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 70

←

Archive 75

Archive 76

Archive 77

As I'm already aware, the rule goes that articles can only be PRODded once before they get sent to AFD. However, for articles that have survived AFD scrutiny but have fared little better since, is PRODding them still possible nonetheless? -- Slgrandson ( How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 19:31, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

No, once they have been to AfD they are ineligible for WP:PROD even if they were previously deleted at AfD, Atlantic306 ( talk) 20:41, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

PROD is only for uncontroversial deletions; surviving an AfD is proof that deletion of that page qualifies as controversial. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 22:20, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Please use the {{ help me}} template appropriately. The {{ help me}} template is for help in using Wikipedia, not for unrelated issues. If you would like to ask such a question, replace the code {{ help me-inappropriate}} on this page with {{ help me}} to reactivate the help request. Alternatively, you can also ask your question at the Teahouse, the help desk, or join Wikipedia's Live Help IRC channel to get real-time assistance.

Please finish the AFD on the tornado. Reason for deletion provided on the talk page. 144.178.5.26 ( talk) 17:23, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

You cannot ask for an AfD to be closed that does not exist as an AfD. And you can't ask via {{ help}} templates. Nor is this an appropriate place for the request. — jmcgnh ^{(talk)  (contribs)} 22:17, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

@ 144.178.5.26: Okay, the instructions for unregistered users do indeed tell you to post here but the {{ help}} template was not needed. I'll see if I can complete the nomination. — jmcgnh ^{(talk)  (contribs)} 00:43, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi. I am nominating Tekin Salimi for deletion. Can someone please help with the AFD process?

My reason is as follows:

Article fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. If you look at the sources you can see there's barely any actual coverage on the person himself. There seems to be more on promoting dao5 which isn't even notable enough to have it own article. And that's assuming you can even use such sources which I don't think is possible since they seem to not be independent. A few are flat out interviews which cannot be considered independent. I'm also getting some WP:PROMO vibes from the article. 210.6.154.3 ( talk) 15:21, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done Discussion can be found here. Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 17:18, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Rename AFD no longer reflects the way we use AfD. There are a large number of BLAR->Revert->AfD articles. That technically fails WP:SK criterion 1 as written... but that's silly--community discussions involving alternatives to deletion, specifically merge, redirect, and/or draftify, have been increasing, and I think giving us much better outcomes overall and less contention in the process. I suggest we consider crafting an AfDeletion -> AfDiscussion RfC, despite PEREN. Thoughts? Jclemens ( talk) 06:58, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Jclemens, even after I have edited heavily for 14 years, I find your acronym and jargon filled proposal confusing. BLAR and SK? WTF? Articles for Deletion seems just fine to me, and I have been recommending redirects and merges in a small number of cases for many years without confusion or problems. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Cullen328 ( talk) 07:07, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

AfD is "broke", in quite a few ways. There are several large discussions going on right now, so I've been holding off, but my intent is to start an RFC in the future concerning this, and a bit more. - jc37 09:20, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

The problems with AfD are not the result of its name. Cullen328 ( talk) 16:07, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, I'd agree that that's not top of the list, at least... - jc37 17:06, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Cullen328 I'm sorry you found reference to common deletion-related acronyms confusing. Might I suggest that if you don't know, off the top of your head, what BLAR and SK refer to, you might benefit from reviewing deletion processes. Of course, this is an idea, not a proposal; a trial balloon, not a blueprint. It is targeted not to VPP, but to people who have AfD watchlisted: an audience I expected would be fine with the acronyms. To the extent that that's not you, I apologize if the technical jargon was a barrier to understanding and considering my statement. Jclemens ( talk) 23:43, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Jclemens, I have participated in thousands of AfD debates going back 13 years with a very high rate of accuracy and I do not remember BLAR or SK or unlinked acronyms being used. I am thoroughly familiar with deletion processes. Cullen328 ( talk) 23:56, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, I expect we've participated in many such discussions together, which is why I found the comment on the acronyms confusing. I've taken to not linking acronyms unless I know I'm talking to one or more newbies. I assume anyone reading this is capable of seeing "BLAR" and thinking " WP:BLAR" if they really needed to look it up. Now, having said all that, can you comment on the substance of the proposal: Articles for Deletion often and correctly leads to non-deletion outcomes including redirection, merging, and draftifying. Given this diversity of outcomes, and the benefits of priming all participants to consider alternatives to deletion for articles that don't meet current criteria, do you have a non-tradition-based reason why AfD should stay Articles for Deletion? Not that there's anything wrong with the "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." objection, but that's a universal objection to changing anything; I was hoping to elicit actual non-obvious arguments against the idea. Jclemens ( talk) 00:05, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Jclemens, I wonder if others find this comment as condescending and off-putting as it came across to me. I hope not. —  Jacona ( talk) 00:10, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

I have absolutely no idea, in that I neither know how condescending and off-putting you find it, nor how other people might. I'm quite capable of being very obviously snarky in writing, and this was simply not one of those times, so anything you're seeing is not something I put there on purpose, although I do admit being puzzled at the general lack of substantive engagement with the topic. I welcome your critique of my style on my talk page. Seriously--feel free to take me to task there and suggest how I could have said this better. Jclemens ( talk) 01:03, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

You have not hesitated to use this conversation here to take others to task, whether it's an individual for not having what you perceive as the proper level of knowledge of AFD or the group for not giving you the style of responses you were looking for. If the statements you've been putting on here are not ones that you're putting here on purpose, perhaps you should step away from the keyboard until you have it better under your control. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 01:12, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Jclemens, I believe that the current name is just fine, perfectly serviceable, and is not the cause of any confusion or problems. In other words, there is nothing wrong with the name and I do not believe that you have put forward any convincing argument to change it. I was recommending "merge" and "redirect" in AfD debates 10 years ago, and I do not recall anybody saying, "No, it must be either keep or delete." To me, obvious objections should come first, and I feel no need to wrack my brain to come up with something that would meet your personal standards as a "non-obvious argument". Cullen328 ( talk) 00:29, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I didn't make it clear by linking to WP:PEREN that I was signalling awareness of those arguments. Thanks for clarifying. And again... my apologies for presuming that those responding here would be interested in curiously exploring the topic. Jclemens ( talk) 01:03, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

The "A" and the "D" in AfD refer to the substance of the article and the deletion, not the form that they take. Users come to AfD when something that either is or looks like an article deletion is challenged by someone else who thinks there should be a standalone article in mainspace. There isn't any reason to change the name to reflect any misunderstandings around this as nobody is coming to AfD seeking something that isn't some kind of functional deleting of an article. Iffy★ Chat -- 17:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

For versions of deletion that include redirection, merging, and draftifying, sure. But how is that scope that includes those not-precisely-deletion alternatives qualitatively different from any of the other "... for discussion" processes? ( WP:CfD, WP:RfD, WP:FfD...) Jclemens ( talk) 00:08, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Articles for Discussion is a lousy name, as all articles are eligible for discussion. That's why we have Talk pages as standard items. "Deletion" makes it clear that there are larger stakes, even if not all of them are precisely deletion. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 01:24, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Redirect and draftify/userify !votes with a valid rationale technically preclude SK1. Alpha3031 ( t • c) 08:16, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

• Well, first of all, changing the name of the process will involve moving about half a million pages and potentially fatally shitting up the Oracle for Deletion, as well as a number of other tools which interface with AfD pages and processes. Is anyone willing to spend the hundreds of hours necessary to fix Twinkle, XfDcloser, userscripts, &c. that this proposal would require? jp× g 04:19, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Welcoming committee—among other things—maintains a set of a set of welcome templates aimed at new users. Many of these templates include a list of helpful links. A proposal to drop the link to Help:Your first article from en-wiki welcome templates has been opened. AFD folks may be well-suited to comment based on your experience with new editors whose articles may end up here. Your feedback would be welcome at WT:Welcoming committee/Welcome templates#Proposal: drop 'first article' link from all templates. In addition, please see the proposal discussion subtopic at § What evidence can we bring to bear?. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 20:47, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/Today, which normally reproduces the current day's list of AfD nominations, is just showing a link to the current day's list instead. That's because the current day's list is too big to be transcluded. Perhaps people shouldn't nominate quite so many articles for deletion. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 19:44, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I've [1] asked politely for one major nominator to reel back these for consideration in a more reasonable manner. It hadn't occurred to me that not only would it tax the human review system, but that it could break the technical system as well. Jclemens ( talk) 23:20, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Copying my comment from AN:

For the record, and to give some perspective here, note the Oracle for Deletion table for June ( User:JPxG/Oracle/2023-06). More or less every day of the month has seen somewhere around 40 to 60 nominations (which has been the stable daily average for some years), except for the 26th, 27th, 29th and 30th of this month, all of which have more than one hundred nominations. No day in the entirety of 2023 has had more than a hundred so far, and four of them in a row -- this is not sustainable. jp× g 04:08, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Adding this: is there any sort of restriction on nomination rates? This shows one person making 66 noms in three days, which seems extremely undue to me (22 nominations is on its own about half of a normal day's backlog). jp× g 04:14, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, jp,

I'm just seeing this discussion and, as a closer, I was wondering if over the past week, the numbers have gone back to their regular daily average. I don't think that there is a restriction on numbers of AFDs started per day but it seems to happen in bursts. Last year around this time, it was AFDs on athletes (and it seemed like it was over 100/day in spring 2022) and this past week it was about characters in the Doctor Who TV series and judges. This typically prompts a conversation on the nominator's talk page and in the case of Doctor Who AFDs, about 1/3 of the AFDs they started were withdrawn. But I wondered if that high total had gone back down this first week of July. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Yikes! I just noticed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 July 7 we have 127 nominations! Is that a record, jp? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:23, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

For 2023, 2022 and 2021 , it would seem (although 2021-02-25 had 120, which is close). Every time someone asks a question like this, I am reminded that I should have put these into a more accessible database... jp× g 16:01, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Note Wikipedia:Wikipedia_records#Statistics has some more stuff. jp× g 16:59, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, jp, thanks for checking. I looked around on your Oracle page and couldn't find this information. Being a database would help some technically-gifted editors search for data but that's not me! I think though that even these recent highs don't compare with AFDs 15 years ago, there was so many mediocre articles being created that there were regularly over 100 AFD discussions a day. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:33, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia records#Statistics has some interesting data, I know I've read over it before but I wasn't paying particular attention to AFD data. It seems weighted towards Wikipedia's early years but maybe the numbers were higher in most areas back then. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:46, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

This has fallen through the cracks somehow. I opened it 5th June. Can someone close it please? Nangaf ( talk) 01:14, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, it took a couple of weeks, Nangaf, but this AFD was just closed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:40, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! No real surprise on the outcome, his work is very polarizing. I have set to improving the article. Nangaf ( talk) 01:26, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

How do you feel about arguments like "Per ... precedent"?

I haven't come across these before, but I found out that they are in the Archive, too. Suitskvarts ( talk) 20:28, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:OUTCOMES#Citing this page in AfD has some good advice on this issue: Avoid over-reliance on citing these "common outcomes" when stating one's case at Articles for Deletion. While precedents can be useful in helping to resolve notability challenges, editors are not necessarily bound to follow past practice. When push comes to shove, notability is demonstrated by the mustering of evidence that an article topic is the subject of multiple instances of non-trivial coverage in trustworthy independent sources. If someone is tempted to !vote "keep per <this AfD>", I'd generally advise them to elaborate by citing the arguments that carried the day in that AfD: if they were persuasive before, they'll probably be persuasive again. But since Wikipedia isn't governed by stare decisis, !votes based solely on a "precedent" tend to be fairly weak. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 23:17, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I dislike all "per" comments. I mean, how much time does it take to add one thoughtful, explanatory sentence? Although "per" comments are typical for new editors, I've seen editors with decades of editing experience give "per nom" remarks. To me, that's a sign that they are persuaded by the nomination statement and haven't looked at the article closely themselves. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:37, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate that POV and that 'per nom' can look like a drive-by, but there really are times where there's nothing to add to 'Joe Doe fails WP:GNG, no RS coverage, has never actually got out of bed'... As for per precedent, well, that's why we have WP:OTHERSTUFF, no? Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 04:24, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I see that as part of our over-reliance on number of votes rather than the quality of the !votes; a lot of the time I will see a nomination, agree fully with it, and then have to leave a !vote so that it isn't closed as no consensus due to lack of quorum, or keep because of keep !votes with no basis in policy. BilledMammal ( talk) 04:42, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Because saying "per precedent" or "per last AfD close" etc. should - in a perfect Wikipedia world - then inspire the closer to read the past AfD to ascertain if the arguments there are applicable to the current AfD. My biggest complaint at AfD's has been the quickness that some closers take to read-study-analyze-etc. a large fully discussed AfD. Looking at the times in some of their histories has shown that they decide their closing position in a minute or two, and that all of the arguments and discussions may have been a waste of time. Anyway, came here to ask if someone can have a look and maybe snow close the Barbenheimer AfD, thanks. Randy Kryn ( talk) 04:53, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Can someone link me to that AFD page in list view where it shows a general list of the existing AFD discussions and the votes for deletion for or against it? I recall there was a page like that setup by a bot I believe but I can't find it. Nintendoswitchfan ( talk) 03:23, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Answering a bit late but Nintendoswitchfan, are you just referring to the daily log, like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 July 7? I don't know of another list just with numbers and no comments. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:27, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Nope. It was like a full list view of all AFD discussions with votes on keep delete tallied like an overview. Nintendoswitchfan ( talk) 01:52, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Was it User:JPxG/Oracle, Nintendoswitchfan? Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 02:53, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

It was not but this is similar and just as good. Thank you so much. Nintendoswitchfan ( talk) 23:57, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I would appreciate more input at this poorly attended AFD. Thanks. 4meter4 ( talk) 21:52, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Cannamedical Pharma (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please complete the AfD for the article, because it's a commercial and irrelevant page with many citations missing. 92.200.176.150 ( talk) 13:32, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done. -- Finngall ^talk 20:14, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I hope this is a reasonable forum for discussing this. If it isn't, please (erm) tell me where to go.

I've been thinking about editors not being interested in expanding the mass-created stubs, which I've seen referenced multiple times in discussions about the whole thing.

I think being able to create an article is a powerful motivation. I think it's why the creator of the articles that are being discussed right now was so into it, and I think it's why people tend to race to create new articles about upcoming movies, sporting events, etc. Maintaining isn't as exciting and doesn't get the recognition.

Does anyone but me wonder if it's possible deleting would actually create more motivation among other editors than draftifying/userfying, and might actually increase the likelihood these article would be recreated well? To clarify, I'm not making a definite argument for deletion. I'm just kind of wondering if it might actually be productive as a way to get editors to consider recreating articles, and I kind of wondered if maybe it's something to discuss. Valereee ( talk) 20:02, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

This has been raised in a few discussions, although I don't think there has been any firm conclusions. There is definitely a bauble for article creation, which is part of why we get stub spams. For an established editors, I do think creation is often more likely than improvement. This is not just due to baubles, an uncreated article is 'missing', its absence promotes questions that might lead to research and writing, especially if a redlink is spotted. A blue link does not convey this need for action. Conversely, I suspect that for casual editors, piecemeal additions might be more likely. CMD ( talk) 01:26, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

See WP:ABANDONEDSTUB; I found that it is rare for articles, particularly articles on obscure topics, to be expanded if the creator doesn't do it.

