This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 60 | ← | Archive 65 | Archive 66 | Archive 67 | Archive 68 | Archive 69 | Archive 70 |
The Rake (cryptid) had a low-participation AFD that was closed as a merge to List of Internet phenomena. ( [1]). The problem is, that there's all of one legit source, and for the Internet phenomena list (which was not consulted for the merge) that source fails inclusion for the list (to avoid making the list spammy). How would one go about resolving this situation? Talking with the closer? DevReview? -- MASEM ( t) 19:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
I found this a few years ago in an AfD on the Christianity and Judaism article, which was closed with a recommendation that it be merged to Judeo-Christian, without editors on that article ever having been informed, and something that would generally not have been appropriate. After some discussion on the talk page, I raised it with the closing admin, who recommended starting a renewed discussion on the talk page, and should a new consensus be reached, then to follow the new consensus, per WP:CCC. Which all happened. I don't know if any of that is helpful here, but it is one way the question could be progressed. Jheald ( talk) 18:02, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mobile Suit Gundam 00 mobile weapons, but it won't let me delete :
So, how do I get the page deleted (I have deleted the 26 redirects, and the talk page)... PhantomSteve/ talk| contribs\ 12:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
-- Fashionburnstar ( talk) 11:15, 26 January 2014 (UTC) Sujit_Meher this page has poorly sourced write up . May be deleted as it is low impotence and copy write infringement
I'm an unregistered user. Have added my thoughts as to why List of Arsenal F.C. hat-tricks should be deleted. 5.65.53.211 ( talk) 12:43, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
I am not completely familiar with the Wikipedia policy, otherwise I would have AfD'ed it myself, but that page was clearly created for one purpose, to criticize the article's subject. It almost could meet a speedy delete for an attack page. I don't know if it qualifies for deletion, as he is probably notable, considering he has been a senator for 20+ years, but as it stands, it just one big criticism article. I looked at the history, and it seems as though 4 socks primarily wrote it, as all 4 usernames have zero contribs outside of the article. Does it qualify for a AfD or Speedy? Thanks, Brinkley32 ( talk) 13:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Has something gone wrong with the 1st Feb page? I swear it had more than 3 nominations this time yesterday. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:56, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
The article re MULTIAFD says: "For the sake of clarity, debates should be bundled only at the start or near the start of the debate, before most of the discussion.[clarification needed]"
I propose clarifying by adding: "Near the start means after a maximum of two editor comments on the original nomination"
Thoughts?
Oncenawhile ( talk) 16:44, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Please see the RfC at Wikipedia talk:The answer to life, the universe, and everything/Archive 2#RfC: Is this an information page or is it an essay? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 01:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Not sure if I muffed the code (quite possible as there will a million tags) but the discussion page for Constitution Party of Alabama doesn't seem to have made it onto the AdF roster for Feb 9 2014. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:06, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
I question the notability of this biography/profile: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Bannister
Reasons include: - not notable beyond his piloting of the Concorde fleet; the pertinent information could easily exist in a more concise form on the Concorde entry - last two paragraphs (more than half of the article's length in words) reads as self-promotion and is unverifiable
tl;dr: not particularly notable & possibly self-promotion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.78.175.52 ( talk) 02:00, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Using the javascript relisting tool, there seem to be issues. AfDs on the 13th-15th logs show a blank "old log" entry, while one AfD on the the 16th shows as the 18th's...while another has the "old log" entry reading "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Two days ago"...! - The Bushranger One ping only 02:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
An article I created the other day has been nominated for deletion, as it stands the Joseph Minala article has been viewed over 60,000 times in two days. However the problem is, he hasn't played a first team game but has been in international media having been accused of age fraud. It seems silly for the article to be deleted when it's currently one of the most visited. What options are available to save the article ? TheBigJagielka ( talk) 10:56, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
I had an tough time yesterday after using MULTIAFD in a way that people felt it wasn't built for, but on the bright side I received some constructive if aggressive feedback from a variety of knowledgable editors ( User:Colapeninsula, User:AndyTheGrump and User:PBS).
To avoid others making the same mistake in future, I suggest adding a sentence into WP:MULTIAFD such as:
Grateful for any comments. Oncenawhile ( talk) 09:02, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Aaron_Quick_Nelson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.126.129.141 ( talk) 14:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I've went online to search to get information on a actor that I saw that was interested to know about because he was so brilliant in a independent film I was watching. And wasn't surprised to see a Wikipedia on him but once I went into his article I couldn't help but see the box message above him information. Aaron Quick Nelson is a well known independent film and television actor. The information that is shown in the article is clear and is has external links that describes him. The imdb site that is linked to the actor's Information on the article is an online database of information related to films, television programs and video games, taking in actors, production crew, biographies, plot summaries and trivia. In order for anyone to be listed on that site is by being in a motion picture, independent movie, directed, screen writing or more. Before anyone gets listed on this site, the site goes through an approval through extensive research. If the actor information meets their guidelines. It is approved. You should keep this actor's article up. Aaron Quick Nelson is a well known independent film actor. Thank you.
Simeon Rice. February 20th. 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.126.129.141 ( talk) 14:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
As per this AFD discussion here ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bangladesh–Luxembourg relations), I am thinking more and more about a deletion review of all of these articles. I have no idea how extensive the deletion of bilateral articles has already been, so have no idea of how to proceed, or even if I want to be the torchbearer for this. I would like an AFD person to read over what both I and @ LibStar: have written, and see if there is any merit to what I am saying. Thankyou in advance. :)-- Coin945 ( talk) 12:03, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Silence equals vagueness and misinformation. I would rather be told a straight up "X and Y have little to no bilateral relationship to speak of" than be kept in the dark (and unable to locate any article with any information on the topic) due to not being able to find conclusive evidence to support wither side of the coin.. I know that "intrinsic notability" is seen as a profanity in many circles in WP, yet I think this is one of the most clear-cut cases where such a concept is needed. If the existence of whole articles on weak relations is frowned upon, at least lists of such relations should exist. Something Minor foreign relations of Italy, so to say.-- cyclopia speak! 23:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
•Australia–Solomon Islands relations •China–Maldives relations •Japan–Laos relations •Brazil–Spain relations •Mauritius–South Africa relations •Jamaica–Trinidad and Tobago relations •Finland–Latvia relations •Chile–Spain relations •Canada–Iceland relations •Albania–China relations •Germany–South Africa relations •Australia–Singapore relations •Australia–Germany relations •Lithuania–Sweden relations •Botswana–South Africa relations •Belgium–France relations •Australia–Tonga relations •Iceland–Norway relations •East Timor–Portugal relations •France–Venezuela relations •Sudan–United Kingdom relations •Finland–Nicaragua relations •Japan–Nepal relations •Bahrain–United Kingdom relations •Brazil–Denmark relations •Mozambique–Portugal relations •Cambodia–Japan relations •Australia–Thailand relations •Australia–South Africa relations •Australia–Philippines relations •Australia–Brazil relations LibStar ( talk) 00:07, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
My problem with articles about non-existent relations between certain countries is that, in the mad scramble to fabricate notability, we're getting misleading crap that isn't even about the (nonexistent) topic. Statements from business organizations unaffiliated with the governments of either country do not indicate relations between those two countries. A musician from country X performing a concert in country Y is not an example of X-Y relations. Things Ban Ki-Moon does in his capacity as head of the UN do not count as South Korea-Anything relations. Reyk YO! 00:26, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
all the deleted bilaterals contained little more than confirmation of diplomatic recognition. most of those countries have never had their leaders meet, never signed one agreement.
- Yep. And how am I supposed to know that? The absence of an article does not mean that automatically the relationship is minimal to none. It is simply a void. You ask how is an article on say Nepal-Liechenstein at all encyclopaedic
. It is because it answers the question "what are the relationships between Nepal and Liechtenstein?", even if the answer is "There are none". In this context, "there are none" is exactly the encyclopedic and relevant information that answers the question. No article means that there is no answer. Since bilateral relations are not indiscriminately open-ended, they are a limited and well defined matrix of relations, and since all of these relations are of encyclopedic interest (remember to avoid systemic bias: we may find Nepal-Liecthenstein relationships irrelevant, but for sure Nepalese and/or Lietchtenstein people don't agree), we ought to cover that. Inclusion of such information is also consistent with
WP:5P pillar number one, as a gazeteer-like information. --
cyclopia
speak!
14:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
are covered reasonably well in foreign relations of country x, articles. Fine for me, if such information is preserved. Can we at least establish the appropriate redirects, then?
We dont simply keep stubs because people of say Nepal or Liechtenstein would find the info WP:ITSUSEFUL. Notability must still be met.- It's not merely useful, it's encyclopedically useful, as per our first pillar. Merely being useful is not an argument (cookie recipes are useful but not meant to be in an encyclopedia), but an encyclopedia should also take into account its usefulness for readers, otherwise Wikipedia becomes an exercise in collective intellectual masturbation. Notability is a guideline/set of guidelines, meant to be followed with the occasional exception; WP:5P is our most fundamental policy. -- cyclopia speak! 20:49, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
I would like to have other editors look at /info/en/?search=Qi-Yo_Multi-Yoga. Currently, there is one editor who thinks the page should be deleted, but I think it just needs to be tagged with the notability tag and not deleted. We are obviously at disagreement and I think other editors should weigh in and give opinions on how the page can be improved, but I'm not sure how to ask other editors to do this. Thank you. Jheditorials ( talk) 22:57, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Can someone please complete the AfD for that article? Here is my rational for nominating it, thanks:
Not enough evidence of this shooting meeting WP:EVENT. While it did lead to four days of protest in Gray's neighborhood, after it subsided, practically all coverage of this shooting stopped completely. It only affected a small section of the city and had little to no impact on society. There is no high profile investigation or trial for the officers involved (like the Sean Bell shooting incident), no coverage of Gray's family filing a lawsuit or taking other judicial actions against the city (like the Shooting of Amadou Diallo), no references in any music, film, etc. (like the Death of Yusef Hawkins), and no national media frenzy (like Trayvon Martin or Rodney King). Those cases continued to receive coverage and discussion years after they happened. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, March 2013 already has an entry for this shooting that is sufficient enough to cover it. 67.84.106.227 ( talk) 14:57, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello, the article Tommy Oliver was nominated for deletion, but a user is trying to get the discussion deleted in an obvious attempt to stop the nomination. Please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.236.68.115 ( talk) 06:49, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the protocol is for this; another User has created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HyperSoar, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hexatarsostinus and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tapinosaurus but none of them got properly listed. All appear more appropriate to Merge discussions anyway. YSSYguy ( talk) 12:08, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Every deletion debate has Users coming in and saying the same irrelevant arguments over and over again. It's really quite predictable. Can we have it so that each debate has links to:
Put these right at the top, and encourage people to read them before commenting. -- Harizotoh9 ( talk) 02:03, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello respected sir ,
please make the page more attractive and visible .we wish peoples will be happy study about Mr Rakesh Biswas hard work achievements and laurels for his country in such a small age . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rakesh biswas01 ( talk • contribs) 12:35, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Can someone please complete the nomination process for that article? Here is my reasons for nominating it:
There is no proof of him meeting WP:NACTOR, WP:ANYBIO, or WP:GNG. While he was in Law & Order: SVU for 10 years, he only appeared in 17 of the 200+ episodes that aired in that stretch and his character was never a major one who impacted the show significantly. All of his other roles were small, guest or supporting ones and he has no awards/nominations or notable mentioning in any entertainment news articles to show any fan base or contributions to the entertainment industry.
Thanks. 173.2.255.184 ( talk) 00:13, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
The article Justin McShane was marked for deletion earlier today but the tag was just removed by Ansh666.
Reasons for nomination for deletion are because the subject lacks notablility (WP:GNG), the article appears to be self-promotional (WP:SPIP), and the bulk of edits appear to have been made by accounts that are solely intended to edit this article.
[ Zoedawn] [ 50.241.186.9]
The following user has only edited this article and also added the subjects name to other articles.
[ 72.95.38.89]
It all smells of somebody merely promoting their young career.
