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 65 | Archive 66 | Archive 67 | Archive 68 | Archive 69 | Archive 70 | → | Archive 75 |
The article Microsoft v. Internal Revenue Service is incorrectly listed under Category:AfD debates (Organisation, corporation, or product) even though it is a classified as a United States law/tax stub article. How can this be corrected to bring it to the attention of Wikipedians interested in law and taxation? Thanks in advance. Ottawahitech ( talk) 05:38, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
{{
WikiProject Law}}
to
Talk:Microsoft v. Internal Revenue Service, the AfD would be added to
Wikipedia:WikiProject Law/Article alerts within 24 hours. Similarly, adding {{
WikiProject Taxation}}
to the talk page would get it listed at
Wikipedia:WikiProject Taxation/Article alerts. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
00:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
As evidenced in the above discussion some (many?) editors who nominate Articles For Deletion do not categorize AFDs correctly. It can be argued that this is a problem since the deletion discussion is not brought up to the attention of those interested in the topic.
In this particular case the nominator has made this mistake in the past, but it seems there is no mechanism to alert him/her to this mistake? Ottawahitech ( talk) 17:37, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
{{
REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD}}
template recognises only one categorisation letter, and some AfDs may fall within two (or more) of the ten available: for example,
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arvind Narayanan is under "T" (Science and technology) but could also be placed under "B" (Biographical). --
Redrose64 (
talk)
15:38, 5 January 2015 (UTC)We notify creators that their article is up for deletion, in large part so that they have the opportunity to defend their work. However, as many such authors are new to Wikipedia and may not understand the process, I think it would be good to have a standard "your article was kept" notification where there is a SK/Keep/No consensus (keep) decision. This would let them know that they don't have to worry about the article any longer and can get back to editing. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 18:27, 16 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/New America Media. My rationale is that it does not meet WP:ORG.- 71.128.35.13 ( talk) 20:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Not sure how to list No-go_area for deletion as it keeps coming up red-linked. The article is over 8 yrs old and still lacks sufficient context to identify the subject of the article. Other reasons on the article's TP include:
Thanks in advance for your help. Atsme☯ Consult 16:50, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
{{
subst:afd1}}
to the article, you'll (correctly) get a box with a redlink to "this article's entry", but ignore that. Further down that box, there are four numbered steps; step 2 says "Preloaded debate OR ... " - click on "Preloaded debate" and it gives an edit window containing {{subst:afd2|pg={{subst:SUBPAGENAME}}|cat=U|text=Reason}} ~~~~
All you need do is replace the word "Reason" with your actual reasoning. When you save, it'll fill in the article name for you, in place of that {{subst:SUBPAGENAME}}
. This is most of
WP:AFDHOWTO step II. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
21:31, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
§ Old discussions for 18 January (or 17, 19) does not list Warren S. Brown, maybe that's a mistake/bug? -- 82.136.210.153 ( talk) 06:39, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Debito Arudou was recently nominated by an obvious troll SPA with a speedy keep result, but I'm a bit concerned that some of the SPA's arguments (only notable for one event...) may have actually been valid and still potentially need to be addressed. The problem is that now the article's talk page is essentially permanently engraved with "This article has been nominated for deletion twice, with results ranging from keep to speedy keep." without explaining the context of those results.
This same message appears on the talk page of every article that has ever been graffitoed on April 1.
Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 08:47, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi all,
I have closed (
WP:NAC) a heated debate over
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heather Bresch M.B.A. controversy? I think it should be now discussed in
WP:RFD as now the page is a redirect. The discussion was done in the
article's talk page. Is it done fine? -
The Herald (
here I am)
16:15, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Please only perform non-admin closings where you fully understand how to decide and implement the closing. Anything even remotely tricky should be left to an admin to handle. This is an odd closure to say the least, generally we don't close in such a way that another debate is immediately needed. Chillum 18:20, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Please see and comment on this discussion. As quite a number of AfDs are finishing up with no or very little input, it seems worthwhile to agree on how these cases are closed : Noyster (talk), 23:32, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Could somebody please put in my arguments to delete this article? My arguments are:
Mainly, my argument is that even if we could find better sources, this community - whether historical or contemporary - just doesn't appear to meet notability standards. Thanks. 58.106.224.45 ( talk) 02:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
The Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nam Taehyun (2nd nomination) page has been open for over six weeks. When it first opened people were invited to comment but only one other editor besides myself cared to and the consensus was to delete based on lack of notability. I am not an admin that can delete so I can't close the page and don't know why it is taking so long...is there something else I was supposed to do or are the admins just that backed up? Thank you Peachywink ( talk) 04:20, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I've never proposed an AfD before, and I'm not sure whether The Castle Inn is suitable, or whether an alternative should be pursued. In my view the article subject is not sufficiently notable, and the article also may be spam (the creator of the article has only made one edit that's not connected to the article subject). According to the article's uncited text, The Castle Inn is 16th century, but this source states it is probably 18th century, and this source states late 18th century, and neither state that the inn is especially notable. Yes, it's a listed building, but only Grade II, and there are 53 listed structures in that civil parish alone, and they don't all deserve their own articles. PaleCloudedWhite ( talk) 21:40, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
This discussion has been moved to
Talk:The Castle Inn. -
Ad Orientem (
talk)
21:02, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Apologies that this is probably the wrong place to ask this question, but I wasn't sure what the right place was: is there a way for a user to search and find all the AFD discussion they have participated in in the past? I'm curious to look at my own but don't know how and where such a search could be done... — Hun ter Ka hn 18:09, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
When I try to see an AfD's stats, it says "No webservice". This has started happening to me some days ago, and I didn't bother until now because I thought it was a temporary takedown. Is this some sort of error? -- ToonLucas22 ( talk) 19:42, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
This project page was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
Transcluding the template here as an example. There is a new-ish user at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion (see just curious AND VERY ANGRY) upset that people want to delete the page Dragon City. However, the two discussions linked in the template are each about different subjects that happen to have the same title, and nobody is currently proposing deletion of the page. I think it would be helpful here if this template (and the other old afd templates) had the option of replacing "This page was nominated" with "A page with this title was nominated". I've seen this elsewhere, but can't find it right now. Thoughts? Ivanvector ( talk) 19:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Appears to use as a criterion "did they ever sign anything at all related to PNAC" as defining them as a "member."
I consider using that criterion or any similar criterion to be, at best, SYNTH. Indeed, using that criterion in the 30s would allow us to list thousands of "Communist Party" members in their Wikipedia articles.
My PROD was instantly excised by a primary writer of the list as "SYNTH argument has been rebutted, with consensus against it, the inaccurate name has been changed, everything else is compliant with policy on stand-alone lists, etc.) "
Sample [1] is used to label Eliot A. Cohen as a "member. Problem? The article does not call him a PNAC member at all. His BLP links to [2] which is scarcely helpful at all. I did find [3] which makes no such claim. [4] is the article by Ximena Ortiz, which also does not support the claim being made. In short, it looks more like SYNTH-by-wish than even SYNTH-by-source. The source given does not support the claim at all. Is the claim found in Wikis? Yep.. Sourced? Nope.
We find such lists at
[5] Who got us into the Iraq war? A List of prominent Jewish Neocons and their role in getting the U.S. into Iraq and Homeland Security which I suggest might not meet Wikipedia RS requirements.
Paula Dobriansky does not even have a single source cited at all. And on and on and on in this SYNTH-by-No-source "list."
Is labeling a person as a "member" of an organization based solely on their signing a letter proper? Is a list based on that criterion proper? Collect ( talk) 12:32, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
I just reverted these edits which added a few qualifications to the statement "[i]f the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD." That is a very simple instruction and should not need to be qualified. Esquivalience added "exceptions" for copyright violations, spam, patent nonsense, and BLP violations, then removed the first three as being speediable instead (probably correctly). I object to the BLP qualifier as well - harmful statements about living people can be removed by oversighters and/or through revision deletion (and should be without waiting for discussion), so we don't need to nuke pages from orbit just for this reason. I think it's best to leave this guideline as-is. Ivanvector ( talk) 16:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
D1 should, I propose, also reflect that a (general) google search should be performed. (In addition to a Google Books search, a Google News archive search, and sometimes GScholar). This is especially important as google has changed its search capabilities, and many articles formerly discoverable under gnews are now only discoverable under a (general) google search. -- Epeefleche ( talk) 05:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello. Can somebody please complete the deletion process for Hadith of the succession of Abu Bakr. I have given detailed reasoning for why i think the article should be deleted at the articles talk page. Thankyou very much to whoever takes it up.-- 58.106.235.75 ( talk) 09:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
May I make a suggestion that someone with the time/interest undertake the effort of moving the April Fools nominations to the bottom of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 April 1 (and keep them moved down there as new ones come up)? Maybe even put them in a div to color them differently if that wouldn't break the bots? There are some serious nominations interspersed with them and having the joke nominations makes it difficult to pick them out. For example, I thought when I was scrolling through the page that Women for equality and rights was a joke nomination until I clicked on it and saw that it was actually a non-notable organization, not an article about the concept of gender equality. (I'd do it myself, but (1) it's my bedtime and (2) they're trying to delete me.) -- B ( talk) 04:33, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
{{
db-hoax}}
? --
Redrose64 (
talk)
09:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)Do we allow copies of articles deleted at AFD to continue to exist outside of mainspace? Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disabled Entrepreneurs and Draft:Disabled Entrepreneurs. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 14:36, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007–08 NJIT Highlanders men's basketball team is malformed. It needs to be properly formatted.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi, could someone please complete the deletion process for the lateral spin valve page? The reasons for deletion are:
a) page provides no information not provided on the wikipedia Spin valve article which is already more detailed and complete. The only source in the "lateral spin valve" article can't be retrieved.
b) lateral spin valves are a type of spin valve and do not merit a separate article. At most they merit a subsection in the spin valve article. There is very little difference between a lateral spin valve and a "regular" spin valve. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.40.130 ( talk) 02:15, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
If such a deletion discussion is closed an no consensus, would the default option be to keep or delete the article? -- Fauzan ✆ talk ✉ mail 11:33, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello. I have read the Wikipedia entry for the book by Dean H. Kenyon and Gary Steinman; "Biochemical Predestination", and I'm not sure it actually merits an article. Surely the book has to be noteworthy in some way? Upon seeing the reviews in the "Reception" section of the article I noted that all of the reviews referred to were from other Creationists. Thinking that perhaps this was simply a deliberate omission, I ran a Google search, but could find not a single review from any source other than Creationists. I then looked at Amazon and found one review which did not actually review the book on US Amazon, no reviews on the UK Amazon. As I came to the page in the first instance to check some claims of a Creationist regarding Dean Kenyon's scientific pedigree, it rather looks as though the article is little more than a constructed prop to bolster the credentials of certain controversial "academics". Certainly, if one were to remove the Wiki-mandated spectacles of "assumption of good faith", one might conclude that the entire piece was a carefully crafted piece of Creationist PR. Does it really merit an article? Would it not be more appropriate to simply refer to it in the Publications section of the authors own pages? I must admit that I am not as familiar with the Wiki guidelines as I might be, so perhaps my reasoning here has been errant. But even should the page not be deleted, there are still some entries of concern that need to be addressed IMHO. Tarquin Q. Zanzibar ( talk) 19:10, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Looks like this AfD [6] was misplaced in today's AfD log. Could someone more knowledgeable fix this please? I would just break more stuff trying to do it myself :). GermanJoe ( talk) 08:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Could someone with a registered account complete steps II and III for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_%C3%93_Ruanaidh (resumé)
I just came across an article that was moved to Draft: space during the discussion. Ignoring the merits of the article itself, what is our policy on such a move? How, if at all, does it affect the AFD process?
