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.

Articles with Arabic titles[edit]

I would like to see a policy to the effect that articles with foreign-language titles that have english translations can be deleted.

My beef is this: I keep coming across articles about aspects of Islam that rely heavily on arabic terminology. These articles are typically written in ungrammatical english, and are peppered with arabic technical terms that are not defined in the article. Frequently these technical terms link to a page with an arabic title, which in turn relies on a slew of arabic technical terms.

I hasten to point out that I am not proposing the mass-deletion of articles about Islam; on the contrary, these are articles that I have tried to read out of interest. Rather, I am suggesting that articles in the english Wikipedia should be written in english, and should not require a knowledge of arabic (or any other foreign language) in order to be understandable.

MrDemeanour (talk) 09:07, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

@MrDemeanour: This is not the correct page to start a discussion about terminology. Try WP:MOS or WP:VPP. --Hegvald (talk) 10:23, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't think that MrDemeanour is asking about terminology. If the article is in Arabic, and an English-language page also exists, mark it {{db-foreign}}; if the article is in Arabic but an English-language page doesn't exist, mark it {{notenglish|Arabic}} and send it to WP:PNT. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:19, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm not referring to articles that are written in a foreign language, but to articles that make extensive use of unexplained foreign terms or have foreign-language titles, where those terms or titles could have been rendered in english. MrDemeanour (talk) 07:57, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
If it's got an Arabic title, but is otherwise in English, WP:MOVE it to the English title. If that already exists, propose a WP:MERGE. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:39, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
@MrDemeanour: could you give a few examples? It's not that I don't believe you, but it would be useful to see some of these firsthand. Thanks, ansh666 22:42, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
OK. I picked a random term related to Islam: 'dhimmi'. In the first para of the lede, two arabic terms are used but not explained (but they are wikilinks): 'jizya tax' and 'zakat tax'. These words evidently mean something like 'dhimmi capitation tax' and 'alms tax'. But why do I have to follow wikilinks to find that out? In other words, why can the article not be written in english, with (optional) references to the corresponding arabic terminology?
My point is that an english-language encyclopaedia should enable me to investigate a subject without having to acquire a translation of some foreign term for every other sentence I read. The terms should be translated *in the article*, perhaps with the foreign term made available parenthetically.
This is a general problem with Wikipedia, IMO. Articles tend to use obscure jargon, and rely on wikilinks to enable the reader figure out what is being referred to. But this is a particular problem in articles on Islam, perhaps because (some?) Moslems consider that the Quran *must* be read in arabic if it is to be correctly understood. Whatever the reason, many articles on Islam cannot be understood by a non-arabic speaker without following numerous wikilinks simply in order to obtain a translation. And note that the article on 'jizya' is quite a bit longer than the article on 'dhimmi', which is the term I was notionally researching in the first place.
In summary, I simply think that an article in an english encyclopaedia should not require me to obtain *any* translations of terms from non-english languages in order to parse the language of the article. Of course, I may not as a result understand the article; but at least I know what it says, without using a dictionary.
MrDemeanour (talk) 09:25, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
This is the sort of thing that MOS:INTRO should cover. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:29, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

This page needs to be looked at.[edit]

There are no Anti-Blank pages for any other nation in the Balkans yet other faced persecution. This article should be deleted. Nothing but propaganda aimed and distabalizing factual views and justify war crime and behavior. Anti-Serb Sentiment— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackiechan321 (talkcontribs)

There's nothing necessarily illegitimate about such an article, take a look at those in Category:Anti-national sentiment. "We don't have an article on X" won't go down well at AfD, at best that's an argument to write that other article. Hut 8.5 19:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

The Ultimate Matrix Collection[edit]

Please help me complete the deletion discussion for The Ultimate Matrix Collection. I have posted my rationale for deletion on the talk page.-- (talk) 22:19, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Ultimate Matrix Collection created and added to the daily log.--Finngall talk 22:44, 13 June 2015 (UTC)


Could someone please complete the second and third step for me? Thank you. (talk) 01:38, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tachikawa-ryu (2nd nomination). ansh666 02:21, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. (talk) 02:24, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Laurie Patton entry, and Twinkle[edit]

