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.


Closing requirements?[edit]

I've been looking through some randomly closed AfD articles, and I'm a bit perplexed as to the lack of verbosity for many of the closures. Specifically "The result was X" or "The consensus was Y". While the sort of closures aren't necessarily wrong, they are certainly trifling and should be reserved for closures that patently obvious. Has this concern been raised before?That man from Nantucket (talk) 17:35, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I share the concern. I've been involved in several AfD discussions in which work has been done to improve the article while the discussion is going on. There will often be 2-4 delete votes (usually with little comment other than "per GNG"), followed by substantial expansion to the article, a keep vote or two based on the updated article, then another delete vote that is nothing more than "per above voter(s)", and the closing result will me "The result was Delete". I've given up on believing that AfD is anything more than a majority vote in most cases. If there is actual consideration given to the opinions, it would be nice to see. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:42, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
I've often been struck by the brevity of these closing statements contrasting with often a great volume of argument below. But it is understandable. The way we assess "notability" leaves a lot to judgement and interpretation. When is coverage "significant"? How "independent" and "reliable" are the sources cited? Thus there are not many contested AfDs where one set of arguments is indisputably right and the other set wrong. Nevertheless someone has to decide and in most cases it's an administrator. These are people we elect to make these judgements for us. An expanded rationale would often have to say something like "On balance I judge the arguments for delete (or keep) to be stronger", leaving more exposure to challenge - "well I judge different, who are you?" - so it is understandable that closers confine themselves to a lordly "The result was ...", if not necessarily best practice: Noyster (talk), 01:29, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Poker players[edit]

There are various categories of poker players but the biggest by far (531) is Category:American poker players. Looking at these, I distinguish (roughly) three types of article. One would include people who are notable for some other reason but are also enthusiastic or noted poker-players e.g. Ben Affleck. Fair enough. A second is of professional, or semi-professional poker players who have received a fair amount of coverage and would seem to me to have good grounds for meeting general standards of notability, e.g. Joe Cada, Amarillo Slim. But a third category consists of people who just happen to be listed on a poker website somewhere, and about whom there is at the most some anecdotal information. poorly or not at all sourced; sometimes there is a listing of pots they have won and their places in a tournament, even if they have never won a tournament or been placed high. these don't seem to me to qualify in anyway under GNG. Examples: Brandon Adams (poker player), Crandell Addington, Saif Ahmad, Daniel Alaei, James Van Alstyne, Jesse Alto, Howard Andrew, Sam Angel, Mickey Appleman, Josh Arieh and Joe Awada - and that's just from the As. Do other editors perhaps agree with me that this third category is not notable and not suitable for WP articles? Can we set out standards that would determine notability for poker players and then perhaps proceed to delete those who don't meet it?--Smerus (talk) 19:13, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't have an answer to your question, but I think Crandell Addington fits better with the second list than the third. I would think that induction to the Poker Hall of Fame would establish notability. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
@GaryColemanFan:. Thanks for this, but it needs a bit of further thought I think. the Poker Hall of Fame is a merchandising initiative by a casino owner with less-than-clear criteria for nomination and acceptance; basically it appears to be given at the discretion of the guys that run it. Whilst the Hall of Fame itself might justify an entry in WP, it's by no means clear that those who are nominated to it automatically deserve an entry themselves. On that sort of argument, you might include everyone who has ever received the Order of the British Empire or any other sort of award as deserving of a WP article.--Smerus (talk) 07:42, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
We disagree. GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:14, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Noted and thanks for your contribution.--Smerus (talk) 23:49, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Akshar Pathak[edit]

Can someone please proceed the step 2 & 3 from Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_nominate_a_single_page_for_deletion for Akshar Pathak as I am an unregistered user here. Regards. I will present my arguments in the discussion (which is primarily this being a self promotional article) --182.75.175.230 (talk) 06:18, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done TonyBallioni (talk) 06:58, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Bernstein Medical and Robert M. Bernstein[edit]

Can someone please complete the deletion process for Bernstein Medical and Robert M. Bernstein? I have done all I can. Thank you. --2604:2000:E016:A700:D4E1:E2A1:3568:3C85 (talk) 18:44, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done TimothyJosephWood 19:10, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Amy Wechsler[edit]