I see this to be very similar to the blanking of an article during discussion, and the idea of a move to Draft: being an outcome of the discussion. It would be useful either to enshrine this in policy or to see what the policy says, please. Fiddle Faddle 22:18, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
@ ThoseArentMuskets:, the article Miapolis does not seem to be listed properly at WP:AFD. -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 17:37, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
There may be a better place to pose this, but here goes anyway: Could Wikipedia's boffins put their heads together and come up with an encoding scheme which auto-sorts closed AfDs (the "blue" ones) to the bottom of each day's list so that the remaining unclosed entries bob to the top? Is is annoying to see something like "20 April (Monday) (13 open / 38 closed / 51 total discussions; open: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13)" ...and realize I'm going to have to open up thirteen tabs (sucking up that much more site bandwidth), or go back and forth 26 times, or spend a lot of time down-clicking. Pax 06:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
People looking to clean up marginal articles in the encyclopedia may be interested in joining WikiProject Orphanage. We have over 100,000 article that are not linked to by any other article. Some just need to be linked or merged in but a fair number are orphans because they appear to have WP:NOTABILITY issues. ~ Kvng ( talk) 14:56, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
I saw an AfD where the following things occurred, in this order:
I'm leaving out links and names unless this is actionable, but I see several issues here. Oftentimes, one delete vote in the absence of voting has been taken as "consensus", and I think three delete votes (in addition to the nom) in the absence of keep votes is definitely consensus. For a user then to relist the AfD in those circumstances and then cast a keep vote seems a bit questionable to me. Thoughts and an appropriate course of action would be appreciated. MSJapan ( talk) 20:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the input (and the action). I didn't want to see this boil up into an RFC, which is why I was vague about it. A guideline would be a great idea, and it would just need to be simple, like "if you are performing any administrative action on an AfD, you may not participate in it." Would this need to go to VP? I wouldn't mind taking a shot at writing something up in any case. MSJapan ( talk) 06:14, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
I have nominated the article Dirty Water Brass Band for Speedy Deletion three separate times, on the grounds that it is about a small street band with no real significance, written by an individual with a direct connection to the band, which also constitutes as promotional. The first two times, the tag was removed by someone using a proxy IP address (I'm assuming the article's author) and the third time by someone who asserted the addition of references constituted notability.
References alone are not sufficient to make an article encyclopedic in nature and simply including a bunch of references should not be construed as establishing significance or notability.
@ NeilN: Sorry I'm not very familiar with the whole AFD thing. I hope I did everything right. Ormr2014 ( talk) 19:08, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Could someone with a registered account complete steps II and III for /info/en/?search=Rockette_Morton
this Article does not meet Wikipedia Notability Guidelines ... Samat lib ( talk) 09:11, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Succès de scandale has a broken first nomination and an active 2nd nomination on today's Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2015_May_10. Could someone knowledgeable fix this please? Thank you in advance. GermanJoe ( talk) 21:15, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
What does "VFD" stand for, and why does it redirect here if it isn't even mentioned on the page?
Attys ( talk) 22:10, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Please could somebody create the
deletion-discussion page for "
2015 Reclaim Brixton protest", and add it to the log.
{{subst:afd2 | pg=2015 Reclaim Brixton protest | cat=S | text=Non-notable local protest that lasted barely an afternoon. Fails [[WP:NOTNEWS]], [[WP:N]].}} –[[Special:Contributions/146.199.151.33|146.199.151.33]] ([[User talk:146.199.151.33|talk]]) 03:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, 146.199.151.33 ( talk) 03:50, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
We have a situation I've never seen - someone nominating their own articles for deletion, yet insisting they do not them to be deleted: Fail AfD is fail. Apparently this was done by nominator/article creator to make a WP:POINT because his feelings were hurt over edits to the article, and something about he was doing it because the other person failed to do it first (?). I explained the WP:G7 situation that nominating your own articles brings up. The discussion reached new levels of WP:LAME with nominator and his sidekick (with a shiny new account) arguing that nowhere does it say that if you nominate an article, you have to want to delete it, and that AfD was a perfectly suitable venue for discussing the article and if it should be nominated for deletion. For the life of me I can't understand why someone would not understand the whole point of nominating an article for deletion. Do we need something on the page that 1) explains that by nominating a page, you are supporting it being deleted and 2) you should not create AfDs for pages you really want to keep just to generate discussion/get feedback - that's what talk pages are for. It seems to me a waste of time to have an AfD discussion when nobody has actually proposed the article be deleted. —Мандичка YO 😜 14:17, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
I recently nominated an article for deletion here. It was a second nom, because I stumbled upon the article somehow, and in the interest of trying to copyedit it, I found there was no substantive coverage to back up anything in the article. However, the previous nom had been closed keep because one person voted keep and claimed substantive coverage via Google. Myself and two others clearly found that to be untrue in the followup. The user who voted in the previous nom not only explicitly stated an inclusionist bias, but has since been CU blocked indefinitely.
It leads me to wonder if there is a way (or a strong enough reason) to go back and look at recent AfD votes of indeffed users. In this case, the voter gave no actual proof of his coverage claim other than to cite Google, and was indeffed 2 weeks later. OTOH, nobody pressed the user to offer proof of the vote, and we are supposed to substantiate all votes. To be fair, there was no other input whatsoever on the AfD. Nevertheless, it seems to me like it was a bad-faith vote from the get-go, reinforced by the user's own page. However, I'm saying that in hindsight, and having looked at it. Is it too time-consuming and unwieldy to not take votes at face value or to discount votes with no substantiation as a matter of course? MSJapan ( talk) 07:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Category:AfD debates relisted 3 or more times has been nominated for possible deletion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Steel1943 ( talk) 04:28, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Complete steps II and III with regards to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrapy Article does not meet notability guidelines — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.68.7.120 ( talk) 18:19, 2 June 2015
I've nominated Merovingian (The Matrix) for deletion, but I need someone to help me complete the process. I've posted my deletion rationale on the article's talk page. -- 110.20.234.69 ( talk) 22:51, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
There are no Anti-Blank pages for any other nation in the Balkans yet other faced persecution. This article should be deleted. Nothing but propaganda aimed and distabalizing factual views and justify war crime and behavior. Anti-Serb Sentiment— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackiechan321 ( talk • contribs)
Please help me complete the deletion discussion for The Ultimate Matrix Collection. I have posted my rationale for deletion on the talk page.-- 110.20.234.69 ( talk) 22:19, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Could someone please complete the second and third step for me? Thank you. 76.107.171.90 ( talk) 01:38, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
I attempted to nominate Laurie Patton for deletion, and Twinkle failed to create the appropriate pages, with an "Invalid Token" error. The log shows a link in a different section, but has not properly sectioned it. The appropriate page was not created. Could someone please assist me with manual creation and correction of the malformed content? Thanks in advance! Scr★pIron IV 18:34, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
I need some help here. This page for an album was created when the album didn't have much information out other than tracklisting, release date, and title. The "***" before "This" and after "Test" turned out to be stylization, but was included in the article's name. So how would I go about asking for this page to be deleted? Much thanks. Ilovechristianmusic ( talk) 02:06, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
I see a problem with the AfD policy being enforced apparently haphazardly (or else an attempt to forcefully silence someone's view point that certain people do not agree with.) On /info/en/?search=Talk:Frank_R._Wallace there is a tag that this page was nominated for deletion, and that the decision was to keep it, apparently still able to be viewed and read by people. However, the article's talk page at /info/en/?search=Talk:Neo-Tech says the decision was to keep, more specifically, the discussion archived at /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Neo-Tech shows a different page than what is there now, and yet, somehow, that version of the page WAS deleted. There is no way in hell that the discussion being hashed out was all over a disambiguation page. Not cool WP. 32.212.104.223 ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:54, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
I am being serious here, and the issue was the appearance of double standards. If it is resolved, I am happy, however, from further reading, it seems that certain people were attacking the original page by what was called revert wars. But to me, it seems that if the issue is that there are problems with a page (admitted, I have no idea what was on the original), then the first instinct should be to fix what is on the page, not delete it. Judging by the fact that there was apparently 3 different requests to delete the page, not so sure that enough effort was made to try to fix the problem, just sweep it under the proverbial rug. I read on some of the pages that a user named Bi was apparently the latest requester, and apparently had made a joke page disparaging Neo-Tech (or Neo Tech or however), and to me, it looks like the only reason for the request was apparently some sort of personal issue they had with it. Some of the comments about the personal attack on this wiki was made by me, but that was based on what I have seen here and elsewhere. 32.212.104.223 ( talk) 04:36, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
(addition to above) I also checked the history at the page I first listed as the talk page, and following that page's listed history doesn't clear up the previous confusion any. Just an observation, no good or bad either way to me as the issue was already resolved. 32.212.104.223 ( talk) 05:30, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
I would like to see a policy to the effect that articles with foreign-language titles that have english translations can be deleted.
My beef is this: I keep coming across articles about aspects of Islam that rely heavily on arabic terminology. These articles are typically written in ungrammatical english, and are peppered with arabic technical terms that are not defined in the article. Frequently these technical terms link to a page with an arabic title, which in turn relies on a slew of arabic technical terms.
I hasten to point out that I am not proposing the mass-deletion of articles about Islam; on the contrary, these are articles that I have tried to read out of interest. Rather, I am suggesting that articles in the english Wikipedia should be written in english, and should not require a knowledge of arabic (or any other foreign language) in order to be understandable.
MrDemeanour ( talk) 09:07, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
{{
db-foreign}}
; if the article is in Arabic but an English-language page doesn't exist, mark it {{
notenglish|Arabic}}
and send it to
WP:PNT. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
15:19, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Could somebody please complete the AfD request for Isa dreams? I have added my reasons for seeking deletion on the article's talk page here. Much appreciated.-- 58.106.251.124 ( talk) 02:18, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of:
/info/en/?search=The_Peace_%26_Freedom_Band
No references for the last 2 years, the only ones I could find in a search were obscure blogs.
87.112.176.188 ( talk) 14:32, 9 July 2015 (UTC)G. MacKenzie 87.112.176.188 ( talk) 14:32, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
I'd like to propose the following article for deletion:
/info/en/?search=Eastern_Rainbow
No references in the last 10 years & I could only find one obscure mention on a search.
Thank you,
87.114.21.213 ( talk) 07:19, 10 July 2015 (UTC) G. MacKenzie.
No references in the last 10 years. This seems to be mostly a self-publishing venture with little to find on a search apart from small pamphlets on Amazon.
Too obscure for an encyclopedia.
87.114.21.213 ( talk) 07:29, 10 July 2015 (UTC) G. MacKenzie.
Strangely the only references to the 'Peace and Freedom magazine' I could find online deals with a completely different magazine which isn't on Wikipedia.
The magazine listed here on Wikipedia is an obscure fanzine. Too obscure for an encyclopedia?
Again, no references listed in the last 10 years.
87.114.21.213 (talk) 07:36, 10 July 2015 (UTC) G. MacKenzie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.21.213 ( talk)
Before this article is deleted(?) here is some info I gleaned from one of the references. It is the url of a website where one can watch the full documentary and form their own opinion of its value; : http://planet.infowars.com/health/seeds-of-death-full-movie-march-against-monsanto-special-gary-null-releases-his-movie-seeds-of-death Ottawahitech ( talk) 19:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Could somebody please fix the AfD for Goldbach (Tollense). Thanks, JMHamo ( talk) 23:06, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
A MediaWiki bug ( phabricator:T87645) resulted in a number of articles intended for other namespaces being created within namespace 0 on January 27th 2015. A number of these (listed below) were related to the AfD discussions. All have now been superseded by entries in the correct namespace.
I intend to delete the misplaced articles of the next few days. It may appear from the deletion logs that I am deleting archived discussions that are intended to be retained - please don't be alarmed, I am only removing duplicate articles that are not normally accessible. The 'normal' versions of the archived discussions will remain accessible to all.
Cheers. - TB ( talk) 09:36, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
per
this dif, honoring newbie editor's intention to withdraw their comment here by striking per REDACT
Jytdog (
talk) 22:53, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I do not understand the reason why this page has to be deleted.. We've only listed all the works that our company/CEO
Hyuk Shin took part in.
Joombas Music Group discography page was made in order to list all the works we've done for people to know what kind of songs we produce and write. Although our company does not OWN the song anymore, all we have listed are the songs we took in part of (producing and writing). Joombas Music Group is a well-known production company in South Korea producing
EXO - Growl (Multi Platinum). We not only produce and write songs but we have released our very own singer
Dean (South Korean singer). As of right now, we only have listed the works we've took part in (WE DO NOT OWN THE ARTISTS LISTED. WE ONLY HAVE LOYALTY FOR ALL THE SONGS LISTED). But according to @C.Fred, we are NOT allowed to even list any of our work unless our label owns the singer.. Instead of deleting our page.. I wish you guys could just help us fix our problem with references and citations. Instead of deleting our page without specific reasoning.
