Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.


Missing logs[edit]

Does anyone know why the logs for 2 and 3 November are not showing up under the Old discussions? They still have AfDs that have not been closed. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:31, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

@Sarahj2107: Because Mathbot (talk · contribs) - which updates Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old - hasn't run since 9 November. Notifying Oleg Alexandrov (talk · contribs), the bot-op. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:07, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Fixed. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:54, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposal: AfD with no participants should be relisted indefinitely, not closed, until there is at least one other participant[edit]

See here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:40, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Rfc on upgrading the NAC essay to a guideline[edit]

Interested editors can comment on the Deletion process talk page. Thanks. Lourdes 05:52, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Yamie Chess[edit]

Hi, can someone please fix the AFD for Yamie Chess, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 17:11, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Hut 8.5 17:15, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Patrolling kept articles[edit]

An issue came up at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#When will a wiki page appear in google search? As Wikipedia:New pages patrol says: "pages that are still not patrolled are not indexed and cached by Google or other search engines". Kudpung closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Hillmann as keep but Bill Hillmann was not patrolled so it still had noindex (I checked the html source). The oldest unpatrolled pages at [1] are 30 days. Many new articles are AfD'ed and kept within that time frame. Should we ask closers to check whether kept pages need patrolling? Or just accept that it may take weeks until somebody else does it? Or could a tool flag AfD keeps which haven't been patrolled? PrimeHunter (talk) 20:24, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: An interesting question to which there is a simple answer: All noinexed pages whether tagged for anything or not are automatically released for indexing after 90 days.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:28, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Bear in mind that NPP patrollers are supposed to check a number of things besides whether the article should be deleted. The fact that something survived an AfD doesn't necessarily mean it's in a fit state to be patrolled. Hut 8.5 10:35, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

nomination failure[edit]

I just tried to Nominate Caffeinated Concert Tickets with Twinkle and received the error: Creating article deletion discussion page: Failed to save edit: The article you tried to create has been created already. In todays Log it placed a prior closed discussion. Can someone straighten this out? MB 20:29, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

@MB: Twinkle is a pain, I always do it manually. You need to follow the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO, step I, first bullet, small print. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:54, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
I wasn't asking how to do a nomination, I have done nearly 50 with Twinkle and couldn't imagine doing it manually. I was asking how to clean up after this failure. The article has the banner at the top that says it has been nominated, but there is actually no open discussion. MB 00:23, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Probably just revert your last couple edits that are related to the nomination, since it didn't create a page. Looks to me like Twinkle is confused because a prior nomination was moved and a redirect is in its place now. You'll probably have to do this one manually. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 00:28, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
@MB: never mind, this was going to be confusing anyway because of the redirected discussion. I went ahead and created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caffeinated Concert Tickets (3rd nomination) and fixed the links to point to that page instead. Should be good to go now but you'll have to edit the AfD page to add your deletion rationale. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 00:39, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
@Ivanvector: Thanks for straightening this out. I've put my deletion rationale in. MB 00:48, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Please explain how to[edit]

I'm sorry but your explanations aren't understandable, 38,512 bytes. Xx236 (talk) 14:07, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

The procedure isn't exactly simple, but the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO seem quite adequate for the task. I've completed the nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Panchayat Cricket Ground‎ on your behalf. --Finngall talk 15:34, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
I've posted a notice on the page creator's talk page, so that they are aware of the nomination. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:05, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Rangoon Point[edit]

Could someone please complete this nomination, which I, as a non-logged-in user cannot? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

On it. --Finngall talk 22:15, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rangoon Point. --Finngall talk 22:24, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2016_Aliah_University_Protest[edit]

I closed this discussion some time ago, but it keeps popping up on the list of old, unclosed AfDs. I don't know enough about the technical end of things to diagnose the problem. Joyous! | Talk 16:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Could it be because it was moved from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Aliah University Protest SAVE ALIAH, which now redirects to it? I changed the entry on the November 15 log which might fix it. There is something else weird on that day's log. There are two delete !votes that don't seem to be part of any AfD and they are signed by a link to the talk dab page. I can't figure out where they are coming from. Sarahj2107 (talk) 16:27, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
That seems to have done the trick. Thank you. Joyous! | Talk 20:12, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Complete deletion proposal for unregistered user[edit]

I have submitted a deletion proposal at 100 Women (BBC) and the associated talk page. Please may a registered user finish it off: I am unable to do so? 2A00:23C4:A683:6A00:C414:D65C:FA3:A059 (talk) 16:01, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done TimothyJosephWood 16:07, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you! 2A00:23C4:A683:6A00:C414:D65C:FA3:A059 (talk) 16:25, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Afd process proposal submitted to Village pump[edit]

