Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:AFD)
Jump to: navigation, search
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
I don't like this page's name. I want to rename it to Articles for discussion or something else.
Please see Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Rename AFD. Note that all of the "for discussion" pages handle not only deletion, but also proposed mergers, proposed moves, and other similar processes. AFD is "for deletion" because the volume of discussion has made it necessary to sub-divide the work by the type of change.
You mean I'm not supposed to use AFD to propose a merger or a page move?
Correct. Please use WP:Proposed mergers or WP:Requested moves for those kinds of proposals.

Jeff Friedl[edit]

@Dweller, BlameRuiner, Wikimandia, Earthh, Stuartyeates, Davey2010, Walter Görlitz @Jzp, Joseph2302 (and any others):
The article Jeff Friedl has been re-created. It has been deleted twice before: once in 2009 and once earlier this year after an AfD. The AfD notes that there was no prejudice, so a better article on the topic would be acceptable. I have no knowledge of the topic, nor was I involved in the previous discussion, so I have no idea if the current article is any better than the previous one. Is this article a good candidate for G4 Speedy Delete and/or is it any better than the previous incarnation (possibly worth keeping this time to see if it gets better)? --Unready (talk) 02:14, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I've moved it to Draft:Jeff_Friedl and will attempt to engage with the creator. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:54, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. It fails any notability guidelines. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I think moving to draft was exceedingly kind, but they should have a short rope. This article has been repeatedly recreated on two different pages Jeff Friedl and Jeff friedl. --Dweller (talk) 08:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, I had no clue the first deletion happened, and was involved in trying to punch up the content to stave off the second deletion. There was no mention of a prior deletion in the second one. The content here is a smidge dated (eg, uses future-tense for a release in 2010) but seems to be better-written. I'm only here because I got the direct notification; I'm swamped at work and can only likely help it out a bit. I'm confused with the comments by Dweller. There is no shadowy "they" who is resubmitting. The fact that he's getting added by different folks over time is a signal that folks think him missing is an error. :-) Can you be more specific WRT "It fails any notability guidelines"? Mentioning his awards, fan base, and notable contributions would help I expect. What's truly lacking in your perspective? --jzp (talk) 12:52, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
All it needs to do is pass WP:V. Several in-depth references to him in reliable sources. That's it. --Dweller (talk) 07:48, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Friedl will give you some ideas. Read the delete comments. --Dweller (talk) 07:56, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Current discussions: indexing by date[edit]

The first line under the "Current discussions" subheading reads: Articles being considered for possible deletion are indexed by the day on which they were first listed.

They aren't. Take a look - many of the discussions shown under a given date were relisted on that date, and first listed several weeks earlier.

Would be appreciated if this could be fixed, as it would make it very much easier to find older discussions in most need of further input, now that the very useful bot that used to list these is out of action: Noyster (talk), 09:40, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Worse, at least two still-open discussions are not currently shown at all under "Current discussions": Planio (opened 9 July, relisted 16 July) and Proportional approval voting (opened 19 June, relisted 26 June). There may be more: Noyster (talk), 19:34, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
I was just asking @Kraxler: about this. Planio isn't listed anywhere. Vrac (talk) 01:01, 3 August 2015 (UTC) Ooops, I meant @Kudpung:, sorry Kraxler got my K's mixed up... Vrac (talk) 01:04, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
The what links here for the AFD: Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Planio doesn't show any logs linking to it. It was in the July 16th log but I think something happened during relist, there was an edit conflict and the entry got commented out. Come to think of it I came to the AFD via deletion sorting, and the meat puppets found it because, well, they're meat puppets :) Vrac (talk) 01:14, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
I added them to Monday's (July 27) log, if necessary, they can be relisted. Kraxler (talk) 01:19, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Quick question[edit]

If I had the same concern over a large group of articles (namely quite a few of these), how would I go about that? I don't think I can bundle them, per the instructions on the page, but it would be a real pain for everybody to make a ton of AfDs. Should I start a RfC? Any advice is appreciated. Kharkiv07 (T) 01:21, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

