(Merger and redirect outcomes of AFD discussions or at my own behest when deprodding where the material is preserved and the article history is still in public view are listed in <small>...</small> tags
at the end.)
Misapplied {{prod blp}}, a source was present.
WP:BLPPROD applies only to articles that have no sources whatsoever, reliable or not. Even if just an external link (e.g. to IMDb or to subject's own webpage) is present and confirms anything in the text, the article is not eligible for deletion under
WP:BLPPROD.
Tagged with A7 in
Special:PermaLink/723250631 but declined, obviously not within scope. Tagger returns and sends the article to AFD citing
WP:NOTADICTIONARY. Unanimously kept at AFD.
Misapplied {{prod blp}}, a source was present.
WP:BLPPROD applies only to articles that have no sources whatsoever, reliable or not. Even if just an external link (e.g. to IMDb or to subject's own webpage) is present and confirms anything in the text, the article is not eligible for deletion under
WP:BLPPROD.
Same user as above in
24SevenOffice. We are in November 2017, more than two years later, and it's the same shenanigans we see: first a boilerplate PROD with a boilerplate editsummary (
Special:Diff/778195524/811233297). When deprodded, he takes the article to AFD, where this one was unanimously kept with 10 "keep" !votes. This one was part of a series of Michelin-starred restaurants that were all kept.
Notice how an editor in
Special:Diff/544444448/595672177 added {{
unreferenced|date=February 2014}} using Twinkle. As three external links were present, the article was not unreferenced.
"Subject can not possibly be notable, if they are related to someone even more notable" seems to be the "logic" here. Same editor nominates three Chaplin BLPs for deletion on the same day,
Christopher Chaplin,
Josephine Chaplin, and
Michael Chaplin.
Same user as above in
24SevenOffice et. al., this is also in November 2017. The usual boilerplate prod in
Special:Diff/811233086 with the usual boilerplate edit summary notable? dubious, prodding, article gets deprodded, and then off to AFD in
Special:Diff/811720281/next where nom goes on to paste the wrong boilerplate in his rationale. Again unanimously kept with 9 "keep" !votes.
Same user as above in
24SevenOffice et. al., this is in April 2016. The usual boilerplate prod in
Special:Diff/715831029 with the usual boilerplate edit summary notable? dubious, prodded (proposed deletion), article gets deprodded, and then off to AFD in
Special:Diff/715849289/717524625. The only other "delete" vote was from a now CU-blocked user famous for drive-by voting.
One of seventeen (17!) AFD nominations filed within 48 hours by this user. That rampage started only hours after the community indefinitely prohibited the user from adding notability tags (broadly construed) to articles (
ANI discussion). User would resurface on a new account in 2016 (
link).
Misapplied {{prod blp}}, a source was present.
WP:BLPPROD applies only to articles that have no sources whatsoever, reliable or not. Even if just an external link (e.g. to IMDb or to subject's own webpage) is present and confirms anything in the text, the article is not eligible for deletion under
WP:BLPPROD. The {{
BLP unsourced|date=May 2016}} was wrong for the same reasons, it should here be {{
BLP IMDb-only refimprove|date=May 2016}}.
Misapplied {{prod blp}}, a source was present.
WP:BLPPROD applies only to articles that have no sources whatsoever, reliable or not. Even if just an external link (e.g. to IMDb or to subject's own webpage) is present and confirms anything in the text, the article is not eligible for deletion under
WP:BLPPROD.
Actually, this was the fourth nomination, as the article was also includeed in the bundled 2011 nomination
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barfüßiger Februar, although that is not clear from the AFD discussion itself, but can be seen in the article history and on the article talk page. All discussions resulted in a "keep" outcome.
Actually, this was the fourth nomination, as the article was also includeed in the bundled 2011 nomination
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barfüßiger Februar, although that is not clear from the AFD discussion itself, but can be seen in the article history and on the article talk page. All discussions resulted in a "keep" outcome.
"Subject can not possibly be notable, if they are related to someone even more notable" seems to be the "logic" here. Same editor nominates three Chaplin BLPs for deletion on the same day,
Christopher Chaplin,
Josephine Chaplin, and
Michael Chaplin.
Same user as above in
24SevenOffice. We are in 2017, more than two years later, and it's the same shenanigans we see: first a boilerplate PROD with a boilerplate editsummary (
Special:Diff/749003535/811372674). When deprodded, he takes the article to
AFD, where this one was unanimously kept. It is is all to clear that nominator does not even bother to check existing references in the article he nominates, let alone try to find sources. That he accidentally pastes the wrong boilerplate into the AFD speaks for itself. This nomination was part of a series of five restaurants nominated for deletion in late November/early December that were all kept.
Misapplied {{prod blp}}, a source was present.
