Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Radiant! (talk | contribs) at 15:35, 28 September 2014 (→‎Daily AfD pages are getting too long: yes, they are.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Marie Porter

This person is not notable and most of the sources are primary and the ones that are not are not even sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orasis (talk • contribs) 00:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AfD discussion speedily deleted

Hello, I proposed an article for AfD [Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Citycon] at the same time that another editor proposed it for speedy deletion. The article was speedily deleted, but the AfD remains up. Do I just close it with a speedy delete decision? Upjav (talk) 18:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. --Finngall talk 18:42, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What can I do for it not to be deleted? I really want it to be accepted.Or please someone edit it for me.. so that it can be accepted?. 112.198.234.141 (talk) 10:48, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Uninvolved administrators

In poking around in the AfD archives, I was surprised to come across a case (several years ago) which was summarily closed as "keep" by the editor (incidentally an admin) who had created the page under discussion (!). I was even more surprised that the instructions do not explicitly forbid this, since they define an uninvolved administrator as "one who has not participated in the deletion discussion". As an administrator myself I would not dream of closing an AfD if I was "involved" according to the more general definition at WP:UNINVOLVED. In fact, since that page is a policy and this page is not even officially a guideline, I believe that the wording here has no effect. In order to make this clear, I am changing it:

From: An uninvolved admin (i.e. one who has not participated in the deletion discussion) ...
To: An admin who is uninvolved and has not participated in the deletion discussion ...

Better ideas are welcome. Zerotalk 13:17, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There could be legit cases here, however. Without seeing the AFD in question, it's hard to tell. For example, a case I could see is if the closing admin's only previous action on the page to be deleted was to salt it with a redirect, or perhaps move a userspace draft into mainspace as part of a request, and nothing else (no content generation, etc.) then there's no reason that the admin could also be the closer of the AFD on that. --MASEM (t) 14:28, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would say if an administrator has acted only in an administrative manner towards and article then they are not involved. Involved, as defined for the purpose of administrative actions, means involved in a content dispute.
Again, as Masem said, without knowing the precise case I cannot say if anything has gone wrong or not. Chillum 14:35, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you both, but I don't think further words are required since it is a general principle that administrative actions do not constitute "involvement". It says so in the policy at WP:UNINVOLVED. Zerotalk 00:53, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily deletion nomination/Articles for deletion redirected page

Hello. Can you please delete the redirect article so click here: Spartan race (company). I think we can add a tag using speedily deletion edit for the Spartan race (company). Thank you. Bryancyriel (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:54, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Added a G7 tag. Ansh666 03:15, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Needs to be split

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PrimeFaces needs to be split into a second nomination. Sorry, no time, must go. – Fayenatic London 18:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Ansh666 19:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

August 30th is missing from lists of open AFDs

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old/Open AfDs, August 30th is missing. I'm guessing Mathbot messed up somehow, since it seems to be what fills in those pages. Can someone please fix them so that August 30th is listed. I tried adding a header for August 30th at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old/Open AfDs but I think I messed it up (linking to the wrong day), and Mathbot just removed it. I'm not sure whether trying again and linking to the right day would work, so I figured it was better to just ask here and have someone who knows what they are doing fix the problem. Calathan (talk) 16:46, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the bot messed it up. I don't know why. Unfortunately, once it misses a day, it cannot come back and insert it, as perhaps a human editor removed that day. I put August 30 by hand, and the bot respected that link when I started it. If such a glitch happens again I will take a closer look at the source code. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:20, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Contradictory instructions for non-logged-in users

The page first says an IP editor should post both on the article's talk page and then on this talk page, and then contradicts itself by saying it's not possible for an IP editor to complete the process; the template says an IP editor should post only on the article's talk page. So that is three paragraphs all saying different things! Which instruction is the correct one?--greenrd (talk) 23:13, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I dunno, but I always thought the "talk page" part was a pain in the ass. I'd prefer the policy be just "make a post on WT:AFD noting the article and the reason for deletion" because then I can just copy their post and add the template myself. Protonk (talk) 01:18, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Daily AfD pages are getting too long