I have no experience with nominations, so could somebody more knowledgable please continue the process to send the request for voting? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.103.184.76 ( talk) 19:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Jason Fernandez looks like a vanity article to me. It's about a guy who owns some restaurants in Tampa, Florida, and none of them are important enough to have an article, either. It was even worse before I took out a whole set of links to the restaurants' websites. It has been deleted twice already, it has to go to Article for Deletion now because somebody added some references, which are just restaurant reviews in the local newspaper. The guy exists, but it looks like he or somebody close to him is trying to use Wikipedia for free advertising. Thanks for your attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.228.138.207 ( talk) 19:06, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
There's an AfD (specifically, Fox Attacks) that I'm half-tempted to do a non-admin closure on (as there seems to be a consensus to keep). The only problem is, one of the major arguments to keep was made by a sock of a banned user ( Sportfan5000). Should I ignore the argument because it was made by someone who wasn't supposed to edit? ChromaNebula (talk) 15:33, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
@ Hahc21: one user proposed deletion, two objected. One poor counter argument given. Page deleted? discussion was here Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Margaret_Bird Jonpatterns ( talk) 11:45, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States v. Article Consisting of 50,000 Cardboard Boxes More or Less, Each Containing One Pair of Clacker Balls is currently running but every comment has been in support of it. I would like to ask if this could be closed early as it is currently also at DYK with an intent to run it on April fools day. The C of E God Save the Queen! ( talk) 21:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Multiple steps, fraught with potential for error. Discourages editors who don't want to negotiate this nonsense. -- Hobbes Goodyear ( talk) 00:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Can someone please complete the nomination process for me? Here is my reason for putting it up for deletion:
I see no evidence of this actress meeting WP:NACTOR, WP:ANYBIO, or WP:GNG. She only had two supporting roles and three single-episode guest appearances, no awards or nominations for these roles, no social media pages (e.g. Facebook or Twitter) to show any fan base, no contributions to the entertainment industry, and no significant coverage in any major entertainment news articles except for brief mentions that mainly focus on the films she was in or listings on movie websites like Rotten Tomatoes that have listings for virtually every actor in the world. 173.3.52.81 ( talk) 21:39, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Could someone please complete the nomination process?
I’ve explained my rationale on the article’s talk page [ [3]]. I would also like to point out that there is no indication that more than one of this gun even exists. “SMOLT” appears to be a name that was made up by the guns owner to refer to his customized revolver.
Thanks. 76.107.171.90 ( talk) 17:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
I didn't notice it at the time, but a page I nominated for deletion was the subject of a WP:Canvassing campaign.
-- Harizotoh9 ( talk) 10:45, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I have nominated Jennifer Grünwald for deletion the reasons below. Would someone please complete the process of nomination?
The subject of this article doesn't meet the notability creiteria for creative professionals. The subject has created no works of note, is not widely influential, nor has the subject's work gained any particular critical attention. The article also contains original research in the form of commentary from individual's acquainted with the subject, claims not substantiated with secondary sources. Claiming that a minor background character in a comic is named after a person should not be enough reason for inclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.242.8 ( talk) 01:05, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
We should probably put the kibosh on any new April Fool's nominations. I'm running out of terrible puns to put on the ones that pop up and they're slightly disruptive. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 07:49, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Only two people have contributed to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Machel Waikenda, and the discussion has been open for more than two weeks now. Dear all: Please contribute to the discussion. Thank you! — Unforgettableid ( talk) 01:00, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Need an admin to complete this nomination - the fifth. Reasons are on the talk page. 124.180.170.151 ( talk) 02:47, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
I nominated A Billion Hits for deletion, but the creator of the article is repeatedly trying to 'close' the discussion and remove the AFD template from the article. I'm not sure if this is the right venue, but I don't know what action I should take. Adabow ( talk) 05:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm just writing here to confirm that talk pages of AfD discussions are supposed to remain blank. I've had someone raise a concern over this, as several people have been using the talk page of a now closed AfD discussion as a place to discuss the deletion, the article in question, and so on. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 04:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
A blanket rule about AfD talk pages is unwarranted. Conversations there are sometimes productive, sometimes not, just like everywhere else on Wikipedia. Lagrange 613 16:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Can someone complete the nomination process for me? Here is my rationale for nominating it
No evidence of this school meeting notability guidelines. Being a private elementary school with unusually high tuition costs is not enough to merit notability and the statement "Since then the School has become regarded as one of the top elementary schools in the nation" is a fallacy. All of the references in the article are from the school's website and there is little to no mentioning of it in major education news sites and agencies. There are many other schools called "The Center of Early Education," none of which seem notable either. West Hollywood, California#Primary and secondary schools already mentions this school and the few content of this article can be added there if needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.3.52.87 ( talk) 20:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
82nd Street Academics is alive and well and I don't understand why it would be nominated for deletion Ronald Tompkins Executive Director www.82ndst.com
This may have come up before; if so I'd be curious to see the results of the previous discussions.
I've observed that when clicking on the "this article's entry" link from an article that is at AFD, the page that comes up, for instance this one, provides no instructions or examples of how one should proceed if they wish to express an opinion on the matter. There isn't even any ready indication of where one can go to learn more about what's going on.
I'd like to suggest that some boilerplate text be added when such pages are created making it more clear to those who may be unfamiliar with the AFD process what their options are, where they can go for more information, etc.
Off the top of my head, it could be something like: "This is the article for deletion discussion for (article name). This article has been nominated for deletion on the following grounds: (nomination reason). More information regarding Wikipedia's deletion policies can be found at (link). You are welcome to express an opinion regarding whether this article should be kept. Typically opinions include one or more of the following summations: Keep, Delete, Merge (linked appropriately), Redirect (linked appropriately), etc."
TL;DR: I think it would benefit the project if AFD dicussion pages included an explanation of what was going on and options for expressing one's opinion, for those who might be unfamiliar with how AFD works. DonIago ( talk) 13:29, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm going to go out on a limb and call this a consensus to revise the AFD discussion pages even if we may have varying thoughts on the particulars. This is a bit beyond the scope of my normal interactions with the project...what do we do next? DonIago ( talk) 15:13, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Can someone please complete the nomination for me? Thanks. 124.180.170.151 ( talk) 22:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
124.180.170.151 ( talk) 14:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I nominated an article yesterday for deletion because none of the links on the page went anywhere and because the airline doesn't actually exist in any other sources. When I nominated it for speedy deletion it was rejected by User:Randykitty who pretty much dismissed my evidence and refused to do anything about it other than tell me to post something on here. Please let me know what you think I should do. This is the first article I've ever nominated for deletion and it seems a lot harder than I expected considering I'm nominating a fake airline's wikipedia page. Monopoly31121993 ( talk) 10:36, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Need someone to complete these for me. Thanks. 203.12.30.74 ( talk) 04:28, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Penny is the Irish-Norwegian owner of Bolt the dog! Nobody would search for this as an article title. 86.136.110.44 ( talk) 11:57, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Because of the disputed neutrality of the Guba mass grave, and, as the article says, no foreign or third-party experts have looked at the site and there is no evidence that the bones belong to massacre victims and it remains a political weapon more than anything, this article should be deleted, because there is no connection with the site to any historic event, and no neutral history has ever called it a genocide. -- 216.125.48.225 ( talk) 13:34, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't really have a stake in the matter, as all I did was remove the prod tag on the article. I should have voted, but I didn't. However, this article was deleted with only one delete vote. Is that really enough to establish consensus? ~ EDDY ( talk/ contribs)~ 13:48, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
unless im missing somthing, one word and a picture does not make an article https://wo.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weenus also, why do the deletion proposal tags not work on a non-English article.-- Stewievader2 ( talk) 06:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Could an admin look into an ongoing trainwreck of an AfD. This article was renamed to solar roads without consensus in the middle of an AfD and there is no way to revert since there is a problem when trying to rename. We need the article renamed back to Solar Roadways while the AfD is still ongoing. Nearly everyone who !voted in the AfD did so under the understanding it had the name and scope of Solar Roadways (a company) and not a concept (solar roads). The person who did the rename late in the AfD did so without consensus or discussion with anyone. -- Green C 22:02, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia_talk:Miscellany_for_deletion#Draft_space_XFD_discussions for a discussion on the best locale for Draft: XFD's. — xaosflux Talk 15:15, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
I recently fixed the AfD template for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HSC Examination 2014 Question Leak. It looks like it was malformed, as it had been done incorrectly so that when Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HSC Examination 2014 Question Leak (2nd nomination) was opened, it didn't immediately show up. The second one is the one with the most traffic, but the first one was opened just minutes before the other. Anyone have any opinion as to which one we should keep in this instance? I'm leaning towards proceedurally closing the first as a malformed nomination (it was cut and pasted from another AfD, so the correct name wasn't even on it) so we can have conversation occur only in one AfD without any big confusion. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 13:14, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Under what circumstances is it correct to delete an article for a subject which would otherwise pass WP:GNG when the objections are actionable (needs citations, too detailed, needs wikification, contains copyvio, too much trivia, etc.)?-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:53, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Context: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jabari Parker's high school career (2nd nomination) -- NeilN talk to me 05:11, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
In this AfD dicussion, two questions arose related to prior AfD rulings:
Neither issue is explicitly addressed in guidelines. I'd appreciate opinions on these ideas. Agyle ( talk) 17:38, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
The article Mutual intelligence was created on December 7, 2011 at 23:30 and was last edited the next day at 07:14. The article consists of exactly two sentences and cites no sources or references. My attempts at locating any reliable sources or references using the term "mutual intelligence" (alone, as well as cross-referenced with the term "artificial intelligence, which is one of the categories in which this article is included and ostensibly integral to the topic judging by the text) have only turned up usages of the term that are clearly unrelated to the topic in question, and sources that clearly do not qualify as reliable, such as a youtube video where the term is clearly an invention of the user. In addition, I found articles on other user-editable encyclopedia sites that consist of the exact same text in the Wikipedia article in question. Based on this, I believe the subject of the article is a neologism at best and probably does not meet the necessary criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. ProgHead777 ( talk) 04:18, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Two weeks ago, I closed an AfD with just "Delete". Now, somebody has (quite reasonably) asked me to elaborate on why I closed the way I did. What's the etiquette here? I know the template says No further edits should be made to this page., but still, it seems like the AfD page is the most useful place to put my expanded explanation. Any reason not to put it there, two weeks later? -- RoySmith (talk) 18:24, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Newspaper search engines by country. This is a start. Any feedback or modifications appreciated. -- Green C 14:36, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Why are some AfDs not being closed or relisted after the 7-day deadline, even if a consensus has been reached or more discussion is clearly needed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.211.170 ( talk) 12:46, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Hmm. Is there a way to tell when an AfD page exists but is not properly formatted? As in, the absence of CAT:AfD but not a previously closed discussion. Pinging User:Cyberpower678, as he maintains the current AfD report. Ansh 666 07:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
There seems to be disagreement between the adminstrator instructions and WP:Talk page layout. I have started a thread at Wikipedia talk:Talk page layout#AFD history to try to resolve this. Spinning Spark 12:47, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
The "List of Playboy Playmates of X" articles likely should be deleted. I've never seen anyone attempt such an AfD, so would like to hear what more experienced editors have to say on such a WP:MULTIAFD situation. -- Ronz ( talk) 16:07, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks everyone for the responses. Please keep them coming.
My take from all this is that it's probably best to start with a single AfD, notifying all the creators of all the articles about it and the possibility of a multiple-article AfD to follow. -- Ronz ( talk) 20:06, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Would someone please complete this deletion nomination? Thanks. 184.147.140.76 ( talk) 19:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm hoping the community would discuss the deletion of @evleaks. I have contributed to this page in good faith, despite that I feel it's rather promotional and questionable if it establishes notability. (The subject is merely a blogger who leaks things. There are many, many bloggers who leak things and they don't all need Wikipedia articles.)
I soon realized the vast majority of the article is written and maintained by the subject's executive assistant, Wikipedian Cclewandowski. Here are Cclewandowski's LinkedIn and Twitter profiles establishing he is @evleaks' executive assistant:
- LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/pub/corey-lewandowski/3a/397/581 - Twitter: https://twitter.com/CCLewandowski
On opening a discussion about whether the article should be deleted, the discussion was removed by @evleaks himself and the following was posted by him on my Talk page:
“ | WikiGeek2, please find something better to do with your time. I will get 100 different people to edit this entry. 1000. Doesn't really matter. What will make you go away and troll another page?