Josephyangjoombas (
talk)
21:58, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I think Pornogrind might be a good candidate for a merge with Grindcore. CombatMarshmallow ( talk) 06:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Bandana_thrash should be merged with Thrashcore. Hope these are helpful. CombatMarshmallow ( talk) 06:49, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
I have never went through this process. I hope this is ok the way I present this. Raicore needs to be deleted or merged with: Taqwacore CombatMarshmallow ( talk) 06:34, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
@ Flat Out:, @ The Banner:, and @ Davey2010: are off to the races nominating beauty pageant articles for deletion. I'm not a fan of these pageant articles myself but this AFD campaign is getting out of control. If you can't find sources for Reinado Internacional del Café or Míster España then something is wrong. I practically tripped over them on my way to Google. I get it with things like Miss Cotopaxi, but let's not throw the baby out with the bath water. I would really rather be doing something else with my time than looking up beauty pageants. Please make a good faith effort at WP:BEFORE, with the cut-and-paste rationales and the obvious sources on some of these things the effort is looking a tad weak. Cheers, Vrac ( talk) 02:34, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
The first line under the "Current discussions" subheading reads: Articles being considered for possible deletion are indexed by the day on which they were first listed.
They aren't. Take a look - many of the discussions shown under a given date were relisted on that date, and first listed several weeks earlier.
Would be appreciated if this could be fixed, as it would make it very much easier to find older discussions in most need of further input, now that the very useful bot that used to list these is out of action : Noyster (talk), 09:40, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
@
Dweller,
BlameRuiner,
Wikimandia,
Earthh,
Stuartyeates,
Davey2010,
Walter Görlitz @
Jzp,
Joseph2302 (and any others):
The article
Jeff Friedl has been re-created. It has been deleted twice before:
once in 2009 and
once earlier this year after an
AfD. The AfD notes that there was no prejudice, so a better article on the topic would be acceptable. I have no knowledge of the topic, nor was I involved in the previous discussion, so I have no idea if the current article is any better than the previous one. Is this article a good candidate for
G4 Speedy Delete and/or is it any better than the previous incarnation (possibly worth keeping this time to see if it gets better)? --
Unready (
talk)
02:14, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
I think moving to draft was exceedingly kind, but they should have a short rope. This article has been repeatedly recreated on two different pages Jeff Friedl and Jeff friedl. -- Dweller ( talk) 08:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Can someone please close this Afd? It's been open long enough now. Mjroots ( talk) 16:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
This AfD has been open for nearly three months. What's the best course here for closure/cleanup? Thanks. -- Finngall talk 15:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
If I had the same concern over a large group of articles (namely quite a few of these), how would I go about that? I don't think I can bundle them, per the instructions on the page, but it would be a real pain for everybody to make a ton of AfDs. Should I start a RfC? Any advice is appreciated. Kharkiv07 ( T) 01:21, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
An IP has tried to nominate one of the articles I have created for deletion and done a poor job of it. I think this may be retaliation for one of my AFD noms and don't think it has any merit. Would someone either create and transclude the AFD or delete it and remove the tag from the article? shoy ( reactions) 15:27, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
I have withdrawn the AfD here, though one responder (partially) agrees with me, so I'm not closing it myself. If someone wants to close it, would be fine. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 10:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Could someone please complete my nomination of Journey to the Source: Decoding Matrix Trilogy for deletion? -- 110.20.234.69 ( talk) 02:54, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
How would one propose deletion on the German Wikipedia? Anmccaff ( talk) 14:51, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
A bot post on my talk page led me eventually to this AfD. In spite of making recent edits to the page, exactly zero effort was expended to contact the authors of the article to see what might be done. Is it not the case that there is supposed to be at least some effort to contact the involved parties? Or does AfD work entirely as judge, jury and executioner? Maury Markowitz ( talk) 17:56, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Well then, I think it's time we opened discussion on whether that language needs to change - can anyone offer a cogent argument why there should not be a requirement to notify major contributors, especially recent and active ones? Before you worry about workload, there are a variety of tech solutions to that. But personally, I feel the single-click-to-kill of Twinkle is precisely the problem, not the solution. Maury Markowitz ( talk) 12:57, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Sounds great Ivan. In the meantime I'm in the midst of tracking down a tool that might be just what we're looking for. I do find it a bit worrying that so much is done through TW - we have made huge strides on making it easier to delete things, yet actually creating them in the first place continues to get harder and harder. Maury Markowitz ( talk) 19:23, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Susya is an article about 3 entities, all called Susya (or closely related variants). It is an archaelogical site, a Palestinian village, and an Israeli settlement. A week or so ago, an editor was WP:BOLD and split the article into 3 articles, dealing with them separately. It was objected to, the article was reverted, and the split articles nominated for deletion (I voted "delete" there). The AfDs resulted in "no consensus".
What is the relevant policy now? I am aware that "no consensus" on AfDs usually results in articles being kept. However, here the articles only contain material from the original article, and there is no consensus (or indeed discussion) to split the article up. What should be the scope of the original article now? With the original article existing, there is no point, and indeed, the new articles would be duplicates of the original one. I asked the closer here, and they said to determine it through consensus. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 09:00, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't think this project page says how to make all that stuff that's always supposed to appear at the top of a deletion discussion page appear there. Is that something that's supposed to happen automatically with twinkle? Blackbombchu ( talk) 16:28, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:AfD in 3 steps has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
(Cross-posted from the template page.) On the first line of step 3, “Open the
articles for deletion log page,”
please change “Open” to “Edit,” because that’s where the link leads (also see
WP:EASTEREGG).
67.14.236.50 (
talk)
04:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
The article Health Service Culture:
and, most important,
I suggest that the subject is non-notable and therefore the article should be deleted; but as I am not a registered Wikipedia user (and am not going to become one), it will need someone else to agree with me and start the process. If, on the other hand, there is a consensus to keep it, then it needs a lot of improvement.
Consider this a "drive-by" nomination; if someone wants to start the official process, please do, but I myself am not interested in discussing it further, so please don't respond on my IP talk page. (And no, I'm not going to register with WIkipedia, so you needn't suggest that either.)
Thanks for your attention, -- 65.94.50.17 ( talk) 04:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Please don't delete the article
Anand Sen (business person) must not be deleted. If there is any problem in this article please resolve that or let me know regarding this on my user talk page:
Padmalochanwiki:Talk.
Padmalochan Jena
08:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
This discussion has been sitting, but I'm bringing it up because the article's copyvio. The link is in the AfD ( diff) (click on "About Us"), but I don't want to follow copyvio procedure and blank the article page because of the ongoing AfD. MSJapan ( talk) 23:18, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
I have provided the newspaper references more than one newspaper for Nazo Dharejo, go through those references find news about Nazo Dharejo, so the article must not be deleted. thanks Jogi 007 ( talk) 08:20, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Can someone please have a look at this. It was closed, undone by an admin an an inappropriate NAC, then re-closed as the administrator was a contributor to the discussion so involved. The advice at WP:NACD seems to support both reopening it and reclosing it, and could perhaps be clarified.-- JohnBlackburne words deeds 16:36, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm thinking this article Something Positive probably should go. I look at 'improving' it & come to the conclusion that every single part of it, judged alone, should be deleted. It doesn't seem notable, there are a few very minor possible RSs about the author, but none about the comic. Other than it having been nominated for the barely-existing WCCA, the only sources are comic pages themselves. Apparently IPs aren't allowed to nominate for deletion anymore... 92.25.131.125 ( talk) 14:04, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I nominated Unsealed: Conspiracy Files for deletion as it was a conspiracy documentary series with little to no chance of notability. Can someone complete it for me? -- 189.25.205.234 ( talk) 01:35, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
{{ recap}} is nominated for deletion. This is an ancillary deletion template for processing long deletion discussions -- 70.51.202.113 ( talk) 04:48, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
I've put up Andrew Novell for deletion after WP:PROD was contested, could someone please complete the process? Rationale is noted on the talk page TIA, 85.178.217.32 ( talk) 03:39, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Done Thanks to Huon for doing the deed. 85.178.217.32 ( talk) 14:18, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
I've put up The acorn paradox for deletion after discovering that a previous WP:PROD was contested. Could someone please complete the process? Rationale is noted on the talk page. TIA 85.178.217.32 ( talk) 18:47, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Done Kindly completed by JohnCD. 85.178.217.32 ( talk) 18:53, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
I have put a tag on Florent Bezara and noted the justification for deletion on Talk:Florent Bezara. Could someone please complete the process for me? Thanks. 153.203.39.216 ( talk) 03:27, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Could someone please complete the afd of Ali in the Quran and The verse of Mawadda. I have clearly stated my reasons for the nominations on the talk pages of both articles. Thankyou.-- 58.106.251.114 ( talk) 10:23, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
I followed the steps for deleting a page and people are putting in their two cents. I'm not sure what else I have to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Punstress ( talk • contribs) 09:30, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
~~~~
at the end
: Noyster
(talk),
11:42, 18 September 2015 (UTC)An editor recently got a bit upset about an article nomination. I've tried to cool the fires by taking it the talk page. I would appreciate any neutral comments at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Stephanie Powell Watts in an effort to defuse this. Thank you! - O.R. Comms 00:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Whatever one's opinions of Donald Trump, his nine-year-old son, who has appeared occasionally on The Apprentice but never, to my knowledge, in a featured capacity, doesn't deserve a Wikipedia entry in his own right. I'd nominate for AfD but am not sure just what WP:BLP policy this violates, just that it crosses into "creep factor" territory. (@ Professor JR: wouldn't you agree?) Help and insight here would be appreciated. Vesuvius Dogg ( talk) 23:30, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Vesuvius Dogg and MASEM -- clearly a candidate for AfD. And, generally speaking, underage children of prominent figures and celebrities should be considered off limits. This, for a number of reasons, including privacy concerns -- which is why, as MASEM points out, there are not separate articles on Malia and Sasha Obama, but they are included in the Family of Barack Obama article. (For my part, I'm not even sure Wikipedia should include the 'Family of' articles, but just should list underage children in the article on the principal person). --- Professor JR ( talk) 09:14, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Re the original question ("what policy does this violate"), the relevant guideline is WP:BIOFAMILY ( WP:BLP1E is the closest policy I could find). -- ais523 18:23, 19 October 2015 ( U T C)
I have posted my justification on Talk:Hayden Black. Thank you. 67.86.185.252 ( talk) 02:54, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
I have nominated the page Malee (elephant) for deletion and put the nomination here: Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Malee (elephant). Can someone please move the nomination page to regular wikipedia space? -- 177.142.118.61 ( talk) 22:43, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Can someone move this rationale to the regular Wikipedia (not talk) namespace, remove the tag and add to the log? Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Twilight (CD-ROM) -- 189.25.224.254 ( talk) 19:45, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
I have nominated AJ Suede for deletion, and noted the justification for deletion on Talk:AJ Suede. Can someone please complete the process? Thanks. 153.228.98.244 ( talk) 06:36, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Can someone please move Draft:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evette Borromeo to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evette Borromeo without leaving a redirect? Please don't forget to tag the article and list the discussion in today's log. Thanks. 121.54.54.170 ( talk) 23:17, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Admin action needed. Please move Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Trans-Radio Broadcasting Corporation to Wikipedia namespace without leaving a redirect and transclude it in today's log. Thanks, 121.54.54.238 ( talk) 03:09, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
The article seems a promotion of the company, their controllers and investors(!!). It survived an AFD so it may have relevance. A lot of references, but almost all not related. I think that if is not case for deletion, at least many content may be withdrawn. Caiaffa ( talk) 16:54, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
I have nominated this page for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.83.206.167 ( talk) 22:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello all. Frank Jackson (Basketball Player) has been nominated for deletion, though he is probably notable. I was thinking the article should be redirected to Frank Jackson (basketball), but am not sure if this is acceptable while the article is at AfD. ~ EDDY ( talk/ contribs)~ 17:14, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm new to Wikipedia editing, but I found an autobiographical article for Anthony Conway. He is an artist but the problem with his page, is he links himself as a founding artist in the new realist movement, and has his name listed in a list of artists who have contributed greatly to Classical Realism, /info/en/?search=Classical_Realism
He links his page on Wikipedia to every great artist you can think of, and his sources are a repetition of one or two of the same articles where he was interviewed in his hometown.