However, in this specific context I don't see a difference between draftification and deletion. If editors want to create a new article they are free to do; they aren't compelled to work on the draft. BilledMammal ( talk) 04:55, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Julian Trevelyan is descended from Lord Trevelyan, the creator of the Irish potato famine, and has almost certainly written the page himself under the username Friendlyyours137. He is probably not important enough to have a Wikipedia article. 2603:7000:D03A:5895:F5FA:1CA5:3B:8A1C ( talk) 17:08, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

 Partially undone: This request has been partially undone for the reason: Probably nonsense/meaningless request. ☀DefenderTienMinh⛤☯☽ ( talk) 17:11, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

For some reason the relist option in the XFDCloser tool is not working for me.   ArcAngel   (talk) 21:20, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Would someone please help finish the nomination, since IIUC if redirects are opposed an afd is needed to restore them.

Rationale "This is an inappropriate split of a small amount of content that is better covered in the main article so the original redirect should be restored. If someone wants to split some of the revisions to a draft to improve later I think that should be OK though"

Thank you. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:95E2:A362:5B6B:9B86 ( talk) 14:33, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

•  Done, note there is also an ongoing RM at Talk:Coutts Bank should this page be kept. Iffy★ Chat -- 15:20, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Please create a nomination for Mahjong Competition Rules. My rationale is at the talk page. 123.51.107.94 ( talk) 03:12, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mahjong Competition Rules. Iffy★ Chat -- 13:33, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

• Early life of Joseph Smith
• Life of Joseph Smith from 1827 to 1830
• Life of Joseph Smith from 1831 to 1837
• Life of Joseph Smith from 1838 to 1839
• Life of Joseph Smith from 1839 to 1844

How are any of these notable enough for their own articles? Can someone please do the nomination process for me? 2A00:23C8:7B9D:B701:39AE:7356:EAB9:378F ( talk) 11:50, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

As mentioned in this talk page discussion, Joseph Smith is a clearly notable figure with a long and complex life story. The reason for so many articles is because if they were all one article it would be absurdly long, necessitating a WP:SPLIT. Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 13:46, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

The sourcing for some of the articles looks very questionable to me. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 13:48, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I've noticed some infrequent but persistent cases where people will attempt to "vote" on an AfD entry within the talk page rather than on the main page. You can see some examples of this here. I wonder if a group notice to try and push people towards the right place would be a good idea, so I've come here to get some opinions on the matter.

I'll be busy for most of this morning, so I'll come back later to read the responses here. Deauthorized. ^{( talk)} 15:01, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I think Agata (dog) should be merged to the ‘Famous Labradors’ section of Labrador Retriever but i’m not sure how to nominate it for discussion. Sorry for bothering you SpookMew ( talk) 16:34, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Hey SpookMew that should be handled through a merge discussion rather than AfD, ideally. WP:MERGEPROP has the instructions on how to do so. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:00, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Please create a deletion request for the page List of Russo-Ukrainian War military equipment. This page contains a large number of poorly sourced items that essentially treat the page as one long linking list, without much particular further information imparted, unlike other similar pages. This is discussed in the talk page, with a large number of items made with no references or poor sources.

A better alternative to this page would be to use category tags to list the specific sides and use for this equipment, rather than providing just a static unwieldy list, in addition to the two existing well sourced articles on both parties active respective military equipment. 222.152.243.181 ( talk) 12:35, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

No, an AfD is unlikely to be created for that list. Note that among the first sources referenced are sources that explicitly address the variety of weapons used in the war. That said, improves to the list should be made. Instead of trying to delete it, try to improve it. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 13:22, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Is there a tool that makes it easier to leave AfD notices at WikiProject talk pages? Pinging @ A. B.: since I just asked them the same question but they were not aware of any. S0091 ( talk) 17:58, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

"If you are unsure whether a page should be nominated for deletion, or if you need more help, try this talk page or Wikipedia's help desk."

So I'm confused by the whole deletion process and am not a Wikipedia expert. /info/en/?search=The_Daily_Sceptic clearly qualifies for G10 on the Speedy Deletion Criteria page but someone on its talk page is not just contesting that, they're also defaming the site on the talk page - further evidence that the article has no legitimate purpose and is in fact an attack on a website that posts content that some people do not like.

Because deletion is contested the speedy deletion process doesn't seem to apply but I can't work out how to nominate the article for deletion - or indeed, how to assure that the 'community consensus' isn't overrun by the very people using Wikipedia to attack a website.

Help. 81.110.254.162 ( talk) 07:44, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

So, two issues here. First, this is a common misunderstanding of speedy deletion. WP:SPEEDY says: "Administrators should take care not to speedily delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases." G10 would be acceptable if the page was purely an attack with no evidence of encyclopedic value. That's clearly not the case here: there is sourced information in the article e.g. about the blog's history. That means WP:AFD is the appropriate process for deletion. Second, you ask about "how to nominate the article for deletion". For that, you should read WP:BEFORE. In particular, I would draw your focus to the comment "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD." If you think the subject of the article is not notable and should be deleted, you would follow the steps at BEFORE and include in your nomination why the currently-cited sources in the article don't indicate notability. Otherwise, you should engage in normal editing and discussion on the article's talk page. Suriname0 ( talk) 16:56, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Ok, blatant attack pages pushing political agendas are acceptable on Wikipedia. Noted.

I'll add it to the list of reasons Wikipedia is losing credibility on a daily basis. 81.110.254.162 ( talk) 07:17, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

If Wikipedia is actually losing credibility on a daily basis, then explain why it remains a top ten website worldwide, with billions of monthly page views? With whom is Wikipedia losing credibility with precisely, and what is your evidence for that assertion? Cullen328 ( talk) 07:24, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

(here from ANI) If you have an NPOV issue with the article, try to fix that. There is some blatant editorialization (juxtaposing claimed vs explained WP:WTW, i don't care if they're full of it, that's a NPOV issue) that should be fixed, but the page itself is relevant and shouldn't be deleted. DarmaniLink ( talk) 11:51, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Hello, as an IP editor I am unable to complete the required steps to nominate this page, please could someone perform the nomination for me?

The article in question is Mickey Charles Award

The deletion nomination is as follows:

This article came to my attention when I noticed a TFD nomination for it's associated navbox. Having looked at the article and done a WP:BEFORE search I am really struggling to see how this award is actually notable. The article as it stands contains a single source from The Sports Network, this is not independent coverage because the award was created and awarded by The Sports Network's CEO.

Doing a few further searches turns up a bunch of republished press releases from The Sports Network, e.g. [2], [3], [4] and some posts by the college the winner attended [5]. I can't see any evidence of third party coverage existing to satisfy WP:N. 192.76.8.66 ( talk) 21:01, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, 192.76.8.66 ( talk) 21:01, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

 Partly done: Not on the related page, but I've opened an AFD request for you. Check Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mickey_Charles_Award -Lemonaka‎ 01:06, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

@ Lemonaka Thank you very much, that's perfect. 192.76.8.66 ( talk) 01:13, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Gilgit Baltistan United Movement please list this article up for afd as I am unable to do it myself.

Here's the deletion reasoning already written at talk page: "No proof of notability of this article, let alone sustained coverage. Had only unreliable references which do not even mention the subject, which were cleaned up by me." 175.107.224.105 ( talk) 08:56, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done - UtherSRG (talk) 15:47, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I've been looking at the article for over an hour, checking its sources, looking for more information, etc. I genuinely don't know if this is notable enough for Wikipedia. Aside from a few obviously unreliable sources like IMDB and trivial mentions, the vast majority of citations are for one alternative newspaper from the North Bay: the North Bay Bohemian. There are also a few citations for The Press Democrat, another North Bay alternative newspaper. My hesitance to simply nominate the article for deletion myself is because I don't know how criterion 1 under WP:BAND works for bands like this where only a couple local newspapers have covered them. I find no national or state news sources mentioning the band; it's only this specific part of California. Are these alternative newspapers considered reliable? Does this band meet criterion 1 under WP:BAND? AnAbandonedMall ( talk) 03:56, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

At a quick glance, those sources look reliable to me, but if you have doubts about their reliability, then I'd go to WP:RSN about the reliability of the sources and then go from there. Iffy★ Chat -- 17:06, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi, In my wanderings around Wikipedia, I found Template:2013 Tohoku Rakuten Golden Eagles baseball team. Of the athletes listed, many articles are with zero sources & a simple External link. Instead of going through all of these one-by-one, I'm searching for a place where best to post a Cleanup Notice? JoeNMLC ( talk) 17:08, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

ω Awaiting - Only a few months back, I started helping with PROD, AfD for a small number of articles. Am I posting above question in the right place? Regards, JoeNMLC ( talk) 21:59, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

JoeNMLC, I'm not quite sure I understand what you're looking for. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan (also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Japanese baseball task force, but it's not very active) might be good places to find editors interested in this subject, but most people have projects of their own and probably wouldn't be too interested in taking on this sort of large-scale work. You can certainly use the AfD process if you think a given article doesn't meet our notability requirements, but be aware that article content doesn't determine notability: for example, Shintaro Masuda is a pretty lousy article, but the Japanese Wikipedia version is far longer and has a number of in-depth sources, showing that he is in fact notable. In cases like that, there's not much you can do besides waiting for someone to come along and expand the article someday (aside from doing it yourself, of course). Let me know if you have any other questions. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 22:29, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

This photographer might barely be notable under WP:PHOTOGRAPHER because he worked on a New York Times bestselling book about Justin Bieber. [6] He also has at least a few photo credits in the NYT archive. But I've been checking the references in this article and searching for more; only a couple of the given sources might be reliable (a NYT interview and a profile from food blog Serious Eats), and I'm having trouble finding others. I don't really doubt his credentials or work experience, but I'm wondering if the available reliable sources provide enough notability for a standalone article about him. It might be best to move the salvageable information into an article about the book he photographed for, which somehow doesn't have a standalone article yet. What do you think? AnAbandonedMall ( talk) 15:54, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I suggest keeping. There's an Observer article [7], this Athens News article [8], Naples Daily News [9], and this from the Columbus Dispatch [10]. Those are just from Google, without hitting the library. Jahaza ( talk) 19:51, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, will add these to the article and rewrite based on the reliable sources. :) AnAbandonedMall ( talk) 20:57, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I relisted 7 or 8 discussions from the 8/10/23 page and they weren't moved over to the 8/17/23 page. So, I had to cut and paste them manually. Is this happening for anyone else? This could really mess up the flow of discussions and result in discussions getting "lost". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:20, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Okay, so the discussions were relisted. But to the August 16th page, even though it became August 17th UTC hours ago. I've seen this with other relistings that have been posted to the wrong day. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:47, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Huh. I've sometimes noticed AfDs being on the wrong page by a few minutes, but never by much more than that. I'd suggest asking at WP:VPT if it happens again. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 17:16, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm at a bit of a loss here, but I explicitly don't want to canvas anyone, so I'm not going to link to any AfDs (and please don't look for them or participate if you're reading this). What's the best way to handle a single editor repeatedly asserting notability across a number of AfDs and refusing to give three GNG-compatible sources when asked? Is it to walk away and let the closing admin judge the keep argument for themselves? Thanks. Ed  ^{[talk]  [majestic titan]} 04:20, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

If it is clear that the question has been asked and not answered on an individual AfD, I would leave it to the individual admins to close. Past issues with AfD contributions that extended to disruptiveness have reached the noticeboards, although there would need considerable disruptiveness for such a report to be worth the time and effort. CMD ( talk) 04:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

If this is repeated behavior, I would suggest taking it to ANI; without seeing the discussions, it sounds like disruptive WP:IDHT behavior, with the editor refusing to accept notability guidelines. BilledMammal ( talk) 04:42, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Ed's talking about the Ruth Cleveland page, which has plenty of sources, and three very good ones were just added before Ed's post above (actually two of them were formatted by Ed himself). The sources are detailed, plentiful, and right there on the page. The page is even linked twice in today's feature article. If they can be read on the article under review, which they can be, then Ed should admit this and close his AfD without asking editors to repeat cites for him. It should be the job of the nominator to dispute each and every reference on the page, and now the page contains many more references than when the nomination started (and don't get us started on that story). Randy Kryn ( talk) 04:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, good thing no one took that to ANI, because that might well have been a BOOMERANG. Really, The ed17, if Randy Kryn is correct in that that AfD is the germane one, I find your characterization of his behavior somewhat at odds with what I read in that AfD. Unless there's been some revision going on to change the tenor of that discussion, I don't see any refusals to cite anything or any assertions of notability that make no reference to actual sources. If he just added two book sources as he said he did, your should be capable of perusing the recent article history to verify that and further investigate those, rather than demanding that he repeat them in the AfD discussion. Jclemens ( talk) 05:36, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

It should be the job of the nominator to dispute each and every reference on the page, and now the page contains many more references than when the nomination started (and don't get us started on that story). I haven't looked into the AfD, but as a general principle I would dispute that. Refbombing is disruptive behavior, and if after reviewing a sampling of sources the editor cannot find any WP:SIGCOV it is entirely appropriate to ask editors who support keeping the article to list the best WP:THREE or similar. BilledMammal ( talk) 05:44, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Although having just glanced at the article, it only contains eight sources - not enough for me to consider it refbombing. BilledMammal ( talk) 05:45, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

@ Jclemens: To your general point, I gave my personal opinion and avoided mentioning names or articles in an effort to better understand what options are available because ANI is very obviously not suitable for this.

Diving into this particular situation: this is indeed is one of four recent AfDs where, in my opinion, Randy has refused to move beyond assertions of notability without satisfying WP:NRV. I'm unclear how you read the !vote beginning "a prominent individual" and not see a textbook WP:ASSERTN, bullet point 4. In particular, the second sentence is unsupported by article citations.

At the risk of litigating the AfD here instead of on the page itself, I did peruse the book sources after Randy imported them from Frances Cleveland, and neither appear to meet WP:SIGCOV. One is a biography of Ruth's mother, in which Ruth is discussed on several pages in the context of her mother and how she wished to keep her children away from public eyes (I judged that as running into WP:BIOFAMILY problems), and the other includes one short paragraph about Ruth on the page given. ( This has also been since been touted as a "major source" even though it includes one single paragraph of background information about Ruth the child.)