I submitted a proposal for use of a checklist, like the {{DYK checklist}} for the Afd process at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Afd process. It would be great to get your input on this idea!--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Query regarding WP:ATD[edit]

WP:DISCUSSAFD states that alternatives to deletion should be considered, which in turn states: "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." WP:DISCUSSAFD also gives the option to !vote as "Disambiguation". I tried the earlier option at the Magsi AfD, by suggesting to keep it as a surname list article, as it satisfied all the relevant criteria. But my advice was rejected & the article was deleted. When I asked for clarification from the closing admin, their response was dismissive. Recently, I tried the latter option at the Joon Afd. But again the article was deleted. And again I got dismissive response from the closing admin. It's noteworthy that both the admins had no problem with my suggested alternatives.

So, it seems to me that the closing admins consider redirect & merge as the only valid alternatives to deletion. And if that's the case, then the WP:DISCUSSAFD should clearly mention the same. It will be helpful for comparatively inexperienced AfD participants like me, who make fool out of themselves by !voting as "Disambiguation". - NitinMlk (talk) 20:05, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I'll leave it to others to respond to your main question, but if you are going to discuss other editors, you should let them know. Doug Weller talk 20:16, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Ah, you did mention it to one of them. I only looked at Sandstein's page. I notified him. Doug Weller talk 20:19, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! - NitinMlk (talk) 20:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, but I don't see how this concerns me.  Sandstein  20:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Actually, I just wanted clarification for the personal sake. And that's why I didn't notify you. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:24, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
You seem to be slightly misunderstanding the role of closing administrators. They don't go through all the opinions and pick what they think is the best one to act on. Rather, they judge the discussion as a whole and determine the consensus of the participants. Though it isn't just a vote count, several well-argued delete opinions pointing to lack of reliable sources are not going to be overruled by one editor who wants a disambig instead. So it's not right to say that "closing admins consider redirect & merge as the only valid alternatives to deletion", rather, that the AfD participants did not go for other options. Reyk YO! 20:34, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • The proper venue for this complaint is WP:DRV, but don't expect an outpouring of sympathy there. Opinions like Reyk's are as common as they are wrong and harmful. You are reading ATD correctly, but most closing administrators do not. Jclemens (talk) 20:37, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Jclemens, thanks. At least you understood my point. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:42, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Jclemens, this page has nearly 1600 watchers. And one of them should be easily able to clarify my simple query. So, I won't post it anywhere else, as it's a general query. In fact, if I won't get any reasonable response here, I will take your comment's last sentence at face value. BTW, thanks for the clarification! - NitinMlk (talk) 21:10, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
A disambiguation page already existed, the logical thing is to move that here, not copy paste that over this article. Claiming that admins/editors who disagree with one's opinion are wrong and dangerous doesn't make that so. —SpacemanSpiff 07:06, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
You are amazing in other areas but your this comment shows that you don't understand WP:ATD. If X satisfies the disambiguation criteria & a primary topic doesn't exists, then X (disambiguation) is needed to be created & redirected to X, as per WP:DABNAME. In the case of Joon, Joon (disambiguation) already existed & there was no primary topic. So, you just needed to redirect Joon (disambiguation) to Joon instead of deleting the Joon. In fact, I've explained all that already at the Joon AfD. BTW, your comment simply means that you don't consider disambiguation as a valid alternative to deletion.
PS: I guess user Jclemens clearly & boldly explained the AfD scenario. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:23, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Like I said, if you are confident you understand things perfectly while others don't then go for WP:DRV and see what the community has to say, just claiming that you are right isn't going anywhere, and claiming that any opinion to the contrary is harmful is disingenuous and absurd at best. Like I've said before, I did consider disambiguation but your method is wrong, simple as that.—SpacemanSpiff 05:03, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
I have to agree. It is annoying when someone claims to be asking a question, then insults and criticises people for giving an answer they don't like. It would have been more accurate to title this section ==Expostulation regarding WP:ATD==. Reyk YO! 08:56, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
SpacemanSpiff, please read my opening query. I want overall clarification regarding the application/scope of WP:ATD during the AfDs. I mentioned Magsi/Joon Afd just to give the context of my query. DRV will turn it into an individual case & therefore won't serve the main purpose of my query. BTW, I neither claimed that any contrary opinion is "harmful" nor did I claim that disagreeing "admins/editors" are "dangerous".
Reyk, you have summed up your understanding of the WP:ATD in your following comment: "Though it isn't just a vote count, several well-argued delete opinions pointing to lack of reliable sources are not going to be overruled by one editor who wants a disambig instead". So, now please let the others express their views. - NitinMlk (talk) 18:52, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
It's precisely because I want others to be able to express their views that I am asking you not to shout at them for disagreeing with you. Reyk YO! 19:40, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what the hell is going on...[edit]