@Kharkiv07: Out of curiosity I searched for area code AFDs, it appears that there is a long-standing consensus that they are notable: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Area code 704, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Area code 856. Vrac (talk) 03:09, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Considering that the last AFD was over 8 years ago I don't think that there would be any harm is trying another one to see if the consensus has changed in that timeframe though there is no guarantee that anything has changed. If the AFD rule is chosen I would recommend only staring with one article as a test case before considering nominating on mass.-- (talk) 23:59, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
I will oppose deletion of Area code articles. According to Wikipedia's Five pillars, Wikipedia incorporates aspects of a Gazetteer. This is precisely the type of article that should be included in a 21st century encyclopedia with nearly 5 million articles. By the way, I use these articles regularly in my business. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:30, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
I would suggest an RFC on whether to consider Area Codes notable, if you want to asses current consensus, rather than an AfD which may not make it clear to people that you are looking for a new consensus. DES (talk) 17:14, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tarek El Moussa[edit]

This AfD has been open for nearly three months. What's the best course here for closure/cleanup? Thanks. --Finngall talk 15:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd say that it falls under "No consensus to delete". Although three months is strictly correct, it's been properly listed for a month now. Will close shortly. Mjroots (talk) 16:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
I relisted it, because even though it was "properly listed", it was under a >2 week old log which few people would have looked at. I don't think there's any harm in getting some more eyes on it. ansh666 17:00, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
So I noticed. Oh well, another week can't do any harm. Mjroots (talk) 17:02, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MV Nimpkish[edit]

Can someone please close this Afd? It's been open long enough now. Mjroots (talk) 16:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Is there no requirement, official or otherwise, to contact original authors?[edit]

A bot post on my talk page led me eventually to this AfD. In spite of making recent edits to the page, exactly zero effort was expended to contact the authors of the article to see what might be done. Is it not the case that there is supposed to be at least some effort to contact the involved parties? Or does AfD work entirely as judge, jury and executioner? Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:56, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