At the moment, no fewer than four of the last seven daily AfD pages are showing up in Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded - basically, this means that the total length of the AfD articles to be put on the page gets so long that they can no longer all be transcluded, and the final AfD articles on the page only show up as links. This immediately makes looking at the AfDs concerned (no matter commenting on them, if necessary) a far longer process, particularly as the daily AfD page concerned is so long that it can take half a minute to reload whenever one goes back to it. And we don't really want to be doing anything that discourages editors from looking through AfD discussions. There are a number of at least theoretically possible solutions to this problem - increasing the maximum allowed length of pages after template inclusions, cutting down somehow on the number of AfDs, cutting down somehow on the length of AfDs, relisting fewer AfDs (particularly already long ones), spinning off relisted AfDs onto a separate page, and no doubt more. Each seems to have some difficulties or drawbacks - but surely we can come up with something that on balance improves the current situation? PWilkinson (talk) 16:33, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The other irritating thing is the "too many people are viewing this page" notice which is more & more constant here, To be honest personally I think the entire AFD system needs hugely updating as we're in 2014, Not 2004, Only solution I have is instead of 1 page a day - Have 2 pages ? .... –Davey2010 • (talk) 02:15, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One page per day per category (e.g., Monday's biographical articles)? Given it is possible people are interested in particular types of AfDs it might make it easier to navigate too. QuiteUnusual (talk) 13:19, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support either sort of breakdown into multiple files, it would require some script work, I'm sure. I don't believe that we should let technical considerations drive the content of deletion discussions--if there's a problem with relisting (and one can argue that there is, and/or that there is a problem with AfD participation), that should be discussed separately, but I think that trying to fix that in order to work around the template inclusion limit is a short-term band-aid that isn't likely to prove a useful long-term solution. Let's just fix this right. --j⚛e deckertalk 17:37, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think "spinning off relisted AfDs onto a separate page" is a good idea in any case. I don't see significant drawbacks beyond the work required to implement it, and it would be useful in a number of ways. VMS Mosaic (talk) 22:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A bot could measure the length of a given day's AfDs and if too long split it up into #1, #2 etc. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 17:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After repeatedly failing to load today's log over the past 15 minutes for the first time ever, I'd support a split of some sort - having a separate log for relisted discussions sounds like a good idea, though a separate log for each category, while harder to maintain (categories can be switched easily), would probably be a better long-term solution if the volume of AfDs continues to increase. Ansh666 18:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If people would stop contesting prod's, if we'd expand CSD, we'd have fewer of these. So few articles nominated for deletion that are kept are ever more than crap or permastubs with tags forever that it seems much effort for little reward and the community's efforts would be better spent identifying unquestionably notable topics and encouraging editors to write there. But, alas, the system we put in place when every article was precious is cumbersome at the 5 million mark. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:31, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One thing that would help is to stop relisting articles over and over and over again. In most cases these are nominations with one or two delete !votes and no keeps, and should be soft-deleted as though they're expired PRODs. Reyk YO! 22:58, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

True. I thought that a couple months ago, a proposal came by here (and passed) whereby we'd treat those that way? Or was I dreaming the whole thing? ansh666 23:01, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you're right. I remember that discussion now: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 110#Deprecate PROD, close unchallenged AfDs as delete without prejudice. Reyk YO! 23:08, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is currently a discussion about getting rid of PRODs. If this happens, there will inevitably be more AfDs, and so problems of non-transclusion (as described above) will happen sooner and more frequently. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:51, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment there are 167 AfDs on today's log; that's the biggest number I can remember seeing. At minimum maybe we should give serious consideration to the proposal to put relists on a separate daily log that AfD regulars might remember to check and give extra attention to help resolve some of these older discussions. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Too many are being relisted by well-meaning non-admins (who of course can't press delete). Frankly, if an AfD can't find anyone to comment on it in two weeks, it should simply be deleted. Otherwise close it normally. I can think of very few AfDs (usually very contentious ones) that have benefited from being relisted more than once. Black Kite (talk) 17:13, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, then maybe more admins should get on closing AfDs...also, relisted ones can be closed at any time, not only after a week, right? ansh666 18:49, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is closing low participation AfDs is a good way to get an earful of shit over nothing. At least with >3 participants you can point to the discussion but with fewer than that (especially if it's numerically pitched the other way but they're all no-content arguments) you're liable to piss someone off whichever way you choose. Protonk (talk) 18:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Someone who complains about an article being deleted after two weeks at AfD should probably have done something about it whilst it was at AfD. Having said that, I don't see a problem with articles deleted in this manner being dealt with like deleted PRODs. Black Kite (talk) 20:44, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Special:AFDFeed

Could AFD possibly be based off of the AFC tool Special:NewPagesFeed?--Coin945 (talk) 18:15, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lighter templates

One (partial) solution is too make the templates used in each AfD "lighter". It is not always easy to see what would help and what wouldn't, many people here rae much better versed in this than me, but I've tried something nevertheless. If we replace the "Find sources" template used in each AfD with the new Template:Find sources AFD, does it help? It removes the "free images" search, which is IMO never useful for an AfD. The "newspapers" search also doesn't give any useful results for me, but that may be a country-specific thing; can American (or other) editors confirm that this is useful for them? Otherwise it can go as well.