It's an autobiography, and should be deleted. Seeker1111 ( talk) 16:09, 14 October 2015 (UTC) Seeker1111
i nominate Occidental–Whittier football rivalry because it is non notable. theres no evidence that it is a important topic. it is a small rivalry that no one cares about it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.236.126.106 ( talk) 22:35, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
"The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review)"
So, here's the thing. These instructions for further comment are rather poor. If the page was deleted, the article's talk page will just be re-deleted, so that's not a good place. And there are a large amount of new editors at articles for deletion, and creating a deletion review is technically tricky, so that's also a poor choice. We need to point our new editors to a better place and not lead them astray. Maybe to the deletion discussions associated talk page? Maybe to the administrator's talk page? I'm not sure. Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 04:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
I think Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Example should be updated to use a more current look for how an AfD page is properly formatted, but I don't want to touch it since I would neither know just what to do nor want to break anything. — 烏Γ ( kaw), 07:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Is there any system for alerting users of and attracting them to deletion discussions, like how WP:FRS operates for RfCs? — 烏Γ ( kaw), 08:23, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
I've archived a few addressed threads that were marked as "done". — Cirt ( talk) 11:50, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I've created the WP:Deletion to Quality Award.
This recognizes editors who've taken a page previously considered for deletion — to Featured Article or Good Article quality.
The award is inspired by the Wikipedia:Million Award, the Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron, and the Wikipedia:WikiProject Quality Article Improvement.
Please see Wikipedia:Deletion to Quality Award.
Thank you,
— Cirt ( talk) 11:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I have decided to revert each of the music genre AFDs I have made. I went through each of those articles one by one before deciding to AFD them. If not for the concept in general, then for the article's current sourcing which left much to be desired. Thankfully some deep Google searching has revealed suitable sourcing in enough to make me reconsider this. I would have liked to have a sincere discussion about the state of these articles, and I know for a fact that various ones should undeniably be deleted, but it seems the focus is on the few I got wrong, so I will back down. Perhaps a discussion can be done somewhere about how we as a community can actually imporve all these articles. I apologise for offending anybody, and please refrain from the insults. Thanks. :D-- Coin945 ( talk) 14:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Can someone please nominate Mareco Broadcasting Network for deletion? I've provided the reason on the article's talk page. Thanks, 121.54.54.170 ( talk) 15:33, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm not experienced on editing here and am not sure if I'll be able to properly nominate an article for deletion, so if someone wants to do it for me I'd like to nominate the article /info/en/?search=Frederico_Morais
I was searching google for Frederico Morais, a well known surfer, but instead bumped into the above page. As a Portuguese football fan I'm pretty sure that individual isn't in any way notable. There is not a single mention of him on online press records and all the sources of the article are just the organizations where he's worked. The article looks like a professional resumé, was all written by the same editor and looks suspiciously autobiographical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arruda81 ( talk • contribs) 02:31, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
This AFD was closed (correctly) as a SNOW keep - but that leaves dozens of articles still tagged for AFD. WP:BADAFD has asploded. If anyone wants to take a few minutes and process a few of these (Un-tag, add the afd-multi to the talk page), it'd be appreciated. (If you have a script that would do the same thing, have at - that's even better.) Thanks! UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:42, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Can someone please nominate Blackstar (David Bowie album). I believe the article fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE as it is simply a single-line article which gives a future relase date. I attempted a redirect [8], which was undone by the article's author User:Lugnuts with the comment "there is info" [9]. Lugnuts then failed to WP:AGF and added a user warning to my talk page [10]. I then attempted a WP:PROD citing WP:INDISCRIMINATE [11], which Lugnuts again reverted [12] claiming I was disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Lugnuts then left a message on my talk page calling be a troll [13].
I believe that Blackstar (David Bowie album) will at some point in the future will become notable, but until such time it doesn't need an article. -- 46.254.186.36 ( talk) 11:10, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
It was for an "electronic sports" team called 4Kings. I'm not entirely sure what the article was titled, either 4Kings or Four Kings or some variant there of. I believe the AFD occured around Nov/Dec 2005.-- Prisencolin ( talk) 17:00, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
HalloweenNight closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antonia Gerena Rivera (2nd nomination) as keep less than four hours after making his/her first edit. Could somebody reopen this so someone else can decide what to do with this? Rainbow unicorn ( talk) 20:52, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
When deciding if a potential admin is fit for the tools, the candidate's AfD stats are a significant consideration.
So, I'm posting here. You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and maybe even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.
So, please consider watchlisting and taking a look at this page:
Many thanks and best wishes,
Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 02:54, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Can someone please re-open the discussion? The user who closed it ( Wikienglish123) was blocked and it looks like he/she didn't know what he/she's doing. And please undo what he/she has done on Mareco Broadcasting Network. Thanks, 121.54.54.170 ( talk) 06:50, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Would a registered user please complete this AFD nomination? Substed {{ afd2}} template follows. Thank you.
Judging by a Google News archive search, the term has only been used by the creators of Home Movies in reference to that show. None of the sources cited in the article use any form of the word except for one, and that one links the word back to our article, which at the time was a completely unsourced stub. — 67.14.236.50 ( talk) 04:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove the third (colon-indented) paragraph of § How to nominate a single page for deletion. It is wholly redundant with, and less informative than, the immediately preceding sentence. — 67.14.236.50 ( talk) 03:58, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
support deletion because the person is not notable 65.175.243.206 ( talk) 12:51, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
This open AfD was relisted last on 10 October 2015, but has remained unnoticed since by closing admins. Apparently it was relisted twice on the same day in a short period of time, which may have led to this problem. I have removed the html comment-hiding elements on the 2015/10/10 log page and then tried to refresh Mathbot's Old discussion page, but that seems to go only back up to a limited amount of days. Could someone look into this? - HyperGaruda ( talk) 07:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Could someone knowledgeable about AfD templates have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LeMel Humes please? Looks like the nomination's transclusion is bugged somehow, or maybe simply duplicated in itself. GermanJoe ( talk) 11:38, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I think they are not notable. Does not meet the criteria for WP:MUSICIAN and google search does not turn about a lot of results. I don't know how to nominate an article and I am not sure if I am correct about this or not. Therefore, I am not nominating it. Susana Hodge ( talk) 05:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Abiola Abrams also seems non-notable to me. The article is filled with promotional stuff and beneath all the fluff, Abrams does not qualify. Susana Hodge ( talk) 05:46, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
FYI discussion ongoing at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#AfD_culture since October 2015. Ottawahitech ( talk) 22:42, 22 November 2015 (UTC)please ping me
AFDFORMAT presently claims that there exist tools (plural) and bots that parse AfDs which will only recognise bolded words. To date, I have only been able to identify one tool ( AfD Statistics) that does this. I am aware of no bots whatsoever of which that statement is true. I suspect that the alleged other tools and bots do not exist. I have not, however, had time to carefully examine every single tool and bot. Can anyone either confirm that my suspicion is true, or identify the other individual tools and bots? I think it is important that essays in the Wikipedia space do not contain factual claims that are unverified or demonstrably false. Accordingly, unless the other alleged other tools and bots are identified in a reasonable amount of time, the words "some bots and tools" should, in my view, be changed to "at least one tool", with no mention of bots, or something to that effect. James500 ( talk) 00:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Having given the matter further consideration, I'm going to go ahead and amend the essay AFDFORMAT with a rationale of "attempted verification failed". I will include a list of the tools already identified. If anyone discovers any other tools, or any bots whatsoever, they can add them to the list. James500 ( talk) 07:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Interested in what do editors think of essay as it was created by an editor who really does not like to bold !votes. LibStar ( talk) 10:45, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Not rude at all. Extremely valid. LibStar ( talk) 05:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
The burden of bolding !votes is not merely an additional burden on the time, finances[6] and physical and mental stamina of individual editors
Why not add the ~~~~ sign off. Those extra keystrokes over a lifetime could cause mental and physical exhaustion. As Reyk points out , this is from an editor who has extreme difficulty writing concisely. The irony. LibStar ( talk) 14:24, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
you're once again failing to even realise that the essay has close to zero support. perhaps the mental and physical anguish of all those keystrokes are affecting you. LibStar ( talk) 03:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Step II says:
* Add a deletion sorting template to the nomination, if appropriate.
However, there are no "deletion sorting templates", or indeed templates of any kind, at that link or anything it links to. Can someone therefore either fix this instruction or remove it? Thanks. Softlavender ( talk) 10:55, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
{{
AfD in 3 steps}}
to link to the sorting template and explain what it's for
: Noyster
(talk),
12:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC){{
delsort}}
template simply adds a line of text to the AfD discussion, e.g. Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. It's appropriate only when you or someone else has added the entry to the list itself, in this example to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Aviation : Noyster (talk), 13:32, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
{{
AfD in 3 steps}}
further edited to make explicit that the entry needs to have been added to the deletion sorting list itself, before putting the delsort template on the AfD discussion.May I ask why {{ CENT}} is transcluded onto all AfD logs? I realize that AfDs are discussions, but that seems to be the only connection between the two, and CENT seems a tad irrelevant... it's not a major issue or anything, but I'm just curious. Kharkiv07 ( T) 20:09, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I have withdrawn the AfD here. Someone might want to close it, or let me know if I can close it myself. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 23:54, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
There is an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#RFC: delete and redirect that asks: "Should our default practice be to delete article histories and contributions when a small article is converted into a redirect to a larger article?" Cunard ( talk) 05:52, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Could someone help me with the creation of an AFD nomination, since it seems only registered users can create an AFD page?
I wish to nominate all of following pages for deletion (bundled nomination), the rationale is provided below.
A number of campaigns are launched by WP such as recently ended one WP:WAMP for equalizing global representation of communitites and subjects related to them or to their region and culture. Simultaneously page deletion process is also applied by some biased users who fire the gun of rules, without knowing the true intention of the foundation for framing rules. This situation causes an anti-campaing tool and needs attention of Admin/managers/well wisher of WP. In order to maintain the true spirit of WP:NPOV page deletion proposer should have familiarity with the subject or community before his/her tag for page deletion is considered for action. I therefore propose:
Thanks for consideration. Nannadeem ( talk) 11:42, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
One may see misuse here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rehan Azmi with reference to Pakistan's oldest English Daily DAWN. Nannadeem ( talk) 22:36, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Can someone please complete the deletion process for /info/en/?search=Computers_In_Personnel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.88.103.119 ( talk) 14:44, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Request to delay deletion of SOME speedy-deletion candidates if they are at AFD. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 16:37, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm a newbie so please don't bite. Come across the headline page and I can't really see anything notable about him. Do you think I should list it at possibly contentious articles for deletion? Lyndaship ( talk) 16:08, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Anyone else having issues with the {{ Deletion sorting}} template not automatically listing deletion discussions at the various WP:DELSORT listings? I think {{ Deletion sorting}} has failed to automatically add to the listings for me the last 2–3 times that I've tried to use it. So I'm wondering if anyone else is seeing this issue?... -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 02:46, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
(Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francis Chanda)
This article should not be articles for deletion the article contains useful information about the person in it Raysum2020 ( talk) 23:26, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm seeking a clarification and discussion of Wikipedia policy that I am in disagreement over with another editor. I have posted it for discussion at the Village Pump (policy) XfD: Delayed raising of a second reason to delete or keep. Thisisnotatest ( talk) 07:10, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Because spelling is wrong. -- Koam1998 ( talk) 01:58, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Because two File, so File:Cnntonight.jpg deleted. -- Koam1998 ( talk) 01:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
There appears to be some trouble with Mathbot: Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Old#Mathbot. Is that also maybe why 14 January does not show up in the list of old AfDs? - HyperGaruda ( talk) 07:31, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
The page "Andrew Lowe", which I created, has been set for deletion for lack of references. I have added references, but the "set for deletion" notification persists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kcmartenslol ( talk • contribs) 04:36, 23 January 2016
I have put up the article
Neil Cohn for deletion; since I'm not registered, I only did step one (adding {{
afd1}}
to the page). Can someone help me create the actual deletion page? I have posted the deletion rationale to
Talk:Neil Cohn#AfD nomination; I just need someone to create the deletion page and paste that rationale in. Thanks!
80.4.164.166 (
talk)
04:47, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Just a query - For well over a year I've been closing AFDs a day early which I'm now banned from ... So this new way's a tad confusing at the moment!,
So say basically instead of closing at 12pm (midnight) on the new day I should be closing at 12pm (midnight) on the 8th day if that makes sense?
I've done a picture which should hopefully do a better job at explaining than me!