@Maury Markowitz: I believe the expectation is that the person who created the article will be notified (unfortuantely sometimes they are the person who originally created it as a redirect rather than adding content...). I see there's a notification at User talk:Benthegazebo (found by looking at Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rescue!), so presumaby they were that creating editor. Beyond that it's useful to add an article to your watch list if it's important to you. PamD 18:27, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Agree with PamD, the convention is to notify the creator and any major or active contributors as a courtesy, but it is not strictly required. If you use a tool like Twinkle, it defaults to notifying the page creator but that behaviour can be disabled. The only times that I know of where we require notifying users is if their conduct is being discussed at one of the dramah boards administrative noticeboards. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:29, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Active major contributors like me? The guy that added 50% of the article content about a month before listing? Something that is obvious from the History, one that doesn't even take up one whole page? Come on, it's not like this would be unreasonable to ask for!
And please don't try to put this back on the authors. There is simply no way that a contributor can keep up with other people's edits. I have ~7500 new articles and perhaps 50k edits, there is no mechanism by which I can track edits to the content I'm interested in (if you wish to see my watchlist, I'm happy to post a screen shot to demonstrate how useless that is).
If this isn't a rule it should be. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:50, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Actually your contributions were made over 3 months before the article was deleted. You took the article from 889 bytes to 1212 bytes with 3 edits on 2 May 2015, it was nominated 2 August 2015 and deleted 8 August 2015. Your edits added an infobox and with no aditional content to the prose. The only new information you added was the stable release version and date. The rest of the information in the infobox was already in the article. You also added an image to the infobox that was not originally in the article. -- GB fan 19:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
To answer your original question, there is no requirement to notify any contributor to an article before or when nominating an article for deletion. This section of WP:AFD says "While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion." I take that as recommended to notify contributors. I rarely see contributors other than creator notified, which was done in this case. -- GB fan 19:16, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Although I haven't been active nominating articles for deletion in quite a while, when I do I usually try to identify anyone who's made a significant contribution and notify them as well. For articles where deletion is a possibility, it's often not difficult. If an article you contributed to got deleted while you weren't looking and you feel bad about it, talk to the deleting administrator and you can probably work something out, or deletion review is available if you think that the deletion was in error. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:46, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
You are the exception. I was curious how often editors are notified of AFDs. I looked at the top 15 AFDs on the list for today. In 9 of them the original creator was notified. In 6 of them no one was notified of the deletion. 3 of those didn't make any difference as 2 of them were originally created by IPs and notification would not mean anything, the third was created by a now vanished user. I know this is a small sample size but it is an indication that other editors are not notified of AFDs. -- GB fan 20:08, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Well then, I think it's time we opened discussion on whether that language needs to change - can anyone offer a cogent argument why there should not be a requirement to notify major contributors, especially recent and active ones? Before you worry about workload, there are a variety of tech solutions to that. But personally, I feel the single-click-to-kill of Twinkle is precisely the problem, not the solution. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:57, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I suspect it wouldn't be too hard for the tech folks to automatically ping recent contributors when an AfD notice is added to a page. That would be a better solution than making yet another rule. Zerotalk 13:18, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm open to any and all suggestions that improves the ratio from the rather dismal numbers reported above. But I suspect that some sort of language will be needed, otherwise people that fail to do so will simply do what you see here "It's not a rule, and I'm a lazy button-pusher, so..." Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:38, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
I suspect that there will stil be people not happy with the outcomes: Editor A creates a redirect from topic "Whatsit" in 2010. Editor B writes a whole article on that topic in 2011, references and all. Editors C,D,E, edit it variously in 2015, tweaking categories, adding infobox, perhaps a little petty vandalism undone by editor F, etc. If it's nominated for deletion today, using Twinkle, Editor A gets notified. Under a "recent contributors" rule, Editors C,D,E,F get notified. Difficult to see an algorithmic way to notify major contributor B. Even more difficult if A2 had turned the redirect into a short stub in 2011, then B expanded that in 2012 into a substantial article. Perhaps an algorithm could pick up (a) any editor who turned a redirect into an article, (b) any editor who expanded it by more than "n" characters (not reverted?) to notify as well as the creating editor (the one who Twinkle today notifies, if used). Good luck in trying to work something out. PamD 14:46, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
It seems you just made an excellent start. I invite you to continue this line of thinking. Time bracketing might also be useful. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:38, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps by number of edits? ansh666 17:51, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
As a first step, let's require the original contributor for XFD, which is the main problem.. Surely there should be agreement on that, and it would be very easy to program. And Twinkle could easily be modified to not give the option of not notifying. DGG ( talk ) 17:58, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Twinkle does this already. The default is to notify the page creator, but the option can be unchecked. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:39, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm opposed to requiring this. It's instruction creep, and creates a loophole in the process where a user can dispute a "delete" result solely on the basis of having not been notified of the discussion (or on the basis of anyone not being notified). However, I fully support figuring out a way by which to determine who are the significant contributors to an article for the purposes of optionally notifying them using an automated tool. It's already possible using external tools to see which pages a given user has edited most often; in theory, it should be possible to do this in reverse (determine which users have edited a given page most often) but I don't have the expertise. We could ask at WP:VPT. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:06, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
I understand the problems with feature creep more than you might imagine, just look at the mess that passes for DYK these days. But we need to do something. I'm also perfectly happy with language to the effect of "we strongly recommend this, and don't be surprised if you get nasty messages if you fail to take the 15 seconds..." kind of thing.
As to the technicality, I did a bit of poking about and a number of users suggested this would be pretty trivial. C678, who has a script that does something similar, was able to suggest an algo pretty much off the top of his head. Of course that only fixes the problem for TW users... but that's worth exploring, of all the AfDs, how many are posted here by Twinkle or similar tools? Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
There were 52 additions via Twinkle yesterday, out of 79 total (by my count). Some of the 79 may have been manual relists. So, a fairly significant percentage. There don't appear to be any other tools in use. I'm absolutely ok with making the recommendation stronger, so long as it remains a recommendation and not a requirement. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:24, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
I believe WP:Page Curation and the associated new pages feed also has a script for AfD, but it's not as widely used as Twinkle for that purpose (more for speedy deletion tagging). ansh666 20:55, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes that's right, I forgot about that one. I think you're right, most new pages wouldn't go straight to Afd, they would be speedy or WP:PROD candidates first. I don't recall if Page Curation notifies interested users. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:24, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Sounds great Ivan. In the meantime I'm in the midst of tracking down a tool that might be just what we're looking for. I do find it a bit worrying that so much is done through TW - we have made huge strides on making it easier to delete things, yet actually creating them in the first place continues to get harder and harder. Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:23, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Question about split and AfDs[edit]

Susya is an article about 3 entities, all called Susya (or closely related variants). It is an archaelogical site, a Palestinian village, and an Israeli settlement. A week or so ago, an editor was WP:BOLD and split the article into 3 articles, dealing with them separately. It was objected to, the article was reverted, and the split articles nominated for deletion (I voted "delete" there). The AfDs resulted in "no consensus".

