AfD. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:39, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:PERENNIAL (non obstante mutatis mutandis), and in any case, as far as AfD itself goes, it is the third of a series of stages solely devoted too deletion. ——SerialNumber54129 11:52, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Oddities in AfD log

Twice in the last few days, I have noticed that the AfD log at WP:AFD does not display discussions that are nine days old. For instance: as I type, the "current and past discussions" section links to AfD logs for 15 December, and for 17-24th December, but not to the log for 16 December. This is despite the fact that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 December 16 exists and has multiple open discussions. I can transclude this log at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old, but since this has happened multiple times now, it seems to me it's a bug rather than a one-time thing. Can someone with more technical competence than myself help figure this out? Vanamonde (talk) 12:41, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Mathbot is supposed to update the old discussions page but seems to be down. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:10, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

I somehow missed that the log had been manually updated. Thanks for doing that, Jovanmilic97, and thanks for letting the bot operator know, Galobtter. Vanamonde (talk) 13:13, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

AfD: Watch Out (Dirtyphonics and Bassnectar song)

Not enough reliable coverage for a song that did not chart nor received any sales certification. Fails WP:NSONG. 99.203.31.213 (talk) 16:34, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done Iffy★Chat -- 15:15, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

AfD request: List of San Francisco Municipal Railway lines

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_San_Francisco_Municipal_Railway_lines 13 years ago this page was proposed for deletion and fail to be deleted. After reviewing, Wikipedia is not is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal Not a Travel guide (details of bus/train service are not pertinent here) . Wikipedia is not a information database (route infomation for buses, trams, municipal railways) .This page should be deleted . Once deleted, users can get transit route information on the local transit site which is heavily maintained by the agency them self, if a route been changed. https://www.sfmta.com/getting-around/muni/routes-stops Colton Meltzer (talk) 23:47, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done @Colton Meltzer:, you are autoconfirmed, so you can create the AFD page yourself. As this page has been nominated for deletion before, you can create the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of San Francisco Municipal Railway lines (2nd nomination). Iffy★Chat -- 00:37, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Early closes again

@Wangi:@Ifnord:@Fenix down:@Postdlf: You all closed AfDs today before the minimum seven days had run. Some of these had minimal input. Some hadn't even run for 6 days. Can you please leave AfDs open for a minimum of a full seven days unless a criterion for speedy closure is met. Thanks. --Michig (talk) 07:40, 7 January 2019 (UTC) @Randykitty: too. --Michig (talk) 21:02, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

• ?? I'm not aware of having closed any AfDs that hadn't run for less than 6 days... I did close some that were at 7 days, give or take a few hours, but I think all of them had been open for 7 days at least. --Randykitty (talk) 21:32, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • These were all closed today and hadn't run for the full 7 days required: [9] (9 hours early, only one participant other than the nominator), [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]. --Michig (talk) 21:57, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree, these should have been left open until a full seven days (168 hours) had passed. People can and will quibble over the lost opportunity to weigh in at the eleventh hour. – Joe (talk) 22:25, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

They were all listed as being 7 days old at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old. Perhaps that page should be modified then. --Randykitty (talk) 22:42, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Afd Request: The Better Woman (TV series) and Til Debt Do Us Part (TV series)

Both articles are for Tv shows that yet to cast anyone. No start date of filming as well and its poorly sourced. I am asking for assistance as I don't know how to create a new entry in Afd. I have also proposed for deletion, only for an ip user to delete the tag without giving any reason. TheHotwiki (talk) 15:06, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

@Hotwiki: The instructions for how to create an AFD are at WP:AFDHOWTO. As you are autoconfirmed, you should have no issues following these instructions. Iffy★Chat -- 15:13, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Has AFD become "Articles for Discussion" ?

I know it is a perennial suggestion that AFD be used for any "Articles for Discussion", where issues like merges and redirects are also considered, and has been rejected frequently.

Yet, in this AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sim City: The Card Game, I am surprised that there's claims that we frequently allow requests for redirection be handled by AFD, and that this has become common.