Love, @evleaks
|
” |
Bottom Line: @evleaks is attempting to control his article as a promotion page through intimidation and manipulation. Please advise what to do or if you agree with deletion. In good faith, and thank you. Wikigeek2 ( talk) 18:55, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure how this should be addressed. An editor says he created an article; though the record is murky as you can see here. But for the reasons he stated in his edit summary, he seems to want to gut it. Can someone who thinks they know how to best address (I'm not sure) step in? Thanks. -- Epeefleche ( talk) 03:00, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
The person in question is an ordinary industrial chemist, like thousands of others. He is completely irrelevant for an encyclopedic project. It is believed that the author just tried to discuss himself. Deletion is suggested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.64.254.240 ( talk) 10:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Could someone please point me to the guideline/page for essay deletion? Searched but failed, cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:46, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I'd like to ask if someone could finalize the deletion request. The justification is here. Thanks. -- 89.14.24.193 ( talk) 11:19, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
People who dismiss GATA have obviously not given detailed appraisal to the facts available such as those in The Gold Cartel by Dimitri Speck which is a highly acclaimed appraisal of long term intra day price trends. As a consequence their reasons for dismissing GATA are usually based on unsubstantiated 'points of view'. Deletion of GATA would reduce the credibility of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roberthorse ( talk • contribs) 12:31, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
I've cited the general rule that Reality show contestants, unless they win/place/show, or have some other notability per WP:CREATIVE, don't get their an article. Can we word-smith a line about that? Bearian ( talk) 22:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Please see Template talk:Old AfD multi#This template (and all similar templates) put the attention on the wrong link. Thank you for your comments, Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 05:07, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
I've started a discussion over at WT:Deletion policy#Question about WP:NACD that may interest the passing reader. Thanks, Ansh 666 18:31, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
I nominated a proposed article, located at Center for HIV Law and Policy for Speedy Deletion on the grounds that it is both promotional in nature and is also about an organization that is neither substantial nor well-known. It appears that as soon as the author deleted the Speedy Deletion tag, the nomination was removed from the list of articles being nominated for speedy deletion. I was unable to use the tool at WP:AFD to nominate the page, I'm assuming because it has not actually been approved as an article. Ormr2014 ( talk) 21:55, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
I nominated Memory storage density for deletion. This article has been out of date for the last three years, and is unlikely to receive or to deserve the ongoing maintenance it requires. I request that someone else (editor or registered user) completes this process. 71.128.35.13 ( talk) 19:14, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Given that memory storage density is clearly a notable topic, not an attack page, not an advertizement, has sources and constant scholarship, is not associated with a Pokemon or youtube channel or ethnic conflict, etc. etc. etc., there is not a snowball's chance in hell it's getting deleted. I'm removing the template. @ 71.128.35.13:, if you believe the page is out of date, rather than trying to have it deleted, you should try updating it with more recent information. -- erachima talk 19:30, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Ansh 666 21:54, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Just why exactly are we bikeshedding the snot out of IAR? Protonk ( talk) 23:08, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
If I thought it would result in a big discussion I would not have mentioned it. Was just trying to say good job. Chillum 23:10, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I would like to officially nominate this article for deletion as it has remained empty since its creation on 19 July. On top of that, the CONCACAF has not officially announced its qualification process for the World Cup, therefore, making this article not notable right now. I would like to request a registered user or an editor complete this process for me. Thanks. 71.162.68.219 ( talk) 14:55, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
can you please delete the above page as it is full of self promotion and she is clearly advertising herself? she is not known or has any fame whatsoever. G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.22.228.31 ( talk) 04:32, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
If you nominate an article for AfD, is it proper/standard to submit a vote as well? Upjav ( talk) 18:12, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I want to nominate Shusha massacre for deletion as there is no source about this massacre in western sources. The majority of sources comes from only armenian claimed books. Moreover, article includes sources from books such as Michael P. Croissant. The Armenia-Azerbaijan Conflict: Causes and Implications. Greenwood Publishing Group, 1998 where doesn't talk about this massacre but as conflict.
The article also covers only armenian view instead of both, which breaches Wikipedia's NPOV. -- Yacatisma ( talk) 16:55, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't think that the nominator opened this AfD correctly. Their is also a weirdly formatted notice on the article's page. Can an admin, or someone savvy about the procedures please fix this somehow? -- Ssilvers ( talk) 19:15, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I can't see the deletion discussions for 14 August (2014) listed on either current or old deletion discussions. Could an admin take a look at this, please? AdventurousMe ( talk) 03:02, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Requesting parts II and III to be completed for the above entry, as per [11]. 109.176.223.232 ( talk) 14:42, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
I nominated Gennady_Stolyarov_II for deletion and need a registered user to complete the nomination process. Thank you.
Hello, I proposed an article for AfD [Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Citycon] at the same time that another editor proposed it for speedy deletion. The article was speedily deleted, but the AfD remains up. Do I just close it with a speedy delete decision? Upjav ( talk) 18:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
What can I do for it not to be deleted? I really want it to be accepted.Or please someone edit it for me.. so that it can be accepted?. 112.198.234.141 ( talk) 10:48, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
In poking around in the AfD archives, I was surprised to come across a case (several years ago) which was summarily closed as "keep" by the editor (incidentally an admin) who had created the page under discussion (!). I was even more surprised that the instructions do not explicitly forbid this, since they define an uninvolved administrator as "one who has not participated in the deletion discussion". As an administrator myself I would not dream of closing an AfD if I was "involved" according to the more general definition at WP:UNINVOLVED. In fact, since that page is a policy and this page is not even officially a guideline, I believe that the wording here has no effect. In order to make this clear, I am changing it:
Better ideas are welcome. Zero talk 13:17, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello. Can you please delete the redirect article so click here: Spartan race (company). I think we can add a tag using speedily deletion edit for the Spartan race (company). Thank you. Bryancyriel ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:54, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PrimeFaces needs to be split into a second nomination. Sorry, no time, must go. – Fayenatic L ondon 18:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old/Open AfDs, August 30th is missing. I'm guessing Mathbot messed up somehow, since it seems to be what fills in those pages. Can someone please fix them so that August 30th is listed. I tried adding a header for August 30th at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old/Open AfDs but I think I messed it up (linking to the wrong day), and Mathbot just removed it. I'm not sure whether trying again and linking to the right day would work, so I figured it was better to just ask here and have someone who knows what they are doing fix the problem. Calathan ( talk) 16:46, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
The page first says an IP editor should post both on the article's talk page and then on this talk page, and then contradicts itself by saying it's not possible for an IP editor to complete the process; the template says an IP editor should post only on the article's talk page. So that is three paragraphs all saying different things! Which instruction is the correct one?-- greenrd ( talk) 23:13, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dina Rae (singer) was created on 4 September 2014, and has attracted some comment. Although opened two weeks ago, it's not been closed or relisted, but it's not transcluded to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 September 4 or any other daily page. What's happened here - I thought that there was a bot that made sure that open AfDs were transcluded to one of the daily pages? There's a thread at Talk:Dina Rae (singer)#Requested move where they were told not to move the page until the AfD closed; they're still waiting for that, and complaints about the delay have been posted there. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 19:12, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
This person is not notable and most of the sources are primary and the ones that are not are not even sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orasis ( talk • contribs) 00:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
As an unregistered user I cannot complete the AFD process myself, so following the instructions at WP:AFD I am requesting that someone complete the process for Pizda (chemical). The rationale for the nomination is on the article's talk page, Talk:Pizda (chemical). Thank you. 71.185.49.96 ( talk) 11:54, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
I just had a somewhat frustrating experience with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dmitriy Grigoriyev. After being up for deletion for nearly a month, it was closed as "no consensus". While I don't fault the closer for his decision, isn't this slightly absurd? It's clear the topic isn't going to attract much interest if renominated, and if all the single-purpose account who created the article could bother to do was remove the AfD template — well, that's his problem. Moreover, I do recall discussion about discussions with no votes cast ending up as soft deletes (at least as a general rule), and although I'm not sure how that turned out, perhaps it's time to codify that, given situations like this one. - Biruitorul Talk 16:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
For what it's worth, Carlossuarez46 et al., I've renominated ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dmitriy Grigoriyev (2nd nomination)), although, because I dared include a couple of other trivial topics in my nomination, I've drawn incredulous gasps from those who invariably put process above results. - Biruitorul Talk 13:38, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello can you help me to delete this page Gasaneri. Because there is no village like this. Also how I can delete the page because I am not an administrator? Can someone help me?-- Nəcməddin Kəbirli ( talk) 13:57, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
At the moment, no fewer than four of the last seven daily AfD pages are showing up in Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded - basically, this means that the total length of the AfD articles to be put on the page gets so long that they can no longer all be transcluded, and the final AfD articles on the page only show up as links. This immediately makes looking at the AfDs concerned (no matter commenting on them, if necessary) a far longer process, particularly as the daily AfD page concerned is so long that it can take half a minute to reload whenever one goes back to it. And we don't really want to be doing anything that discourages editors from looking through AfD discussions. There are a number of at least theoretically possible solutions to this problem - increasing the maximum allowed length of pages after template inclusions, cutting down somehow on the number of AfDs, cutting down somehow on the length of AfDs, relisting fewer AfDs (particularly already long ones), spinning off relisted AfDs onto a separate page, and no doubt more. Each seems to have some difficulties or drawbacks - but surely we can come up with something that on balance improves the current situation? PWilkinson ( talk) 16:33, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
A bot could measure the length of a given day's AfDs and if too long split it up into #1, #2 etc. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 17:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
After repeatedly failing to load today's log over the past 15 minutes for the first time ever, I'd support a split of some sort - having a separate log for relisted discussions sounds like a good idea, though a separate log for each category, while harder to maintain (categories can be switched easily), would probably be a better long-term solution if the volume of AfDs continues to increase. Ansh 666 18:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
If people would stop contesting prod's, if we'd expand CSD, we'd have fewer of these. So few articles nominated for deletion that are kept are ever more than crap or permastubs with tags forever that it seems much effort for little reward and the community's efforts would be better spent identifying unquestionably notable topics and encouraging editors to write there. But, alas, the system we put in place when every article was precious is cumbersome at the 5 million mark. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 23:31, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
One thing that would help is to stop relisting articles over and over and over again. In most cases these are nominations with one or two delete !votes and no keeps, and should be soft-deleted as though they're expired PRODs. Reyk YO! 22:58, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Could AFD possibly be based off of the AFC tool Special:NewPagesFeed?-- Coin945 ( talk) 18:15, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
One (partial) solution is too make the templates used in each AfD "lighter". It is not always easy to see what would help and what wouldn't, many people here rae much better versed in this than me, but I've tried something nevertheless. If we replace the "Find sources" template used in each AfD with the new Template:Find sources AFD, does it help? It removes the "free images" search, which is IMO never useful for an AfD. The "newspapers" search also doesn't give any useful results for me, but that may be a country-specific thing; can American (or other) editors confirm that this is useful for them? Otherwise it can go as well.
Now, I don't know whether this really helps with the template include size, I just offer it as a possible solution. if this would help, one would need to change Template:Afd2 (replacing :({{Find sources|{{{pg}}}}}) with :({{Find sources AFD|{{{pg}}}}})). Perhaps someone can check if more tweaks and trimming are possible. Fram ( talk) 13:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
I have checked this a bit more, and it seems to reduce the number of standard templates on 1 AfD from 11 to 10, or some 9% (in number, perhaps not in size). I'll do the test by replcing Find sources with Find Sources AFD on one day, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 September 16. At the moment, the last AfD that is visible is the one for Tsakana Nkandih, and the first that is not expanded is the one for Robert Lyn Nelson.
Feel free to trout me if this go horribly wrong, and to undo my changes if they are deemed to be nagetive or unwanted. Fram ( talk) 14:12, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
All right, I have now done the test, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 September 16 now shows 12 further AfDs (last one shown is now Robert Bianco)! It still exceeds the limit, so further improvements are needed, but (as long as no one wants "free images" back for AfDs) it is a step in the right direction. I'll change the AfD2 template so that new AfDs automatically get the "Find sources AfD" template; again, feel free to revert me if necessary. Fram ( talk) 14:31, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm proud to say that with further rewrites of the template (without losing any further fucntionality, and keeping the underlying "Template:Find sources multi" subtemplates) I have now eliminated (or seriously reduced) the problem. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 September 16 now is again fully functional. Every new AfD gets this new, lighter template; if any older pages still have the transclusion limit problem, you'll need to change the old find sourecs template to the new "find sources AFD" template on every single AfD on that page though. Fram ( talk) 07:17, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Wow. Yes, those daily pages are getting way too long. Looking over a few random pages, I see two easy fixes. First, almost all debates get three or four lines that "This debate has been included in the list of foo-related deletions". Now creating such lists and groupings sounds very useful to me... but is it really necessary to mention their existence in each AFD debate? Does a daily AFD page benefit from having 200 lines informing us that <some debate> has been put on <some list>? I somehow doubt that.