Can someone please complete the deletion process for Amy Wechsler? Thank you. --2604:2000:E016:A700:951:D485:DE63:C416 (talk) 17:54, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done GermanJoe (talk) 18:00, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Various[edit]

Can someone please complete the deletion nominations of Dowling Stough and Miles Galin and Leo Wollman and Ava Shamban and Charles Perniciaro? Thank you. --2604:2000:E016:A700:951:D485:DE63:C416 (talk) 20:37, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Maybe I shouldn't have, but I've removed the Afd banners leading to redlinked discussion pages. Until such time as someone wants to perform this service for him, the templates needlessly clutter up the page and confuse our readers. Most experienced editors use automated tools to apply the Afd template anyway, so having one there or not is not a time saver. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:27, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Addressing shading and other decorative elements in AFDFORMAT?[edit]

Should we update WP:AFDFORMAT, which already forbids label templates, to put a stop to this sort of thing, where an editor uses shading to emphasize his comment? Comments at Afd should be judged on merit, not the decorative skills of editors. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:47, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I think that particular editor was merely attempting to ensure his lengthy and rather intricately structured comment would be read as just that - a single comment. Still, there is merit in the proposal as it would prevent people inadvertently or otherwise impersonating a closed discussion. Triptothecottage (talk) 05:17, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

AFD Request for Bernhard Rosenberg[edit]

I recently came across this orphan article for a rabbi, which appears to have directly been written at his behest, and would like to call the attention of registered users to the matter. 2604:2000:1304:402F:6D63:2020:CD6B:18F0 (talk) 22:40, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Can someone please complete this request. Thanks 2604:2000:1304:402F:C8B1:F3F5:CF4:CE95 (talk) 05:18, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done by User:JJMC89 TimothyJosephWood 11:04, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Tour articles[edit]

Just putting this here in case someone has a strong opinion about it, or is aware of specific precedent for tour articles. A new editor has been spamming mostly unreferenced tour articles, and has created at least a dozen over the last three days, not including some which have already been deleted per their talk. I'm not sure if this is blatant enough to mass AfD, or if anyone is aware of socky behavior that would qualify for mass deletion by fiat. The user is obviously not new, since they are well versed in formatting (infoboxes, tables). It's also...not entirely clear that this may not be a sideways copyvio, since they basically all seem to just replicate tour dates from (some) source without adding any information, but I know copyvio of list information is...not a clear issue, as has been brought up regarding some Forbes lists, and more recently at the BBC 100 article. TimothyJosephWood 14:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

They seem to be complete (or attempting to be complete) lists of factual information, so there is no copyright issue. Whether they are notable is another question. -- King of ♠ 05:38, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

AFD request at Keith Johnson (author)[edit]

Please may someone create the deletion discussion for this page? 2A00:23C4:A688:DB00:D4F6:B412:33B8:ACD1 (talk) 19:19, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the page for deletion discussion is not linked to the article, or the page for deletion discussion does not exist. Steve Quinn (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
I know: because I am unregistered, I cannot create the page. I made a note on the article's talk page and a request on this page for a deletion discussion to be created and my reason copied over, as specified elsewhere. 2A00:23C4:A688:DB00:D4F6:B412:33B8:ACD1 (talk) 20:08, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done. --Finngall talk 21:34, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

statistical categories for closed AFDs[edit]

Would it be useful to have statistics-gathering categories for AFDs:

Closure-reason categories:

  • AFDs closed as delete
  • AFDs closed as keep
  • AFDs closed as no consensus
  • AFDs that were relisted
  • AFDs that closed early
  • AFDs that closed early due to speedy deletion
  • AFDs that closed early due to speedy keep
  • AFDs that closed early due to SNOW keep

with possible [in YEAR] sub-categories

Categories for tracking damage done by sock-farms:

  • AFDs related to blocked editor [account name goes here]

Categories for tracking dates:


Thoughts? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Request regarding apparent backlog[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jocelyn Jones has gone about a month-a-and-half with only one comment, my own, for deletion. I'm thinking there's perhaps a backlog on deletions that aren't WP:SD, or it might simply have slipped through the cracks. If it's the latter reason, I thought it worth noting here. With thanks, --Tenebrae (talk) 19:17, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I have fixed the AfD and listed it in today's log. — JJMC89(T·C) 20:56, 22 January 2017 (UTC)