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.


Constant bullying by administrators[edit]

Despite of me providing valid links for my film Balloons, some of wikipedias admins are constantly bullying it by constant deletion reporting. Please look into the matter.Preetiahluwalia (talk) 15:01, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

No Admins, just editors adding a speedy tag which this editor and another new account only editing Balloons (2016). However, a real Admin has declined the speedy. Doug Weller talk 15:17, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm wrong, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gubbaare. Interesting, the editor who created that was blocked as a sock. I'll look into that. Doug Weller talk 15:22, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Preetiahluwalia has also been blocked as a sock. Doug Weller talk 18:19, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Doug, it does happen :) I've been meaning to get back to you on that talk page matter. I hope to do so soon. Steve Quinn (talk) 13:58, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Justin Gullett[edit]

I don't think winning an online competition for a TV show that flopped big time and being second Unit director on a few films makes him notable enough for a WIkipedia page.

Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.84.45.140 (talk) 08:26, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I've completed the nomination on behalf of the above IP editor. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justin Gullett. --Finngall talk 16:03, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

"Kept as it is"[edit]

I agree with Corriebertus here: in principle I suppose any article could be improved, but it is not incumbent on any particular editor to do so, so the article may be kept as it is (it is permissible to keep the article without improving it) - but if you disagree please discuss here: Noyster (talk), 12:00, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I think though “kept and improved” is better for a couple of reasons. First it is an alternative to deletion, as discussed at WP:ATD. If the reasons for deletion can be addressed by editing then the article should be edited to improve it. For example sometimes an article is nominated for deletion because of lack of notability. Another editor might be able to find sources that support the subject’s notability, and they should be added to the article, to improve it and head off further nominations.
The other reason is the encyclopaedia is never finished. An article nominated for deletion is unlikely to be a good or featured article (if it is the AfD is often speedily closed as unlikely to succeed), so can and should be improved. Saying it can be “kept and improved“ encourages this, but does not mandate it. It can be improved but at the same rate as the rest of the encyclopaedia, whenever someone gets around to it.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 12:37, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree with JohnBlackburne. "Kept as it is" might alsy be misunderstood as suggesting that editors shouldn't revise it. I can see this happening with a new editor creating an article that goes to AfD and sees a result "Kept as it is" and thinks that means the new editor's version shouldn't be changed. Doug Weller talk 14:02, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Howabout something like "kept and allow to be improved", which doesn't state that it will or must be improved, but leaves open the idea that it will be improved, for surely that is always the goal. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:07, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree that the phrase "kept as it is" is misleading in that it may encourage the author of the article to engage in article ownership, and that "kept and allowed to be improved" or some similar phrase is good. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:18, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Why pass judgment at all? Individual AFDs are hardly ever closed as "keep as-is" or "keep and improve"; they just say "keep" without implying anything further either way, and so should the lede at WP:AFD. —Cryptic 15:42, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
I am now very tempted by the word "maintained", as it means both "kept" and "tended to". --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:50, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Cryptic's solution seems simplest and best. I do agree though that "keep" !voters, if they prevail by producing good sources, should proceed to incorporate those sources in the article, not leave them buried in a closed AfD: Noyster (talk), 09:17, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Personally, I don't think that the AfD page should include a list of outcomes, since there isn't a finite set of possibilities, and if it does (e.g. in the how-to-participate section), it should clearly indicate that it's not limited to those options. I've already removed the list of outcomes that had been presented in the closing instructions per this discussion. ansh666 18:20, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Wording changed to simply "kept" per Cryptic, and met Ansh666 by stating that the outcomes listed are "common outcomes": Noyster (talk), 11:31, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

2016 Nice attack and International comments on the 2016 Nice attack[edit]

Not really sure what to make of this lot. The article Reactions to the 2016 Nice attack was the subject of an AfD, which was closed by Thryduulf with a consensus of merge. Since it was mostly a quote farm anyway, most of the article was transferred by me to the Wikiquote page, and what little prose was present was incorporated into the main article.

It seems that Corriebertus has taken issue with this and taken it upon themselves to paste 45k of the previously deleted reaction article on to the main, and then immediately remove the same content for being too long, to create International comments on the 2016 Nice attack. Effectively unilaterally undoing the AfD and converting it into a name change. TimothyJosephWood 12:15, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

  • I've speedy deleted it as a recreation of a deleted page (WP:CSD#G4). Thryduulf (talk) 14:47, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

The Lucky Man (2016)[edit]

Please do not delete my wiki page guys/gals. I am working on making it better every week with new content, and references. My new movie, The Lucky Man, is set to be released soon. I have put a lot of work into the pages.