Second, and more important, is the relistings (and this has been a problem for several years now). Relisting a debate to "generate a more thorough discussion" sounds like a nice idea, but in practice it usually doesn't work. Looking over a few daily AFD pages, I don't see any evidence of the "relist" tag generating a more thorough discussion. So to get AFD back under control, this practice of mass relisting should probably be removed. Either treat such articles as expired PRODs (and remove them and let WP:REFUND restore them if anyone minds) or treat them as "no consensus" and keep them, but don't just throw them back in the hope that a second round of process would give more of an outcome than the first round of process. >Radiant< 15:35, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Vern Hughes. Can't complete to AfD. Rationale is on the talk page. 124.180.144.121 ( talk) 03:51, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
As I am not a registered user I request that someones completes the AFD-process on this article. I put the rationale also on the talk page.
This article can be deleted, because it is of no relevance. The person does not meet the notability criteria for basketball. He was for a very short time with a TBL-team (which is not listed in the criteria-leagues), but did not play at all. The article is not up to date. Also some links are broken. The first part about his "Early Life" is not based on facts. He never played for the Turkish national team. Again sources are missing. So I propose to delete the article.
193.134.132.20 ( talk) 12:29, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
I am unable to create correctly Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Concave hull, probably because I have used "Show preview" while writing the reason of deleting]]. Thanks. D.Lazard ( talk) 17:42, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
This is a silly nom which was improperly set up on 19 September, but never I think on the listings. It has none the less attracted 3 Keeps. Can someone shut it down - it really is too silly to deserve listing properly. Thanks, Johnbod ( talk) 14:49, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
I came across the State atheism article around a week ago - the term "State atheism" has no historical consensus, as it is but an 'idea' (or 'accusation') invented by Christian fundamentalists, but the article doesn't mention this. The article is lengthily written and sourced, but most all of the sources are "people did/said things" references to events unrelated to any "State atheism" banner. This is an example of Wikipedia being used to promote an agenda in a rather weasel way: the article title is the central claim, and its content and references are "proof" of causality (although the references cited mention none).
This article shouldn't exist unless it is rewritten as the fringe idea that it is, but this has already been extensively 'covered' in the main Atheism article. I left a talk-page message to this effect a week ago, and it has been met with silence thus far. Should I nominate this for deletion, and if so, in citing what criteria? This seems to fall through the cracks. Thanks, and cheers. THEPROMENADER 07:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
So, antireligion as opposed to actual atheism, yeah, I guess (although the former page seems to be just as badly sourced). Hrm, this entire thing is messy. ansh 666 20:58, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
I need someone to complete the AFD for Ogie Banks. Thanks. -- 108.211.72.67 ( talk) 06:44, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
He seems like a minor VA to me; realistically, the article should be gone, but we have to deal with the bureaucracy wonks who want every minor-ass cartoon guy to have a crappy "article" consisting solely of a role-list. You want to make the nom, go ahead; I won't be crying over it. -- 108.211.72.67 ( talk) 18:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
WP:AFDHOWTO says "If you are unregistered, you should complete step I, note the justification for deletion on the article's talk page, then post a message at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion requesting that someone else complete the process." I have completed these steps and am now requesting assistance on Steps II & III. Thank you. 104.32.193.6 ( talk) 18:05, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I've created an essay on Gutting an article during deletion discussion.
You may find it interesting reading at: User:Cirt/Gutting.
Cheers,
— Cirt ( talk) 18:22, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
I recently added a deletion tag to an inaccurate article (Phyllis Cheng) and added the justification for deletion to its talk page. Can a Wikipedian please complete the process? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.26.114 ( talk) 06:32, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
The 2012 Michigan Bucks season still hasn't been deleted. Can an admin please delete it. Kingjeff ( talk) 05:15, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
There's a link on the AfD template which directs readers to WP:Guide to deletion which includes, at WP:EDITATAFD:
The instructions in this article, at WP:AFDEQ, say:
Could we have some consistency: are we asked to add notes to top and bottom of an AfD discussion when a page is moved, or is it not necessary? I've just done so at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rose Anne McGreevy. Pam D 14:01, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
As above, I suggest transcluding discussions to the article talk page. The would put all of the discussion about the article on its talk page, instead having to follow a separate link to view it. If the page is kept, the record of the discussion is left where people expect to see it, and if deleted, it's just one less transclusion and doesn't harm anything. Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 18:15, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
I have just created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Palestinian stone-throwing, however, it does not show up on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 November 2. How do I make it do that? Thanks for any help, Huldra ( talk) 20:59, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm just curious if the article Jessie Lilley is notable enough. This person edits a small magazine that doesn't even have its own page (Mondo Cult) and the citations seem to be from Amazon (where anyone can sell a book), the IMDB and youtube which don't seem to be viable citations as well as a blog and the magazine's own website which i'm pretty sure are not allowed per the wikipedia's guidelines for citations. Cthwikia ( talk) 03:46, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Wow really? So companies can use their own websites to give themselves notability or people can use their own personal websites as citations as well? I never knew that. This explains why pretty much anyone or anything can have its own wikipedia page. Cthwikia ( talk) 16:28, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
For those users -like me nowadays- who participate a lot in AfDs, could it be possible to install a link to every deletion discussion page (I mean on each article's own deletion discussion entry) through which one could return directly to the current "Articles for deletion" page, instead of making two clicks. (Sounds lazy, no? :-) Regards. -- Why should I have a User Name? ( talk) 22:30, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leon miguel: Leon miguel is a redirect, not an article. The AfD tag was mistakenly placed on this redirect which also had the text of the article underneath it. So, just earlier I moved the AfD tag to the real article Leon Miguel and removed it from the redirect. So, the seven-day discussion timer needs to be reset to when I placed the tag. However this is tracked, it needs to be corrected for this discussion. Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 05:52, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether Sound envelope should be nominated for deletion. I don't think it technically matches the criteria for deletion. However:
I feel like it should probably be deleted, and then a redirect should be set up to ADSR envelope, but a strict reading of the Wikipedia policy seems to indicate it should instead be improved. What's the correct course of action for this page? sedm0784 ( talk) 11:13, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gluten-sensitive_idiopathic_neuropathies
I've just found sufficient support for its notability. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 01:21, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
A user with an AfD Closer permission would be a non-admin who is given the right to close AfDs as delete and to call controversial AfD debates. This would not impact admin rights. Rather, it would be an expanded permission similar to rollback rights. It could be granted to trusted users by admins (similar to how rollback and reviewer rights are given) or through community consensus (like RFA but much more simplified and streamlined).
I’ve noticed that we have a bit of a shortage of admins, and that many AfDs stay open far longer than needed, even after a clear consensus has emerged. I believe that by giving trusted non-admins this right, the AfD process could be speeded up. Is this at all a good idea? Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 04:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
There is an AFD [12] which is currently very closely split. It has been relisted twice (total of 22 days open so far) and closes in 7 hours. There have only been 7 votes so far. I invite you to comment before this AFD closes. -- Obsidi ( talk) 14:24, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
This AfD needs attention. It's been open since October 12th and has slipped through the cracks. I'd handle it myself, but I am a participant. czar ⨹ 03:02, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
New IP 86.158.182.11 ( talk · contribs) has put four articles up for AfD in the space of 25 minutes, all incompletely formed (no deletion discussion pages). Not sure if this is a regular editor slumming as an IP or what. Someone should either finish the nominations or remove the AfD notices from the articles. (I'm the main contributor for two of them so I don't want to touch them myself.) Wasted Time R ( talk) 02:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
There is a discussion about non-admins closing discussions as "delete" at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#NAC Deletes. See the subsection Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#So, this is the question we're asking, where the opening poster wrote, "Should non-adminstrators be allowed to close deletion discussions as delete?" Cunard ( talk) 19:27, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Recently, several events (shootings, to be exact) have been added to the Firearms DELSORT page - they have been subsequently removed, because that is not what this page is for. Firearms DELSORT should not be used for an event just because firearms were used (e.g. Columbine High School massacre or Battle of the Bulge); directly related events (e.g. Gun shows in the United States) are fine.
Legitimate uses include but are not limited to for individual weapons, weapon series, or classifications (e.g. M1 Garand, Kalashnikov rifle, or Carbine); cartridges (e.g. .30-06 Springfield); manufacturers (e.g. Bushmaster Firearms International or Mikhail Kalashnikov); obviously linked legal, social, or mechanical concepts (e.g. Open carry, Celebratory gunfire, or Bolt action); organizations which are based on or involved with firearms (e.g. Shooting range or National Rifle Association); and maybe select end users which are intimately related to firearms (e.g. FPSRussia). All examples here should be easily notable.
Thanks, ansh 666 19:15, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I did a non-admin closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamie Paterson. I must have broken the log page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 December 13 somehow. Every listing after the one I closed is now enclosed in the same box as the one I closed. I can't see anything wrong with how I did it. Can somebody please fix this, trout me, and tell me how to never do it again? Thanks! -- MelanieN ( talk) 02:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
To
Wikipedia Page
Respected Sir/Madam
Please Publish "Aniket Gupta" Karate Player Page.
If any query for Aniket Gupta pLease check www.facebook.com/SENSEIANIKET or Search in Google and also call +91-9999433982 and Email - [email protected]
Best Regard
Team Aniket Gupta — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karateaniket ( talk • contribs) 16:00, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
In section III of the table it says {{subst:afd3 | pg=NominationName}}, but when creating an AfD the syntax seems to have changed to simply {{NominationName}}. AadaamS ( talk) 09:30, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
{{
subst:afd3}}
template is for use on the daily list, all it does is to transclude the nomination that was created at step II, without modifying it in any way: if it's misformed on the nomination page, it will also be misformed on the daily list. If you are not seeing the title, links etc., that indicates that step II was not correctly performed: these items are added to the individual nom page when you create it using {{
subst:afd2}}
. So, when nominating
We Got Married (Khuntoria) episodes, you created
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/We Got Married (Khuntoria) episodes, but there is no evidence that you used {{
subst:afd2}}
to do that. Your
other AfD noms all seem to have been done the same way, and
TerryAlex (
talk ·
contribs) has gone to a lot of trouble to fix them up for you.{{subst:afd2|pg={{subst:SUBPAGENAME}}|cat=U|text=Reason}} ~~~~
|text=Reason
replace the word "Reason" with the text of your nomination, i.e. |text=This article cherry-picks out a list of episodes of a TV variety show ...
- do not sign that. You should also change |cat=U
to something like |cat=M
or |cat=F
but if you're unsure, leave it alone. Save it, and then you can proceed to
Step III. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
11:37, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
How does one nominate multiple AfD's? It's too much to nominate each one individually especially as they are related. They are New South Wales Surge, Victoria Maidens, Western Australia Angels, Queensland Brigade and Adelaide Arsenal. Speedy Climber ( talk) 08:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability. Lacks citations from secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject. There are multiple press releases, which Wikipedia does not cite as reliable sources, and also the Alexa Internet link is not a verifiable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kcmaher ( talk • contribs) 16:01, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
I want to nominate Queen of Blood (2014 film) for deletion but since I don't have an account the instructions told me to come here. It says here "If you are unregistered, you should complete step I, note the justification for deletion on the article's talk page, then post a message at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion requesting that someone else complete the process." So after I put up that template can someone create the page for me? 64.230.233.196 ( talk) 17:22, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Or to help thier friends promote themselves or to defend articles that they created where they admitted the sourcing was weak. You know editors and adminstrators have thier own agendas too. The only problem is they can weld power here while the rest of us can't. I have a nephew who is in a band. I can find three citations online about them. Now if I was your buddy and asked for the page (the same way Chris himself asked Tokyogirl79 for the Queen of Blood page) then I could get a page. Because with three citations that is more then what is listed on the Queen of Blood page that are not citations taken from the Blood for Irina page from before the film was produced, or a self promoting interview on a music site or a dead link. Its funny how even editors violate the rules of the wikipedia such as the first two listed here /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Your_first_article#Things_to_avoid . Oh and by the way, I gave my reasons for why i want to nominate the page on this talk page but instead an editor responded by telling me to get a lfe and go away. Yeah welcome to the wikipedia. So classy 64.230.233.196 ( talk) 19:00, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
I have opened a discussion
here on the subject.