WP:BLPPROD applies only to articles that have no sources whatsoever, reliable or not. Even if just an external link (e.g. to IMDb or to subject's own webpage) is present and confirms anything in the text, the article is not eligible for deletion under
WP:BLPPROD.
In the
previous edit, nominator adds {{
unreferenced|date=March 2015}} using Twinkle. As an IMDB link was present, the correct template to use would have been {{
Media IMDb refimprove|date=March 2015}}.
Same user as above in
24SevenOffice. We are in 2017, more than two years later, and it's the same shenanigans we see: first a boilerplate PROD with a boilerplate editsummary (
Special:Diff/597926480/811708678). When deprodded, he takes the article to
AFD, where this one was unanimously kept with 9 "keep" !votes. This one was part of a series of five restaurants nominated for deletion in late November/early December that were all kept.
An interesting case where an editor within three minutes prods seven articles created by
another user. Wolf of Soissons gets prodded
here. A then sysop removes the prod and
sends it to
AFD. Turns out that PROD nominator does not speak French, and declares extraordinarily that "sources I can neither evaluate nor use are not sources at all, to my mind". The thing we can learn from such a case is: If we do not speak and read the language of the sources (or we do not have at least a decent understanding of the subject matter) it is better to leave editing as well as any discussion about the subject to someone who does. Related articles: Luparii, should never have been prodded in the first place, a redirect to
Wolf hunting#Europe and Russia is a good solution per
WP:ATD-R. Wolf of Ansbach, an IP deprods, editor sends it to
AFD where it is unanimously kept. Wolfcatcher Royal, see below.
Official French office, in existence since 1308, nice, sourced article on
French Wikipedia, should never have been prodded, blatant disregard for
WP:ATD, should not have been redirected either.
A case in February 2018, where a user sends 37 album articles to AFD on the same day. Thirty were closed as "redirect". Redirecting an album article where notability is questioned to the artist article or to a discography article can be done per
WP:BLAR. Only if the redirect is challenged, the article restored, sourcing continues to be lacking to meet
WP:NALBUM, and subsequent discussion on the article talk page does not settle the matter is an AFD needed. Among the 37 AFD nominations were 21 live albums by
Psychic TV, that was all bar two of their live albums listed in
Template:Psychic TV. Nominator turned out to be violating
WP:CLEANSTART and an
editing restriction placed by the community (
permalink), and was indef blocked in June 2018.
(Merger and redirect outcomes of AFD discussions or at my own behest when deprodding where the material is preserved and the article history is still in public view are listed in <small>...</small> tags
at the end.)
Misapplied {{prod blp}}, a source was present.
WP:BLPPROD applies only to articles that have no sources whatsoever, reliable or not. Even if just an external link (e.g. to IMDb or to subject's own webpage) is present and confirms anything in the text, the article is not eligible for deletion under
WP:BLPPROD.
Tagged with A7 in
Special:PermaLink/723250631 but declined, obviously not within scope. Tagger returns and sends the article to AFD citing
WP:NOTADICTIONARY. Unanimously kept at AFD.
Misapplied {{prod blp}}, a source was present.
WP:BLPPROD applies only to articles that have no sources whatsoever, reliable or not. Even if just an external link (e.g. to IMDb or to subject's own webpage) is present and confirms anything in the text, the article is not eligible for deletion under
WP:BLPPROD.
Same user as above in
24SevenOffice. We are in November 2017, more than two years later, and it's the same shenanigans we see: first a boilerplate PROD with a boilerplate editsummary (
Special:Diff/778195524/811233297). When deprodded, he takes the article to AFD, where this one was unanimously kept with 10 "keep" !votes. This one was part of a series of Michelin-starred restaurants that were all kept.
Notice how an editor in
Special:Diff/544444448/595672177 added {{
unreferenced|date=February 2014}} using Twinkle. As three external links were present, the article was not unreferenced.
"Subject can not possibly be notable, if they are related to someone even more notable" seems to be the "logic" here. Same editor nominates three Chaplin BLPs for deletion on the same day,
Christopher Chaplin,
Josephine Chaplin, and
Michael Chaplin.
Same user as above in
24SevenOffice et. al., this is also in November 2017. The usual boilerplate prod in
Special:Diff/811233086 with the usual boilerplate edit summary notable? dubious, prodding, article gets deprodded, and then off to AFD in
Special:Diff/811720281/next where nom goes on to paste the wrong boilerplate in his rationale. Again unanimously kept with 9 "keep" !votes.
Same user as above in
24SevenOffice et. al., this is in April 2016. The usual boilerplate prod in
Special:Diff/715831029 with the usual boilerplate edit summary notable? dubious, prodded (proposed deletion), article gets deprodded, and then off to AFD in
Special:Diff/715849289/717524625. The only other "delete" vote was from a now CU-blocked user famous for drive-by voting.