,
Thanks, –
Davey2010
Talk
15:48, 27 January 2016 (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 65 | Archive 66 | Archive 67 | Archive 68 | Archive 69 | Archive 70 | → | Archive 75 |
The article Microsoft v. Internal Revenue Service is incorrectly listed under Category:AfD debates (Organisation, corporation, or product) even though it is a classified as a United States law/tax stub article. How can this be corrected to bring it to the attention of Wikipedians interested in law and taxation? Thanks in advance. Ottawahitech ( talk) 05:38, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
{{
WikiProject Law}}
to
Talk:Microsoft v. Internal Revenue Service, the AfD would be added to
Wikipedia:WikiProject Law/Article alerts within 24 hours. Similarly, adding {{
WikiProject Taxation}}
to the talk page would get it listed at
Wikipedia:WikiProject Taxation/Article alerts. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
00:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
As evidenced in the above discussion some (many?) editors who nominate Articles For Deletion do not categorize AFDs correctly. It can be argued that this is a problem since the deletion discussion is not brought up to the attention of those interested in the topic.
In this particular case the nominator has made this mistake in the past, but it seems there is no mechanism to alert him/her to this mistake? Ottawahitech ( talk) 17:37, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
{{
REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD}}
template recognises only one categorisation letter, and some AfDs may fall within two (or more) of the ten available: for example,
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arvind Narayanan is under "T" (Science and technology) but could also be placed under "B" (Biographical). --
Redrose64 (
talk)
15:38, 5 January 2015 (UTC)We notify creators that their article is up for deletion, in large part so that they have the opportunity to defend their work. However, as many such authors are new to Wikipedia and may not understand the process, I think it would be good to have a standard "your article was kept" notification where there is a SK/Keep/No consensus (keep) decision. This would let them know that they don't have to worry about the article any longer and can get back to editing. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 18:27, 16 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/New America Media. My rationale is that it does not meet WP:ORG.- 71.128.35.13 ( talk) 20:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Not sure how to list No-go_area for deletion as it keeps coming up red-linked. The article is over 8 yrs old and still lacks sufficient context to identify the subject of the article. Other reasons on the article's TP include:
Thanks in advance for your help. Atsme☯ Consult 16:50, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
{{
subst:afd1}}
to the article, you'll (correctly) get a box with a redlink to "this article's entry", but ignore that. Further down that box, there are four numbered steps; step 2 says "Preloaded debate OR ... " - click on "Preloaded debate" and it gives an edit window containing {{subst:afd2|pg={{subst:SUBPAGENAME}}|cat=U|text=Reason}} ~~~~
All you need do is replace the word "Reason" with your actual reasoning. When you save, it'll fill in the article name for you, in place of that {{subst:SUBPAGENAME}}
. This is most of
WP:AFDHOWTO step II. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
21:31, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
§ Old discussions for 18 January (or 17, 19) does not list Warren S. Brown, maybe that's a mistake/bug? -- 82.136.210.153 ( talk) 06:39, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Debito Arudou was recently nominated by an obvious troll SPA with a speedy keep result, but I'm a bit concerned that some of the SPA's arguments (only notable for one event...) may have actually been valid and still potentially need to be addressed. The problem is that now the article's talk page is essentially permanently engraved with "This article has been nominated for deletion twice, with results ranging from keep to speedy keep." without explaining the context of those results.
This same message appears on the talk page of every article that has ever been graffitoed on April 1.
Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 08:47, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi all,
I have closed (
WP:NAC) a heated debate over
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heather Bresch M.B.A. controversy? I think it should be now discussed in
WP:RFD as now the page is a redirect. The discussion was done in the
article's talk page. Is it done fine? -
The Herald (
here I am)
16:15, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Please only perform non-admin closings where you fully understand how to decide and implement the closing. Anything even remotely tricky should be left to an admin to handle. This is an odd closure to say the least, generally we don't close in such a way that another debate is immediately needed. Chillum 18:20, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Please see and comment on this discussion. As quite a number of AfDs are finishing up with no or very little input, it seems worthwhile to agree on how these cases are closed : Noyster (talk), 23:32, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Could somebody please put in my arguments to delete this article? My arguments are:
Mainly, my argument is that even if we could find better sources, this community - whether historical or contemporary - just doesn't appear to meet notability standards. Thanks. 58.106.224.45 ( talk) 02:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
The Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nam Taehyun (2nd nomination) page has been open for over six weeks. When it first opened people were invited to comment but only one other editor besides myself cared to and the consensus was to delete based on lack of notability. I am not an admin that can delete so I can't close the page and don't know why it is taking so long...is there something else I was supposed to do or are the admins just that backed up? Thank you Peachywink ( talk) 04:20, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I've never proposed an AfD before, and I'm not sure whether The Castle Inn is suitable, or whether an alternative should be pursued. In my view the article subject is not sufficiently notable, and the article also may be spam (the creator of the article has only made one edit that's not connected to the article subject). According to the article's uncited text, The Castle Inn is 16th century, but this source states it is probably 18th century, and this source states late 18th century, and neither state that the inn is especially notable. Yes, it's a listed building, but only Grade II, and there are 53 listed structures in that civil parish alone, and they don't all deserve their own articles. PaleCloudedWhite ( talk) 21:40, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
This discussion has been moved to
Talk:The Castle Inn. -
Ad Orientem (
talk)
21:02, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Apologies that this is probably the wrong place to ask this question, but I wasn't sure what the right place was: is there a way for a user to search and find all the AFD discussion they have participated in in the past? I'm curious to look at my own but don't know how and where such a search could be done... — Hun ter Ka hn 18:09, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
When I try to see an AfD's stats, it says "No webservice". This has started happening to me some days ago, and I didn't bother until now because I thought it was a temporary takedown. Is this some sort of error? -- ToonLucas22 ( talk) 19:42, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
This project page was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
Transcluding the template here as an example. There is a new-ish user at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion (see just curious AND VERY ANGRY) upset that people want to delete the page Dragon City. However, the two discussions linked in the template are each about different subjects that happen to have the same title, and nobody is currently proposing deletion of the page. I think it would be helpful here if this template (and the other old afd templates) had the option of replacing "This page was nominated" with "A page with this title was nominated". I've seen this elsewhere, but can't find it right now. Thoughts? Ivanvector ( talk) 19:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Appears to use as a criterion "did they ever sign anything at all related to PNAC" as defining them as a "member."
I consider using that criterion or any similar criterion to be, at best, SYNTH. Indeed, using that criterion in the 30s would allow us to list thousands of "Communist Party" members in their Wikipedia articles.
My PROD was instantly excised by a primary writer of the list as "SYNTH argument has been rebutted, with consensus against it, the inaccurate name has been changed, everything else is compliant with policy on stand-alone lists, etc.) "
Sample [1] is used to label Eliot A. Cohen as a "member. Problem? The article does not call him a PNAC member at all. His BLP links to [2] which is scarcely helpful at all. I did find [3] which makes no such claim. [4] is the article by Ximena Ortiz, which also does not support the claim being made. In short, it looks more like SYNTH-by-wish than even SYNTH-by-source. The source given does not support the claim at all. Is the claim found in Wikis? Yep.. Sourced? Nope.
We find such lists at
[5] Who got us into the Iraq war? A List of prominent Jewish Neocons and their role in getting the U.S. into Iraq and Homeland Security which I suggest might not meet Wikipedia RS requirements.
Paula Dobriansky does not even have a single source cited at all. And on and on and on in this SYNTH-by-No-source "list."
Is labeling a person as a "member" of an organization based solely on their signing a letter proper? Is a list based on that criterion proper? Collect ( talk) 12:32, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
I just reverted these edits which added a few qualifications to the statement "[i]f the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD." That is a very simple instruction and should not need to be qualified. Esquivalience added "exceptions" for copyright violations, spam, patent nonsense, and BLP violations, then removed the first three as being speediable instead (probably correctly). I object to the BLP qualifier as well - harmful statements about living people can be removed by oversighters and/or through revision deletion (and should be without waiting for discussion), so we don't need to nuke pages from orbit just for this reason. I think it's best to leave this guideline as-is. Ivanvector ( talk) 16:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
D1 should, I propose, also reflect that a (general) google search should be performed. (In addition to a Google Books search, a Google News archive search, and sometimes GScholar). This is especially important as google has changed its search capabilities, and many articles formerly discoverable under gnews are now only discoverable under a (general) google search. -- Epeefleche ( talk) 05:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello. Can somebody please complete the deletion process for Hadith of the succession of Abu Bakr. I have given detailed reasoning for why i think the article should be deleted at the articles talk page. Thankyou very much to whoever takes it up.-- 58.106.235.75 ( talk) 09:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
May I make a suggestion that someone with the time/interest undertake the effort of moving the April Fools nominations to the bottom of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 April 1 (and keep them moved down there as new ones come up)? Maybe even put them in a div to color them differently if that wouldn't break the bots? There are some serious nominations interspersed with them and having the joke nominations makes it difficult to pick them out. For example, I thought when I was scrolling through the page that Women for equality and rights was a joke nomination until I clicked on it and saw that it was actually a non-notable organization, not an article about the concept of gender equality. (I'd do it myself, but (1) it's my bedtime and (2) they're trying to delete me.) -- B ( talk) 04:33, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
{{
db-hoax}}
? --
Redrose64 (
talk)
09:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)Do we allow copies of articles deleted at AFD to continue to exist outside of mainspace? Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disabled Entrepreneurs and Draft:Disabled Entrepreneurs. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 14:36, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007–08 NJIT Highlanders men's basketball team is malformed. It needs to be properly formatted.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi, could someone please complete the deletion process for the lateral spin valve page? The reasons for deletion are:
a) page provides no information not provided on the wikipedia Spin valve article which is already more detailed and complete. The only source in the "lateral spin valve" article can't be retrieved.
b) lateral spin valves are a type of spin valve and do not merit a separate article. At most they merit a subsection in the spin valve article. There is very little difference between a lateral spin valve and a "regular" spin valve. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.40.130 ( talk) 02:15, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
If such a deletion discussion is closed an no consensus, would the default option be to keep or delete the article? -- Fauzan ✆ talk ✉ mail 11:33, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello. I have read the Wikipedia entry for the book by Dean H. Kenyon and Gary Steinman; "Biochemical Predestination", and I'm not sure it actually merits an article. Surely the book has to be noteworthy in some way? Upon seeing the reviews in the "Reception" section of the article I noted that all of the reviews referred to were from other Creationists. Thinking that perhaps this was simply a deliberate omission, I ran a Google search, but could find not a single review from any source other than Creationists. I then looked at Amazon and found one review which did not actually review the book on US Amazon, no reviews on the UK Amazon. As I came to the page in the first instance to check some claims of a Creationist regarding Dean Kenyon's scientific pedigree, it rather looks as though the article is little more than a constructed prop to bolster the credentials of certain controversial "academics". Certainly, if one were to remove the Wiki-mandated spectacles of "assumption of good faith", one might conclude that the entire piece was a carefully crafted piece of Creationist PR. Does it really merit an article? Would it not be more appropriate to simply refer to it in the Publications section of the authors own pages? I must admit that I am not as familiar with the Wiki guidelines as I might be, so perhaps my reasoning here has been errant. But even should the page not be deleted, there are still some entries of concern that need to be addressed IMHO. Tarquin Q. Zanzibar ( talk) 19:10, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Looks like this AfD [6] was misplaced in today's AfD log. Could someone more knowledgeable fix this please? I would just break more stuff trying to do it myself :). GermanJoe ( talk) 08:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Could someone with a registered account complete steps II and III for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_%C3%93_Ruanaidh (resumé)
I just came across an article that was moved to Draft: space during the discussion. Ignoring the merits of the article itself, what is our policy on such a move? How, if at all, does it affect the AFD process?