If this is the case, then our policy pages are way out of date. Otherwise, we need to be more enforcing of when editors mis-use AFD for these purposes. --Masem (t) 22:12, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

There was a discussion about this recently: Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 71#"AFD is not for redirecting"?. The consensus was that "AfD is a right venue to seek for redirect(s), which have been challenged". I thought I updated the the relevant policy pages but I could well have missed some. They had previously had conflicting advice, at least as far back as 2014. – Joe (talk) 22:37, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Okay, because I was going off WP:ATD. I have updated the section on redirects to reflect that above discussion. --Masem (t) 22:50, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Oh I see. I held off mentioning AfD specifically there because it already links to WP:BLAR, which mentions it, and I think the duplicate advice on several pages contributed to the confusion in the above RfC. But maybe we should. – Joe (talk) 23:02, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose see above for Another "articles for discussion" RFC just two weeks ago which was resoundingly rejected. AfD does not scale well and is already overloaded so its scope should be tightly restricted to deletion – a function which requires special privilege and due process. Most other editing issues can be performed and reverted by anyone and so should be treated like any ordinary editing dispute. Andrew D. (talk) 22:54, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

What are you opposing, Andrew? There's no proposal here, only a question about current practice. – Joe (talk) 23:02, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I oppose the proposition that AFD has become "Articles for Discussion". Andrew D. (talk) 23:06, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

That wasn't my question, I wanted to make sure if, in the case of the specific AFD above, if I had missed a change (which I now know I had) or if people in that AFD were mis-applying AFD. --Masem (t) 23:33, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

• My understanding is that merge proposals are not welcome at AfD, and the redirect proposals are only welcome if they are Wikipedia:Pseudo-deletion by redirection where someone has already objected to or reverted the redirect. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:59, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

• It all depends on the closing editor - Personally when I used to close AFDs I would allow it simply because the AFD box allowed it (If it wasn't in the closure box then it wouldn't be a thing right?), In 2016 and even now it's a 50/50 thing - some do redirect/merge closures and others disallow it screaming "THIS IS AN AFD, TAKE THIS TO THE TALKPAGE!!"

To answer the question I personally believe we should allow it as not everything needs to come to a Keep or Delete and with some AFDs the discussion will go from Delete to Redirect and then it's obviously redirected - You couldn't half way through the AFD close it telling everyone to bugger off to the talkpage, (Ofcourse you could simply disallow redirect/merge !votes (or discount them) but even that would cause issues),

For a simpler life I think we should allow them (and maybe we should rename AFD but another discussion for another day). –Davey2010^Talk 23:21, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

• AFD should be articles for discussion, and OPs who aren't sure whether the page should be deleted, redirected or merged should feel free to open an AFD as the form of discussion most likely to attract attention (and the only one that can end in deletion), but it seems that at present it isn't.[16][17][18] It is a serious problem that AFD is overrun with "keepist" editors who will attack a nom who writes something like "Not sure what to do with this one, so I brought it here..." with "Nom isn't arguing to delete! Speedy keep!" or "Stop vehemently arguing for this page on a beloved character in a widely read book to be deleted!", but ANI is the place to deal with editors like that; those of us who have already learned through painful experience that the system works this way at present shouldn't be forced to learn a new system while the aforementioned "keepist" editors are still around, and are going to try to enforce the old rules even if they have already changed. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:56, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
• AfD isn't articles for discussion, but some leeway on proposing 'delete via redirect' seems appropriate. Far from being 'overrun with "keepist" editors', it seems to be largely populated by editors who will !vote delete on article that looks in bad shape. It is blighted by poor nominations, poor contributions to discussions, and poor closes, with many editors seemingly seeing it as a place they can behave disruptively with impunity. Let's at least insist that anyone nominating an article here believes that the subject and content of the article they are nominating doesn't belong in Wikipedia. --Michig (talk) 07:12, 8 January 2019 (UTC)