I love Wiki, and I am a donor.

Thank you kindly,

Norman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcguiresys (talkcontribs) 21:35, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Hi Norman. Thanks for the note. Unfortunately the article The Lucky Man (2016) has some serious, and potentially fatal flaws. Please read WP:COI. I suggest you send the article to WP:AFC for review in order to minimize the COI issue. They may also be able to help with other issues raised in the PROD notice. Thanks for your contributions to the project and best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:43, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Ping Mcguiresys. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:59, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I am declining the PROD and moving this to AFC so that if anyone wants to they can work on it there. Steve Quinn (talk) 00:19, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
  • For anyone interested, the article (or page) is now located at Draft:The Lucky Man (2016). I doubt I will be working on it - just wanted to help out with the move. Steve Quinn (talk) 00:41, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I think that should solve the problem for now. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:06, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

DeviceAtlas and WURFL[edit]

Please complete the process of proposing for deletion DeviceAtlas and WURFL on the same grounds as 51Degrees (notability). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiwiprof (talkcontribs) 10:47, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

@Kiwiprof:As a registered Wikipedia user you could nominate these articles for AfD yourself - a process greatly facilitated by installing and using Twinkle - and if wished you could expand on your reason while doing so: Noyster (talk), 11:47, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Hindu temples with no reliable source[edit]

Whenever someone constructs a temple in any Indian small town, they create a wikipedia page. I ignored a few articles, but now I am nominating them for deletion if they are not mentioned in reliable sources. --Marvellous Spider-Man 02:00, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

@Marvellous Spider-Man: OK; have you informed WT:WikiProject Hinduism and perhaps WT:WikiProject India as well? --Redrose64 (talk) 07:36, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Hank Matthews (Voice actor)[edit]

I would like to nominate Hank Matthews's page be deleted since there isn't even a single citation on the page nor are there any photos that proves this person really exists. This leads me to speculate that all the information in Hank's biography are nothing but purely made up stories. One more thing, his page obviously doesn't meet the notability criteria, so even if Hank was real, his page should just go poof. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 08:57, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

You can do this nomination yourself - see WP:AFD#Nominating article(s) for deletion. JohnCD (talk) 14:42, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the help. I shall see to it that the nomination be made. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 08:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Delete a deletion subpage/redirect[edit]

So, I wanted to open an AFD but the process was a little bit confusing. Ofc I ended fucking it up. Basically I created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apprentice (video game) (2nd nomination) under the wrong name, as I left out the (2nd nomination) bit. I then moved it to the current location and added it into the main afd list page. The problem is: there is now a REDIRECT at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apprentice (video_game). I have no idea if I broke something with that move, so can this Redirect get deleted? I have no idea how to do that, PROD is only for articles, and I dont think an AFD is necessary for that. Can some admin perhaps delete the redirect? (: Dead Mary (talk) 19:38, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think so. I retargetted it to point to the first nom, to avoid confusion. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:51, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
We could probably delete it but I don't think it's causing any harm so I won't. I've retargeted a few links in the AfD as a result of the move. Hut 8.5 20:52, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
The presence of the (retargetted) redir is beneficial, as without it, this wouldn't work. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:56, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Well thanks, as long as nothing is broken anymore, its good. Dead Mary (talk) 22:59, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Gage Skidmore[edit]

I have not nominated an article for deletion before, so I thought rather than launching in to a full nomination, I would discuss it here first. The article Gage Skidmore appears to be about a photographer of limited notability. He takes photos of a limited part of society (politicians) in just one country (the US). Is this really notable enough for an article? DrChrissy (talk) 22:51, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