I see this to be very similar to the blanking of an article during discussion, and the idea of a move to Draft: being an outcome of the discussion. It would be useful either to enshrine this in policy or to see what the policy says, please. Fiddle Faddle 22:18, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
@ ThoseArentMuskets:, the article Miapolis does not seem to be listed properly at WP:AFD. -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 17:37, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
There may be a better place to pose this, but here goes anyway: Could Wikipedia's boffins put their heads together and come up with an encoding scheme which auto-sorts closed AfDs (the "blue" ones) to the bottom of each day's list so that the remaining unclosed entries bob to the top? Is is annoying to see something like "20 April (Monday) (13 open / 38 closed / 51 total discussions; open: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13)" ...and realize I'm going to have to open up thirteen tabs (sucking up that much more site bandwidth), or go back and forth 26 times, or spend a lot of time down-clicking. Pax 06:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
People looking to clean up marginal articles in the encyclopedia may be interested in joining WikiProject Orphanage. We have over 100,000 article that are not linked to by any other article. Some just need to be linked or merged in but a fair number are orphans because they appear to have WP:NOTABILITY issues. ~ Kvng ( talk) 14:56, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
I saw an AfD where the following things occurred, in this order:
I'm leaving out links and names unless this is actionable, but I see several issues here. Oftentimes, one delete vote in the absence of voting has been taken as "consensus", and I think three delete votes (in addition to the nom) in the absence of keep votes is definitely consensus. For a user then to relist the AfD in those circumstances and then cast a keep vote seems a bit questionable to me. Thoughts and an appropriate course of action would be appreciated. MSJapan ( talk) 20:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the input (and the action). I didn't want to see this boil up into an RFC, which is why I was vague about it. A guideline would be a great idea, and it would just need to be simple, like "if you are performing any administrative action on an AfD, you may not participate in it." Would this need to go to VP? I wouldn't mind taking a shot at writing something up in any case. MSJapan ( talk) 06:14, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
I have nominated the article Dirty Water Brass Band for Speedy Deletion three separate times, on the grounds that it is about a small street band with no real significance, written by an individual with a direct connection to the band, which also constitutes as promotional. The first two times, the tag was removed by someone using a proxy IP address (I'm assuming the article's author) and the third time by someone who asserted the addition of references constituted notability.
References alone are not sufficient to make an article encyclopedic in nature and simply including a bunch of references should not be construed as establishing significance or notability.
@ NeilN: Sorry I'm not very familiar with the whole AFD thing. I hope I did everything right. Ormr2014 ( talk) 19:08, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Could someone with a registered account complete steps II and III for /info/en/?search=Rockette_Morton
this Article does not meet Wikipedia Notability Guidelines ... Samat lib ( talk) 09:11, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Succès de scandale has a broken first nomination and an active 2nd nomination on today's Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2015_May_10. Could someone knowledgeable fix this please? Thank you in advance. GermanJoe ( talk) 21:15, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
What does "VFD" stand for, and why does it redirect here if it isn't even mentioned on the page?
Attys ( talk) 22:10, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Please could somebody create the
deletion-discussion page for "
2015 Reclaim Brixton protest", and add it to the log.
{{subst:afd2 | pg=2015 Reclaim Brixton protest | cat=S | text=Non-notable local protest that lasted barely an afternoon. Fails [[WP:NOTNEWS]], [[WP:N]].}} –[[Special:Contributions/146.199.151.33|146.199.151.33]] ([[User talk:146.199.151.33|talk]]) 03:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, 146.199.151.33 ( talk) 03:50, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
We have a situation I've never seen - someone nominating their own articles for deletion, yet insisting they do not them to be deleted: Fail AfD is fail. Apparently this was done by nominator/article creator to make a WP:POINT because his feelings were hurt over edits to the article, and something about he was doing it because the other person failed to do it first (?). I explained the WP:G7 situation that nominating your own articles brings up. The discussion reached new levels of WP:LAME with nominator and his sidekick (with a shiny new account) arguing that nowhere does it say that if you nominate an article, you have to want to delete it, and that AfD was a perfectly suitable venue for discussing the article and if it should be nominated for deletion. For the life of me I can't understand why someone would not understand the whole point of nominating an article for deletion. Do we need something on the page that 1) explains that by nominating a page, you are supporting it being deleted and 2) you should not create AfDs for pages you really want to keep just to generate discussion/get feedback - that's what talk pages are for. It seems to me a waste of time to have an AfD discussion when nobody has actually proposed the article be deleted. —Мандичка YO 😜 14:17, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
I recently nominated an article for deletion here. It was a second nom, because I stumbled upon the article somehow, and in the interest of trying to copyedit it, I found there was no substantive coverage to back up anything in the article. However, the previous nom had been closed keep because one person voted keep and claimed substantive coverage via Google. Myself and two others clearly found that to be untrue in the followup. The user who voted in the previous nom not only explicitly stated an inclusionist bias, but has since been CU blocked indefinitely.
It leads me to wonder if there is a way (or a strong enough reason) to go back and look at recent AfD votes of indeffed users. In this case, the voter gave no actual proof of his coverage claim other than to cite Google, and was indeffed 2 weeks later. OTOH, nobody pressed the user to offer proof of the vote, and we are supposed to substantiate all votes. To be fair, there was no other input whatsoever on the AfD. Nevertheless, it seems to me like it was a bad-faith vote from the get-go, reinforced by the user's own page. However, I'm saying that in hindsight, and having looked at it. Is it too time-consuming and unwieldy to not take votes at face value or to discount votes with no substantiation as a matter of course? MSJapan ( talk) 07:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Category:AfD debates relisted 3 or more times has been nominated for possible deletion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Steel1943 ( talk) 04:28, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Complete steps II and III with regards to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrapy Article does not meet notability guidelines — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.68.7.120 ( talk) 18:19, 2 June 2015
I've nominated Merovingian (The Matrix) for deletion, but I need someone to help me complete the process. I've posted my deletion rationale on the article's talk page. -- 110.20.234.69 ( talk) 22:51, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
There are no Anti-Blank pages for any other nation in the Balkans yet other faced persecution. This article should be deleted. Nothing but propaganda aimed and distabalizing factual views and justify war crime and behavior. Anti-Serb Sentiment— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackiechan321 ( talk • contribs)
Please help me complete the deletion discussion for The Ultimate Matrix Collection. I have posted my rationale for deletion on the talk page.-- 110.20.234.69 ( talk) 22:19, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Could someone please complete the second and third step for me? Thank you. 76.107.171.90 ( talk) 01:38, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
I attempted to nominate Laurie Patton for deletion, and Twinkle failed to create the appropriate pages, with an "Invalid Token" error. The log shows a link in a different section, but has not properly sectioned it. The appropriate page was not created. Could someone please assist me with manual creation and correction of the malformed content? Thanks in advance! Scr★pIron IV 18:34, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
I need some help here. This page for an album was created when the album didn't have much information out other than tracklisting, release date, and title. The "***" before "This" and after "Test" turned out to be stylization, but was included in the article's name. So how would I go about asking for this page to be deleted? Much thanks. Ilovechristianmusic ( talk) 02:06, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
I see a problem with the AfD policy being enforced apparently haphazardly (or else an attempt to forcefully silence someone's view point that certain people do not agree with.) On /info/en/?search=Talk:Frank_R._Wallace there is a tag that this page was nominated for deletion, and that the decision was to keep it, apparently still able to be viewed and read by people. However, the article's talk page at /info/en/?search=Talk:Neo-Tech says the decision was to keep, more specifically, the discussion archived at /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Neo-Tech shows a different page than what is there now, and yet, somehow, that version of the page WAS deleted. There is no way in hell that the discussion being hashed out was all over a disambiguation page. Not cool WP. 32.212.104.223 ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:54, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
I am being serious here, and the issue was the appearance of double standards. If it is resolved, I am happy, however, from further reading, it seems that certain people were attacking the original page by what was called revert wars. But to me, it seems that if the issue is that there are problems with a page (admitted, I have no idea what was on the original), then the first instinct should be to fix what is on the page, not delete it. Judging by the fact that there was apparently 3 different requests to delete the page, not so sure that enough effort was made to try to fix the problem, just sweep it under the proverbial rug. I read on some of the pages that a user named Bi was apparently the latest requester, and apparently had made a joke page disparaging Neo-Tech (or Neo Tech or however), and to me, it looks like the only reason for the request was apparently some sort of personal issue they had with it. Some of the comments about the personal attack on this wiki was made by me, but that was based on what I have seen here and elsewhere. 32.212.104.223 ( talk) 04:36, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
(addition to above) I also checked the history at the page I first listed as the talk page, and following that page's listed history doesn't clear up the previous confusion any. Just an observation, no good or bad either way to me as the issue was already resolved. 32.212.104.223 ( talk) 05:30, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
I would like to see a policy to the effect that articles with foreign-language titles that have english translations can be deleted.
My beef is this: I keep coming across articles about aspects of Islam that rely heavily on arabic terminology. These articles are typically written in ungrammatical english, and are peppered with arabic technical terms that are not defined in the article. Frequently these technical terms link to a page with an arabic title, which in turn relies on a slew of arabic technical terms.
I hasten to point out that I am not proposing the mass-deletion of articles about Islam; on the contrary, these are articles that I have tried to read out of interest. Rather, I am suggesting that articles in the english Wikipedia should be written in english, and should not require a knowledge of arabic (or any other foreign language) in order to be understandable.
MrDemeanour ( talk) 09:07, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
{{
db-foreign}}
; if the article is in Arabic but an English-language page doesn't exist, mark it {{
notenglish|Arabic}}
and send it to
WP:PNT. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
15:19, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Could somebody please complete the AfD request for Isa dreams? I have added my reasons for seeking deletion on the article's talk page here. Much appreciated.-- 58.106.251.124 ( talk) 02:18, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of:
/info/en/?search=The_Peace_%26_Freedom_Band
No references for the last 2 years, the only ones I could find in a search were obscure blogs.
87.112.176.188 ( talk) 14:32, 9 July 2015 (UTC)G. MacKenzie 87.112.176.188 ( talk) 14:32, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
I'd like to propose the following article for deletion:
/info/en/?search=Eastern_Rainbow
No references in the last 10 years & I could only find one obscure mention on a search.
Thank you,
87.114.21.213 ( talk) 07:19, 10 July 2015 (UTC) G. MacKenzie.
No references in the last 10 years. This seems to be mostly a self-publishing venture with little to find on a search apart from small pamphlets on Amazon.
Too obscure for an encyclopedia.
87.114.21.213 ( talk) 07:29, 10 July 2015 (UTC) G. MacKenzie.
Strangely the only references to the 'Peace and Freedom magazine' I could find online deals with a completely different magazine which isn't on Wikipedia.
The magazine listed here on Wikipedia is an obscure fanzine. Too obscure for an encyclopedia?
Again, no references listed in the last 10 years.
87.114.21.213 (talk) 07:36, 10 July 2015 (UTC) G. MacKenzie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.21.213 ( talk)
Before this article is deleted(?) here is some info I gleaned from one of the references. It is the url of a website where one can watch the full documentary and form their own opinion of its value; : http://planet.infowars.com/health/seeds-of-death-full-movie-march-against-monsanto-special-gary-null-releases-his-movie-seeds-of-death Ottawahitech ( talk) 19:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Could somebody please fix the AfD for Goldbach (Tollense). Thanks, JMHamo ( talk) 23:06, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
A MediaWiki bug ( phabricator:T87645) resulted in a number of articles intended for other namespaces being created within namespace 0 on January 27th 2015. A number of these (listed below) were related to the AfD discussions. All have now been superseded by entries in the correct namespace.
I intend to delete the misplaced articles of the next few days. It may appear from the deletion logs that I am deleting archived discussions that are intended to be retained - please don't be alarmed, I am only removing duplicate articles that are not normally accessible. The 'normal' versions of the archived discussions will remain accessible to all.
Cheers. - TB ( talk) 09:36, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
per
this dif, honoring newbie editor's intention to withdraw their comment here by striking per REDACT
Jytdog (
talk) 22:53, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I do not understand the reason why this page has to be deleted.. We've only listed all the works that our company/CEO
Hyuk Shin took part in.
Joombas Music Group discography page was made in order to list all the works we've done for people to know what kind of songs we produce and write. Although our company does not OWN the song anymore, all we have listed are the songs we took in part of (producing and writing). Joombas Music Group is a well-known production company in South Korea producing
EXO - Growl (Multi Platinum). We not only produce and write songs but we have released our very own singer
Dean (South Korean singer). As of right now, we only have listed the works we've took part in (WE DO NOT OWN THE ARTISTS LISTED. WE ONLY HAVE LOYALTY FOR ALL THE SONGS LISTED). But according to @C.Fred, we are NOT allowed to even list any of our work unless our label owns the singer.. Instead of deleting our page.. I wish you guys could just help us fix our problem with references and citations. Instead of deleting our page without specific reasoning.