Dea
db
eef
03:37, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Could somebody complete the Afd for Noble Order of Saint George of Rougemont, please? 79.97.226.247 ( talk) 17:09, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi, the instructions say I have to ask for this because I'm editing as an IP. Can someone please do steps II and III for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maypole framework (relating to Maypole framework). My rationale is:
Thank you, 176.25.140.245 ( talk) 11:54, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi, the instructions say I have to ask for this because I'm editing as an IP. Can someone please do steps II and III for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George_Manross ("GGM"). My rationale is that it does not meet WP:BIO. Thank you, -- 71.128.35.13 ( talk) 20:50, 14 January 2015 (UTC)(UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 60 | ← | Archive 65 | Archive 66 | Archive 67 | Archive 68 | Archive 69 | Archive 70 |
The Rake (cryptid) had a low-participation AFD that was closed as a merge to List of Internet phenomena. ( [1]). The problem is, that there's all of one legit source, and for the Internet phenomena list (which was not consulted for the merge) that source fails inclusion for the list (to avoid making the list spammy). How would one go about resolving this situation? Talking with the closer? DevReview? -- MASEM ( t) 19:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
I found this a few years ago in an AfD on the Christianity and Judaism article, which was closed with a recommendation that it be merged to Judeo-Christian, without editors on that article ever having been informed, and something that would generally not have been appropriate. After some discussion on the talk page, I raised it with the closing admin, who recommended starting a renewed discussion on the talk page, and should a new consensus be reached, then to follow the new consensus, per WP:CCC. Which all happened. I don't know if any of that is helpful here, but it is one way the question could be progressed. Jheald ( talk) 18:02, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mobile Suit Gundam 00 mobile weapons, but it won't let me delete :
So, how do I get the page deleted (I have deleted the 26 redirects, and the talk page)... PhantomSteve/ talk| contribs\ 12:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
-- Fashionburnstar ( talk) 11:15, 26 January 2014 (UTC) Sujit_Meher this page has poorly sourced write up . May be deleted as it is low impotence and copy write infringement
I'm an unregistered user. Have added my thoughts as to why List of Arsenal F.C. hat-tricks should be deleted. 5.65.53.211 ( talk) 12:43, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
I am not completely familiar with the Wikipedia policy, otherwise I would have AfD'ed it myself, but that page was clearly created for one purpose, to criticize the article's subject. It almost could meet a speedy delete for an attack page. I don't know if it qualifies for deletion, as he is probably notable, considering he has been a senator for 20+ years, but as it stands, it just one big criticism article. I looked at the history, and it seems as though 4 socks primarily wrote it, as all 4 usernames have zero contribs outside of the article. Does it qualify for a AfD or Speedy? Thanks, Brinkley32 ( talk) 13:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Has something gone wrong with the 1st Feb page? I swear it had more than 3 nominations this time yesterday. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:56, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
The article re MULTIAFD says: "For the sake of clarity, debates should be bundled only at the start or near the start of the debate, before most of the discussion.[clarification needed]"
I propose clarifying by adding: "Near the start means after a maximum of two editor comments on the original nomination"
Thoughts?
Oncenawhile ( talk) 16:44, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Please see the RfC at Wikipedia talk:The answer to life, the universe, and everything/Archive 2#RfC: Is this an information page or is it an essay? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 01:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Not sure if I muffed the code (quite possible as there will a million tags) but the discussion page for Constitution Party of Alabama doesn't seem to have made it onto the AdF roster for Feb 9 2014. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 00:06, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
I question the notability of this biography/profile: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Bannister
Reasons include: - not notable beyond his piloting of the Concorde fleet; the pertinent information could easily exist in a more concise form on the Concorde entry - last two paragraphs (more than half of the article's length in words) reads as self-promotion and is unverifiable
tl;dr: not particularly notable & possibly self-promotion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.78.175.52 ( talk) 02:00, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Using the javascript relisting tool, there seem to be issues. AfDs on the 13th-15th logs show a blank "old log" entry, while one AfD on the the 16th shows as the 18th's...while another has the "old log" entry reading "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Two days ago"...! - The Bushranger One ping only 02:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
An article I created the other day has been nominated for deletion, as it stands the Joseph Minala article has been viewed over 60,000 times in two days. However the problem is, he hasn't played a first team game but has been in international media having been accused of age fraud. It seems silly for the article to be deleted when it's currently one of the most visited. What options are available to save the article ? TheBigJagielka ( talk) 10:56, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
I had an tough time yesterday after using MULTIAFD in a way that people felt it wasn't built for, but on the bright side I received some constructive if aggressive feedback from a variety of knowledgable editors ( User:Colapeninsula, User:AndyTheGrump and User:PBS).
To avoid others making the same mistake in future, I suggest adding a sentence into WP:MULTIAFD such as:
Grateful for any comments. Oncenawhile ( talk) 09:02, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Aaron_Quick_Nelson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.126.129.141 ( talk) 14:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I've went online to search to get information on a actor that I saw that was interested to know about because he was so brilliant in a independent film I was watching. And wasn't surprised to see a Wikipedia on him but once I went into his article I couldn't help but see the box message above him information. Aaron Quick Nelson is a well known independent film and television actor. The information that is shown in the article is clear and is has external links that describes him. The imdb site that is linked to the actor's Information on the article is an online database of information related to films, television programs and video games, taking in actors, production crew, biographies, plot summaries and trivia. In order for anyone to be listed on that site is by being in a motion picture, independent movie, directed, screen writing or more. Before anyone gets listed on this site, the site goes through an approval through extensive research. If the actor information meets their guidelines. It is approved. You should keep this actor's article up. Aaron Quick Nelson is a well known independent film actor. Thank you.
Simeon Rice. February 20th. 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.126.129.141 ( talk) 14:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
As per this AFD discussion here ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bangladesh–Luxembourg relations), I am thinking more and more about a deletion review of all of these articles. I have no idea how extensive the deletion of bilateral articles has already been, so have no idea of how to proceed, or even if I want to be the torchbearer for this. I would like an AFD person to read over what both I and @ LibStar: have written, and see if there is any merit to what I am saying. Thankyou in advance. :)-- Coin945 ( talk) 12:03, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Silence equals vagueness and misinformation. I would rather be told a straight up "X and Y have little to no bilateral relationship to speak of" than be kept in the dark (and unable to locate any article with any information on the topic) due to not being able to find conclusive evidence to support wither side of the coin.. I know that "intrinsic notability" is seen as a profanity in many circles in WP, yet I think this is one of the most clear-cut cases where such a concept is needed. If the existence of whole articles on weak relations is frowned upon, at least lists of such relations should exist. Something Minor foreign relations of Italy, so to say.-- cyclopia speak! 23:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
•Australia–Solomon Islands relations •China–Maldives relations •Japan–Laos relations •Brazil–Spain relations •Mauritius–South Africa relations •Jamaica–Trinidad and Tobago relations •Finland–Latvia relations •Chile–Spain relations •Canada–Iceland relations •Albania–China relations •Germany–South Africa relations •Australia–Singapore relations •Australia–Germany relations •Lithuania–Sweden relations •Botswana–South Africa relations •Belgium–France relations •Australia–Tonga relations •Iceland–Norway relations •East Timor–Portugal relations •France–Venezuela relations •Sudan–United Kingdom relations •Finland–Nicaragua relations •Japan–Nepal relations •Bahrain–United Kingdom relations •Brazil–Denmark relations •Mozambique–Portugal relations •Cambodia–Japan relations •Australia–Thailand relations •Australia–South Africa relations •Australia–Philippines relations •Australia–Brazil relations LibStar ( talk) 00:07, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
My problem with articles about non-existent relations between certain countries is that, in the mad scramble to fabricate notability, we're getting misleading crap that isn't even about the (nonexistent) topic. Statements from business organizations unaffiliated with the governments of either country do not indicate relations between those two countries. A musician from country X performing a concert in country Y is not an example of X-Y relations. Things Ban Ki-Moon does in his capacity as head of the UN do not count as South Korea-Anything relations. Reyk YO! 00:26, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
all the deleted bilaterals contained little more than confirmation of diplomatic recognition. most of those countries have never had their leaders meet, never signed one agreement.
- Yep. And how am I supposed to know that? The absence of an article does not mean that automatically the relationship is minimal to none. It is simply a void. You ask how is an article on say Nepal-Liechenstein at all encyclopaedic
. It is because it answers the question "what are the relationships between Nepal and Liechtenstein?", even if the answer is "There are none". In this context, "there are none" is exactly the encyclopedic and relevant information that answers the question. No article means that there is no answer. Since bilateral relations are not indiscriminately open-ended, they are a limited and well defined matrix of relations, and since all of these relations are of encyclopedic interest (remember to avoid systemic bias: we may find Nepal-Liecthenstein relationships irrelevant, but for sure Nepalese and/or Lietchtenstein people don't agree), we ought to cover that. Inclusion of such information is also consistent with
WP:5P pillar number one, as a gazeteer-like information. --
cyclopia
speak!
14:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
are covered reasonably well in foreign relations of country x, articles. Fine for me, if such information is preserved. Can we at least establish the appropriate redirects, then?
We dont simply keep stubs because people of say Nepal or Liechtenstein would find the info WP:ITSUSEFUL. Notability must still be met.- It's not merely useful, it's encyclopedically useful, as per our first pillar. Merely being useful is not an argument (cookie recipes are useful but not meant to be in an encyclopedia), but an encyclopedia should also take into account its usefulness for readers, otherwise Wikipedia becomes an exercise in collective intellectual masturbation. Notability is a guideline/set of guidelines, meant to be followed with the occasional exception; WP:5P is our most fundamental policy. -- cyclopia speak! 20:49, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
I would like to have other editors look at /info/en/?search=Qi-Yo_Multi-Yoga. Currently, there is one editor who thinks the page should be deleted, but I think it just needs to be tagged with the notability tag and not deleted. We are obviously at disagreement and I think other editors should weigh in and give opinions on how the page can be improved, but I'm not sure how to ask other editors to do this. Thank you. Jheditorials ( talk) 22:57, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Can someone please complete the AfD for that article? Here is my rational for nominating it, thanks:
Not enough evidence of this shooting meeting WP:EVENT. While it did lead to four days of protest in Gray's neighborhood, after it subsided, practically all coverage of this shooting stopped completely. It only affected a small section of the city and had little to no impact on society. There is no high profile investigation or trial for the officers involved (like the Sean Bell shooting incident), no coverage of Gray's family filing a lawsuit or taking other judicial actions against the city (like the Shooting of Amadou Diallo), no references in any music, film, etc. (like the Death of Yusef Hawkins), and no national media frenzy (like Trayvon Martin or Rodney King). Those cases continued to receive coverage and discussion years after they happened. List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, March 2013 already has an entry for this shooting that is sufficient enough to cover it. 67.84.106.227 ( talk) 14:57, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello, the article Tommy Oliver was nominated for deletion, but a user is trying to get the discussion deleted in an obvious attempt to stop the nomination. Please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.236.68.115 ( talk) 06:49, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the protocol is for this; another User has created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HyperSoar, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hexatarsostinus and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tapinosaurus but none of them got properly listed. All appear more appropriate to Merge discussions anyway. YSSYguy ( talk) 12:08, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Every deletion debate has Users coming in and saying the same irrelevant arguments over and over again. It's really quite predictable. Can we have it so that each debate has links to:
Put these right at the top, and encourage people to read them before commenting. -- Harizotoh9 ( talk) 02:03, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello respected sir ,
please make the page more attractive and visible .we wish peoples will be happy study about Mr Rakesh Biswas hard work achievements and laurels for his country in such a small age . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rakesh biswas01 ( talk • contribs) 12:35, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Can someone please complete the nomination process for that article? Here is my reasons for nominating it:
There is no proof of him meeting WP:NACTOR, WP:ANYBIO, or WP:GNG. While he was in Law & Order: SVU for 10 years, he only appeared in 17 of the 200+ episodes that aired in that stretch and his character was never a major one who impacted the show significantly. All of his other roles were small, guest or supporting ones and he has no awards/nominations or notable mentioning in any entertainment news articles to show any fan base or contributions to the entertainment industry.
Thanks. 173.2.255.184 ( talk) 00:13, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
The article Justin McShane was marked for deletion earlier today but the tag was just removed by Ansh666.
Reasons for nomination for deletion are because the subject lacks notablility (WP:GNG), the article appears to be self-promotional (WP:SPIP), and the bulk of edits appear to have been made by accounts that are solely intended to edit this article.
[ Zoedawn] [ 50.241.186.9]
The following user has only edited this article and also added the subjects name to other articles.
[ 72.95.38.89]
It all smells of somebody merely promoting their young career.