So, I persist in asking Randy to list the three best sources they think support Ruth's notability. I don't think that's unreasonable; I'm fully on board with User:RoySmith/Three best sources and would love to see the article kept if we can find the sources to support it. Ed  ^{[talk]  [majestic titan]} 06:05, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

You may be fully on board with the "Three best sources" essay, but that doesn't make it anything close to policy, and it is inappropriate to harangue an editor into jumping through a hoop you choose to erect. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 07:04, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with BilledMammal that 8 sources isn't refbombing, and with NG that complying with a request for the three best sources to support a claim to notability isn't required by policy. However, complying with such a request (which should be easy to do if you know the sources) is a good collaborative move in an AfD. AfD should be about persuading other editors, and the easiest way to persuade is to just point to the refs you think best support a claim to notability.

And requiring a nominator to dispute each and every ref on any article at AfD is a real problem when there are editors who do respond to AfDs with actual refbombing. I've seen articles with 20+ sources end up with 80+. Valereee ( talk) 12:29, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Valereee, you've said exactly what I was trying to but in a better and shorter way. I think my linking to the three best sources essay has been interpreted as me accusing Randy of refbombing, which very much wasn't intended. I was trying to embody the spirit of "That guy wants to help me get the article kept and all I need to do is meet him halfway" because I wasn't seeing the sort of sourcing required to keep the article.

All that aside, even if it was fair to me for ask for three sources (not necessarily accurate), I'm also getting the sense that I went full badger in the discussion. I'll step aside and let things play out. I appreciate everyone who took the time to give opinions and push back on my question. Ed  ^{[talk]  [majestic titan]} 17:12, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Just to be clear, my description of you "haranguing" was not based on any of the AfDs, but simply on your own description of your situations, methods and goals in this discussion: repeatedly [...] refusing to give three GNG-compatible sources when asked; I persist in asking Randy to list the three best sources. Whether your actual actions reached the level of badgering... well, I'd say that I leave it to others to judge, but I don't even think that is needed at this point; you seem to understand not to badger in the future, whether or not you were in the past. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 17:44, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Leetcode should be nominated for AfD since it does not show why this website is notable. The only reliable source here is the Business Insider article, which is not enough. 93.72.49.123 ( talk) 00:35, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm highly skeptical that a nomination for Leetcode would fail to show notability, but you can tag the article for improvement by adding the {{Notability}} tag to the top of the article. Suriname0 ( talk) 15:54, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

An AfD discussion and somebody's guess of the outcome of a hypothetical future AfD discussion are different things. 93.72.49.123 ( talk) 20:31, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Oh, definitely. You're welcome to nominate it: see WP:AFDHOWTO. I see you already posted your justification reason on the talk page of Leetcode, so you just need to complete step I and another editor should finish creating the nom for you. Suriname0 ( talk) 04:26, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Okay. 93.72.49.123 ( talk) 04:41, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Conclusion: strong consensus to keep for encyclopedic inclusion per /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Leetcode. - Indefensible ( talk) 15:22, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mug shot of Donald Trump discussion was heavily quoted by a Forbes contributor. [11] I added it to this page as an example of AfDs being quoted in the popular press, to help provide context for the guideline from a recent occurrence (the two examples were from more than a decade ago). My edit was then reverted by Graywalls ( talk · contribs). I think a recent (and for now, current) example is helpful here. I think the rationale for reverting (FORBESCON, NOTNEWS, undue) does not apply to the project namespace. In fact, this specific clause is about the press referencing AfD discussions, so by definition we want news examples here, and reliability(FORBESCON)/undue don't apply because we're not using it to express a view, verify anything, or establish notability of anything; rather we're just using it to demonstrate that AfD comments may be scrutinized by the press.

I'm going to revert Graywall's change because I think this provides a clear value to Wikipedia editors referencing this page (some perhaps for the first time due to the high profile nature). I do encourage other editors to weigh in and will of course abide by whatever consensus forms. — siro χ o 23:09, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

It does not appear to be inherently needed, so it should not be edit-warred in the way you've been doing. Plus, checking your most recent addition of it, the link doesn't work. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 23:25, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for catching the broken link. I don't mean to edit war in any way. I explained my manual revert in full and my intent to abide by consensus. I hope that demonstrates good faith. — siro χ o 23:27, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I believe the addition into a project guide page just based on a contributor article is undue and I believe it should stay off. Too soon for one thing. Perhaps if additional independent coverage shows up, it is worthy of coverage. Right now, it's just one FORBESCON author talking about it. Graywalls ( talk) 23:21, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

IP editor here. The page Mizzy is for a guy who is a nobody besides a literal week of fame when he was making tiktoks of breaking into people's houses. His page solely exists now to advertise his social media, and is constantly moderated by him or his friends. If you go to the talk page, any deletion requests are edited out, signs of editing wars in the history, and they keep trying to add his t-shirt store to the page. In short, he isn't notable and the page only exists to advertise him. 2600:1700:89C6:2000:B4B1:1CEF:8EE7:9083 ( talk) 04:04, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

 Courtesy link:  Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mizzy, feel free to join the discussion. :) NotAGenious ( talk) 16:28, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I am nominating ACF Investment Bank for deletion. My rationale is article fails WP:NCORP. Article was originally nominated for speedy deletion for advertising and its creator was even accused of WP:COI. Its now September and the article still has not been significantly fixed. Can someone please help? 210.6.154.3 ( talk) 00:58, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done - UtherSRG (talk) 11:11, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

This edit request to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Request listing of Stay Hungry Stay Foolish ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch, reason on talk. Thank ya much. 47.155.41.104 ( talk) 03:39, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stay Hungry Stay Foolish. — Paper9oll ( 🔔 • 📝) 11:51, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I am coming across a lot of AfDs (intentionally not including links) with new(is) users voting. Some have less than 100 edits and vote only in AfD discussions, some have a thousand edits but account was only created this month, etc. A few actually apply the guidelines for notability correctly but some do not seem to understand them in the slightest. I am wondering how closers weigh votes from these users? When there are several of these users vote stacking in AfDs, do closers take that into consideration or just evaluate each vote individually? CNMall41 ( talk) 20:18, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello, CNMall41. Experienced AfD closers will discount any opinions that are not based in policies and guidelines. You can use Template:Single-purpose account to identify brand new accounts whose comments are not policy based. Cullen328 ( talk) 21:06, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I normally tag SPA accounts who are there to only vote in the discussions. The ones I am referring to have only a hundred or so edits or have 500-1000 edits but were created in the last 30 days. I am careful to call this out during an AfD discussion because it looks like I am commenting on the editor and not their vote. I do reply and state my reason for why I feel their view of notability guidelines is not accurate. However, I am seeing this more and more so wondering if closers discount those votes or check edit history to know if a user is new to discussions. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 04:27, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

@ CNMall41:, you should also comb through their edit history to get a general idea of meaningfulness of their edits. Some editor maybe doing something that might as well be taken care of by a bot, such as putting {{Short description}} into hundreds of articles and such edits don't really count towards meaningful experience especially when such empty edits represent a major fraction of their total edit counts. Graywalls ( talk) 04:09, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Appreciate the feedback. I guess I was wondering how far down the rabbit hole closers look when it came to voting. I do what you suggest above in order to file SPIs which so far have been successful in finding people gaming the system. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 06:05, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

The same as anybody else's? This is the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit; that includes AfD. –  Joe ( talk) 07:39, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I have reservations about the relisting at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lewis_Josselyn when consensus to delete was fairly well established and I believe this should have waited for an admin read. Since generally the AfD has to run for not less than 168 hours and admins are not realistically expected to be around the instant something closes, I feel non-admin pouncing on the article at 170 hours just outside the 168 hours and takin administrative action like relisting is pushing it. On the talk page of the user who relisted, admin Liz commented that there are written and unwritten rules about AfD procedures. Is the relisting by ordinary user NYC Guru reasonable in this case?. Looking at their pattern, that same user administered AfDs by relisting Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Subhodhayam some 1/2 day early and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ati_Kepo over a day early. Graywalls ( talk) 01:52, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Oh and that editor closed Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nights_(character) 5 1/2 days after it was listed. Graywalls ( talk) 06:21, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi, can someone please fix the malformed afd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nigerian Chrislam, regards Atlantic306 ( talk) 20:22, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done, also found another malformed AfD at the same time, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dave Gregson created. Iffy★ Chat -- 23:20, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Long time, no sources nor proof of notability. Long WP:OR in-universe essay. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 15:13, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Done - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alien Intelligence (Palladium Books) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:48, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 16:27, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

This is not a notable person. He has appeared on one season of a reality TV show that has hundreds of contestants. 2601:14B:4082:1680:50A7:427:DECE:F60C ( talk) 01:56, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/ _{STUFF DONE} 02:02, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Non-notable fictional organization; could not find any SIGCOV. 2605:B40:1303:900:CAD:8F6F:33AA:50BF ( talk) 21:46, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done - UtherSRG (talk) 00:59, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Non-notable fund. All sources indicate only the investment rounds of this fund and are news. Many of the sources duplicate each other and are clippings from interviews, and the contents are press releases. 2A00:1FA1:4347:268B:8C87:6A2C:79F4:A69A ( talk) 10:07, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

 Doing... NotAGenious ( talk) 12:51, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

 Already done NotAGenious ( talk) 12:55, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Pretty much the same as Blaster (Transformers), which was also deleted 2605:B40:1303:900:6192:A420:7C73:411D ( talk) 01:09, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Not done for now I have tagged it with CSD under WP:G4. Only if speedy deletion is declined (for whatever reason) should we take the article through AfD. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 04:06, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

The WP:AFD#How to contribute section currently says (near the bottom): "If the reasons given in the deletion nomination are later addressed by editing, the nomination should be withdrawn by the nominator"

The WP:AFD#Withdrawing a nomination section says: "If no one else has supported the deletion proposal and you change your mind about the nomination, you can withdraw it."

The guidance would be clearer and more consistent if the "no one else" clause appeared in both sections or in neither. Thanks for your consideration. — 173.56.111.206 ( talk) 06:09, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

@ Alpha3031: Thanks for your quick fix to WP:WDAFD. — 173.56.111.206 ( talk) 04:19, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

The White House announced that neither Biden nor any American official had seen pictures of beheaded Israeli children. The Israeli media also denied this news and no official statement was issued by the Israeli army regarding this incident. Therefore, I ask you, based on that, to delete the article from your site because it’s fake, false and unreal news. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kfar_Aza_massacre 82.166.104.118 ( talk) 12:36, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

It's a well documented and substantiated event. Quite what happened is the subject of ongoing debate and consensus by editors. While I, personally, would be minded to rename it as 'attack' rather than 'massacre', that's a matter for discussion on the article talk page. It's not going to be deleted, however. Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 14:43, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Found no SIGCOV from a Google search; does not seem to be a notable character 2605:B40:1303:900:6888:4C67:7744:1DC3 ( talk) 22:37, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done - UtherSRG (talk) 10:55, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Nothing from my WP:BEFORE; only pseudo-notable thing about it is that it was Nickelodeon's most viewed premiere in a while 2605:B40:1303:900:A0E1:7DCB:3582:9C6F ( talk) 01:00, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done - UtherSRG (talk) 12:26, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Found nothing from my WP:BEFORE; article relies on mentions 2605:B40:1303:900:A0E1:7DCB:3582:9C6F ( talk) 14:01, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done - UtherSRG (talk) 17:09, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I suggest adding the following text at the end of the section "How an AfD discussion is closed" Editors should verify that the discussion was closed by a bona fide editor and not by a vandal impersonating an editor's account. I'm suggesting that language because of this vandalism at an AfD discussion I'm following. The IP in question did that with other AfDs. Have never encountered that form of vandalism before but I imagine anything is possible. Coretheapple ( talk) 22:59, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I've WP:BOLDly added the language suggested above. If anyone objects, of course, feel free to revert. Coretheapple ( talk) 21:57, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I've reverted; while I agree with the sentiment I don't think it is something we need to say (the IP Vandal you linked was reverted uncontroversially within minutes) and I am conscious of WP:INSTRUCTIONCREEP. BilledMammal ( talk) 22:20, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

May eventually be worth developing a bot that can accomplish this. — siro χ o 00:08, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes a bot or other mechanism would be optimal. This is a particularly damaging form of vandalism and hard to catch if one is unaware of it being a possibility, and I think most editors are not. I see the vandal was at it again in the "Cohen crime family" AfD [12] but was swiftly reverted because editors are alert to it. I get the point re instruction creep, and I imagine that would not be an effective way of countering such vandalism as most editors don't read the instructions, especially if they use an automated process to close an AfD. But clearly something needs to be done. Coretheapple ( talk) 15:01, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

An AbuseFilter (probably set to tag) might be the right approach. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 15:39, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Embarrassing but need assistance. I tried to use page curation to create a deletion discussion for Strictly Ballroom (band). I received two failure notices and then used Twinkle to create the discussion. I now see that it actually created all three. Not sure how to delete the 2nd and 3rd nomination as this is obviously only one. CNMall41 ( talk) 18:12, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

• I've fixed it by deleting the two duplicate nominations and pointing everything to the first one. Hut 8.5 18:24, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I knew I could request on the actual pages but wasn't sure how much back-end cleanup was needed. Appreciate you stepping in. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 18:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

This article should be deleted. She is not a judge so doesn’t qualify. She is listed as an attorney online but doesn’t have the media references need for Wikipedia. BangBangFunk ( talk) 20:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. The sources are not workable. I'll go ahead and put in the nomination. BD2412 T 20:42, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Found nothing substantial from my WP:BEFORE 2605:B40:1303:900:145C:451B:EBB7:E467 ( talk) 23:10, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I fixed your nomination as you did not create the actual discussion after marking the page for deletion. Discussion is now here -- CNMall41 ( talk) 19:07, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

IP users don't have the ability to create the AfD pages themselves, that's why they are told to come here to request someone here to make the page for them. Usually they put their deletion rationale on the talk page of the article or here as part of their request. Iffy★ Chat -- 18:41, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Wasn't aware of that. They added the AfD tag to the page but a discussion wasn't created. Thought they didn't complete the process but this clarifies they "can't" complete the process. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 18:48, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Found only toys from my WP:BEFORE; has toys =/= notable 2605:B40:1303:900:DD62:A1B6:17A:9D75 ( talk) 13:35, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done, see wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smokescreen (Transformers) (2nd nomination) Mach61 ( talk) 03:44, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

• @ Mach61 or any admin watching the page. This should be closed ASAP as speedy keep. The nominator ( Grandmaster Huon) at the first AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smokescreen (Transformers), is indefinitely blocked for WP:SOCKPUPPETRY. It is likely the request here by the WP:SPA anon IP is Grandmaster Huon attempting to evade their block. 4meter4 ( talk) 21:33, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

  Hi there. CU and blocking admin of Grandmaster Huon. They are not blocked for sockpuppetry, but for CIR issues. I do not see a connection between the IPv6 range and Grandmaster Huon at this time. @ 4meter4: Remember that IPv6 allocations change rapidly at no fault by or action by the user. If you do a /64 range on this IP, you'll see they have been active for several months with a clear behavior pattern that is unlike Grandmaster Huon's. -- ferret ( talk) 21:58, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying the issue. 4meter4 ( talk) 22:09, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I am trying to figure out how to recommend an article for deletion. The subject isn’t notable and doesn’t deserve a Wikipedia presence. He is only talked about in the news because of his company. The article is linked here and I hope someone can assist in helping me figure this out. Alan Dixon (Australian investor) Coilinging ( talk) 23:32, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Have you followed WP:BEFORE to see if there are better sources available? I'll have a look. BD2412 T 23:35, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I didn't have to dig deep to see that there is nothing of substance. Nominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Dixon (Australian investor). BD2412 T 23:45, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I asked a question about participation, and I thought the regulars here might be interested in the results.