Josephyangjoombas (
talk)
21:58, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I think Pornogrind might be a good candidate for a merge with Grindcore. CombatMarshmallow ( talk) 06:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Bandana_thrash should be merged with Thrashcore. Hope these are helpful. CombatMarshmallow ( talk) 06:49, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
I have never went through this process. I hope this is ok the way I present this. Raicore needs to be deleted or merged with: Taqwacore CombatMarshmallow ( talk) 06:34, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
@ Flat Out:, @ The Banner:, and @ Davey2010: are off to the races nominating beauty pageant articles for deletion. I'm not a fan of these pageant articles myself but this AFD campaign is getting out of control. If you can't find sources for Reinado Internacional del Café or Míster España then something is wrong. I practically tripped over them on my way to Google. I get it with things like Miss Cotopaxi, but let's not throw the baby out with the bath water. I would really rather be doing something else with my time than looking up beauty pageants. Please make a good faith effort at WP:BEFORE, with the cut-and-paste rationales and the obvious sources on some of these things the effort is looking a tad weak. Cheers, Vrac ( talk) 02:34, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
The first line under the "Current discussions" subheading reads: Articles being considered for possible deletion are indexed by the day on which they were first listed.
They aren't. Take a look - many of the discussions shown under a given date were relisted on that date, and first listed several weeks earlier.
Would be appreciated if this could be fixed, as it would make it very much easier to find older discussions in most need of further input, now that the very useful bot that used to list these is out of action : Noyster (talk), 09:40, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
@
Dweller,
BlameRuiner,
Wikimandia,
Earthh,
Stuartyeates,
Davey2010,
Walter Görlitz @
Jzp,
Joseph2302 (and any others):
The article
Jeff Friedl has been re-created. It has been deleted twice before:
once in 2009 and
once earlier this year after an
AfD. The AfD notes that there was no prejudice, so a better article on the topic would be acceptable. I have no knowledge of the topic, nor was I involved in the previous discussion, so I have no idea if the current article is any better than the previous one. Is this article a good candidate for
G4 Speedy Delete and/or is it any better than the previous incarnation (possibly worth keeping this time to see if it gets better)? --
Unready (
talk)
02:14, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
I think moving to draft was exceedingly kind, but they should have a short rope. This article has been repeatedly recreated on two different pages Jeff Friedl and Jeff friedl. -- Dweller ( talk) 08:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Can someone please close this Afd? It's been open long enough now. Mjroots ( talk) 16:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
This AfD has been open for nearly three months. What's the best course here for closure/cleanup? Thanks. -- Finngall talk 15:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
If I had the same concern over a large group of articles (namely quite a few of these), how would I go about that? I don't think I can bundle them, per the instructions on the page, but it would be a real pain for everybody to make a ton of AfDs. Should I start a RfC? Any advice is appreciated. Kharkiv07 ( T) 01:21, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
An IP has tried to nominate one of the articles I have created for deletion and done a poor job of it. I think this may be retaliation for one of my AFD noms and don't think it has any merit. Would someone either create and transclude the AFD or delete it and remove the tag from the article? shoy ( reactions) 15:27, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
I have withdrawn the AfD here, though one responder (partially) agrees with me, so I'm not closing it myself. If someone wants to close it, would be fine. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 10:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Could someone please complete my nomination of Journey to the Source: Decoding Matrix Trilogy for deletion? -- 110.20.234.69 ( talk) 02:54, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
How would one propose deletion on the German Wikipedia? Anmccaff ( talk) 14:51, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
A bot post on my talk page led me eventually to this AfD. In spite of making recent edits to the page, exactly zero effort was expended to contact the authors of the article to see what might be done. Is it not the case that there is supposed to be at least some effort to contact the involved parties? Or does AfD work entirely as judge, jury and executioner? Maury Markowitz ( talk) 17:56, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Well then, I think it's time we opened discussion on whether that language needs to change - can anyone offer a cogent argument why there should not be a requirement to notify major contributors, especially recent and active ones? Before you worry about workload, there are a variety of tech solutions to that. But personally, I feel the single-click-to-kill of Twinkle is precisely the problem, not the solution. Maury Markowitz ( talk) 12:57, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Sounds great Ivan. In the meantime I'm in the midst of tracking down a tool that might be just what we're looking for. I do find it a bit worrying that so much is done through TW - we have made huge strides on making it easier to delete things, yet actually creating them in the first place continues to get harder and harder. Maury Markowitz ( talk) 19:23, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Susya is an article about 3 entities, all called Susya (or closely related variants). It is an archaelogical site, a Palestinian village, and an Israeli settlement. A week or so ago, an editor was WP:BOLD and split the article into 3 articles, dealing with them separately. It was objected to, the article was reverted, and the split articles nominated for deletion (I voted "delete" there). The AfDs resulted in "no consensus".
What is the relevant policy now? I am aware that "no consensus" on AfDs usually results in articles being kept. However, here the articles only contain material from the original article, and there is no consensus (or indeed discussion) to split the article up. What should be the scope of the original article now? With the original article existing, there is no point, and indeed, the new articles would be duplicates of the original one. I asked the closer here, and they said to determine it through consensus. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 09:00, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't think this project page says how to make all that stuff that's always supposed to appear at the top of a deletion discussion page appear there. Is that something that's supposed to happen automatically with twinkle? Blackbombchu ( talk) 16:28, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:AfD in 3 steps has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
(Cross-posted from the template page.) On the first line of step 3, “Open the
articles for deletion log page,”
please change “Open” to “Edit,” because that’s where the link leads (also see
WP:EASTEREGG).
67.14.236.50 (
talk)
04:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
The article Health Service Culture:
and, most important,
I suggest that the subject is non-notable and therefore the article should be deleted; but as I am not a registered Wikipedia user (and am not going to become one), it will need someone else to agree with me and start the process. If, on the other hand, there is a consensus to keep it, then it needs a lot of improvement.
Consider this a "drive-by" nomination; if someone wants to start the official process, please do, but I myself am not interested in discussing it further, so please don't respond on my IP talk page. (And no, I'm not going to register with WIkipedia, so you needn't suggest that either.)
Thanks for your attention, -- 65.94.50.17 ( talk) 04:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Please don't delete the article
Anand Sen (business person) must not be deleted. If there is any problem in this article please resolve that or let me know regarding this on my user talk page:
Padmalochanwiki:Talk.
Padmalochan Jena
08:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
This discussion has been sitting, but I'm bringing it up because the article's copyvio. The link is in the AfD ( diff) (click on "About Us"), but I don't want to follow copyvio procedure and blank the article page because of the ongoing AfD. MSJapan ( talk) 23:18, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
I have provided the newspaper references more than one newspaper for Nazo Dharejo, go through those references find news about Nazo Dharejo, so the article must not be deleted. thanks Jogi 007 ( talk) 08:20, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Can someone please have a look at this. It was closed, undone by an admin an an inappropriate NAC, then re-closed as the administrator was a contributor to the discussion so involved. The advice at WP:NACD seems to support both reopening it and reclosing it, and could perhaps be clarified.-- JohnBlackburne words deeds 16:36, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm thinking this article Something Positive probably should go. I look at 'improving' it & come to the conclusion that every single part of it, judged alone, should be deleted. It doesn't seem notable, there are a few very minor possible RSs about the author, but none about the comic. Other than it having been nominated for the barely-existing WCCA, the only sources are comic pages themselves. Apparently IPs aren't allowed to nominate for deletion anymore... 92.25.131.125 ( talk) 14:04, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I nominated Unsealed: Conspiracy Files for deletion as it was a conspiracy documentary series with little to no chance of notability. Can someone complete it for me? -- 189.25.205.234 ( talk) 01:35, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
{{ recap}} is nominated for deletion. This is an ancillary deletion template for processing long deletion discussions -- 70.51.202.113 ( talk) 04:48, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
I've put up Andrew Novell for deletion after WP:PROD was contested, could someone please complete the process? Rationale is noted on the talk page TIA, 85.178.217.32 ( talk) 03:39, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Done Thanks to Huon for doing the deed. 85.178.217.32 ( talk) 14:18, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
I've put up The acorn paradox for deletion after discovering that a previous WP:PROD was contested. Could someone please complete the process? Rationale is noted on the talk page. TIA 85.178.217.32 ( talk) 18:47, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Done Kindly completed by JohnCD. 85.178.217.32 ( talk) 18:53, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
I have put a tag on Florent Bezara and noted the justification for deletion on Talk:Florent Bezara. Could someone please complete the process for me? Thanks. 153.203.39.216 ( talk) 03:27, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Could someone please complete the afd of Ali in the Quran and The verse of Mawadda. I have clearly stated my reasons for the nominations on the talk pages of both articles. Thankyou.-- 58.106.251.114 ( talk) 10:23, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
I followed the steps for deleting a page and people are putting in their two cents. I'm not sure what else I have to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Punstress ( talk • contribs) 09:30, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
~~~~
at the end
: Noyster
(talk),
11:42, 18 September 2015 (UTC)An editor recently got a bit upset about an article nomination. I've tried to cool the fires by taking it the talk page. I would appreciate any neutral comments at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Stephanie Powell Watts in an effort to defuse this. Thank you! - O.R. Comms 00:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Whatever one's opinions of Donald Trump, his nine-year-old son, who has appeared occasionally on The Apprentice but never, to my knowledge, in a featured capacity, doesn't deserve a Wikipedia entry in his own right. I'd nominate for AfD but am not sure just what WP:BLP policy this violates, just that it crosses into "creep factor" territory. (@ Professor JR: wouldn't you agree?) Help and insight here would be appreciated. Vesuvius Dogg ( talk) 23:30, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Vesuvius Dogg and MASEM -- clearly a candidate for AfD. And, generally speaking, underage children of prominent figures and celebrities should be considered off limits. This, for a number of reasons, including privacy concerns -- which is why, as MASEM points out, there are not separate articles on Malia and Sasha Obama, but they are included in the Family of Barack Obama article. (For my part, I'm not even sure Wikipedia should include the 'Family of' articles, but just should list underage children in the article on the principal person). --- Professor JR ( talk) 09:14, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Re the original question ("what policy does this violate"), the relevant guideline is WP:BIOFAMILY ( WP:BLP1E is the closest policy I could find). -- ais523 18:23, 19 October 2015 ( U T C)
I have posted my justification on Talk:Hayden Black. Thank you. 67.86.185.252 ( talk) 02:54, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
I have nominated the page Malee (elephant) for deletion and put the nomination here: Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Malee (elephant). Can someone please move the nomination page to regular wikipedia space? -- 177.142.118.61 ( talk) 22:43, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Can someone move this rationale to the regular Wikipedia (not talk) namespace, remove the tag and add to the log? Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Twilight (CD-ROM) -- 189.25.224.254 ( talk) 19:45, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
I have nominated AJ Suede for deletion, and noted the justification for deletion on Talk:AJ Suede. Can someone please complete the process? Thanks. 153.228.98.244 ( talk) 06:36, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Can someone please move Draft:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evette Borromeo to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evette Borromeo without leaving a redirect? Please don't forget to tag the article and list the discussion in today's log. Thanks. 121.54.54.170 ( talk) 23:17, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Admin action needed. Please move Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Trans-Radio Broadcasting Corporation to Wikipedia namespace without leaving a redirect and transclude it in today's log. Thanks, 121.54.54.238 ( talk) 03:09, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
The article seems a promotion of the company, their controllers and investors(!!). It survived an AFD so it may have relevance. A lot of references, but almost all not related. I think that if is not case for deletion, at least many content may be withdrawn. Caiaffa ( talk) 16:54, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
I have nominated this page for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.83.206.167 ( talk) 22:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello all. Frank Jackson (Basketball Player) has been nominated for deletion, though he is probably notable. I was thinking the article should be redirected to Frank Jackson (basketball), but am not sure if this is acceptable while the article is at AfD. ~ EDDY ( talk/ contribs)~ 17:14, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm new to Wikipedia editing, but I found an autobiographical article for Anthony Conway. He is an artist but the problem with his page, is he links himself as a founding artist in the new realist movement, and has his name listed in a list of artists who have contributed greatly to Classical Realism, /info/en/?search=Classical_Realism
He links his page on Wikipedia to every great artist you can think of, and his sources are a repetition of one or two of the same articles where he was interviewed in his hometown.