I have no experience with nominations, so could somebody more knowledgable please continue the process to send the request for voting? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.103.184.76 ( talk) 19:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Jason Fernandez looks like a vanity article to me. It's about a guy who owns some restaurants in Tampa, Florida, and none of them are important enough to have an article, either. It was even worse before I took out a whole set of links to the restaurants' websites. It has been deleted twice already, it has to go to Article for Deletion now because somebody added some references, which are just restaurant reviews in the local newspaper. The guy exists, but it looks like he or somebody close to him is trying to use Wikipedia for free advertising. Thanks for your attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.228.138.207 ( talk) 19:06, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
There's an AfD (specifically, Fox Attacks) that I'm half-tempted to do a non-admin closure on (as there seems to be a consensus to keep). The only problem is, one of the major arguments to keep was made by a sock of a banned user ( Sportfan5000). Should I ignore the argument because it was made by someone who wasn't supposed to edit? ChromaNebula (talk) 15:33, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
@ Hahc21: one user proposed deletion, two objected. One poor counter argument given. Page deleted? discussion was here Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Margaret_Bird Jonpatterns ( talk) 11:45, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States v. Article Consisting of 50,000 Cardboard Boxes More or Less, Each Containing One Pair of Clacker Balls is currently running but every comment has been in support of it. I would like to ask if this could be closed early as it is currently also at DYK with an intent to run it on April fools day. The C of E God Save the Queen! ( talk) 21:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Multiple steps, fraught with potential for error. Discourages editors who don't want to negotiate this nonsense. -- Hobbes Goodyear ( talk) 00:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Can someone please complete the nomination process for me? Here is my reason for putting it up for deletion:
I see no evidence of this actress meeting WP:NACTOR, WP:ANYBIO, or WP:GNG. She only had two supporting roles and three single-episode guest appearances, no awards or nominations for these roles, no social media pages (e.g. Facebook or Twitter) to show any fan base, no contributions to the entertainment industry, and no significant coverage in any major entertainment news articles except for brief mentions that mainly focus on the films she was in or listings on movie websites like Rotten Tomatoes that have listings for virtually every actor in the world. 173.3.52.81 ( talk) 21:39, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Could someone please complete the nomination process?
I’ve explained my rationale on the article’s talk page [ [3]]. I would also like to point out that there is no indication that more than one of this gun even exists. “SMOLT” appears to be a name that was made up by the guns owner to refer to his customized revolver.
Thanks. 76.107.171.90 ( talk) 17:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
I didn't notice it at the time, but a page I nominated for deletion was the subject of a WP:Canvassing campaign.
-- Harizotoh9 ( talk) 10:45, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I have nominated Jennifer Grünwald for deletion the reasons below. Would someone please complete the process of nomination?
The subject of this article doesn't meet the notability creiteria for creative professionals. The subject has created no works of note, is not widely influential, nor has the subject's work gained any particular critical attention. The article also contains original research in the form of commentary from individual's acquainted with the subject, claims not substantiated with secondary sources. Claiming that a minor background character in a comic is named after a person should not be enough reason for inclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.242.8 ( talk) 01:05, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
We should probably put the kibosh on any new April Fool's nominations. I'm running out of terrible puns to put on the ones that pop up and they're slightly disruptive. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 07:49, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Only two people have contributed to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Machel Waikenda, and the discussion has been open for more than two weeks now. Dear all: Please contribute to the discussion. Thank you! — Unforgettableid ( talk) 01:00, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Need an admin to complete this nomination - the fifth. Reasons are on the talk page. 124.180.170.151 ( talk) 02:47, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
I nominated A Billion Hits for deletion, but the creator of the article is repeatedly trying to 'close' the discussion and remove the AFD template from the article. I'm not sure if this is the right venue, but I don't know what action I should take. Adabow ( talk) 05:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm just writing here to confirm that talk pages of AfD discussions are supposed to remain blank. I've had someone raise a concern over this, as several people have been using the talk page of a now closed AfD discussion as a place to discuss the deletion, the article in question, and so on. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 04:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
A blanket rule about AfD talk pages is unwarranted. Conversations there are sometimes productive, sometimes not, just like everywhere else on Wikipedia. Lagrange 613 16:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Can someone complete the nomination process for me? Here is my rationale for nominating it
No evidence of this school meeting notability guidelines. Being a private elementary school with unusually high tuition costs is not enough to merit notability and the statement "Since then the School has become regarded as one of the top elementary schools in the nation" is a fallacy. All of the references in the article are from the school's website and there is little to no mentioning of it in major education news sites and agencies. There are many other schools called "The Center of Early Education," none of which seem notable either. West Hollywood, California#Primary and secondary schools already mentions this school and the few content of this article can be added there if needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.3.52.87 ( talk) 20:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
82nd Street Academics is alive and well and I don't understand why it would be nominated for deletion Ronald Tompkins Executive Director www.82ndst.com
This may have come up before; if so I'd be curious to see the results of the previous discussions.
I've observed that when clicking on the "this article's entry" link from an article that is at AFD, the page that comes up, for instance this one, provides no instructions or examples of how one should proceed if they wish to express an opinion on the matter. There isn't even any ready indication of where one can go to learn more about what's going on.
I'd like to suggest that some boilerplate text be added when such pages are created making it more clear to those who may be unfamiliar with the AFD process what their options are, where they can go for more information, etc.
Off the top of my head, it could be something like: "This is the article for deletion discussion for (article name). This article has been nominated for deletion on the following grounds: (nomination reason). More information regarding Wikipedia's deletion policies can be found at (link). You are welcome to express an opinion regarding whether this article should be kept. Typically opinions include one or more of the following summations: Keep, Delete, Merge (linked appropriately), Redirect (linked appropriately), etc."
TL;DR: I think it would benefit the project if AFD dicussion pages included an explanation of what was going on and options for expressing one's opinion, for those who might be unfamiliar with how AFD works. DonIago ( talk) 13:29, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm going to go out on a limb and call this a consensus to revise the AFD discussion pages even if we may have varying thoughts on the particulars. This is a bit beyond the scope of my normal interactions with the project...what do we do next? DonIago ( talk) 15:13, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Can someone please complete the nomination for me? Thanks. 124.180.170.151 ( talk) 22:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
124.180.170.151 ( talk) 14:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I nominated an article yesterday for deletion because none of the links on the page went anywhere and because the airline doesn't actually exist in any other sources. When I nominated it for speedy deletion it was rejected by User:Randykitty who pretty much dismissed my evidence and refused to do anything about it other than tell me to post something on here. Please let me know what you think I should do. This is the first article I've ever nominated for deletion and it seems a lot harder than I expected considering I'm nominating a fake airline's wikipedia page. Monopoly31121993 ( talk) 10:36, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Need someone to complete these for me. Thanks. 203.12.30.74 ( talk) 04:28, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Penny is the Irish-Norwegian owner of Bolt the dog! Nobody would search for this as an article title. 86.136.110.44 ( talk) 11:57, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Because of the disputed neutrality of the Guba mass grave, and, as the article says, no foreign or third-party experts have looked at the site and there is no evidence that the bones belong to massacre victims and it remains a political weapon more than anything, this article should be deleted, because there is no connection with the site to any historic event, and no neutral history has ever called it a genocide. -- 216.125.48.225 ( talk) 13:34, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't really have a stake in the matter, as all I did was remove the prod tag on the article. I should have voted, but I didn't. However, this article was deleted with only one delete vote. Is that really enough to establish consensus? ~ EDDY ( talk/ contribs)~ 13:48, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
unless im missing somthing, one word and a picture does not make an article https://wo.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weenus also, why do the deletion proposal tags not work on a non-English article.-- Stewievader2 ( talk) 06:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Could an admin look into an ongoing trainwreck of an AfD. This article was renamed to solar roads without consensus in the middle of an AfD and there is no way to revert since there is a problem when trying to rename. We need the article renamed back to Solar Roadways while the AfD is still ongoing. Nearly everyone who !voted in the AfD did so under the understanding it had the name and scope of Solar Roadways (a company) and not a concept (solar roads). The person who did the rename late in the AfD did so without consensus or discussion with anyone. -- Green C 22:02, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia_talk:Miscellany_for_deletion#Draft_space_XFD_discussions for a discussion on the best locale for Draft: XFD's. — xaosflux Talk 15:15, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
I recently fixed the AfD template for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HSC Examination 2014 Question Leak. It looks like it was malformed, as it had been done incorrectly so that when Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HSC Examination 2014 Question Leak (2nd nomination) was opened, it didn't immediately show up. The second one is the one with the most traffic, but the first one was opened just minutes before the other. Anyone have any opinion as to which one we should keep in this instance? I'm leaning towards proceedurally closing the first as a malformed nomination (it was cut and pasted from another AfD, so the correct name wasn't even on it) so we can have conversation occur only in one AfD without any big confusion. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 13:14, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Under what circumstances is it correct to delete an article for a subject which would otherwise pass WP:GNG when the objections are actionable (needs citations, too detailed, needs wikification, contains copyvio, too much trivia, etc.)?-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:53, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Context: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jabari Parker's high school career (2nd nomination) -- NeilN talk to me 05:11, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
In this AfD dicussion, two questions arose related to prior AfD rulings:
Neither issue is explicitly addressed in guidelines. I'd appreciate opinions on these ideas. Agyle ( talk) 17:38, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
The article Mutual intelligence was created on December 7, 2011 at 23:30 and was last edited the next day at 07:14. The article consists of exactly two sentences and cites no sources or references. My attempts at locating any reliable sources or references using the term "mutual intelligence" (alone, as well as cross-referenced with the term "artificial intelligence, which is one of the categories in which this article is included and ostensibly integral to the topic judging by the text) have only turned up usages of the term that are clearly unrelated to the topic in question, and sources that clearly do not qualify as reliable, such as a youtube video where the term is clearly an invention of the user. In addition, I found articles on other user-editable encyclopedia sites that consist of the exact same text in the Wikipedia article in question. Based on this, I believe the subject of the article is a neologism at best and probably does not meet the necessary criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. ProgHead777 ( talk) 04:18, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Two weeks ago, I closed an AfD with just "Delete". Now, somebody has (quite reasonably) asked me to elaborate on why I closed the way I did. What's the etiquette here? I know the template says No further edits should be made to this page., but still, it seems like the AfD page is the most useful place to put my expanded explanation. Any reason not to put it there, two weeks later? -- RoySmith (talk) 18:24, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Newspaper search engines by country. This is a start. Any feedback or modifications appreciated. -- Green C 14:36, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Why are some AfDs not being closed or relisted after the 7-day deadline, even if a consensus has been reached or more discussion is clearly needed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.211.170 ( talk) 12:46, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Hmm. Is there a way to tell when an AfD page exists but is not properly formatted? As in, the absence of CAT:AfD but not a previously closed discussion. Pinging User:Cyberpower678, as he maintains the current AfD report. Ansh 666 07:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
There seems to be disagreement between the adminstrator instructions and WP:Talk page layout. I have started a thread at Wikipedia talk:Talk page layout#AFD history to try to resolve this. Spinning Spark 12:47, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
The "List of Playboy Playmates of X" articles likely should be deleted. I've never seen anyone attempt such an AfD, so would like to hear what more experienced editors have to say on such a WP:MULTIAFD situation. -- Ronz ( talk) 16:07, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks everyone for the responses. Please keep them coming.
My take from all this is that it's probably best to start with a single AfD, notifying all the creators of all the articles about it and the possibility of a multiple-article AfD to follow. -- Ronz ( talk) 20:06, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Would someone please complete this deletion nomination? Thanks. 184.147.140.76 ( talk) 19:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm hoping the community would discuss the deletion of @evleaks. I have contributed to this page in good faith, despite that I feel it's rather promotional and questionable if it establishes notability. (The subject is merely a blogger who leaks things. There are many, many bloggers who leak things and they don't all need Wikipedia articles.)
I soon realized the vast majority of the article is written and maintained by the subject's executive assistant, Wikipedian Cclewandowski. Here are Cclewandowski's LinkedIn and Twitter profiles establishing he is @evleaks' executive assistant:
- LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/pub/corey-lewandowski/3a/397/581 - Twitter: https://twitter.com/CCLewandowski
On opening a discussion about whether the article should be deleted, the discussion was removed by @evleaks himself and the following was posted by him on my Talk page:
“ | WikiGeek2, please find something better to do with your time. I will get 100 different people to edit this entry. 1000. Doesn't really matter. What will make you go away and troll another page?