I attempted to nominate Laurie Patton for deletion, and Twinkle failed to create the appropriate pages, with an "Invalid Token" error. The log shows a link in a different section, but has not properly sectioned it. The appropriate page was not created. Could someone please assist me with manual creation and correction of the malformed content? Thanks in advance! ScrpIronIV 18:34, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of "***This Is Not a Test***"[edit]

I need some help here. This page for an album was created when the album didn't have much information out other than tracklisting, release date, and title. The "***" before "This" and after "Test" turned out to be stylization, but was included in the article's name. So how would I go about asking for this page to be deleted? Much thanks. Ilovechristianmusic (talk) 02:06, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Do you mean This Is Not a Test!. I can't find an article that has asterisks in its Wikipedia title. What article do you mean? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:21, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
I found a redirect at ***This Is Not a Test***, it may be what they are talking about. As we don't require much for a redirect, I don't think its a problem. Monty845 02:52, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Apparent double standards[edit]

I see a problem with the AfD policy being enforced apparently haphazardly (or else an attempt to forcefully silence someone's view point that certain people do not agree with.) On there is a tag that this page was nominated for deletion, and that the decision was to keep it, apparently still able to be viewed and read by people. However, the article's talk page at says the decision was to keep, more specifically, the discussion archived at shows a different page than what is there now, and yet, somehow, that version of the page WAS deleted. There is no way in hell that the discussion being hashed out was all over a disambiguation page. Not cool WP. (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:54, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

There were two discussions about a decade apart. The template was just pointing to the wrong, older one from 2004. I've fixed it to point towards the more recent one that is relevant to the content currently there. Monty845 03:00, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
An independent review:
I don't know what practices were in the past, but if you close an AFD now you are supposed to put a report at the Talk page of the latest AFD you are closing, using template:old afd multi and also linking to all previous AFDs. I don't see how to find the 2nd AFD. When the 3rd AFD was closed with redirect outcome, and the report/link was given at Talk:Neo-Tech (philosophy)that was the time that the 1st and 2nd AFDs should have been reported/linked
As the I.P. editor points out there is a notice at Talk:Frank R. Wallace about an AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank R. Wallace) being closed keep...that was a different AFD about the Frank R. Wallace article itself (not about the Neo-Tech article) in 2007
The I.P. editor is right about some facts, but then suggests there was some page that was suppressed / has disappeared. I don't understand what, if anything, is not available to be seen in history at "Neo-Tech", "Neo-Tech (philosophy)", besides the original Neo-Tech article (from before 30 November 2004 that would have been deleted after the 2nd AFD closed "Delete" sometime between 6 December 2004 and 23 December 2004. To the I.P., if you want that old deleted article, you can ask for a copy of it and an administrator would provide it. (Maybe you have to be logged in for your request to be honored, so the admin can email it to your email account.)
I didn't know what editor Monty845 is speaking of, about 2 AFDs being a decade apart. If somewhere there is a "template... just pointing to the wrong, older one from 2004", perhaps that should be kept and another template should be added pointing to the "right, newer one"? Oh, it is Talk:Neo-Tech, the dab page, which was up for deletion in 2014, with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neo-Tech (2nd nomination) closing Keep. Hmm, the 2014 AFD does provide links to related AFDs: Articles for deletion/Neo-Tech, Articles for deletion/Neo-Tech (2nd nomination), Articles for deletion/Neo-Tech (philosophy), Articles for deletion/Neo-Tech (philosophy) (3rd nomination). As I deduced above, there must have been an "Articles for deletion/Neo-Tech (philosophy) (2nd nomination)" that is missing.
To the I.P. editor, the 2014 AFD was clearly about just a dab page and closed keep. You are right that, back in 2004, was about an article not a dab page. But nothing has been suppressed. Monty485's edit just now corrected the notice at Talk:Neo Tech about the page being nominated for deletion (in 2014) so that it now points to the correct, 2014 AFD discussion. There is no "double standards" problem.
Perhaps an issue contributing to confusion in this system is that the {{Old AfD multi}} notices assert "This page" without identifying what "This page" was named at the time. There's just a message like "This page was nominated for deletion on July 29, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep but cleanup." What should be given is a message like "This page (named Neo-Tech (philosophy) at nomination date) was nominated for deletion on July 29, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep but cleanup."
Hope this helps. Too long to read? Tough. Was the I.P. serious or just trolling? I don't know. --doncram 04:26, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I am being serious here, and the issue was the appearance of double standards. If it is resolved, I am happy, however, from further reading, it seems that certain people were attacking the original page by what was called revert wars. But to me, it seems that if the issue is that there are problems with a page (admitted, I have no idea what was on the original), then the first instinct should be to fix what is on the page, not delete it. Judging by the fact that there was apparently 3 different requests to delete the page, not so sure that enough effort was made to try to fix the problem, just sweep it under the proverbial rug. I read on some of the pages that a user named Bi was apparently the latest requester, and apparently had made a joke page disparaging Neo-Tech (or Neo Tech or however), and to me, it looks like the only reason for the request was apparently some sort of personal issue they had with it. Some of the comments about the personal attack on this wiki was made by me, but that was based on what I have seen here and elsewhere. (talk) 04:36, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