It's an autobiography, and should be deleted. Seeker1111 ( talk) 16:09, 14 October 2015 (UTC) Seeker1111
i nominate Occidental–Whittier football rivalry because it is non notable. theres no evidence that it is a important topic. it is a small rivalry that no one cares about it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.236.126.106 ( talk) 22:35, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
"The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review)"
So, here's the thing. These instructions for further comment are rather poor. If the page was deleted, the article's talk page will just be re-deleted, so that's not a good place. And there are a large amount of new editors at articles for deletion, and creating a deletion review is technically tricky, so that's also a poor choice. We need to point our new editors to a better place and not lead them astray. Maybe to the deletion discussions associated talk page? Maybe to the administrator's talk page? I'm not sure. Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 04:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
I think Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Example should be updated to use a more current look for how an AfD page is properly formatted, but I don't want to touch it since I would neither know just what to do nor want to break anything. — 烏Γ ( kaw), 07:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Is there any system for alerting users of and attracting them to deletion discussions, like how WP:FRS operates for RfCs? — 烏Γ ( kaw), 08:23, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
I've archived a few addressed threads that were marked as "done". — Cirt ( talk) 11:50, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I've created the WP:Deletion to Quality Award.
This recognizes editors who've taken a page previously considered for deletion — to Featured Article or Good Article quality.
The award is inspired by the Wikipedia:Million Award, the Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron, and the Wikipedia:WikiProject Quality Article Improvement.
Please see Wikipedia:Deletion to Quality Award.
Thank you,
— Cirt ( talk) 11:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I have decided to revert each of the music genre AFDs I have made. I went through each of those articles one by one before deciding to AFD them. If not for the concept in general, then for the article's current sourcing which left much to be desired. Thankfully some deep Google searching has revealed suitable sourcing in enough to make me reconsider this. I would have liked to have a sincere discussion about the state of these articles, and I know for a fact that various ones should undeniably be deleted, but it seems the focus is on the few I got wrong, so I will back down. Perhaps a discussion can be done somewhere about how we as a community can actually imporve all these articles. I apologise for offending anybody, and please refrain from the insults. Thanks. :D-- Coin945 ( talk) 14:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Can someone please nominate Mareco Broadcasting Network for deletion? I've provided the reason on the article's talk page. Thanks, 121.54.54.170 ( talk) 15:33, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm not experienced on editing here and am not sure if I'll be able to properly nominate an article for deletion, so if someone wants to do it for me I'd like to nominate the article /info/en/?search=Frederico_Morais
I was searching google for Frederico Morais, a well known surfer, but instead bumped into the above page. As a Portuguese football fan I'm pretty sure that individual isn't in any way notable. There is not a single mention of him on online press records and all the sources of the article are just the organizations where he's worked. The article looks like a professional resumé, was all written by the same editor and looks suspiciously autobiographical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arruda81 ( talk • contribs) 02:31, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
This AFD was closed (correctly) as a SNOW keep - but that leaves dozens of articles still tagged for AFD. WP:BADAFD has asploded. If anyone wants to take a few minutes and process a few of these (Un-tag, add the afd-multi to the talk page), it'd be appreciated. (If you have a script that would do the same thing, have at - that's even better.) Thanks! UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:42, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Can someone please nominate Blackstar (David Bowie album). I believe the article fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE as it is simply a single-line article which gives a future relase date. I attempted a redirect [8], which was undone by the article's author User:Lugnuts with the comment "there is info" [9]. Lugnuts then failed to WP:AGF and added a user warning to my talk page [10]. I then attempted a WP:PROD citing WP:INDISCRIMINATE [11], which Lugnuts again reverted [12] claiming I was disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Lugnuts then left a message on my talk page calling be a troll [13].
I believe that Blackstar (David Bowie album) will at some point in the future will become notable, but until such time it doesn't need an article. -- 46.254.186.36 ( talk) 11:10, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
It was for an "electronic sports" team called 4Kings. I'm not entirely sure what the article was titled, either 4Kings or Four Kings or some variant there of. I believe the AFD occured around Nov/Dec 2005.-- Prisencolin ( talk) 17:00, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
HalloweenNight closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antonia Gerena Rivera (2nd nomination) as keep less than four hours after making his/her first edit. Could somebody reopen this so someone else can decide what to do with this? Rainbow unicorn ( talk) 20:52, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
When deciding if a potential admin is fit for the tools, the candidate's AfD stats are a significant consideration.
So, I'm posting here. You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and maybe even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.
So, please consider watchlisting and taking a look at this page:
Many thanks and best wishes,
Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 02:54, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Can someone please re-open the discussion? The user who closed it ( Wikienglish123) was blocked and it looks like he/she didn't know what he/she's doing. And please undo what he/she has done on Mareco Broadcasting Network. Thanks, 121.54.54.170 ( talk) 06:50, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Would a registered user please complete this AFD nomination? Substed {{ afd2}} template follows. Thank you.
Judging by a Google News archive search, the term has only been used by the creators of Home Movies in reference to that show. None of the sources cited in the article use any form of the word except for one, and that one links the word back to our article, which at the time was a completely unsourced stub. — 67.14.236.50 ( talk) 04:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove the third (colon-indented) paragraph of § How to nominate a single page for deletion. It is wholly redundant with, and less informative than, the immediately preceding sentence. — 67.14.236.50 ( talk) 03:58, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
support deletion because the person is not notable 65.175.243.206 ( talk) 12:51, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
This open AfD was relisted last on 10 October 2015, but has remained unnoticed since by closing admins. Apparently it was relisted twice on the same day in a short period of time, which may have led to this problem. I have removed the html comment-hiding elements on the 2015/10/10 log page and then tried to refresh Mathbot's Old discussion page, but that seems to go only back up to a limited amount of days. Could someone look into this? - HyperGaruda ( talk) 07:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Could someone knowledgeable about AfD templates have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LeMel Humes please? Looks like the nomination's transclusion is bugged somehow, or maybe simply duplicated in itself. GermanJoe ( talk) 11:38, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I think they are not notable. Does not meet the criteria for WP:MUSICIAN and google search does not turn about a lot of results. I don't know how to nominate an article and I am not sure if I am correct about this or not. Therefore, I am not nominating it. Susana Hodge ( talk) 05:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Abiola Abrams also seems non-notable to me. The article is filled with promotional stuff and beneath all the fluff, Abrams does not qualify. Susana Hodge ( talk) 05:46, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
FYI discussion ongoing at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#AfD_culture since October 2015. Ottawahitech ( talk) 22:42, 22 November 2015 (UTC)please ping me
AFDFORMAT presently claims that there exist tools (plural) and bots that parse AfDs which will only recognise bolded words. To date, I have only been able to identify one tool ( AfD Statistics) that does this. I am aware of no bots whatsoever of which that statement is true. I suspect that the alleged other tools and bots do not exist. I have not, however, had time to carefully examine every single tool and bot. Can anyone either confirm that my suspicion is true, or identify the other individual tools and bots? I think it is important that essays in the Wikipedia space do not contain factual claims that are unverified or demonstrably false. Accordingly, unless the other alleged other tools and bots are identified in a reasonable amount of time, the words "some bots and tools" should, in my view, be changed to "at least one tool", with no mention of bots, or something to that effect. James500 ( talk) 00:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Having given the matter further consideration, I'm going to go ahead and amend the essay AFDFORMAT with a rationale of "attempted verification failed". I will include a list of the tools already identified. If anyone discovers any other tools, or any bots whatsoever, they can add them to the list. James500 ( talk) 07:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Interested in what do editors think of essay as it was created by an editor who really does not like to bold !votes. LibStar ( talk) 10:45, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Not rude at all. Extremely valid. LibStar ( talk) 05:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
The burden of bolding !votes is not merely an additional burden on the time, finances[6] and physical and mental stamina of individual editors
Why not add the ~~~~ sign off. Those extra keystrokes over a lifetime could cause mental and physical exhaustion. As Reyk points out , this is from an editor who has extreme difficulty writing concisely. The irony. LibStar ( talk) 14:24, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
you're once again failing to even realise that the essay has close to zero support. perhaps the mental and physical anguish of all those keystrokes are affecting you. LibStar ( talk) 03:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Step II says:
* Add a deletion sorting template to the nomination, if appropriate.
However, there are no "deletion sorting templates", or indeed templates of any kind, at that link or anything it links to. Can someone therefore either fix this instruction or remove it? Thanks. Softlavender ( talk) 10:55, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
{{
AfD in 3 steps}}
to link to the sorting template and explain what it's for
: Noyster
(talk),
12:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC){{
delsort}}
template simply adds a line of text to the AfD discussion, e.g. Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. It's appropriate only when you or someone else has added the entry to the list itself, in this example to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Aviation : Noyster (talk), 13:32, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
{{
AfD in 3 steps}}
further edited to make explicit that the entry needs to have been added to the deletion sorting list itself, before putting the delsort template on the AfD discussion.May I ask why {{ CENT}} is transcluded onto all AfD logs? I realize that AfDs are discussions, but that seems to be the only connection between the two, and CENT seems a tad irrelevant... it's not a major issue or anything, but I'm just curious. Kharkiv07 ( T) 20:09, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I have withdrawn the AfD here. Someone might want to close it, or let me know if I can close it myself. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 23:54, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
There is an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#RFC: delete and redirect that asks: "Should our default practice be to delete article histories and contributions when a small article is converted into a redirect to a larger article?" Cunard ( talk) 05:52, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Could someone help me with the creation of an AFD nomination, since it seems only registered users can create an AFD page?
I wish to nominate all of following pages for deletion (bundled nomination), the rationale is provided below.
A number of campaigns are launched by WP such as recently ended one WP:WAMP for equalizing global representation of communitites and subjects related to them or to their region and culture. Simultaneously page deletion process is also applied by some biased users who fire the gun of rules, without knowing the true intention of the foundation for framing rules. This situation causes an anti-campaing tool and needs attention of Admin/managers/well wisher of WP. In order to maintain the true spirit of WP:NPOV page deletion proposer should have familiarity with the subject or community before his/her tag for page deletion is considered for action. I therefore propose:
Thanks for consideration. Nannadeem ( talk) 11:42, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
One may see misuse here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rehan Azmi with reference to Pakistan's oldest English Daily DAWN. Nannadeem ( talk) 22:36, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Can someone please complete the deletion process for /info/en/?search=Computers_In_Personnel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.88.103.119 ( talk) 14:44, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Request to delay deletion of SOME speedy-deletion candidates if they are at AFD. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 16:37, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm a newbie so please don't bite. Come across the headline page and I can't really see anything notable about him. Do you think I should list it at possibly contentious articles for deletion? Lyndaship ( talk) 16:08, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Anyone else having issues with the {{ Deletion sorting}} template not automatically listing deletion discussions at the various WP:DELSORT listings? I think {{ Deletion sorting}} has failed to automatically add to the listings for me the last 2–3 times that I've tried to use it. So I'm wondering if anyone else is seeing this issue?... -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 02:46, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
(Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francis Chanda)
This article should not be articles for deletion the article contains useful information about the person in it Raysum2020 ( talk) 23:26, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm seeking a clarification and discussion of Wikipedia policy that I am in disagreement over with another editor. I have posted it for discussion at the Village Pump (policy) XfD: Delayed raising of a second reason to delete or keep. Thisisnotatest ( talk) 07:10, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Because spelling is wrong. -- Koam1998 ( talk) 01:58, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Because two File, so File:Cnntonight.jpg deleted. -- Koam1998 ( talk) 01:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
There appears to be some trouble with Mathbot: Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Old#Mathbot. Is that also maybe why 14 January does not show up in the list of old AfDs? - HyperGaruda ( talk) 07:31, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
The page "Andrew Lowe", which I created, has been set for deletion for lack of references. I have added references, but the "set for deletion" notification persists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kcmartenslol ( talk • contribs) 04:36, 23 January 2016
I have put up the article
Neil Cohn for deletion; since I'm not registered, I only did step one (adding {{
afd1}}
to the page). Can someone help me create the actual deletion page? I have posted the deletion rationale to
Talk:Neil Cohn#AfD nomination; I just need someone to create the deletion page and paste that rationale in. Thanks!
80.4.164.166 (
talk)
04:47, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Just a query - For well over a year I've been closing AFDs a day early which I'm now banned from ... So this new way's a tad confusing at the moment!,
So say basically instead of closing at 12pm (midnight) on the new day I should be closing at 12pm (midnight) on the 8th day if that makes sense?
I've done a picture which should hopefully do a better job at explaining than me!
,
Thanks, –
Davey2010
Talk
15:48, 27 January 2016 (UTC)