Love, @evleaks
|
” |
Bottom Line: @evleaks is attempting to control his article as a promotion page through intimidation and manipulation. Please advise what to do or if you agree with deletion. In good faith, and thank you. Wikigeek2 ( talk) 18:55, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure how this should be addressed. An editor says he created an article; though the record is murky as you can see here. But for the reasons he stated in his edit summary, he seems to want to gut it. Can someone who thinks they know how to best address (I'm not sure) step in? Thanks. -- Epeefleche ( talk) 03:00, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
The person in question is an ordinary industrial chemist, like thousands of others. He is completely irrelevant for an encyclopedic project. It is believed that the author just tried to discuss himself. Deletion is suggested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.64.254.240 ( talk) 10:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Could someone please point me to the guideline/page for essay deletion? Searched but failed, cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:46, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I'd like to ask if someone could finalize the deletion request. The justification is here. Thanks. -- 89.14.24.193 ( talk) 11:19, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
People who dismiss GATA have obviously not given detailed appraisal to the facts available such as those in The Gold Cartel by Dimitri Speck which is a highly acclaimed appraisal of long term intra day price trends. As a consequence their reasons for dismissing GATA are usually based on unsubstantiated 'points of view'. Deletion of GATA would reduce the credibility of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roberthorse ( talk • contribs) 12:31, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
I've cited the general rule that Reality show contestants, unless they win/place/show, or have some other notability per WP:CREATIVE, don't get their an article. Can we word-smith a line about that? Bearian ( talk) 22:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Please see Template talk:Old AfD multi#This template (and all similar templates) put the attention on the wrong link. Thank you for your comments, Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 05:07, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
I've started a discussion over at WT:Deletion policy#Question about WP:NACD that may interest the passing reader. Thanks, Ansh 666 18:31, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
I nominated a proposed article, located at Center for HIV Law and Policy for Speedy Deletion on the grounds that it is both promotional in nature and is also about an organization that is neither substantial nor well-known. It appears that as soon as the author deleted the Speedy Deletion tag, the nomination was removed from the list of articles being nominated for speedy deletion. I was unable to use the tool at WP:AFD to nominate the page, I'm assuming because it has not actually been approved as an article. Ormr2014 ( talk) 21:55, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
I nominated Memory storage density for deletion. This article has been out of date for the last three years, and is unlikely to receive or to deserve the ongoing maintenance it requires. I request that someone else (editor or registered user) completes this process. 71.128.35.13 ( talk) 19:14, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Given that memory storage density is clearly a notable topic, not an attack page, not an advertizement, has sources and constant scholarship, is not associated with a Pokemon or youtube channel or ethnic conflict, etc. etc. etc., there is not a snowball's chance in hell it's getting deleted. I'm removing the template. @ 71.128.35.13:, if you believe the page is out of date, rather than trying to have it deleted, you should try updating it with more recent information. -- erachima talk 19:30, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Ansh 666 21:54, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Just why exactly are we bikeshedding the snot out of IAR? Protonk ( talk) 23:08, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
If I thought it would result in a big discussion I would not have mentioned it. Was just trying to say good job. Chillum 23:10, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I would like to officially nominate this article for deletion as it has remained empty since its creation on 19 July. On top of that, the CONCACAF has not officially announced its qualification process for the World Cup, therefore, making this article not notable right now. I would like to request a registered user or an editor complete this process for me. Thanks. 71.162.68.219 ( talk) 14:55, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
can you please delete the above page as it is full of self promotion and she is clearly advertising herself? she is not known or has any fame whatsoever. G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.22.228.31 ( talk) 04:32, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
If you nominate an article for AfD, is it proper/standard to submit a vote as well? Upjav ( talk) 18:12, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I want to nominate Shusha massacre for deletion as there is no source about this massacre in western sources. The majority of sources comes from only armenian claimed books. Moreover, article includes sources from books such as Michael P. Croissant. The Armenia-Azerbaijan Conflict: Causes and Implications. Greenwood Publishing Group, 1998 where doesn't talk about this massacre but as conflict.
The article also covers only armenian view instead of both, which breaches Wikipedia's NPOV. -- Yacatisma ( talk) 16:55, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't think that the nominator opened this AfD correctly. Their is also a weirdly formatted notice on the article's page. Can an admin, or someone savvy about the procedures please fix this somehow? -- Ssilvers ( talk) 19:15, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I can't see the deletion discussions for 14 August (2014) listed on either current or old deletion discussions. Could an admin take a look at this, please? AdventurousMe ( talk) 03:02, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Requesting parts II and III to be completed for the above entry, as per [11]. 109.176.223.232 ( talk) 14:42, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
I nominated Gennady_Stolyarov_II for deletion and need a registered user to complete the nomination process. Thank you.
Hello, I proposed an article for AfD [Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Citycon] at the same time that another editor proposed it for speedy deletion. The article was speedily deleted, but the AfD remains up. Do I just close it with a speedy delete decision? Upjav ( talk) 18:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
What can I do for it not to be deleted? I really want it to be accepted.Or please someone edit it for me.. so that it can be accepted?. 112.198.234.141 ( talk) 10:48, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
In poking around in the AfD archives, I was surprised to come across a case (several years ago) which was summarily closed as "keep" by the editor (incidentally an admin) who had created the page under discussion (!). I was even more surprised that the instructions do not explicitly forbid this, since they define an uninvolved administrator as "one who has not participated in the deletion discussion". As an administrator myself I would not dream of closing an AfD if I was "involved" according to the more general definition at WP:UNINVOLVED. In fact, since that page is a policy and this page is not even officially a guideline, I believe that the wording here has no effect. In order to make this clear, I am changing it:
Better ideas are welcome. Zero talk 13:17, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello. Can you please delete the redirect article so click here: Spartan race (company). I think we can add a tag using speedily deletion edit for the Spartan race (company). Thank you. Bryancyriel ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:54, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PrimeFaces needs to be split into a second nomination. Sorry, no time, must go. – Fayenatic L ondon 18:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old/Open AfDs, August 30th is missing. I'm guessing Mathbot messed up somehow, since it seems to be what fills in those pages. Can someone please fix them so that August 30th is listed. I tried adding a header for August 30th at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old/Open AfDs but I think I messed it up (linking to the wrong day), and Mathbot just removed it. I'm not sure whether trying again and linking to the right day would work, so I figured it was better to just ask here and have someone who knows what they are doing fix the problem. Calathan ( talk) 16:46, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
The page first says an IP editor should post both on the article's talk page and then on this talk page, and then contradicts itself by saying it's not possible for an IP editor to complete the process; the template says an IP editor should post only on the article's talk page. So that is three paragraphs all saying different things! Which instruction is the correct one?-- greenrd ( talk) 23:13, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dina Rae (singer) was created on 4 September 2014, and has attracted some comment. Although opened two weeks ago, it's not been closed or relisted, but it's not transcluded to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 September 4 or any other daily page. What's happened here - I thought that there was a bot that made sure that open AfDs were transcluded to one of the daily pages? There's a thread at Talk:Dina Rae (singer)#Requested move where they were told not to move the page until the AfD closed; they're still waiting for that, and complaints about the delay have been posted there. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 19:12, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
This person is not notable and most of the sources are primary and the ones that are not are not even sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orasis ( talk • contribs) 00:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
As an unregistered user I cannot complete the AFD process myself, so following the instructions at WP:AFD I am requesting that someone complete the process for Pizda (chemical). The rationale for the nomination is on the article's talk page, Talk:Pizda (chemical). Thank you. 71.185.49.96 ( talk) 11:54, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
I just had a somewhat frustrating experience with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dmitriy Grigoriyev. After being up for deletion for nearly a month, it was closed as "no consensus". While I don't fault the closer for his decision, isn't this slightly absurd? It's clear the topic isn't going to attract much interest if renominated, and if all the single-purpose account who created the article could bother to do was remove the AfD template — well, that's his problem. Moreover, I do recall discussion about discussions with no votes cast ending up as soft deletes (at least as a general rule), and although I'm not sure how that turned out, perhaps it's time to codify that, given situations like this one. - Biruitorul Talk 16:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
For what it's worth, Carlossuarez46 et al., I've renominated ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dmitriy Grigoriyev (2nd nomination)), although, because I dared include a couple of other trivial topics in my nomination, I've drawn incredulous gasps from those who invariably put process above results. - Biruitorul Talk 13:38, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello can you help me to delete this page Gasaneri. Because there is no village like this. Also how I can delete the page because I am not an administrator? Can someone help me?-- Nəcməddin Kəbirli ( talk) 13:57, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
At the moment, no fewer than four of the last seven daily AfD pages are showing up in Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded - basically, this means that the total length of the AfD articles to be put on the page gets so long that they can no longer all be transcluded, and the final AfD articles on the page only show up as links. This immediately makes looking at the AfDs concerned (no matter commenting on them, if necessary) a far longer process, particularly as the daily AfD page concerned is so long that it can take half a minute to reload whenever one goes back to it. And we don't really want to be doing anything that discourages editors from looking through AfD discussions. There are a number of at least theoretically possible solutions to this problem - increasing the maximum allowed length of pages after template inclusions, cutting down somehow on the number of AfDs, cutting down somehow on the length of AfDs, relisting fewer AfDs (particularly already long ones), spinning off relisted AfDs onto a separate page, and no doubt more. Each seems to have some difficulties or drawbacks - but surely we can come up with something that on balance improves the current situation? PWilkinson ( talk) 16:33, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
A bot could measure the length of a given day's AfDs and if too long split it up into #1, #2 etc. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 17:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
After repeatedly failing to load today's log over the past 15 minutes for the first time ever, I'd support a split of some sort - having a separate log for relisted discussions sounds like a good idea, though a separate log for each category, while harder to maintain (categories can be switched easily), would probably be a better long-term solution if the volume of AfDs continues to increase. Ansh 666 18:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
If people would stop contesting prod's, if we'd expand CSD, we'd have fewer of these. So few articles nominated for deletion that are kept are ever more than crap or permastubs with tags forever that it seems much effort for little reward and the community's efforts would be better spent identifying unquestionably notable topics and encouraging editors to write there. But, alas, the system we put in place when every article was precious is cumbersome at the 5 million mark. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 23:31, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
One thing that would help is to stop relisting articles over and over and over again. In most cases these are nominations with one or two delete !votes and no keeps, and should be soft-deleted as though they're expired PRODs. Reyk YO! 22:58, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Could AFD possibly be based off of the AFC tool Special:NewPagesFeed?-- Coin945 ( talk) 18:15, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
One (partial) solution is too make the templates used in each AfD "lighter". It is not always easy to see what would help and what wouldn't, many people here rae much better versed in this than me, but I've tried something nevertheless. If we replace the "Find sources" template used in each AfD with the new Template:Find sources AFD, does it help? It removes the "free images" search, which is IMO never useful for an AfD. The "newspapers" search also doesn't give any useful results for me, but that may be a country-specific thing; can American (or other) editors confirm that this is useful for them? Otherwise it can go as well.
Now, I don't know whether this really helps with the template include size, I just offer it as a possible solution. if this would help, one would need to change Template:Afd2 (replacing :({{Find sources|{{{pg}}}}}) with :({{Find sources AFD|{{{pg}}}}})). Perhaps someone can check if more tweaks and trimming are possible. Fram ( talk) 13:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
I have checked this a bit more, and it seems to reduce the number of standard templates on 1 AfD from 11 to 10, or some 9% (in number, perhaps not in size). I'll do the test by replcing Find sources with Find Sources AFD on one day, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 September 16. At the moment, the last AfD that is visible is the one for Tsakana Nkandih, and the first that is not expanded is the one for Robert Lyn Nelson.
Feel free to trout me if this go horribly wrong, and to undo my changes if they are deemed to be nagetive or unwanted. Fram ( talk) 14:12, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
All right, I have now done the test, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 September 16 now shows 12 further AfDs (last one shown is now Robert Bianco)! It still exceeds the limit, so further improvements are needed, but (as long as no one wants "free images" back for AfDs) it is a step in the right direction. I'll change the AfD2 template so that new AfDs automatically get the "Find sources AfD" template; again, feel free to revert me if necessary. Fram ( talk) 14:31, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm proud to say that with further rewrites of the template (without losing any further fucntionality, and keeping the underlying "Template:Find sources multi" subtemplates) I have now eliminated (or seriously reduced) the problem. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 September 16 now is again fully functional. Every new AfD gets this new, lighter template; if any older pages still have the transclusion limit problem, you'll need to change the old find sourecs template to the new "find sources AFD" template on every single AfD on that page though. Fram ( talk) 07:17, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Wow. Yes, those daily pages are getting way too long. Looking over a few random pages, I see two easy fixes. First, almost all debates get three or four lines that "This debate has been included in the list of foo-related deletions". Now creating such lists and groupings sounds very useful to me... but is it really necessary to mention their existence in each AFD debate? Does a daily AFD page benefit from having 200 lines informing us that <some debate> has been put on <some list>? I somehow doubt that.