• Since the creation of AFD (and its predecessor, VFD), 161,875 registered editors have edited an AFD page, as well as 85,392 unique IP addresses (which probably do not represent quite that many unique people/devices). (per Cryptic's quarry:query/77485)
  • For comparison, 13.9 million registered editors have made at least one edit to at least one page, so 1 in 85 successful registered editors has ever edited an AFD discussion page.
• During the current calendar year, BilledMammal found that 7,910 registered editors this year have edited one or more AFD pages.
• 93% of this year's AFD editors (7,377) were at least autoconfirmed. 78% of them (6,142) have made at least 100 edits. 63% of them (5,061) are extended confirmed. This indicates that while a significant fraction of newcomers do participate at least once, AFD is dominated by experienced editors. (Experienced editors are also more likely to participate in multiple AFDs.)
  • Although the drop-off looks linear here (15 percentage points between 10 and 100 edits = 15 percentage points between 100 and 500 edits) I doubt that it is. According to an analysis I saw earlier this year, across all the WMF-hosted wikis, there is an inflection point around 200–300 edits at which continued participation stabilizes, so if someone makes it to 300 edits, they will probably make it to 500+ in due course.
  • I'm wondering whether the group of editors with 10 to 99 edits might be the ideal time to recruit new editors to AFD. Perhaps promising newcomers could get a little welcome-to-AFD note, to help them understand how to find AFD discussions?
• All the Village pump pages (including subpages) this year have a total participation of 1,953 registered editors (including 1,848 who are at least autoconfirmed, 1,738 who have made 100+ edits, and 1,605 who have reached extended confirmed). A registered editor is 4x as likely to edit an AFD page than a Village pump page, and extended confirmed editors are 3x as likely to be found at AFD than at a Village pump page.

WhatamIdoing ( talk) 16:21, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

That's interesting data, and thank you for presenting it. It does open up some more nuanced curiosities, perhaps peppered by my own experience in AfDs. The primary one is of that "significant fraction of newcomers " who "do participate at least once", what portion are either a) editors whose sole experience in AfD is defending an article they created (a common experience for new editors in my experience, as many first pages don't meet sourcing or notability requirements); or b) editors whose first edits are on AfDs, suggesting that they may have come due to off-Wiki canvassing? And do those who fall into those categories go onto to participate in further AfDs? Because if such is our main source of the less experienced editors among AfD participants, it does raise questions about the viability of encouraging participation amongst the inexperienced editors.

(Participation of inexperienced editors in AfDs would be of mixed benefit. On one hand, an inexperienced editor is likely to decrease the quality of discussion, as they are less familiar with the sorts of policies and guidelines that the discussion should be built around. On the other hand, it seems like a way to improve their editing, as discussions will expose them to discussions of notability, reliable sourcing, etc.) -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 17:06, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

The AFD query involves more than half a million pages, and that query sounds complicated (AFD page + article page + editor's contributions), so even if it's possible, I don't think that running the full set would necessarily be a friendly thing for us to do. But maybe it could be done for a smaller subset (e.g., this year, or a single month)? Or a more limited query, like the number of accounts that have made only one edit, and that one edit is to an AFD page?

If we considered this as a type of funnel analysis, if you don't get the first AFD activity, then you'll never get the second. An AFD-specific dataset that would let us figure out something similar to how many newbies we have to put up with to replace one experienced editor (@ NatGertler, we have to put up with 5,000 first edits to replace someone like you) could be useful for answering that question. This would probably be easier than figuring out the combination of AFD+article+nothing else. A similar dataset would let you say things like "If someone makes a first edit to an AFD page, then they are ___% likely to make a second one". It is probably possible change from "edits" to "pages", so you could differentiate between two edits to the same discussion and edits to two different AFDs.

I'm not sure that we can optimize the recruitment very much in practice. For example, if you hold the overall number of edits constant, you could have a few people make a lot of edits or a lot of people make a few edits. One scenario could look like a high initial drop-off rate paired with a few extremely active participants. This would mean less 'training time' for the existing regulars. This would also look like most people trying it, failing, and leaving, but a few would explode into highly experienced AFD regulars. A more limited initial drop-off rate could get the regulars more everyday irritation (from AFD-newbies who don't really know what they're doing in terms of policies and procedures) but broader participation, and perhaps therefore a better likelihood of finding the right conclusion for each article (because they may not know what WP:UPPERCASE to invoke, but they do know something about the subject matter or are willing to spend time searching for sources, because they aren't trying to rush through a dozen AFDs today). But I'm not sure how you would identify those people from the beginning. I suspect that the first goal should simply be encouraging more people to take that first (or second) step. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 17:41, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate that I'm asking questions that aren't easily answered; it was less to get answers than to make clear that the information, while valuable, might be easy to build false assumptions about.

I'm wondering if there's some sort of metric that we could use to trigger a "hey, have you thought about helping us at AfD" invitation message on people's talk pages, something like detecting that someone has done more than 70 edits, on more than 10 pages, and created an article that has survived a month (just as an example; I'm not sure what metrics are easily trackable.) -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 19:06, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, getting a list of usernames for arbitrary actions (but they have to be actions, not content) is pretty easy. You could ask at Wikipedia:Request a query for a list of editors who have (e.g.,) made between x and y edits, aren't currently blocked, account is less (or more) than n days old, who have created at least one page in the mainspace (I think you can specify an undeleted article, but I'm not sure about that), and who have made at least one edit to a non-content namespace. I don't think I've seen one that says they've edited more than 10 pages, but if you get a fairly short list, you could always check that by hand, or in a subsequent query. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 00:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

It is less a matter of statistics and more one of root causes—why do people not continue participating in AfD? Why do people not continue editing Wikipedia? I am thinking that a major factor in failing to continue participating in AfD is the experience of participating with others contributing to AfD; it can be poisonous or welcoming or ignoring or nuances on these. Likewise with editing in general. It would be useful to do a sentiment analysis on AfD discussions and correlate that with termination of AfD participation or editing in general. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 01:43, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I've read that the #1 predictor of not continuing to edit is having your first attempts removed/reverted. I doubt that applies to AFD, but perhaps something similar would be a factor. Perhaps a feeling that your contributions were not welcome/wanted/valued is the underlying sentiment?

For AFD, I'm always wary of a desire to have "more" participation. The diminishing returns likely kick in pretty quickly. It always reminds me of the grueling approach that Google once took to interviewing prospective employees. You might spend two full days in interviews for a normal (e.g., not senior management) job. Eventually they ran the numbers and determined that, for most jobs, they needed four interviews to get the right answer. I don't know what AFD's version of "four interviews" is, but I'm pretty certain that there is such a number, and that it's a single digit. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 02:52, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

It depends on the topic, I think. For instance, there is a move discussion going on at Talk:Black_company where there were two support !votes. I then added an alert to Wikiproject Japan and (though they are not listed participants) two oppose !votes showed up in short order. I'm not 100% sure that my notice led to participation in the discussion, but let's assume it did and the move was going to go on but has been now opposed by two people who are more knowledgeable of the context and language. I think this is true of most discussions (deletion, move, etc), that it can be difficult to get people involved who have the background and context to thoroughly consider the case at hand; this is made MUCH more difficult when you have a discussion that runs to scores of posts. However, the whole point of community editing is an assumption that people are generally intelligent and will act diligently through their subject knowledge and research, despite that not being true all of the time. Many people forget that time is not our enemy, urgency is not necessarily a virtue (with pointed exceptions) and being verbose can be counterproductive (looking at myself in the mirror at the moment - ahem). User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 01:20, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Possible solution

I'm going to toss out a solution that I've mentioned for years now. - De-centralise AfD.

Instead of creating a sub-page of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, create the discussion on the talk page of the page in question.

The bot(s) can still do their job as normal. And this needn't interfere with/prevent "AFD today", or whatever else. We know this due to RMs and RFCs.

And an additional benefit is that - in cases of deletion - the reasons reside on the talk page (rather than deleting the talk page as "housekeeping") so before re-creating, previous issues could be easily seen and (hopefully) addressed.

There's a lot more to this (needless to say, I've thought about this a very long time). But anyway, it's a simple change, which should resolve a host of issues. - jc37 16:54, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

So... confession time... that's the process I suggested at ht.wikipedia.org, and only later did I realize that this means you either can't delete the talk page, or non-admins can't read the reasons that the talk page was deleted afterwards.

Your comment about bots makes me wonder: Could we set a bot to invite people to AFDs that are in danger of being relisted? Perhaps if there are no responses after ~5 days, then the bot looks through the article history to find a few still-active editors, or maybe does something like User:SuggestBot in reverse, to find active editors who might know something about the nominated subject. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 18:48, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, I don't think it's an issue to not delete an article talkpage. That was just a housekeeping choice made back in the day.

Technically a bot could notify everyone who ever edited a page, if that was what was wanted. Or add a selection filter - x-number of edits to the page; x-number of "recent" edits, however we want to define that, etc.

But I think we're a step in the right direction, even just that multiple edits to the talk page are going to light up watchlists, in a way that a single edit, adding a deletion notice template, will not. - jc37 04:45, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I am not a fan of decentralizing the deletion boards to that extent, but wonder if we might take some intermediate step such as separating out deletion discussions for biographical topics, corporate topics, popular culture topics, and the like. For corporations in particular, we need editors who understand WP:NCORP, and for bios we need editors who understand WP:BLP sourcing. BD2412 T 23:28, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

That's already where Deletion Sorting exists, using transclusion to include all active AFDs within a given topic area on one page. Masem ( t) 23:47, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

• I can't really see this flying - most Afds are newish articles with nothing but projects on the talk page, and only one real editor, plus some tidying, and nobody watching them. Johnbod ( talk) 00:26, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I would like someone to WP:IAR and WP:SNOWCLOSE the AfD discussion for the 2023 Kerala bombing article, as it is holding back its ITN nomination. Thanks. | Pirate of the High Seas ( talk) 03:20, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Non notable bus, only a small number were built. Contested PROD. 154.47.116.190 ( talk) 14:20, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Optare Bonito NotAGenious ( talk) 05:53, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

He wants it gone RogerSni ( talk) 17:09, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Deletion policy, and WP:BIODELETE in particular. While we may take into consideration the views of the subject of a biography if their 'notability' (as defined by Wikipedia guidelines) is marginal, in Luchen's case this seems unlikely to apply, given the amount of media interest etc he has attracted. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 17:23, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I think the media attention should be ignored if the person does not want a page RogerSni ( talk) 20:33, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

The people monitoring this talk page do not have the power to delete such a page for such reasons. You can request deletion via the process described at WP:AFD, at which point the community will be able to discuss whether it should be deleted. Your request is best phrased in terms of existing Wikipedia policy, which in this case is likely to be a challenge. If you wish to change the policy itself, which would facilitate then calling for deletion of the page, you can raise that at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) (although again I suspect you may have an uphill battle with that one.)

And having weighed in at all here, I should now note that I have a slight conflict of interest in regard to the article subject, as I am in occasional friendly communication with a couple members of his family. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 20:59, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, I will forward my request RogerSni ( talk) 21:22, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Election denial movement was nominated for AfD on October 14. Since then, and particularly in the past day, it has been significantly edited such that it is now a substantively different article. Now editors will view the current version rather than the original version, and might vote to delete the former rather than the latter which was the AfD nominee. I created the article, but given these changes, I might even be inclined to support deleting the current version.

Might it make sense to freeze articles pending AfD resolution so as to avoid such confusion about what editors are being asked to consider? Alternatively, should AfDs require the use of a permalink version of the article as of the time of the AfD? soibangla ( talk) 21:35, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Although AFD is "not clean up" it is not unusual (indeed, quite common) for an article to be so substantially improved during an AFD that it the reasons for deletion are fixed and the article is kept. See, for example, the Heymann Standard. Freezing articles at AFD would prevent any efforts to clean them up and make them acceptible, thereby preserving the content. ~ ONUnicorn^{( Talk| Contribs)} problem solving 22:12, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Well OK, but in this specific scenario the article appears to have been so significantly altered since the AfD inception that deletion could be initially opposed but subsequently supported while the AfD is in motion. This contrasts with a BRD challenge and discussion of a static edit; this is a challenge and discussion of an entire article that remains fluid during discussion. That's all I got on this. soibangla ( talk) 02:52, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

When an article is at AFD, people really should be looking at the article history as well as the state of the article as they find it. AFD is about 2 questions, 1. "Should Wikipedia have a stand-alone article about this topic at all?" and, 2. in some rare cases, "If we should have an article about this topic, is this so bad that there is absolutely nothing in the article or its history that is worth saving, and it's better to blow it up and start over?" ~ ONUnicorn^{( Talk| Contribs)} problem solving 13:07, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

FYI: the scenario I describe just happened. An editor who opened an AfD is citing edits that did not exist at that time to argue for deletion. [13] soibangla ( talk) 18:24, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

The current AfD technology refers to an article and not a specific revision. I've from time to time added a comment to an ongoing AfD about the version that was nominated versus that which I'm commenting on. I think that revising the technology underlying AfD to support nomination of the VERSION at the time of nomination and have the discussion refer to this Version and provided a DIFF between current and nominated. User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 00:35, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

No, this suggestion does not align with Wikipedia's values, nor does the motivation. Here's some explanations from various PAGs and other documentation.

• WP:5P3: any contributions can and may be mercilessly edited
• WP:IAR: If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.
• WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM: Rather than remove imperfect content outright, fix problems if you can, tag or excise them if you can't.
• WP:ATD-E: If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page.
• WP:HEY, It's worth reading the entire short essay.