Now, I don't know whether this really helps with the template include size, I just offer it as a possible solution. if this would help, one would need to change Template:Afd2 (replacing :({{Find sources|{{{pg}}}}}) with :({{Find sources AFD|{{{pg}}}}})). Perhaps someone can check if more tweaks and trimming are possible. Fram (talk) 13:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked this a bit more, and it seems to reduce the number of standard templates on 1 AfD from 11 to 10, or some 9% (in number, perhaps not in size). I'll do the test by replcing Find sources with Find Sources AFD on one day, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 September 16. At the moment, the last AfD that is visible is the one for Tsakana Nkandih, and the first that is not expanded is the one for Robert Lyn Nelson.

Feel free to trout me if this go horribly wrong, and to undo my changes if they are deemed to be nagetive or unwanted. Fram (talk) 14:12, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I have now done the test, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 September 16 now shows 12 further AfDs (last one shown is now Robert Bianco)! It still exceeds the limit, so further improvements are needed, but (as long as no one wants "free images" back for AfDs) it is a step in the right direction. I'll change the AfD2 template so that new AfDs automatically get the "Find sources AfD" template; again, feel free to revert me if necessary. Fram (talk) 14:31, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen the "newspapers" search come up a couple times, it's particularly useful in case an article is about an older topic (i.e. before the interwebz) and may not have received a lot of online coverage since. ansh666 19:08, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For certain classes of subject, news has been one of the most productive sources for demonstrating notability. Please do not remove material which is actually valuable for assessing notability as a band-aid for a technical failure. That way lies madness. --j⚛e deckertalk 19:13, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for trying this. The Google newspapers search can be very useful for older topics, assuming the search syntax is properly formulated (disambiguation terms in the title can throw it out of kilter, for example). I agree that images are unlikely to be helpful in most AfD cases (and where they might be, they are easy enough to access from the basic Google search in any case). --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I only suggested removing the "newspaper search" (not the news search) because it doesn't yield any results (for me!) anyway. If it is useful for others, even just for the Americans (of which there are quite a few at enwiki), then of course it should stay. I'll try to thnk of other ways to make the template lighter still. Fram (talk) 19:26, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I agree with regard to images. --j⚛e deckertalk 23:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think regardless of the technical impetus, trimming down templates like these is valuable. +1 for removing the free image sources. I'll try and take a closer look at the remainder of it later. Protonk (talk) 20:15, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also recommend removing the JSTOR link unless we have some reason to believe that JSTOR covers a substantial number of sources not indexed by google scholar (which would seem to me to be impossible as scholar indexes JSTOR), because their search is certainly not better. Protonk (talk) 00:39, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also the "stats" link appears to be dead and I have no idea why it would be a good idea to link the the page views for the page under discussion as anyone using that as an argument for or against deletion would be ignored. Protonk (talk) 00:41, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm proud to say that with further rewrites of the template (without losing any further fucntionality, and keeping the underlying "Template:Find sources multi" subtemplates) I have now eliminated (or seriously reduced) the problem. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 September 16 now is again fully functional. Every new AfD gets this new, lighter template; if any older pages still have the transclusion limit problem, you'll need to change the old find sourecs template to the new "find sources AFD" template on every single AfD on that page though. Fram (talk) 07:17, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why relist?

Wow. Yes, those daily pages are getting way too long. Looking over a few random pages, I see two easy fixes. First, almost all debates get three or four lines that "This debate has been included in the list of foo-related deletions". Now creating such lists and groupings sounds very useful to me... but is it really necessary to mention their existence in each AFD debate? Does a daily AFD page benefit from having 200 lines informing us that <some debate> has been put on <some list>? I somehow doubt that.