Second, and more important, is the relistings (and this has been a problem for several years now). Relisting a debate to "generate a more thorough discussion" sounds like a nice idea, but in practice it usually doesn't work. Looking over a few daily AFD pages, I don't see any evidence of the "relist" tag generating a more thorough discussion. So to get AFD back under control, this practice of mass relisting should probably be removed. Either treat such articles as expired PRODs (and remove them and let WP:REFUND restore them if anyone minds) or treat them as "no consensus" and keep them, but don't just throw them back in the hope that a second round of process would give more of an outcome than the first round of process. >Radiant< 15:35, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Vern Hughes. Can't complete to AfD. Rationale is on the talk page. 124.180.144.121 ( talk) 03:51, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
As I am not a registered user I request that someones completes the AFD-process on this article. I put the rationale also on the talk page.
This article can be deleted, because it is of no relevance. The person does not meet the notability criteria for basketball. He was for a very short time with a TBL-team (which is not listed in the criteria-leagues), but did not play at all. The article is not up to date. Also some links are broken. The first part about his "Early Life" is not based on facts. He never played for the Turkish national team. Again sources are missing. So I propose to delete the article.
193.134.132.20 ( talk) 12:29, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
I am unable to create correctly Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Concave hull, probably because I have used "Show preview" while writing the reason of deleting]]. Thanks. D.Lazard ( talk) 17:42, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
This is a silly nom which was improperly set up on 19 September, but never I think on the listings. It has none the less attracted 3 Keeps. Can someone shut it down - it really is too silly to deserve listing properly. Thanks, Johnbod ( talk) 14:49, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
I came across the State atheism article around a week ago - the term "State atheism" has no historical consensus, as it is but an 'idea' (or 'accusation') invented by Christian fundamentalists, but the article doesn't mention this. The article is lengthily written and sourced, but most all of the sources are "people did/said things" references to events unrelated to any "State atheism" banner. This is an example of Wikipedia being used to promote an agenda in a rather weasel way: the article title is the central claim, and its content and references are "proof" of causality (although the references cited mention none).
This article shouldn't exist unless it is rewritten as the fringe idea that it is, but this has already been extensively 'covered' in the main Atheism article. I left a talk-page message to this effect a week ago, and it has been met with silence thus far. Should I nominate this for deletion, and if so, in citing what criteria? This seems to fall through the cracks. Thanks, and cheers. THEPROMENADER 07:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
So, antireligion as opposed to actual atheism, yeah, I guess (although the former page seems to be just as badly sourced). Hrm, this entire thing is messy. ansh 666 20:58, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
I need someone to complete the AFD for Ogie Banks. Thanks. -- 108.211.72.67 ( talk) 06:44, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
He seems like a minor VA to me; realistically, the article should be gone, but we have to deal with the bureaucracy wonks who want every minor-ass cartoon guy to have a crappy "article" consisting solely of a role-list. You want to make the nom, go ahead; I won't be crying over it. -- 108.211.72.67 ( talk) 18:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
WP:AFDHOWTO says "If you are unregistered, you should complete step I, note the justification for deletion on the article's talk page, then post a message at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion requesting that someone else complete the process." I have completed these steps and am now requesting assistance on Steps II & III. Thank you. 104.32.193.6 ( talk) 18:05, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I've created an essay on Gutting an article during deletion discussion.
You may find it interesting reading at: User:Cirt/Gutting.
Cheers,
— Cirt ( talk) 18:22, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
I recently added a deletion tag to an inaccurate article (Phyllis Cheng) and added the justification for deletion to its talk page. Can a Wikipedian please complete the process? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.26.114 ( talk) 06:32, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
The 2012 Michigan Bucks season still hasn't been deleted. Can an admin please delete it. Kingjeff ( talk) 05:15, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
There's a link on the AfD template which directs readers to WP:Guide to deletion which includes, at WP:EDITATAFD:
The instructions in this article, at WP:AFDEQ, say:
Could we have some consistency: are we asked to add notes to top and bottom of an AfD discussion when a page is moved, or is it not necessary? I've just done so at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rose Anne McGreevy. Pam D 14:01, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
As above, I suggest transcluding discussions to the article talk page. The would put all of the discussion about the article on its talk page, instead having to follow a separate link to view it. If the page is kept, the record of the discussion is left where people expect to see it, and if deleted, it's just one less transclusion and doesn't harm anything. Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 18:15, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
I have just created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Palestinian stone-throwing, however, it does not show up on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 November 2. How do I make it do that? Thanks for any help, Huldra ( talk) 20:59, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm just curious if the article Jessie Lilley is notable enough. This person edits a small magazine that doesn't even have its own page (Mondo Cult) and the citations seem to be from Amazon (where anyone can sell a book), the IMDB and youtube which don't seem to be viable citations as well as a blog and the magazine's own website which i'm pretty sure are not allowed per the wikipedia's guidelines for citations. Cthwikia ( talk) 03:46, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Wow really? So companies can use their own websites to give themselves notability or people can use their own personal websites as citations as well? I never knew that. This explains why pretty much anyone or anything can have its own wikipedia page. Cthwikia ( talk) 16:28, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
For those users -like me nowadays- who participate a lot in AfDs, could it be possible to install a link to every deletion discussion page (I mean on each article's own deletion discussion entry) through which one could return directly to the current "Articles for deletion" page, instead of making two clicks. (Sounds lazy, no? :-) Regards. -- Why should I have a User Name? ( talk) 22:30, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leon miguel: Leon miguel is a redirect, not an article. The AfD tag was mistakenly placed on this redirect which also had the text of the article underneath it. So, just earlier I moved the AfD tag to the real article Leon Miguel and removed it from the redirect. So, the seven-day discussion timer needs to be reset to when I placed the tag. However this is tracked, it needs to be corrected for this discussion. Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 05:52, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether Sound envelope should be nominated for deletion. I don't think it technically matches the criteria for deletion. However:
I feel like it should probably be deleted, and then a redirect should be set up to ADSR envelope, but a strict reading of the Wikipedia policy seems to indicate it should instead be improved. What's the correct course of action for this page? sedm0784 ( talk) 11:13, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gluten-sensitive_idiopathic_neuropathies
I've just found sufficient support for its notability. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 01:21, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
A user with an AfD Closer permission would be a non-admin who is given the right to close AfDs as delete and to call controversial AfD debates. This would not impact admin rights. Rather, it would be an expanded permission similar to rollback rights. It could be granted to trusted users by admins (similar to how rollback and reviewer rights are given) or through community consensus (like RFA but much more simplified and streamlined).
I’ve noticed that we have a bit of a shortage of admins, and that many AfDs stay open far longer than needed, even after a clear consensus has emerged. I believe that by giving trusted non-admins this right, the AfD process could be speeded up. Is this at all a good idea? Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 04:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
There is an AFD [12] which is currently very closely split. It has been relisted twice (total of 22 days open so far) and closes in 7 hours. There have only been 7 votes so far. I invite you to comment before this AFD closes. -- Obsidi ( talk) 14:24, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
This AfD needs attention. It's been open since October 12th and has slipped through the cracks. I'd handle it myself, but I am a participant. czar ⨹ 03:02, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
New IP 86.158.182.11 ( talk · contribs) has put four articles up for AfD in the space of 25 minutes, all incompletely formed (no deletion discussion pages). Not sure if this is a regular editor slumming as an IP or what. Someone should either finish the nominations or remove the AfD notices from the articles. (I'm the main contributor for two of them so I don't want to touch them myself.) Wasted Time R ( talk) 02:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
There is a discussion about non-admins closing discussions as "delete" at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#NAC Deletes. See the subsection Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#So, this is the question we're asking, where the opening poster wrote, "Should non-adminstrators be allowed to close deletion discussions as delete?" Cunard ( talk) 19:27, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Recently, several events (shootings, to be exact) have been added to the Firearms DELSORT page - they have been subsequently removed, because that is not what this page is for. Firearms DELSORT should not be used for an event just because firearms were used (e.g. Columbine High School massacre or Battle of the Bulge); directly related events (e.g. Gun shows in the United States) are fine.
Legitimate uses include but are not limited to for individual weapons, weapon series, or classifications (e.g. M1 Garand, Kalashnikov rifle, or Carbine); cartridges (e.g. .30-06 Springfield); manufacturers (e.g. Bushmaster Firearms International or Mikhail Kalashnikov); obviously linked legal, social, or mechanical concepts (e.g. Open carry, Celebratory gunfire, or Bolt action); organizations which are based on or involved with firearms (e.g. Shooting range or National Rifle Association); and maybe select end users which are intimately related to firearms (e.g. FPSRussia). All examples here should be easily notable.
Thanks, ansh 666 19:15, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I did a non-admin closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamie Paterson. I must have broken the log page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 December 13 somehow. Every listing after the one I closed is now enclosed in the same box as the one I closed. I can't see anything wrong with how I did it. Can somebody please fix this, trout me, and tell me how to never do it again? Thanks! -- MelanieN ( talk) 02:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
To
Wikipedia Page
Respected Sir/Madam
Please Publish "Aniket Gupta" Karate Player Page.
If any query for Aniket Gupta pLease check www.facebook.com/SENSEIANIKET or Search in Google and also call +91-9999433982 and Email - [email protected]
Best Regard
Team Aniket Gupta — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karateaniket ( talk • contribs) 16:00, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
In section III of the table it says {{subst:afd3 | pg=NominationName}}, but when creating an AfD the syntax seems to have changed to simply {{NominationName}}. AadaamS ( talk) 09:30, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
{{
subst:afd3}}
template is for use on the daily list, all it does is to transclude the nomination that was created at step II, without modifying it in any way: if it's misformed on the nomination page, it will also be misformed on the daily list. If you are not seeing the title, links etc., that indicates that step II was not correctly performed: these items are added to the individual nom page when you create it using {{
subst:afd2}}
. So, when nominating
We Got Married (Khuntoria) episodes, you created
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/We Got Married (Khuntoria) episodes, but there is no evidence that you used {{
subst:afd2}}
to do that. Your
other AfD noms all seem to have been done the same way, and
TerryAlex (
talk ·
contribs) has gone to a lot of trouble to fix them up for you.{{subst:afd2|pg={{subst:SUBPAGENAME}}|cat=U|text=Reason}} ~~~~
|text=Reason
replace the word "Reason" with the text of your nomination, i.e. |text=This article cherry-picks out a list of episodes of a TV variety show ...
- do not sign that. You should also change |cat=U
to something like |cat=M
or |cat=F
but if you're unsure, leave it alone. Save it, and then you can proceed to
Step III. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
11:37, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
How does one nominate multiple AfD's? It's too much to nominate each one individually especially as they are related. They are New South Wales Surge, Victoria Maidens, Western Australia Angels, Queensland Brigade and Adelaide Arsenal. Speedy Climber ( talk) 08:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability. Lacks citations from secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject. There are multiple press releases, which Wikipedia does not cite as reliable sources, and also the Alexa Internet link is not a verifiable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kcmaher ( talk • contribs) 16:01, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
I want to nominate Queen of Blood (2014 film) for deletion but since I don't have an account the instructions told me to come here. It says here "If you are unregistered, you should complete step I, note the justification for deletion on the article's talk page, then post a message at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion requesting that someone else complete the process." So after I put up that template can someone create the page for me? 64.230.233.196 ( talk) 17:22, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Or to help thier friends promote themselves or to defend articles that they created where they admitted the sourcing was weak. You know editors and adminstrators have thier own agendas too. The only problem is they can weld power here while the rest of us can't. I have a nephew who is in a band. I can find three citations online about them. Now if I was your buddy and asked for the page (the same way Chris himself asked Tokyogirl79 for the Queen of Blood page) then I could get a page. Because with three citations that is more then what is listed on the Queen of Blood page that are not citations taken from the Blood for Irina page from before the film was produced, or a self promoting interview on a music site or a dead link. Its funny how even editors violate the rules of the wikipedia such as the first two listed here /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Your_first_article#Things_to_avoid . Oh and by the way, I gave my reasons for why i want to nominate the page on this talk page but instead an editor responded by telling me to get a lfe and go away. Yeah welcome to the wikipedia. So classy 64.230.233.196 ( talk) 19:00, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
I have opened a discussion
here on the subject.
Dea
db
eef
03:37, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Could somebody complete the Afd for Noble Order of Saint George of Rougemont, please? 79.97.226.247 ( talk) 17:09, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi, the instructions say I have to ask for this because I'm editing as an IP. Can someone please do steps II and III for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maypole framework (relating to Maypole framework). My rationale is:
Thank you, 176.25.140.245 ( talk) 11:54, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi, the instructions say I have to ask for this because I'm editing as an IP. Can someone please do steps II and III for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George_Manross ("GGM"). My rationale is that it does not meet WP:BIO. Thank you, -- 71.128.35.13 ( talk) 20:50, 14 January 2015 (UTC)(UTC)