— siro χ o 02:58, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

AFD's are generally about wp:notability of the subject. Adding sources would be the main change that affecting AFD result, and I think that that's a good thing and one which helps clarify what the result should be. North8000 ( talk) 03:45, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

• Comment. Generally, articles improve by editing during AFDs. For that reason, a freeze is a bad idea. I suggest giving page history differences in a comment at the AFD discussion page to make editors aware of the differences, and expressing why the current version is not ideal. Best. 4meter4 ( talk) 17:42, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

  4meter4 the editor who opened this AfD is now citing three edits that did not exist at that time as examples of synth. I oppose the three edits that were added after the AfD was opened and I would have challenged them per standard BRD, had I not paused editing the article while the AfD was in process, mindfully to avoid the very scenario that has now unfolded. soibangla ( talk) 18:33, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

  It should make more than one editor making claims that can be addressed in discussion for us to change the policy. And in this case, it sounds like matters may have been worsened by your own choice to avoid edits during the discussion period. AfD is actually a great opportunity for improvement to the article, as it tends to throw new eyes on it and people doing research to see if the topic meets notability standards will often come across new sources to be cited. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 18:47, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

  Well, I just really disagree with matters may have been worsened by your own choice to avoid edits during the discussion period, given that after much discussion and my requests for concrete examples that justify the AfD, the only examples the opening editor presents did not exist at the time the AfD was opened. soibangla ( talk) 19:02, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

  So the material they are using to complain is material that wouldn't be in the article had you reverted it, and you didn't revert it simply because the article was at AfD? Or have I misunderstood your post of 18:33, 28 October? -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 19:22, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

  I paused on the article to avert the possibility that editors might be confused by which version is under discussion, and that possibility has in fact materialized because subsequent edits so substantively altered the article that's it's effectively a new article from which the opening editor is now citing. This AfD process has thus been corrupted, and after being relisted seven days ago, it should now be closed. I reject any suggestion that this is somehow my fault. soibangla ( talk) 19:45, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

  I've done that a couple of times (add a diff to the discussion). One I could find quickly --> Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Accel-KKR. User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 23:57, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I do find it problematic when editors nominate an article for deletion and then aggressively strip content from the article, particularly when this involved controversial takes on the utility of sources being removed from the article. BD2412 T 23:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I tend to agree. But—and I know you know this—there's also times when there's either major BLP violations that need to be addressed (often requiring stripping content, sometimes even removing sources), or such egregious promotion that removing such content truly does improve the article substantially. — siro χ o 03:10, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Please finish the AFD for the page per request. Pinging JayTee32 and Drdpw, who publically supported a merge on the talk page. 98.116.45.220 ( talk) 15:25, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Discussing a potential merger does not at all necessitate an AFD. In WPTC it is common practice to discuss a potential merging of articles, then carry out if there is consensus. We also should not delete the page but rather restore it as a redirect if a consensus for merging emerges. Jay Tee⛈️ 15:57, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Recently, it has been precedent to nominate these articles at AFD to get a faster and guaranteed outcome. See Tropical Storm Colin (2022) and Tropical Storm Javier (2022). If we leave it on the talk page, a consensus might not be met due to minimal participation - we can’t ping either as that is a massive violation of WP:CANVASS, something our project was warned about multiple times, causing many to be sanctioned. And an argument for deleting the history does exist - it was completely copied without attribution, thus failing WP:CWW and WP:COPYRIGHT. 69.118.232.58 ( talk) 16:43, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Clearly not notable 2605:B40:1303:900:DD62:A1B6:17A:9D75 ( talk) 03:32, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

• I redirected it to the mains how page. Doesn't appear notable. If someone objects, will file a procedural AfD. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 03:47, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

This is fun. A list of things that somebody notable hasn't done. It's sourced, every one of the things Scott Derrickson (who is notable) hasn't done has been announced or trailed to the media. But they haven't happened. They're not there. They're a Norwegian Blue. Can, literally, nothing be notable? Asking for a friend... Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 11:40, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

There are actually 55 of these collected in Category: Lists of unrealized projects by artist. Jahaza ( talk) 21:02, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I have made some minimal improvements to the blatant advertising for a would-be totalitarian (though fortunately only authoritarian) organisation that was given a monopoly in the practical advice section for using search engines. The whole idea of Wikipedia and the WMF wikis is open knowledge using transparent, rational, evidence-based discussion. This is the opposite of running an organisation with non-participatory, non-transparent decision-making and then trying to impose that as a unique choice - a totalitarian choice - on the world. We are Wikipedia, not GAFAM. Boud ( talk) 22:11, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

This edit by Objective3000 restored the material that is blatant advertising. To avoid an edit war, please either justify why we should continue with blatant advertising for a single would-be totalitarian organisation, or restore my edit. The restored text presents a totalitarian point of view - "Thou shalt worship no other search engine than Google!". Boud ( talk) 06:48, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

In my view, your objection is absurd, Boud. Do not engage in any more disruption. You are obligated to provude irrefutable evidence from reliable sources that Google is authoritarian and totalitarian. Good luck with that venture. If you hate Google, don't use it. Do not impose your personal preference without gaining broad consensus in a forum where the broader community knows about the discussion, and can either agree with or refute your assertions. Cullen328 ( talk) 07:03, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

You should have stuck with "monopolistic". Throwing contentious political terms in likely makes editors' eyes glaze over. You can try to make a case for a change to improve the page. But we are not here to right great wrongs. O3000, Ret. ( talk) 11:20, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

If one ignores the great-wrong-righting aspects of this, as we probably should, there may still be a legitimate issue here, in that we probably shouldn't be instructing people to use one specific search engine where other options are available and just as valid. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 11:28, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Yep. We need community agreement on validity for use of engines like Semantic Scholar, possibly added to RSP for easy reference. O3000, Ret. ( talk) 14:13, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. Boud isn't doing himself any favours with the rhetoric, but we should definitely avoid endorsing one particular commercial product over another. And where there are mission-aligned alternatives (for example Internet Archive Scholar over Google Scholar), I'd go further and say we should actually be actively promoting that. –  Joe ( talk) 15:08, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I am less sanguine over anything from the Internet Archive than you are. It's a site that is vastly dismissive over copyright concerns (and is facing lawsuits for that), and they have stated that their involvement with Wikipedia is very much integrated with their used-book sales arm ( "We now have over 120,000 Wikipedia citations pointing to over 40,000 books, but we want to get to millions of links going to millions of books. The way we’re going to get there is by working really closely with Better World Books.”) So no, we shouldn't be particularly promoting them. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 16:04, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

When I say mission-aligned, I mean the movement's mission to promote free knowledge, not enforce corporate copyrights. I can't imagine why anybody would give a shit about the latter, but if they did, Google's hardly any better about it. –  Joe ( talk) 16:17, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi there. I'm an author and holder of copyrights whose work has been posted by IA without permission. Am I allowed to care about that? -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 17:04, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Me too. I'm sure we're both free to form our own opinions on that, but it doesn't seem particularly relevant to which search engines are recommended for the AfD process. –  Joe ( talk) 17:48, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

From WP:COPYOTHERS: Never use materials that infringe the copyrights of others. This could create legal liabilities and seriously hurt Wikipedia. O3000, Ret. ( talk) 17:25, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

If that meant we couldn't use any resource that has ever been accused of copyright infringement, we'd be in deep trouble. –  Joe ( talk) 17:41, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

"Authoritarian" and "would-be totalitarian" are accurate adjectives in this case. The evidence is overwhelming, and I expect that most people here do not need that evidence listed. would-be totalitarian: The fact that the text advertising a single search engine survived here for so long is circumstantial evidence of Google's would-be totalitarian nature: it convinced an open community that "there is no alternative", despite the huge range of search engines for which we have a good comparison table. authoritarian: There is no publicly listed constitution established based on a constituent assembly nor a transparent, participatory, bottom-up, one-person-one-voice decision-making procedure and electoral system, nor anything equivalent in Google: it is objectively authoritarian, as opposed to the Wikipedia community, where we have transparent, community-based procedures for selecting people to positions of power. The nature of our community and the communities with which we interact and support is important; this is not a question of my personal preference, so please do not pretend that this is about me. It is about us.

This is not a case of righting great wrongs, it is a case of us as a community acting consistently with our values and aims of an open knowledge community. There is no obligation to use euphemisms to describe authoritarian organisations.

To get back to the main question: what specific objections are there to this edit? If there are no objections, then I propose that someone restore it, and then further iterations can be discussed here. The two main lists to work from are: list of search engines and comparison of web search engines. Boud ( talk) 16:19, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I think your edit was broadly an improvement but deciding which of the many alternatives to name could quickly turn into a quagmire. I think it would be simpler, and more readable, to simply link to list of search engines. Like this. –  Joe ( talk) 16:24, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

This minimalist proposal (oldid 1183974271 16:24, 7 November 2023 by Joe Roe) looks good to me. Does anyone object? Boud ( talk) 16:38, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I can't agree with your or Joe's suggestion. Google Scholar is a tool used extensively by editors and should be specifically mentioned. If there is another source this useful, it should also be mentioned. OTOH, a bare list of engines will include some that possibly should not be used: Ask.com, probably Baidu, some metasearch engines, AI generated search answers (which will become more prevalent and added to that list), the People also ask section of Google, which includes nonsense and often Quora input. I don't think providing a noncurated list is as useful as we can produce for this specific usage. This is not a general article about searches. O3000, Ret. ( talk) 16:59, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Nobody's stopping people from using Google Scholar, it's on the list too. –  Joe ( talk) 17:38, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

It's buried in a page with something like 300 links. A page used by Wikipedia readers about search engines needs to list them all. This is a page about editor advice on researching AfDs for WP purposes and should be more helpful then a massive dump including sites that likely should not be used for such. O3000, Ret. ( talk) 17:58, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that any change to this page is going to significantly affect the use of Google Scholar. I've added specific section links to help findability, how's that? If the list is still too uncurated, we could consider creating Wikipedia:Search engines to with a more editor-focused listing. –  Joe ( talk) 18:17, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Look, there is no love lost between Google and myself as I spent months arguing with their legal office over Google violating my trademark. But this is not a forum and you are now disrupting a discussion that appears to be leaning your way. Why shoot yourself in the foot? O3000, Ret. ( talk) 16:33, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Joe that for example Internet Archive scholar is a preferable search engine, because it's opensource and transparent, so you know what you get. As for Google Search, it is proven to interpret search queries in inscrutable ways. Suggesting that editors use Google is ok if our objective is to increase the usage of links which correlate with better profits for Google LLC, but not ok if our objective is something else (say, finding reliable sources or increasing free knowledge). Therefore, Joe's edit is an improvement. Nemo 17:43, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

• I've reverted the latest set of edits. Most importantly, clarity needs to be a top priority on this page, and vague suggestions just make it harder for new users to understand how to conduct a BEFORE search. Also, while there's certainly no love lost between me and Google either, it's just much more effective at finding sources than the alternatives. I'd hate for an article to be deleted because people checked the Internet Archive rather than Google Scholar/Google Books and thought that was sufficient. The best way to fulfill our mission is to find the best sources, and while I don't like it, Google is an essential part of doing that. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 18:41, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

  That's a disappointing revert, Extraordinary Writ – what about all the discussion above? I don't think there's actually any evidence that Google is the most effective way to find sources. It's just the market leader with the largest indexes, very much not the same thing. –  Joe ( talk) 18:50, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

  I would guess the major arguments in AfDs are over WP:GNG at which Google is very good. AfDs begin with a Find Sources template that includes Google books/news/scholar; presumably as they have been found most helpful over time. Personally, I’d love to see the EU sue the hell out of Google for monopolistic practices. For now, they are the most accepted here. We aren’t preventing other sources -– just providing a guideline for those who haven’t participated here before and want their !votes counted. O3000, Ret. ( talk) 19:46, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

  There's clearly no consensus thus far, so a well-explained revert is hardly unreasonable. But let's try to work this out. I think we should definitely stop mentioning Google News Archive, which (as our article explains) hasn't worked adequately in a decade. Including the Internet Archive would also be a good idea. I do think Google Books and Google Scholar should stay since both find results that are very hard to find elsewhere (IA Scholar, for instance, has only a small subset of what GScholar has). As for Google Search itself, maybe some sort of a compromise, e.g. "a normal search using Google or another search engine", would do the trick? Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 19:46, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

  Sounds good to me. O3000, Ret. ( talk) 20:04, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

  Not unreasonable, but not especially productive either. As I see it your suggestion still unduly privileges Google as the only "non-other". If we're mentioning a specific commercial product, then we should specifically mention at least one competitor, preferably a free one (plus a link to the more comprehensive list). However, I simply don't see any argument here as to why we should privilege Google, other than "it's what we're all used to using". You say you want simplicity, fair enough – why not link to one non-Google product? Or if there's no consensus on which product to recommend, I'd say the natural default is to recommend none, not the one that happened to be here yesterday. –  Joe ( talk) 20:12, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

  Bing is the second most used. MS is now experimenting with using AI in the search results and making them more than searches. More like answers than where to find answers. That will be dangerous for some time. “Google” is nearly genericized. SCOTUS saved them from losing the trademark. When someone says Xerox this, that doesn’t mean you can’t use a Canon copier. Point is, if someone says Google something and the listener uses Bing, they will use Bing. It’s the most familiar word for “do an internet search”. Which is why they were in danger of losing their trademark. O3000, Ret. ( talk) 20:39, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

  The current version has hyperlinks to Google Search, Google News, Google News archive, Google Books, and Google Scholar. It's not just using google as a verb. –  Joe ( talk) 21:04, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

  The links are conveniences. EW's suggestion on how to handle the search I think makes sense. This is not mainspace. Let's not make it less useful in the name of purity. (Besides, Bing is run by a company no less monopolistic than Google. Worse in my mind as every few days Windows switches all browser links from Chrome and Adobe to Edge and puts Bing searches in your PC system search box.) O3000, Ret. ( talk) 21:18, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

  I believe you're the only person who's mentioned Bing here. –  Joe ( talk) 06:10, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

  You posted: If we're mentioning a specific commercial product, then we should specifically mention at least one competitor. So, I responded with the second most popular after Google. O3000, Ret. ( talk) 11:25, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

  The Bing index is best accessed through DuckDuckGo. Nemo 17:57, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

  I think that the fact that Google is widely used and understood is actually a good reason for including it, because our goal should be to give instructions which someone can follow. I suspect more people will recognize the term "Google" than "web search engine". Sending people to another page to figure out what we mean would serve as a discouragement... and most of them will likely end up using Google anyway. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 21:05, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

  Ah, come on, now. Reductio ad absurdum? I suspect the vast majority of people using a web search engine will know what a web search engine is... Bastun ^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:00, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

• Re {{ find sources}}, there are several discussions on the (non) suitability of its links in Module talk:Find sources and related places. As for writing "a normal search using Google", it's even worse than the status quo "normal Google search" because it states that non-Google web searches are not normal. It would also be illogical, because if it's "normal" to use Google for a web search you don't need to tell people to do it. Speaking of which, I don't get how it's "convenience" to link Google: do we seriously think people need help finding Google? The link is also useless in China, therefore its presence in this page is a sign of systemic bias. Nemo 21:50, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

  I may have missed something, but I looked at all 89 of the mentions of Google in the Archives at the Find sources page and didn't see any controversy over using Google. O3000, Ret. ( talk) 22:20, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

  Whether or not there have been previous discussions at Module talk:Find sources and related places, an RfC at Village Pump is now open, since the current situation in the module is an embarrassing situation of advocacy that has been pending for much too long. Boud ( talk) 17:59, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

  Given that the 'RfC' is improperly formed (non-neutral and hopelessly complex), it needs closing, and a new one starting that complies with policy. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 19:16, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

  The initial RfC was neutral with respect to the Wikipedia mission and had the structure appropriate for a question that includes technical choices and needs to be concrete, actionable: we may as well agree to disagree on these two points about the initial RfC, which is now collapsed by default. A practical way to move forward would be to work on the draft RfC, though I see over there that there is disagreement about how to proceed. Boud ( talk) 23:31, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

@ AndyTheGrump, Joe Roe, Extraordinary Writ, Nemo bis, Objective3000, and Bastun: Any objections to the current draft RfC at User:Boud/sandbox/draft RfC Reduce advocacy in Find sources Module? Boud ( talk) 20:54, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

...with the aim of mitigating the effects of search engine bias and filter bubbles in finding sources, and for encouraging Wikipedians to protect their privacy is not neutral wording. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 21:02, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

The words search engine bias are linked to an NPOVed Wikipedia article section Search engine#Search engine bias and the words filter bubbles are linked to the NPOVed Wikipedia article section Search engine#Customized results and filter bubbles. These are, in the Wikipedia sense, known phenomena. I don't see how mitigating search engine bias and filter bubbles is not aligned with the Wikipedia mission of providing a review of knowledge with as few biases as possible. I don't see how encouraging Wikipedians to protect their privacy is not neutral in the context of the Wikipedia mission: our aim is to provide knowledge, not to encourage people to violate their privacy.