Second, and more important, is the relistings (and this has been a problem for several years now). Relisting a debate to "generate a more thorough discussion" sounds like a nice idea, but in practice it usually doesn't work. Looking over a few daily AFD pages, I don't see any evidence of the "relist" tag generating a more thorough discussion. So to get AFD back under control, this practice of mass relisting should probably be removed. Either treat such articles as expired PRODs (and remove them and let WP:REFUND restore them if anyone minds) or treat them as "no consensus" and keep them, but don't just throw them back in the hope that a second round of process would give more of an outcome than the first round of process. >Radiant< 15:35, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Soft deletion

I just had a somewhat frustrating experience with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dmitriy Grigoriyev. After being up for deletion for nearly a month, it was closed as "no consensus". While I don't fault the closer for his decision, isn't this slightly absurd? It's clear the topic isn't going to attract much interest if renominated, and if all the single-purpose account who created the article could bother to do was remove the AfD template — well, that's his problem. Moreover, I do recall discussion about discussions with no votes cast ending up as soft deletes (at least as a general rule), and although I'm not sure how that turned out, perhaps it's time to codify that, given situations like this one. - Biruitorul Talk 16:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While in general the choice is a matter of closer discretion, in this particular case I think NC/NPASR is the right call. If you check the article hiistory, you will see that the article had been recently PROD tagged, and the PROD tag removed by the article author. It is quite likely that a SOFTDELETE would have ended up at WP:REFUND, the article restored, and we would be precisely where we are here, but with a few extra steps along the way. --j⚛e deckertalk 19:09, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We will, at some point, have to cross this bridge. One way will be to treat no discussion AfDs like PRODs. Another may be to empower admins to close AfD discussions on the basis of a nomination alone. We're not there yet, so I think the best policy is to let closers figure this out as they go along and have the policy take note of the practices which appear to work best, rather than codifying this before it becomes a real practice. Protonk (talk) 19:16, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP's systematic bias in favor of keeping crap articles on questionably notable subjects is frustrating. It seems it's better to be everyone's webhost to upsetting some SPA or newby. The other problem is that every angle of every notable thing seems to be assumed to be notable: every song ever recorded by or written by or produced by a notable person, even if never released as a single or charted, every agency of every local government, such as a town's police force, fire dept, water dept, utilities dept, parks department, often with little more than "Fooville PD is the police department of Fooville. Its website is ..." A quick google search will show that the local rag mentions the PD about once a month, busting truants, drunk drivers, people who are past due on parking fines or library books, and the general fluff of the PD's toy drive for Xmas, a profile of the new officer's new wife's new baby's new puppy, and other crap and alas, the article is kept as a one liner with tags. We ought to break that bias lest we become yp.com Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but do you have an actual comment on how we should handle low/no participation AfDs or is this just a rant? Protonk (talk) 23:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. CSD should be expanded to include all articles without at least one source. Second, no one may remove a prod without providing an independent reliable source (this is already in place for new BLP's). Third, if no-one comments during an AFD, it's deleted. No AFD's are to be relisted without at least 2 !votes, if even one of two commentors thinks it should be kept, it's kept but can be renominated in 6-months, if the problems (sourcing, or notability) are not corrected during the second AFD, then only a clear consensus to keep would keep the article - we do have the article rescue squad. And yes, a rant, too. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, Carlossuarez46 et al., I've renominated (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dmitriy Grigoriyev (2nd nomination)), although, because I dared include a couple of other trivial topics in my nomination, I've drawn incredulous gasps from those who invariably put process above results. - Biruitorul Talk 13:38, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AfD in limbo: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dina Rae (singer)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dina Rae (singer) was created on 4 September 2014, and has attracted some comment. Although opened two weeks ago, it's not been closed or relisted, but it's not transcluded to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 September 4 or any other daily page. What's happened here - I thought that there was a bot that made sure that open AfDs were transcluded to one of the daily pages? There's a thread at Talk:Dina Rae (singer)#Requested move where they were told not to move the page until the AfD closed; they're still waiting for that, and complaints about the delay have been posted there. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:12, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see if I can at least get it fixed technically. --j⚛e deckertalk 19:26, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pizda (chemical)

As an unregistered user I cannot complete the AFD process myself, so following the instructions at WP:AFD I am requesting that someone complete the process for Pizda (chemical). The rationale for the nomination is on the article's talk page, Talk:Pizda (chemical). Thank you. 71.185.49.96 (talk) 11:54, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pizda (chemical). ansh666 23:53, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]


I need help for deletion

Hello can you help me to delete this page Gasaneri. Because there is no village like this. Also how I can delete the page because I am not an administrator? Can someone help me?--Nəcməddin Kəbirli (talk) 13:57, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion&oldid=627425117"