What is the relevant policy now? I am aware that "no consensus" on AfDs usually results in articles being kept. However, here the articles only contain material from the original article, and there is no consensus (or indeed discussion) to split the article up. What should be the scope of the original article now? With the original article existing, there is no point, and indeed, the new articles would be duplicates of the original one. I asked the closer here, and they said to determine it through consensus. Kingsindian  09:00, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

converting them to redirects through normal editing seems reasonable. Anyone who objects can go through WP:BRD. DES (talk) 16:46, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
@DESiegel: You mean converting the new articles to a redir to the original one? Kingsindian  16:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, since there was no consensus for the split. Or since the separate articles were not deleted, an RFC could seek consensus to do the split after all, but that is considerably more work. But one way or another, we should generally avoid articles that duplicate other articles, in my view. DES (talk) 18:56, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
The editor who performed the split has now opened an RfC. Perhaps it is best to just wait till it finishes. Kingsindian  19:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Bubble point[edit]

An IP has tried to nominate one of the articles I have created for deletion and done a poor job of it. I think this may be retaliation for one of my AFD noms and don't think it has any merit. Would someone either create and transclude the AFD or delete it and remove the tag from the article? shoy (reactions) 15:27, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Journey to the Source: Decoding Matrix Trilogy[edit]

Could someone please complete my nomination of Journey to the Source: Decoding Matrix Trilogy for deletion? -- (talk) 02:54, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done by User:Drmies. GermanJoe (talk) 11:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

AfD withdrawn[edit]

I have withdrawn the AfD here, though one responder (partially) agrees with me, so I'm not closing it myself. If someone wants to close it, would be fine. Kingsindian  10:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Done. Reyk YO! 10:40, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Deleting articles on non-english wikipedia.[edit]

How would one propose deletion on the German Wikipedia? Anmccaff (talk) 14:51, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

See de:Wikipedia:Löschkandidaten. For other languages, interlanguage links are available in the left-side menu from our WP:AFD page. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:22, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Something Positive[edit]

I'm thinking this article Something Positive probably should go. I look at 'improving' it & come to the conclusion that every single part of it, judged alone, should be deleted. It doesn't seem notable, there are a few very minor possible RSs about the author, but none about the comic. Other than it having been nominated for the barely-existing WCCA, the only sources are comic pages themselves. Apparently IPs aren't allowed to nominate for deletion anymore... (talk) 14:04, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Something Positive. I'm not aware of any restrictions on IPs suggesting articles for deletion. Were you trying to use an automated tool? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:43, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Making a complete AfD nomination involves creating the discussion page, which IP edito5rs are not technically able to do. It is common for autoconfirmed editors to assist with this step, indicating that the nom is on behalf of the IP editor. DES (talk) 16:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Missing instruction[edit]

I don't think this project page says how to make all that stuff that's always supposed to appear at the top of a deletion discussion page appear there. Is that something that's supposed to happen automatically with twinkle? Blackbombchu (talk) 16:28, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Blackbombchu whaile many, perhaps even most, editors do use Twinkle for creating AfD noms these days, and it does more or less automate the process, the detailed instructions can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to nominate a single page for deletion, follow steps I, II, and III as described in that section, and you will have created a valid nom. (some of the details are in the templates one is directed to use in those instructions, but they will do the job.) Don't forget WP:BEFORE and the steps listed in the previous section, which should be done for any nom, automated or not. DES (talk) 16:47, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 August 2015[edit]

(Cross-posted from the template page.) On the first line of step 3, “Open the articles for deletion log page,” please change “Open” to “Edit,” because that’s where the link leads (also see WP:EASTEREGG). (talk) 04:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

See crossposted. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Health Service Culture[edit]

The article Health Service Culture:

  • Consists mostly of direct quotations from different sources that simply define the relevant sense of "culture"
  • Contains only a few sentences that relate to health services
  • Has been edited less than 20 times altogether, the last time in 2012
  • Does not meet Wikipedia's style guidelines

and, most important,

  • Does not contain anything saying why culture in a health-service organization needs to be treated separately from culture of other kinds of organization.

I suggest that the subject is non-notable and therefore the article should be deleted; but as I am not a registered Wikipedia user (and am not going to become one), it will need someone else to agree with me and start the process. If, on the other hand, there is a consensus to keep it, then it needs a lot of improvement.

Consider this a "drive-by" nomination; if someone wants to start the official process, please do, but I myself am not interested in discussing it further, so please don't respond on my IP talk page. (And no, I'm not going to register with WIkipedia, so you needn't suggest that either.)

Thanks for your attention, -- (talk) 04:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)