Would replacing with the aim of mitigating by with possible aims such as mitigating be more neutral, to allow for people who favour search engine bias and/or filter bubbles? Boud ( talk) 22:03, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not the slightest bit interested in debating with you further, given your self-evident inability to understand how to compose a neutral RfC question. The wording of any RfC should be left to someone capable of doing so. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 22:11, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Seems like you and I agree to disagree on neutrality with respect to the Wikipedia mission. OK. Boud ( talk) 22:49, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Product placement

If anyone's interested, I've written a short essay based on this discussion. –  Joe ( talk) 20:14, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Does not appear to be independently notable 38.75.235.237 ( talk) 13:50, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mach Five NotAGenious ( talk) 16:15, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Just look at this article. All sources are either about his show or his voice actors. 38.75.235.237 ( talk) 14:20, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I redirected it to Dexter's Laboratory. Discussion about the character and voice actors can be better handled in the context of the show as a whole. ~ ONUnicorn^{( Talk| Contribs)} problem solving 14:37, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I think the character is probably independently notable, but the article content did not reflect that, so a redirect is appropriate. If there are sources with which to expand content, it can be done in the article on the show, until a split is clearly warranted. BD2412 T 14:44, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Wouldn't Dexter Morgan be the appropriate main topic? Completely different TV show, but I suspect far more likely to be what a reader is expecting. Jclemens ( talk) 06:38, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

It could be redirected to the disambiguation page Dexter as {{ R from incomplete disambiguation}}. — Kusma ( talk) 07:28, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

I'd also support redirecting to the dab page. We could just send this to RfD to start a discussion on the best possible target. Hey man im josh ( talk) 13:32, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

I have done this, anyone feel free to revert if they don't think consensus has been reached. Jclemens ( talk) 04:35, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

If not deleted, noting that no article currently links to this disambiguated form, then I believe that redirection to the DAB Dexter would be most appropriate. That DAB is also linked to by Dexter (Fictional Character) and Dexter (fictional character), which are likewise disambiguated forms linked by zero articles. ^~ Hydronium^~Hydroxide^{~ (Talk)~} 07:34, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

I'd also note that Dexter (character) is not obviously about the character from Dexter's Laboratory. We also have an article about Dexter Morgan, and when I first saw this discussion I through it was referring to the main character from Dexter (TV series). 4meter4 ( talk) 13:49, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello! :) I would like to make a notice here that as of this week, if an editor clicks "edit" on any article that uses the Refideas template on its talk page, they will see an editnotice above the editing window indicating that there are sources on the talk page that are not currently in use in the article. This would be especially useful for anyone with an active interest in improving that article, and it would also be useful in helping gauge the notability of an article. :) BOZ ( talk) 15:30, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

I really like this idea, I think being able to add unused refs on the talk page with a bit more visibility would be of immense help to collaboration. I'm not sure about how it would be implemented. If it's not obvious to others, it might be worth taking to WP:VPI for some brainstorming. — siro χ o 04:24, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

It's already implemeneted @ Siroxo. :) Click edit on Call of Cthulhu (role-playing game) for example to see how it looks. :) BOZ ( talk) 07:27, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Hah, thanks! I somehow completely missed "as of this week" and I thought your post was about "making" the edit notice. This is excellent. — siro χ o 07:33, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

None of these articles have any significant impact; their sources are based on mentions and listicles. Here are the articles I am nominating: Fearless Photog, King Grayskull, King Randor, Man-E-Faces, Moss Man, Ram-Man, Roboto (character), Snout Spout, Teela, Clawful, King Hiss, Kobra Khan, Stinkor, and Power Sword. 2605:B40:1303:900:ED65:551:2179:D460 ( talk) 01:35, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

How about you pick one first? Just because we allow anonymous IPs to work through this page doesn't mean you get to nominate 14 elements at once individually, and I can guarantee you that no one wants to consider all of these as one lump nomination. Jclemens ( talk) 04:33, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Let's start with Fearless Photog then. 38.75.235.237 ( talk) 13:40, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

No real significant impact 38.75.235.237 ( talk) 15:41, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

But well sourced. Randy Kryn ( talk) 16:50, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Also tagged for notability since 2020 38.75.235.237 ( talk) 17:53, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

But the tag isn't relevant if the article is actually well sourced. Jahaza ( talk) 20:47, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

in fact, I've gone ahead and removed the notability tag from that one. Jahaza ( talk) 20:50, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not impressed with the AfDs you're starting or indicating you want to start, 38.75.235.237. Why don't you make an account so editors can provide you helpful feedback and pointers on your personal talk page? It's not required, of course, but nor are logged-in editors required to proxy your AfD suggestions. Jclemens ( talk) 21:07, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

If I can find the time, I will 38.75.235.237 ( talk) 21:08, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

This article was created by Onomatopoeia 3 days after the brawl in question. Even with an expansion earlier this year, it's still a barebones article with 0 citations and 2 dead links. I believe the info described in this article would be better covered in the articles of the two teams involved. 100.7.34.111 ( talk) 16:51, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done--see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bonn–Bamberg basketball brawl‎. -- Finngall ^talk 17:44, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

No significant analysis 38.75.235.237 ( talk) 21:15, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Make an account. Read the policies. Then do it yourself. No one is gonna take the L for a troll. PICKLEDICAE🥒 22:17, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Will you at least take a look? 38.75.235.237 ( talk) 01:31, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

You've said before that if you could find the time, you'd make an account. Making an account would literally take less time than posting one of these AfD requests. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 01:50, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Okay, let me confess. The real reason I haven't made an account yet is that I am 16 and I don't know if my parents would approve. I hope you understand. 38.75.235.237 ( talk) 02:33, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi, creator of the Chansey article here. Can't really ping you given the whole IP user deal, but I would like to say you left a comment asking about notability on the article talk page and then put this here not even thirty minutes later. Assuming the fact that you haven't seen my reply to your inquiry yet, you've nominated an article without waiting for input from anyone else you've asked on the matter on the matter, and assuming you have seen my reply, you're nominating it anyways without responding back. Had I been offline the whole time today, I would not have had any time to respond to anything you've asked before it was suddenly sent to AfD.

Your recent edits on Pokémon related articles have been borderline unhelpful to the scope of these articles, given you redirected Greninja and Chansey (The former an article that recently survived an AfD, and the former an article created not even a day ago) without garnering any input from any interested editors before doing so. In the case of these articles, I understand your concerns, but I'd appreciate you actually engaging in a discussion about these concerns before immediately jumping the gun and getting rid of the articles. Pokelego999 ( talk) 02:18, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Sources are all trivial mentions; as I said before, this is one of several Masters of the Universe articles with similar problems. 38.75.235.237 ( talk) 15:53, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

It's rather obviously not a candidate for straight up deletion as it could be merged and redirected to either List of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe characters or to Masters of the Universe. Such merges should be considered as described at WP:ATD-M as per WP:BEFORE C.4. Jahaza ( talk) 04:12, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

I have begun a merge discussion at Talk:List of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe characters#Merge proposal. 2605:B40:1303:900:E4A6:330D:3E2E:CA88 ( talk) 18:48, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Both of these have sources based on Sengoku Basara itself. 38.75.235.237 ( talk) 16:34, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Make. An. Account. Do. It. Yourself. You've already peppered this page plenty.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 01:03, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Please see my Chansey nomination. 38.75.235.237 ( talk) 02:34, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

That's not an excuse. You should make an account and take care of the issues you want to yourself. Wikipedia doesn't have an age requirement.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 07:52, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Can someone create an AFD discussion for this article with the reason "Non-notable bus company"? Thanks. 154.47.112.58 ( talk) 09:07, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I recommend you make an account and raise it yourself. Though for it to be successful you really need to include some reasoning on why the bus company isn't notable. Garuda3 ( talk) 12:06, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Can someone also nominate Aaron's of Wick for the same reason? 154.47.112.58 ( talk) 16:25, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

No, for the same reason. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:50, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Currently, AfDs with a merge outcome are listed by template:Afd-merge to in the relevant Category:Articles to be merged (by date), like Category:Articles to be merged from November 2023. However, this family of categories otherwise lists merge proposals which are open to discussion. Adding in closed discussions hence seem to be inappropriate (in that it mixes open and closed discussions), and a more appropriate place would seem to be Category:Articles currently being merged. It's this category that is specifically for when there's consensus for the article to be merged, but it hasn't been performed yet. So, I'd like to propose to the assembled throngs that template:Afd-merge to categorize articles to Category:Articles currently being merged to replace the current categorization. Klbrain ( talk) 15:34, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Please finish the Afd nomination, reason for deletion is on the talk page. 166.198.251.71 ( talk) 23:45, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done - UtherSRG (talk) 01:26, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Incredibly short, single-paragraph stub article about an event nobody outside of South Korea remembers. Of its 15 edits prior to my nomination, 3 are from before 2015, 4 are from Piotrus, and only 2 of its 6 edits between 2016 and my nomination are not by bots. Oh, and it only has 3 sources, not counting the "Further Reading" section. 100.7.34.111 ( talk) 00:52, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Someone can AfD it - you could do it too, it's not hard. But I'd likely vote keep, since I think it meets GNG. Coverage in major Korean newspapers, even mention in Britannica. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:17, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Article is essentially synopsis of a single academic paper, with all secondary sources being trivial mentions thereof. Please finish AfD submission. 70.172.183.203 ( talk) 22:15, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Necrobotics. -- Finngall ^talk 19:09, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

This is a list of nonexistent lists, so there isn't a point in it existing. Please complete the nomination. Lists of political scandals in the United States by state or territory 173.168.97.87 ( talk) 19:28, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

The pages on that list have recently been moved to draft space; I have moved this list to draft space as well. No AfD needed. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 19:49, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

There was an article List of companies delisted from the New Zealand Exchange which was deleted in March 2023. That's fine, but the problem is that we have the article List of companies listed on the New Zealand Exchange which links to the deleted article, instead of listing all the delisted companies, which now means that there is no delisted companies listed. Is there a way that we can copy the information from the deleted article without undeleting it? — Panamitsu (talk) 22:02, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I've just found an archive of the deleted article on the wayback machine and have added it to List of companies listed on the New Zealand Exchange but the problem is that the references aren't easy to copy over. — Panamitsu (talk) 22:14, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

If you go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion, you can request that the file either be emailed to you or posted as a draft that you can copy from. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 22:15, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, I will give that a go. — Panamitsu (talk) 04:46, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I notice that Template:Before Afd, which appears at the top of WP:AFD, contains several links to scripts by Lourdes, a blocked user. Have those scripts been forked to be hosted by a different user? If not, that'd seem warranted, along with a notice at the script documentation page. And for the header template, I wonder if telling people to install WP:xfdcloser (cc Evad37) might be better than suggesting scripts? {{u| Sdkb}}  ^talk 22:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

There is currently a page about my business PalmStar Media that was recently tagged with a "notability" banner. My company has been featured in trade press, interviews, etc. but my understanding is that it doesn't meet Wikipedia's specific requirements for citations to articles with a broad, national audience with in-depth profiles. Although I'd love to have a neutral page about my business, it looks like it doesn't qualify for one. Since I have a conflict of interest, I don't think I'm allowed to nominate it for deletion, so I wanted to bring it to the attention of editors here. Let me know if there is somewhere else I should be for this. Ksf207 ( talk) 18:01, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Please create Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rajeev Ranjan Giri with the rationale "Subject of the article is not notable. Full source analysis available at Talk:Rajeev Ranjan Giri#More analysis which includes all the sources that have been present in the article. BLPN thread failed to turn up any additional sourcing and it was suggested that the page be nominated for deletion so I have done so. Unfortunately significant coverage in multiple reliable independent sources does not exist." Thank you 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:F49D:F12E:294C:7BBE ( talk) 21:09, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I have nominated Utamo for deletion. It is a planned resort and entertainment complex in Saudi Arabia. I am not sure how it should be categorized, except as to the country. I don't see categories for Resorts or Real Estate Development. I also don't see a category for places, which can be nominated for deletion if they are not legally recognized or not populated. If I encounter something like this again, what categories should I put it in? Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:54, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Robert McClenon I have since created Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Travel and tourism which hopefully plugs this gap. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:39, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Spiderone - Thank you. That is what I wanted. In the meantime, I see that Utamo was deleted. Robert McClenon ( talk) 23:37, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § RfC: allow soft deletion of unopposed nominations. House Blaster ^talk 01:18, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) § Workshop: draftifying. 🌺 Cremastra ( talk) 15:39, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I've drafted two essays on notability: one on the presumption of notability and the other on significant coverage, if anyone is interested in taking a look and providing feedback on either of the essay talk pages. Best, voorts ( talk/ contributions) 20:58, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

The above section, as well as the talk page of the article in question, had ppl claiming I could have completed the AfD nominations myself. ("Someone can AfD it - you could do it too, it's not hard.") ("You also didn't follow deletion protocol and generate a discussion page.") Problem is, IP users cannot complete AfD nominations, and I prefer to remain anonymous. I wouldn't be complaining about this if this was the first time ppl have brought this up, but it's not. Why do ppl think IP users can complete AfD nominations? 100.7.34.111 ( talk) 18:29, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

People don't know because it's not common knowledge. I didn't know. Either way I stick by the rest of what I said; the deletion nom for Uijeongbu is really unlikely to pass. toobigtokale ( talk) 18:45, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Registering is hardly removing the shroud of anonymity. Create an account with some interesting username, and you can AFD things on your own. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:53, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

People are specifically told to come here if they don't have a user account and wish to complete a deletion ("If you are unregistered, you should complete step I, note the justification for deletion on the article's talk page, then post a message at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion requesting that someone else complete the process.") We should not be generally then criticizing them for having done so. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 19:26, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

We should adjust that text to encourage them to create an account. Less work for us / teach people to fish... etc. And I already told the anon above that if they care about anonymity, editing as an IP is not the best idea. Wikipedia:Get my IP address... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:25, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Nah, I'm with Gertler on this one. We should not be getting onto ppl's cases for coming here to make AfD requests instead of making an account and doing it ourselves. 100.7.34.111 ( talk) 04:18, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Editors opinions on whether IP editors should make an account are not the issue. IP editors cannot complete the AfD process, removing the advise won't change that. Instead interested editors should help with completing the process for them, or find something else to do. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested « @» ° ∆t° 21:39, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

IP, you should be aware that creating an account using a pseudonym gives you much more privacy than editing as an IP. I can tell with a couple of clicks that you're a Verizon customer, editing from Richmond, Virginia. If you have an account, I can't do that, and all it "costs" you in terms of privacy is providing an email address at registration to Wikipedia. It doesn't need to identify you. Bastun ^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:57, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I might just be misunderstanding the line that says put your comment directly below theirs, making sure it is indented (using multiple *s)., but shouldn't it be a colon not an asterisk? TipsyElephant ( talk) 12:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

• Both are used. Multiple asterisks produce a nested unordered list; multiple colons produce a nested definition list. If the discussion started the thread started with an asterisk (which is recommended in the first part of that sentence), it's better to continue that way to produce semantic, screenreader-friendly markup. –  Joe ( talk) 16:39, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

The note said that you could find no information about this, as if it never existed. You shouldn't delete things that didn't show up in a simple Google search for no reason.