@DrChrissy: I think the result could go either way. There are some references on the page, but nothing that seems too noteworthy. Does just being a photographer that has gotten some press become notable? That is to be determined. I am leaning more towards a delete, but it is a weak delete. Maybe if the article states with references that the photographer is more notable than just taking pictures of a few politicians and they have used his photos, then we could change my support to a weak keep. We don't keep articles of actors or actresses with only one role, although they have gotten coverage, so why should this be any different? Chase (talk) 19:41, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for this @Chase:. I tend to be an inclusionist on WP, which is why I raised this discussion rather than launching an AFD. I agree that if it could be shown that the photographer has notably published in other areas, this would be a weak keep. DrChrissy (talk) 19:50, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Isn't the article just a BLP!E case ?, They're only notable for taking photographs and not much else , Personally I'd go with delete per my reason as well as per the above. –Davey2010Talk 19:53, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I think this is a WP:BLP!E case, but also is there more than one occassion that the photographer has gotten coverage? Or better yet, what would make a photographer become notable? Do they have to do other things besides being a photographer, or different subject? Chase (talk) 20:19, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
If the photographer has been covered for his or her body of work, or multiple photos have won prizes, or if a single photograph has won a major prize (e.g. Pulitzer), then those are all cases where BLP1E doesn't really apply. Review WP:WI1E if you want some of my thinking on why. Jclemens (talk) 20:35, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
So if they have been covered they become notable? Or only if they win prizes? Chase (talk) 20:41, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
WP:GNG is the general rule, WP:CREATIVE gives specific guidelines for artists and other folks such as photographers. Jclemens (talk) 20:57, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
I stand by my Delete support after reading all of the related material. Chase (talk) 21:09, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Folks, if you want to delete that article, it's time to stop trying on this page and either do an AfD or at least start preliminary discussions on the article's talk page, where interested editors will see it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:53, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I have already raised the issue on the Talk page. However, it is best that discussion takes place on just one page. This discussion is about whether an AfD should take place, not about deletion of the article. DrChrissy (talk) 22:13, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
DrChrissy, thanks for letting me know about this discussion. I can't see any reason to nominate the article. His photography has become well-known within certain circles, and the sources range from 2012 to 2016, so it wasn't a one-off burst of coverage. SarahSV (talk) 22:26, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
That sounds fair enough. I have very little experience of biographies so I shall defer to your experience and I will not be nominating the article at AFD. Thanks All for the constructive discussion. DrChrissy (talk) 22:49, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Delete This is patent BIO1E and another example of over-coverage of American politics. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:42, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

@Lemongirl942: this is not a formal WP:AFD. If one is initiated, it will be at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gage Skidmore. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:24, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Understand :) I was just stating my opinion that this is a BIO1E. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:36, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Re-listing[edit]

I think re-listing is really getting out of hand. Using just today's re-listings, of the 67 pages at AfD listed today, 31 of them are re-listings. A number of them are second (4), even third re-listings (2). Watching some of the rapidity of re-listings is also showing that some editors are not actually reading the AfDs, but are just counting votes. This needs to stop. If you are not willing to read the discussions and weigh the pros and cons of the points raised, then please stop re-listings debates. AfD is most emphatically NOT a vote. If the only thing you're doing is counting votes, then please STOP re-listing. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:35, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

We have the same issue at TfD. I suspect that one or more editors may be gathering "points" for a future RfA. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:54, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Two or three times a year I consider getting back into closing afds, start looking for the oldest unclosed ones, realize that the ridiculous surge in relistings over the past couple years makes that effectively impossible, and decide not to bother. —Cryptic 02:21, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Relisting's been a joke for quite awhile now, I agree it needs to stop, Those relisting should either have the balls to close the discussion or leave the AFD well alone. –Davey2010Talk 02:42, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
I've been in favor of that for quite some time. When I started doing AfDs, a relist was rare, and normally only applied in edge cases where the article had undergone massive changes near the end and some more feedback was necessary on that. Other than that, no consensus was just closed as no consensus. I would be entirely fine with placing a one-relist limit. I've seen some discussions with as many as five relists, and still wound up closing it no consensus. I've really seen enough of that. I'm glad people want to help out with doing NACs, and that's helpful for clear keeps, but other than those dead clear ones, leave it the hell alone and let an admin close it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:45, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Participation[edit]

We have a relatively small problem where article for deletion pages do not get enough participation. Currently process is made a bit easier by the sorting pages etc. but the layout still only allows for individuals to see the title of the article and not what its about. We would probably get more participants if a notice was added describing what the topic is about. Therefore I suggest that we automatically include what category the page (if any computer programmers are watching) or provision that the nominator adds a short notice on what the article is about. Pwolit iets (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:45, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Or you could simply look at the article... ansh666 00:19, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

AFD log bug?[edit]

Hi, Going through this log I've noticed all the afds that have second or third noms simply say "(2nd nomination)" instead of "X (2nd nomination)", When I click on some of the AFDs some will say "X (2nd nomination)" whilst others say "(2nd nomination)", It's never happened before so not sur if it's a bug or what, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 00:37, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Nevermind posted at VP/T (here). Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 00:47, 26 September 2016 (UTC)