(addition to above) I also checked the history at the page I first listed as the talk page, and following that page's listed history doesn't clear up the previous confusion any. Just an observation, no good or bad either way to me as the issue was already resolved. (talk) 05:30, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you to the I.P. editor for following up. I think you are considering matters of some conflict back in 2007 only, about the Frank R. Wallace article and/or the Neo-Tech (philosophy) article. I see no issue going on now, so I could just say so what it is old and dismiss it. But in fact I don't dismiss the possibility that an 2007 conflict is worth reviewing in 2015, eight years later...I do think some reviews of big past disagreements should be done. One reason is that now, much later, it could be determined that any "resolution" back then was effectively "wrong", and perhaps some editors were driven away from the area or from Wikipedia altogether due to the conflict, when they were "right". Much later, after Wikipedia's policies and practices have developed a lot, it could be relatively easy to come to a consensus judgment that what happened was "bad", and some effort to make amends could still be made, e.g.
  1. . compose an apology statement, get several current editors to sign, try to deliver that to the old editors; and advertise it by links from relevant Talk pages
  2. . jointly edit the article(s) now to try to implement any part of what should have been done back then).
  3. . add a note about the conflict and the current consensus judgment onto some running list of important past conflicts, for purpose of Wikipedia editors learning from them (is there such a list?)
Anyhow, back in 2007 what looks to me like the center of the conflict was disagreement between an editor "Bi" and an editor "Bridge & Tunnel" about validity of certain sources. history of the Neo-Tech (philosophy) article shows some back-and-forth editing...some big deletions and corresponding additions. One attempted to have the article deleted by an AfD which closed keep. Then that one opened an RFC to discuss the sources, which was never really concluded...there was no formal closure. Both those editors seemed to have a decent case and were very determined. Whoever created a joke page outside of Wikipedia to influence this was out of line, IMHO. Personal attacks, if there were any, should not have been tolerated. There was at least one wp:ANI proceeding. Who won in the end? I am not that interested to really consider the content and sources being discussed, to figure out where I myself would make the judgement. And I haven't tried to figure out what the outcome really was...did the sources get in and stay in, were they pushed out, what happened to the editors involved. The current Frank R. Wallace article looks "okay" to me--and maybe like editor Bi "won"--though I don't know what good info was suppressed and should be there. Neo-Tech (philosophy) is a redirect to a very short section in the Frank R. Wallace area; it looks like that is given short shrift in Wikipedia today. Offhand it seems to me that perhaps it should be revisited, and perhaps Neo-Tech should be explained more, at least in that section within the FRWallace article.
To the I.P. editor, yes, it looks like there was conflict. Today, there is conflict going on in many other topic areas. It happens. Sometimes one or two good editors coming anew to an area can make a difference and help really settle something; sometimes disagreement will exist forever. Just because there were 3 AfDs on one topic doesn't mean injustice was done; it means there was disagreement that continues. Bad behavior during disagreement should not be accepted. There are some processes in Wikipedia that address bad behavior, although very imperfectly. There are processes that support good review of sources (hopefully better now than then). Your reading of the past conflict seems probably reasonable. You should open an account and get involved. It's better to start editing in a non-controversial area, to learn for a while, before entering into an area of deep conflict. --doncram 17:42, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Helping in posting AfD request[edit]

Could somebody please complete the AfD request for Isa dreams? I have added my reasons for seeking deletion on the article's talk page here. Much appreciated.-- (talk) 02:18, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Done Reyk YO! 13:49, 5 July 2015 (UTC)