Here is a good source at Stanford University. https://tobacco.stanford.edu/cigarettes/womens-cigarettes/max/

They existed. They stopped making them in 2010. Why delete a factual article? Jlen6805 ( talk) 04:12, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Duplicated at WP:Requests for undeletion#Max (cigarette). Jay 💬 06:39, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Now archived at WP:Requests for undeletion/Archive 392#Max (cigarette) Jay 💬 05:15, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Can someone please complete the requested AFD I put in for Lunatic Lateral? 12.74.238.84 ( talk) 22:06, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done. SkyWarrior 15:30, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Article and sources do not appear to fulfill the criteria of WP:NOTE - it doesn't help that it was written by a contributor with a clear WP:COI. Searching for "Hatem Zeine" on google etc doesn't give any results that would help with WP:NOTE. 24.7.88.209 ( talk) 21:57, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Not a hill I'd die on, but as a co-founder of Int@j and a prominent figure in the emerging Jordanian technology sector in the 2000's, Zeine is potentially/probably notable. The article's a hot mess, though... Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 05:40, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hatem Zeine. –  Joe ( talk) 06:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

The article reads like an ad, even after I removed a lot of stuff and rewrote it. It was significantly worse before, and reeked of self promotion. In addition to this the sources itself are a bit spotty. Not to mention the company itself isn't that notable aswell. 108.49.72.125 ( talk) 23:41, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done : see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Squatch. NotAGenious ( talk) 09:29, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

A user divided the article 2025 World Men's Handball Championship into 2 articles : 2025 World Men's Handball Championship and 2025 World Men's Handball Championship qualification : this is useless. The newly page created is unnecessary, overkilling, messy and does not add much of a value at was done previously on the 2025 World Men's Handball Championship page. Plus it has never been done before for the previous tournaments : IHF World Men's Handball Championship. What's more, some of the parts of the page will need to be upated in the original pages and in this newly created article. I propose we delete this new page and we go back to normal as it was before the division into two articles. This new page does not satisfy WP:OR. Pindrice ( talk) 05:21, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

@ Pindrice: You have an confirmed account, you can nominate this article for deletion yourself by following the instructions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Nominating article(s) for deletion. I recommend using Twinkle. –  Joe ( talk) 10:07, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village Pump (proposals) § Bump XfD heading sizes about potentially increasing the header size of XfD discussions. Primefac ( talk) 06:57, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Can someone please complete the requested AFD I put in for WordLift? 213.55.221.7 ( talk) 18:08, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I have created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WordLift with a mostly blank template. Please fill in your argument for deletion there. If you don't within a reasonable period of time then the discussion will be speedy closed. Thanks. Ivanvector ( ^Talk/ _Edits) 18:23, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi Folks!! Can somebody have a look at this. It malformed, looks as though its been manually created and I'm not sure how to fix it. scope_creep ^Talk 09:23, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

 Fixed Queen of Hearts ( talk • stalk • she/they) 16:09, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

The AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024 Valencia residential building fire has seen a swelling of !votes that express editors' personal feelings about the significance of the topic without commenting on its notability. Many of these !votes are by inexperienced users (and sadly some by experienced users) and exclusively make comments listed under WP:ATA. These include:

• 11 editors saying it should be kept because a few people died ( WP:BIGNUMBER)
• Four editors saying it should be kept because it's not in an English speaking country and suggesting that the nominator was engaging in WP:NATIONALIST editing when nominating for deletion ( WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, WP:CITINGGREATERPROBLEMS)
• Three editors saying it should be kept because it made the front page on BBC ( WP:ITSINTHENEWS)
• One editor saying that it's notable because the fire had "unusually rapid spread" (????)

There are a few keep !votes that provide valid arguments in this discussion that allow for reasonable discussion, but the majority don't even recognize the notability guidelines. What is AfD supposed to do in a situation like this to make it clear to editors that they are actually expected to engage with notability requirements when casting a !vote? I'm not so much worried about this specific AfD as much as it's an example for what happens frequently at these sorts of AfDs, often by the same editors. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 04:42, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I tried closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Delhi–Kalka Shatabdi Express as a procedural Keep but I keep getting error messages due to the size of the nomination. Can anyone help me here?

Also, something bizarre happened on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 February 23 with discussions not being transcluded, primarily at the bottom of the page. Was this a relisting problem? Is XFDcloser acting up? Thanks for any help you can offer. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:55, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Ugh. I've closed it by hand—XFDcloser can't handle discussions that big. I rollbacked most of the deletion tags, but many need to be removed manually. Here's the list—I can finish them later, but any help would be much appreciated. I have fixed the second problem (basically, this same AfD was so big that the log page couldn't handle transcluding any more AfDs). Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 01:19, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Looks like we double-fixed the problem, because I hid the long list of nominated pages on the AfD itself. -- RL0919 ( talk) 01:22, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Even better, thanks. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 01:56, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

The tags have now all been removed. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 02:15, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Extraordinary Writ and RL0919, bless you both. I actually wasn't expecting such a quick response given the low activity on this talk page. We have to start discouraging editors from doing bundled nominations with HUNDREDS of articles. They almost always get a procedural close.

If either of you has some spare time (hah!), we could use more AFD discussion closers. Admins tend to cycle through AFDLand, closing discussions for a few weeks, then moving on to do other things and sometimes returning. But since the summer, there has been a decline of both closers and participants. If you know of any way to galvanize some of our more experienced editors to participate in deletion discussions, I'd be open to doing anything from wearing a sandwich board to skywriting. We've got some great regulars but we could use two or three times more thoughtful participants. If you do start helping out with AFDs you might notice how many discussions are relisted because there is such low participation in them. I'm wondering if instead of nominating bad articles, marginal articles are getting nominated and the consensus is just much less clear on what to do with them. Any way, it's been a long day and I appreciate your responsiveness. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:30, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

This web browser article has zero references to establish notability. After searching, found a few social media and Wikipedia-copied websites, but no independent, comprehensive, in-depth coverage. Article was created on 23 February 2009. PROD on March 21, 2009, then de-prod on March 22, 2009. First AfD was March 24, 2009, then removed the same day. Asking for help here to do the second Afd. Regards, JoeNMLC ( talk) 03:29, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

@ JoeNMLC:  Done. Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Webaroo (2nd nomination). CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:14, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

This article needs to be nominated for deletion. It cites no sources (despite being tagged for a decade now), and the subject doesn't meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Shock were a short-lived British dance troupe from the early 80s, but were never famous in their own right. They were known only by association. They released two singles, neither of which charted. Their former members are not prominent or widely known beyond this troupe. 2A0A:EF40:1267:7101:1C9B:C983:95B0:AF56 ( talk) 18:09, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done. Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shock (troupe). CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Jedwardchapman made exactly two edits: the creation of this article in 2009, and a minor edit to it the following year. Outside of being a relatively short article with very few sources, the subject is not very well known outside of Richmond, Virginia. Not to mention, the article comes off more as a promotion for Diversity Richmond rather than an informative piece on the radio show. 100.7.34.111 ( talk) 18:56, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done. Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rainbow Minute. CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:30, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

This article had sources for citations, but only 60% of the article has citations, which means that 40% of the article has no citations. This article also fails WP:GNG for a stand-alone list. 14.203.182.49 ( talk) 09:33, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

The notice "The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for stand-alone lists." on that article has been there since May 2017. And nothing has changed for it to meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for stand-alone lists. 14.203.182.49 ( talk) 09:35, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Done; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of preserved Southern Pacific Railroad rolling stock. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 06:23, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Stub article that fails Wikipedia:Notability, and has 0 references whatsoever, a Google search doesn't return any independent and reliable sources, but only a couple Amazon links and Facebook pages 108.49.72.125 ( talk) 16:30, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Given that there has not been any actual article body contact editing in seven years, this page could likely be deleted using the simpler WP:PROD procedure. I briefly placed a PROD on it myself, but reconsidered as the existence an All Things Considered piece on the band gets them at least partway to notability, and a newspaper search finds things like this, this, this, and this, to pick a few, suggesting the page may be suorceable.. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 16:55, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

This edit request to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Hello, Please could someone nominate a page for deletion for me? I can't create the subpage as an IP.

The page in question is Sweble.

My nomination statement is as follows:

I am really struggling to see how this wikitext parser is notable. The page has been tagged as being of questionable notability and using primary sources since 2011, so I think it's about time it went to AFD.

There doesn't seem to be a single source in the article that demonstrates third party coverage of this software. Citations 1, 2 and 3 are links to the software's own website. Citation 4 is an announcement that the authors of the software will be presenting it at a conference. Citations 5, 7, 10 and 11 are papers written by the authors of Sweble. Citation 6 is a dead link to what seems to have been an open source community page? Citations 8 and 9 are pages on the mediawiki wiki, unusable as sources.

A few google searches failed to turn up anything usable, mostly software repositories and the papers written by the software's authors. 86.23.109.101 ( talk) 11:01, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, 86.23.109.101 ( talk) 11:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sweble. Liu1126 ( talk) 12:22, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Just look at this article. 2605:B40:13E7:F600:40FE:7B6D:17E8:D289 ( talk) 23:50, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Since you subsequently redirected the page and that has not been reverted, the request for an AfD seems moot. -- RL0919 ( talk) 17:02, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I have noticed a recent AfD on a new instance of a previously-deleted article rattling around the relist circuit. Seeing this makes me suggest a potential Bot task:

For each AfD (nth nomination) which commences, retrieve the Usernames of all participants in the previous AfD(s), and append a neutrally-worded Pinging UserX, UserY, etc. who participated in a previous AfD discussion line to the new AfD.

If these participants are pinged to reconsider whether their previous keep/delete opinions remain relevant, this could improve participation and resolution of the new AfD. AllyD ( talk) 14:43, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

A good idea which the nominators should actually be doing as part of the process. If a bot "forces" them to notify participants of previous AfD's of the same article, all the better. I am not a bot creator so have no idea of how easy or difficult programming a bot would be for this task, just commenting on your idea. Randy Kryn ( talk) 14:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Interesting idea, and it is supported by WP:APPNOTE (Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)). If there're no objections here we can bring it to WP:BOTREQ and get some technical input on feasibility. Liu1126 ( talk) 16:01, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Personally I am of the opinion that what a new AfD needs most, if a previous one hadn't settled the question, is participation by previously uninvolved contributors, able to put a new perspective on things. Pinging previous participants (particularly those not sufficiently interested in a topic to have it watchlisted) may end up looking like an invitation to merely repeat what they said before. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 16:55, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I like the idea. Jclemens ( talk) 01:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

If we do something like this, let's take care not ping vanished/blocked editors. BD2412 T 02:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I like. Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 08:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

The main article has been moved to a different name, and this article including "Metro" rather than just "Mayor" on its own was the incorrect name for the article. It is necessary to delete the incorrect name article and retain the correct name article. UnicornSherbert ( talk) 18:48, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

AfD doesn't apply to redirects. See WP:RFD for the correct process to use. Iffy★ Chat -- 20:19, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

The article was previously the main article until the article name was changed. It would not otherwise be a redirect if that was not the case... Surely deletion (or even speedy deletion) would apply? UnicornSherbert ( talk) 21:40, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

That article has been moved at least twice, if you want it to be moved back you should open an WP:RM discussion on the talk page. Iffy★ Chat -- 21:48, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Not asking for it to be moved back, I was trying to make the point that the article has been moved to its proper name so the previous article with the incorrect name should be deleted. UnicornSherbert ( talk) 21:50, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Redirects left behind after an article is moved are usually kept to avoid breaking links. Iffy★ Chat -- 21:52, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Ok, opened redirect for discussion on it. Thank you :) UnicornSherbert ( talk) 21:54, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

The event does not have long-lasting effects whatsoever and has no notability. It is only covered by local media and there has been no lasting coverage from any international media. It was not a significant event, neither in civilian nor military aviation. As such I would like someone to nominate this page for deletion. Thank you so much. PaPa PaPaRoony ( talk) 09:07, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Have you looked at Wikipedia:Twinkle? You can easily create it yourself using Twinkle Garuda3 ( talk) 11:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

@ PaPa PaPaRoony:  Done. See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2023 Zaragoza F-18 crash. CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:17, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I think there are 2 issues with this article, but I'm not sure of the procedure to follow so I prefer to post there : {1} It's a new compagny with no effective product or service: testing is expected to begin in 2026, before commercial service in 2028. The use of nearly only the futur tense or verbs with conditionnal or future meaning as ("would", "planned", "is expected"...) shows that. {2} It seems that the subject has no significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent secondary sources. International Railway Journal is a media of limited interest (trade magazine for railway industry) and the content seems more promotional than informative. Quechoisir is a French media with a national audience but the mention is anecdotical. La Tribune is a French economic media but the coverage is not significant. 92.162.76.6 ( talk) 21:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

You seem to have forgotten to include the name of the article in question. Having that would make matters easier to address. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 00:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm deeply sorry! The article is called Kevin Speed. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Speed 2A01:CB06:9010:85CA:902D:36F8:BBC6:525B ( talk) 18:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done. See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Speed. CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:24, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Please finish the requested deletion nomination of 2022 Pembroke–Black Creek tornado. I left a reason for deletion on the talk page. 148.76.84.29 ( talk) 14:19, 6 April 2024 (UTC) (Confirmed SOCK) The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 14:57, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Reasoning was challenged as this is a brand-new editor who is currently trying to AfD a current GAN. The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 14:20, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