With the edit war over this section, but please stop it. It clearly does not belong here. ANI is this way. Further disruptive edting will result in an invitation from me to that forum. Thanks... -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:28, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

It would be great if we could figure out a way to get them to leave and not come back. I don't think that is going to happen. - GB fan 17:38, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Vote {X} for change has an inexhaustible supply of IP addresses. Just delete. Doug Weller talk 18:01, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Doug Weller, who thinks he knows a lot about calendars, is heavily involved here. In 2010 he protected Islamic calendar to prevent an irrelevant, offensive picture with a spurious caption being removed after a consensus was reached to remove it. The article remains protected to this day. In May 2015 an editor removed from Common era the false claim that Dionysius Exiguus made a mistake in calculating the first year of the Christian era. The change was fully sourced but Doug tag - teamed with someone else to restore the misinformation and remove the reference. Instead of making a case at the talk page for the removal of the reference he prayed in aid Future Perfect at Sunrise with this post:

I'm involved in reverting ... at Common Era. I don't know if given the three blocks if you think anything needs to be done. I'm not going to be concerned too much about it though. Block, protect, or ignore. Your judgment, your choice.

Since when? The cycle is BRD, not BR-run-to-an-administrator-to-stab-another-editor-in-the-back. Looking at the three blocks, all by Future Perfect at Sunrise, they seem to relate to tendentious editing by the same people. Future Perfect at Sunrise didn't bother to reply, much less discuss their conduct with the IP, but clobbered it with a six month block. Forward to June 2016 and it was Groundhog Day revisited. An editor adds a link to the Astronomical Almanac and Mojoworker removes it, replacing it with a deadlink under the uninformative edit summary Vote (X) for Revert. Mojoworker then embarks on an edit war to keep the Astronomical Almanac reference out and the deadlink in, for good measure adding the ridiculous claim that the Anno Domini era dates from the Creation. After more argy - bargy Future Perfect at Sunrise swoops in, restores all the nonsense and protects the article for three months. A number of articles are in a sorry state because Future Perfect at Sunrise has protected them:

  • Solar time (indefinite) - makes the amazing claim that -6 is greater than +14.
  • Equation of time (December 2017) - includes the nonsensical phrase "equation of centre", claims the equation of time is zero at date of latest sunrise (1 January, the actual date is 25 December), claims it reaches its maximum value on 3 January (actually 3 November) and minimum "half a year later" (actually 12 February), defines the ecliptic as "the path of the Sun seems to take in the celestial sphere", and claims the vernal equinox falls most often on 21 March (the date given previously was 20 March). In the complete 400 year cycle beginning in 1753 the equinox falls on 20 March 256 times and on 21 March only 104 times. From 2007 to 2101 it does not fall on 21 March at all, and it will fall on 20 March every year from 2136 to 2175.
  • Tropical year (December 2017) - contains the amazing claim that "the actual timing of official midnight is based on UTC" despite the fact that the European Union and practically every civilised country bases it on Greenwich Mean Time, also the remarkable (and false) claim that sixteenth century astronomers had measured the rotation rate of the earth and found it to be irregular. How did they manage that, given that their most accurate timepiece was the sundial? We are also told that the tropical year has "a duration of. (Astronomical Applications Dept., 2009)".
  • Adoption of the Gregorian calendar (March 2017) - incorrectly claims that Greece uses the Gregorian calendar following removal of sources confirming that it uses the same calendar as its established church (because it issued three anathemas against it in the sixteenth century). 80.44.160.131 (talk) 18:50, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Diesel fuel tanks in trucks[edit]

Someone...figure this out. I have a strong suspicion it should probably be deleted, but I'm not entire sure how to put it. AfC creation by globally banned User:Ktr101. It's such an incredibly vague topic so as to be practically meaningless, and I'm not entirely sure its even definable beyond the scope of the Fuel tank article, given that Truck is such a stunningly broad term. TimothyJosephWood 21:12, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Well it's an article about the design and manufacture of fuel tanks. Diesel or trucks are scarcely mentioned at all (that's not entirely the creator's fault, Ktr101 moved it to this title from "Truck Fuel Tanks"). This is a pretty solid argument for it to be deleted or merged somewhere else. Hut 8.5 21:41, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Send it to AfD and let "consensus" see to it.
I'd delete it. The content is either self-evident (quality of welding is obviously necessary) or unsourced and dubious. Most what's in here is so narrowly specific that it implies (unsourced) that there is only one single way to make a fuel tank, which is a US-centric view and far from universal. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:58, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
One place to start is with all of the unsourced OR material. Take that out and you basically have a stub. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:46, 9 December 2016 (UTC)