One of seventeen (17!) AFD nominations filed within 48 hours by this user. That rampage started only hours after the community indefinitely prohibited the user from adding notability tags (broadly construed) to articles (
ANI discussion). User would resurface on a new account in 2016 (
link).
Misapplied {{prod blp}}, a source was present.
WP:BLPPROD applies only to articles that have no sources whatsoever, reliable or not. Even if just an external link (e.g. to IMDb or to subject's own webpage) is present and confirms anything in the text, the article is not eligible for deletion under
WP:BLPPROD. The {{
BLP unsourced|date=May 2016}} was wrong for the same reasons, it should here be {{
BLP IMDb-only refimprove|date=May 2016}}.
Misapplied {{prod blp}}, a source was present.
WP:BLPPROD applies only to articles that have no sources whatsoever, reliable or not. Even if just an external link (e.g. to IMDb or to subject's own webpage) is present and confirms anything in the text, the article is not eligible for deletion under
WP:BLPPROD.
Actually, this was the fourth nomination, as the article was also includeed in the bundled 2011 nomination
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barfüßiger Februar, although that is not clear from the AFD discussion itself, but can be seen in the article history and on the article talk page. All discussions resulted in a "keep" outcome.
Actually, this was the fourth nomination, as the article was also includeed in the bundled 2011 nomination
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barfüßiger Februar, although that is not clear from the AFD discussion itself, but can be seen in the article history and on the article talk page. All discussions resulted in a "keep" outcome.
"Subject can not possibly be notable, if they are related to someone even more notable" seems to be the "logic" here. Same editor nominates three Chaplin BLPs for deletion on the same day,
Christopher Chaplin,
Josephine Chaplin, and
Michael Chaplin.
Same user as above in
24SevenOffice. We are in 2017, more than two years later, and it's the same shenanigans we see: first a boilerplate PROD with a boilerplate editsummary (
Special:Diff/749003535/811372674). When deprodded, he takes the article to
AFD, where this one was unanimously kept. It is is all to clear that nominator does not even bother to check existing references in the article he nominates, let alone try to find sources. That he accidentally pastes the wrong boilerplate into the AFD speaks for itself. This nomination was part of a series of five restaurants nominated for deletion in late November/early December that were all kept.
Misapplied {{prod blp}}, a source was present.
WP:BLPPROD applies only to articles that have no sources whatsoever, reliable or not. Even if just an external link (e.g. to IMDb or to subject's own webpage) is present and confirms anything in the text, the article is not eligible for deletion under
WP:BLPPROD.
In the
previous edit, nominator adds {{
unreferenced|date=March 2015}} using Twinkle. As an IMDB link was present, the correct template to use would have been {{
Media IMDb refimprove|date=March 2015}}.
Same user as above in
24SevenOffice. We are in 2017, more than two years later, and it's the same shenanigans we see: first a boilerplate PROD with a boilerplate editsummary (
Special:Diff/597926480/811708678). When deprodded, he takes the article to
AFD, where this one was unanimously kept with 9 "keep" !votes. This one was part of a series of five restaurants nominated for deletion in late November/early December that were all kept.
An interesting case where an editor within three minutes prods seven articles created by
another user. Wolf of Soissons gets prodded
here. A then sysop removes the prod and
sends it to
AFD. Turns out that PROD nominator does not speak French, and declares extraordinarily that "sources I can neither evaluate nor use are not sources at all, to my mind". The thing we can learn from such a case is: If we do not speak and read the language of the sources (or we do not have at least a decent understanding of the subject matter) it is better to leave editing as well as any discussion about the subject to someone who does. Related articles: Luparii, should never have been prodded in the first place, a redirect to
Wolf hunting#Europe and Russia is a good solution per
WP:ATD-R. Wolf of Ansbach, an IP deprods, editor sends it to
AFD where it is unanimously kept. Wolfcatcher Royal, see below.
Official French office, in existence since 1308, nice, sourced article on
French Wikipedia, should never have been prodded, blatant disregard for
WP:ATD, should not have been redirected either.
A case in February 2018, where a user sends 37 album articles to AFD on the same day. Thirty were closed as "redirect". Redirecting an album article where notability is questioned to the artist article or to a discography article can be done per
WP:BLAR. Only if the redirect is challenged, the article restored, sourcing continues to be lacking to meet
WP:NALBUM, and subsequent discussion on the article talk page does not settle the matter is an AFD needed. Among the 37 AFD nominations were 21 live albums by
Psychic TV, that was all bar two of their live albums listed in
Template:Psychic TV. Nominator turned out to be violating
WP:CLEANSTART and an
editing restriction placed by the community (
permalink), and was indef blocked in June 2018.