The challenged reasoning is not policy complaint and the user is, as usual, trying to WP:OWN their articles. Even though the tag was removed, I still request an AFD is started. 148.76.84.29 ( talk) 14:26, 6 April 2024 (UTC) (Confirmed SOCK) The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 14:57, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I created a draft for it at Draft:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2022 Pembroke–Black Creek tornado but was unable to submit it. If someone could take care of that that would be appreciated. 148.76.84.29 ( talk) 14:31, 6 April 2024 (UTC) (Confirmed SOCK) The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 14:57, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

• Request was by a now-blocked SOCK. The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 14:57, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Please AFD the article for the following reason: “Unnotable, not notable outside of one event so fails WP:BLP1E at best.” 100.12.36.99 ( talk) 14:16, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

@ Iffy: Able to complete this nomination?-- 100.12.36.99 ( talk) 18:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Don;t know why I didn't see this ping until now, but  Done, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth Leitman. Iffy★ Chat -- 08:48, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I need to bring this to everyone's attention, and ask if it's OK that it happened this way. I have documented this on the AFD template. Originally deleted per AFD on 15 June 2020 due to "lack of in-depth sources". But the original article could not be found, to make a comparison between its original and the version currently up for AFD. The current article seemed to be created as a brand new article. I finally found the answer in Draft:Lucy Grantham, which, as you can see, did not even get reviewed as a Draft. It was redirected to the original article title by User:The Baudelaire Fortune, who does not otherwise seem to have a hand in the article. And, therefor no way to compare to see if improvements had been made. My first time running across this scenario. Seems to me it sidesteps the process a bit. Comments? Suggestions? — Maile ( talk) 20:44, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Maile66, if you want to see the deleted version from 2020, just go to Special:Undelete/Lucy Grantham. At any rate, experienced editors aren't required to submit drafts for review, and The Baudelaire Fortune is the main author of the new version, so I don't understand what you mean by "does not otherwise seem to have a hand in the article". Is there something I'm missing? Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 21:02, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

You're not missing anything. Disregard that comment from me. — Maile ( talk) 21:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Not really much information about her on the internet and never really did anything noteworthy. 2603:6080:5D00:2562:25F9:8413:5686:472A ( talk) 22:38, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

I have added two sources of reasonable significance to the article. As for whether she did anything noteworthy, she co-produced a film that won an Independent Spirit Award for Best Feature and a film that was nominated for the Golden Globe for the Best Motion Picture Drama (a producers award). Let us know if this overcomes your objections. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 23:26, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

For the historic record, I have restored this section that was deleted by the original poster. However, given that the original poster chose to delete it, I consider that a reversion of the request. Nothing further need be done here. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 23:38, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

The article should be checked for authenticity, there is too much false information and so on, I suggest considering this article Alsho093 ( talk) 18:35, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I posted about this at WT:GAN, [14] but would like to get broader input. As I explained there, WP:N is not part of the GA criteria but is currently mentioned in the reviewing instructions. Previous discussion never formed a consensus to add notability to the GA crititeria. [15] [16] [17]

An article was recently nominated for GA and AfD at the same time. [18] [19] [20] The reviewer had also nominated articles for GA which were of borderline notability. This got brought up during a lengthy discussion at WP:ANI where it was initially framed as disruptive. [21]

My question for those more experienced with AfD, is should content review processes (like GA and FA) attempt to review notability? Rjjⁱⁱⁱ ( talk) 17:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

These are both 100% primary sourced and only provide a facsimile of reception. 50.113.53.158 ( talk) 02:06, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done by User:Greenish_Pickle!. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ultraman Belial and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ultraman Tregear. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 23:27, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

If you want me to provide full context, here it is in quotation marks:

"Three sources have failed verification the More Footnotes Needed notice was up since January 2017 and nothing has changed. Even one external link has failed verification. Therefore, all these issues combined make this article fail GNG."

"The notice "This article includes a list of general references, but it lacks sufficient corresponding inline citations." on that article has been there since January 2017. And nothing has changed for it to meet Wikipedia's notability guideline. This article is being taken to AFD due to failure to meeting requrements of a wikipedia article and coupled with that it was originally proposed for deletion, but someone had removed the PROD thinking that they could get away with it. Therefore, AFD is a solution." 194.223.33.176 ( talk) 12:32, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Here you go, IP 194, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GE boxcab Star Mississippi 00:10, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

It is an unnecessary disambiguation page per WP:ONEOTHER that could be replaced with hatnotes as there are only two pages with this title and it is already served with the parenthetical identifier. 128.82.18.1 ( talk) 19:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hey Everybody (2nd nomination). StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 16:44, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

No references on these articles, therefore these articles fail to meet WP:GNG

The notice "This article includes a list of references, related reading, or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations." has been on the GS-5 article since December 2016 and nothing has changed.

The roller bearings on the two GS-5s were so successful that when both No. 4458 and No. 4459 were scrapped, they were examined and showed minimal wear is written in a fan's point of view and not a neutral point of view and therefore to me, does not confer notability.

I would suggest that these would be drafted, but I think deleting them is the only solution. 194.223.33.176 ( talk) 06:02, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Source formatting or tone are not a reason for AfD, so I 'm going to decline this one. SOmeone else may accept but in the mean time you're welcome to address both of those issues editorially. Star Mississippi 13:31, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Concur. Both articles have references, just not in-line citations. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 15:19, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done, lack of inline citations and minor tone issues are not reasons for deletion. Lack of inline citations is an issue with some articles only cited to books but is not a reason for deletion in and of itself. See WP:DEL-REASON for information on deletion reasons. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 16:55, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

When an article is deleted on en-WP but also exists on other Wiki's, should a notification be automatically posted on the article page (or talk page) of those Wikis?

For example, this article by a skilled UPE (i.e. lots of well constructed refs, but mostly unsuitable on close inspection) was deleted today Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akuma Saningong on en-WP, but it still exists-created by the same UPE-on the French and German Wikis.

I have put a note on the talk pages of those wikis about the AfD but I wonder if this should be done automatically? thanks. Aszx5000 ( talk) 12:46, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi, can someone please fix the AfD for Honorary Chaplain to the King, regards Atlantic306 ( talk) 20:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Done. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 21:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Occasional references does not make something notable 2605:B40:13E7:F600:D034:1B79:2140:1EDF ( talk) 21:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

The redirect Wikipedia:Articles for destruction has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 1 § Wikipedia:Articles for destruction until a consensus is reached. Mondtaler ( talk) 17:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I would like to nominate Racial hoax for deletion with the following rationale:

Non-notable concept. Any references to this term I can find ultimately lead back to a single author, Katheryn Russell-Brown, showing that this concept has not reached the level of notability for an article. There are a handful of notes about her work on it, but the little I can find is fairly surface level and doesn't add the sort of analysis that would be required for building a well developed, neutral article. Moreover, the vast vast majority of the article is WP:OR/ WP:SYNTH, attempting to attribute documented cases to this concept, despite no other authors having done so. Strip that out, and also the "Concept" material which doesn't really discuss this as a concept, and this boils down to a single source.

Thanks in advance, 35.139.154.158 ( talk) 22:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done UtherSRG (talk) 23:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

All that's here is primary sources, listicles, and toys. 2605:B40:13E7:F600:80D4:D0B3:B66:64D9 ( talk) 00:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Note: This article was previously up at AfD in August 2023; the discussion ended as Keep. Toughpigs ( talk) 17:07, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Really just says "he exists." 2605:B40:13E7:F600:A0A5:D7A8:85CC:1EBC ( talk) 18:01, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Note: This article has been at AfD three times and the discussion ended as Keep. The most recent was in May 2020. Toughpigs ( talk) 17:06, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Both have no real impact shown 38.15.33.113 ( talk) 21:53, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Note: There was an AfD discussion about these pages in March 2022; the result was keep. Toughpigs ( talk) 21:55, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

"He is large." That's mostly it. 2605:B40:13E7:F600:E1EB:7896:3BB9:E89F ( talk) 02:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

The article was previously nominated less than a year ago. Have you reviewed that AfD, and if so, why do you feel a re-nomination is needed? DonIago ( talk) 03:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Like I just said, the main pseudo-notable thing about him is that he's really big. There's no actual analysis. 2605:B40:13E7:F600:81AF:FB54:24F5:260E ( talk) 13:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

You didn't actually answer my questions. DonIago ( talk) 13:36, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

A re-nomination is needed because there's no analysis here. 2605:B40:13E7:F600:81AF:FB54:24F5:260E ( talk) 13:37, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Please review WP:BEFORE; we don't delete articles based on whether they currently don't contain analysis. If you have a concern about a lack of analysis, the best approach would be to improve the article by adding such analysis. As the prior AfD concluded less than a year ago, Unicron is a notable subject. DonIago ( talk) 17:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

That was procedurally kept because the nominator was blocked for CIR issues. I want to give it another shot. 2605:B40:13E7:F600:81AF:FB54:24F5:260E ( talk) 20:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Once again, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/Today is not displaying a list of today's nominations. Instead, it has a link to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 13. I wish people would leave the mostly harmless articles alone, like England women's cricket team in Ireland in 2024 alone (wait a few months and it will become a obviously notable topic) and concentrate on hoaxes and unverifiable claims. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 22:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Article was created by a user with same name as article, on 14 September 2009 (their only contribution to Wikipedia). Speedy deletion on creation day; First nomination on 28 January 2010-Keep. This organization article is missing independent, reliable sources to establish notability. The only reference is a dead link. After searching, found only social media, but no comprehensive, in-depth coverage of this specific organization. Please submit for "Second nomination" as I'm not sure how to do this correctly. Thanks. JoeNMLC ( talk) 12:27, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Let me note that the other article raised at the previous AFD is available in archive, to whatever degree that matters. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 13:57, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Cancelled - A reference was added sufficient to provide notability. Regards, JoeNMLC ( talk) 12:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Article was created on 25 February 2009, then was first time nominated for deletion on 17 March 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Newshouse. Article has zero references (one dead link), and unable to find comprehensive, in-depth coverage of this specific Indian weekly newspaper for children. Please submit for "Second nomination". Thanks, JoeNMLC ( talk) 09:02, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

You have an autoconfirmed account, why not create the AfD yourself? The instructions are at WP:AFDHOWTO, the only difference is that you have to add "(2nd nomination)" so that a new AfD page is created. Iffy★ Chat -- 14:47, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

@ Iffy - THanks for clarifying, I will give it a try now. Cheers, JoeNMLC ( talk) 15:12, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

@ Iffy - I'm confused. I added the AdD (2nd) to article, and now missing the usual "Preloaded debate" wikilink. I added Step 2 to article & it now has in Red (Error: Please do not use this template in articles.); So I now reverted. JoeNMLC ( talk) 15:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

@ Iffy - Started over, Fumbled my way thru & possibly got it done. Had to click on red link the deletion discussion to begin manual steps. Explained at step II. JoeNMLC ( talk) 15:49, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

@ JoeNMLC,Why don’t you use Twinkle for that? GrabUp - Talk 15:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

@ Grabup - not on Twinkle. Have a simple notepad file with crib-notes on how to do stuff. Mostly working on de-orphan & unref. articles. Not a lot of AfDs & rarely the 2nd nom. ones. JoeNMLC ( talk) 15:59, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

@ JoeNMLC, It will automate everything and you can nominate any article in just one click. GrabUp - Talk 16:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

@ Grabup - I did take a second-look at Twinkle. Is it possible from those 14 modules, to use only the PROD one & skip all the rest? JoeNMLC ( talk) 16:09, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

@ JoeNMLC, You can nominate for Prod, AfD, Speedy deletion, and Warn users, also can do many things with Twinkle. For now you forgot to notify the author of the page that you nominated his article. You can do it by posting: {{subst:Afd notice|Newshouse|Newshouse (2nd nomination)}} ~~~~ to the author’s talk page with title Deletion discussion about Newshouse. GrabUp - Talk 16:21, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

@ Grabup - Article creator only "active" on Wikipedia for two months in 2009. JoeNMLC ( talk) 16:31, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

@ JoeNMLC, Thanks for nominating this article, I am sure it will be deleted and don’t forget to install Twinkle from Special: Preferences then click to gadgets and go to the 11th number getget and you can turn Twinkle on from there. GrabUp - Talk 16:35, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

@ Grabup - Yes, I did activate Twinkle as you suggested. Now have two tabs on articles for "PROD" and "Xfd". So thank you for that. Do not use that often, but still helpful. Cheers, JoeNMLC ( talk) 16:47, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done - 2nd Nomination completed. JoeNMLC ( talk) 14:16, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

The article does not meet the notability criteria and merit. The 1 source is not a reliable source that verifies notability. It is a forum like site for local community, which serves as self published blog. http://ruhollywood.com/2018/11/12/miss-russian-united-states/

4 source is a self published interview on an ads website, not reliable secondary source at all. http://www.spektrummagazine.com/fashion/getting-to-know-lika-osipova/

6 source is an article on a gossips site about dating life of a Russian media person, barelly mentioning the figure of the Wikipedia. https://www.eg.ru/showbusiness/66399/

Sources 7 and 8 are different links to the same poster to the city of the city. It is rather a primary sourse not a secondary source to verify notability. https://www.weho.org/home/showdocument?id=26793

Source 9 - a link to the so called LAF.It is not a film festival, it is a monthly paid competition, not recognized in media or the professional community. The link only mentions name of the person, and does not provide any evidence to verify notability. https://www.lafilmawards.net/single-post/june-2021

To summarize- 6 out of 9 sources used for the page do not meet even closely any possible notability verifications. The figure has barely any professional credits, zero recognition in American or Russian media beyond a self proclaimed pop star status. 2 2603:8000:B6F0:8A10:7412:7312:39D6:FAAA ( talk) 05:48, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I think it will be better if you request this from your @ User:Demeter39G own account. Grabup ( talk) 07:54, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

It keeps showing error my IP address is blocked, says it is proxi server. This thread only opens from new browser page.

I have questions regarding this page as the only option to make an article there is submit it via payed partnership, at the bottom of it.

https://patch.com/california/studiocity/miss-russian-la-beauty-pageant-to-be-held-at-romanov-s

I agree that is the only article i find reliable. If there are more, someone can add them. https://www.kp.ru/daily/26016.4/2938494 2603:8000:B6F0:8A10:7412:7312:39D6:FAAA ( talk) 08:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

There are also two sources which you missed and these are looking reliable.

1. https://patch.com/california/studiocity/miss-russian-la-beauty-pageant-to-be-held-at-romanov-s

2. https://www.kp.ru/daily/26016.4/2938494/ Grabup ( talk) 08:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

This is not a reliable source. It is a bulletin board to submit paid news and advertisement.

https://patch.com/california/studiocity/miss-russian-la-beauty-pageant-to-be-held-at-romanov-s

Demeter39G ( talk) 16:51, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Other editor will reply to your request. GrabUp - Talk 18:10, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

What do you think? I added explanations and verified. 2603:8000:B6F0:8A10:A18A:88C9:1AF8:8BD2 ( talk) 00:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

@ Demeter39G, I think she fail WP:GNG, nominating per your request. GrabUp - Talk 05:29, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done Nominated here. GrabUp - Talk 05:40, 21 May 2024 (UTC)