Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 99: Line 99:
== Proposing IPs be unable to AfD articles ==
== Proposing IPs be unable to AfD articles ==


IP editors -- no Wikipedia account -- are generally new, lack a proven track record, often do not understand Wikipedia's guidelines and procedures, lack experience. While it is good to allow them to edit articles, giving them the power to AfD an article seems unwise. AfDs eat up considerable community time and attention. They often result in much battling. Being able to AfD an article is a real power. It can be abused. I propose that only established users (account; track record of perhaps one month of edits) be able to AfD an article. I had thought IP editors can not AfD an article, but I found that [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Urban_coyote&diff=562627783&oldid=562627045 Urban coyote] was just AfDed a few days ago by an IP. The IP did not even sign their name on the talk page. The problem is compounded when IPs can not create the deletion discussion page.--[[User:Tomwsulcer|Tomwsulcer]] ([[User talk:Tomwsulcer|talk]]) 12:34, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
IP editors -- no Wikipedia account -- are generally new, lack a proven track record, often do not understand Wikipedia's guidelines and procedures, lack experience. While it is good to allow them to edit articles, giving them the power to AfD an article seems unwise. AfDs eat up considerable community time and attention. They often result in much battling. Being able to AfD an article is a real power. It can be abused. I propose that only established users (account; track record of perhaps one month of edits) be able to AfD an article. I had thought IP editors can not AfD an article, but I found that [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Urban_coyote&diff=562627783&oldid=562627045 Urban coyote] was just AfDed a few days ago by an IP. The IP did not even sign their name on the talk page. The problem is compounded when IPs can not create the deletion discussion page.--[[User:Tomwsulcer|Tomwsulcer]] ([[User talk:Tomwsulcer|talk]]) 12:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 12:54, 3 July 2013

AfD notifications

I was thinking of some ways to gain even more utility out of the new notifications system. One that I thought of would be the notification of the 5 major contributors of an article that it is up for deletion. Basically, a bot could find the five major contributors, and link their user names on the deletion discussion page. Assuming they haven't chosen not to receive those notifications, the editors would receive a notification saying their name had been mentioned in the discussion. Does anybody have thoughts on this? Ryan Vesey 00:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, 5 might be a bit much. I would just say the creator for now, and we can expand it later on if people like the idea. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • This would have to be done carefully. If you select the 5 contributors who added the most bytes to a page then you might end up notifying people who merely adjusted formatting or added infoboxes and categories and who aren't going to care much about the outcome of the deletion discussion. If the article history is very short then you might end up notifying people who fixed typos. Notifying the creator is safer ground, but even then there are situations where it isn't appropriate (the creator is indef-blocked, is an unregistered user, or who didn't write any of the content). Hut 8.5 08:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • And number of edits made isn't a good metric either, because some editors use preview and others save each single-word edit as an edit. But I can see merit in notifying editors other than the article creator, especially where they created a redirect and 2 years later someone built an article, that sort of thing! Not sure what the solution is. PamD 08:47, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notifying the creator is certainly a great first step. J04n(talk page) 10:10, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, this would be great if we could pull it off. One idea might be to scale it with the size of the article - say, notify the creator if it is less than a year old or has less than 50 edits or some such, the top two contributors if it is older or has up to 200 edits, the top three if it has more edits, and so on. We might also look at the notice requirements at WP:FAR, since they routinely notify major contributors when a featured article is submitted for review/delisting. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a good idea. A notification is quite a minor alert - you get notified if your username is mentioned anywhere, for example. It would therefore be reasonable to notify every editor of an article at AFD. If the article is a new one being nominated by NPP then there won't be many notifications. If the article has been around for years and picked up many minor edits, then it seems appropriate to give it a larger number of notifications. The number of notifications will thus vary in proportion to the age of the article and that seems ideal. Warden (talk) 09:25, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a very bad idea. If I revert some piece of vandalism in an article I'm not going to care if it gets nominated for deletion years later. Same goes for typo fixes, formatting fixes, adding infoboxes or categories, and most other sorts of cleanup edits. People who do lots of this work will get swamped with useless notifications and will get very annoyed or opt out. Hut 8.5 11:13, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I honestly don't think this would be used very often once it was tweaked to avoid excessive notifications (no multi-notifications on articles with under 50 edits; the metric for the top-five doesn't count HG, TW, RB, AWB, vandalism filtered, Bot, or undo edits; and the top-five must have statistically significantly more edits than other editors on the article). Honestly, how many articles go to AfD with more than 50 or 100 edits? The vast majority have a handful from one person, plus a declined speedy/contested prod. And those AfDs of an article with a significant history... either are in bad faith or will already get spread around the grapevine by concerned editors. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 11:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is absolutely a bad idea. AFD already suffers from low levels of participation. If we encourage an influx of users who have a stake in retaining unsuitable content we will either end up with more conflict over closes and accusations of supervotes for admins assessing policy rather than counting snouts or consensus will end up reflecting numbers not policy. Its already custom to notify creators and that should be enough. Spartaz Humbug! 12:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is one of the things where over the years I have consistently taken exactly the opposite approach from Spartaz. I basically am unwilling to accept an argument in any context that if everyone concerned or interested discusses something, we will come to the wrong conclusion. His examples show that if we notify everyone, we will also notify those people who are unhappy about an article. Perhaps we need to find some way to tune the algorithm so it includes anyone who contributes or delete significant amounts of text, or places a tag, rather than the many small copyedits. AfD by its nature attracts primarily people who want to delete articles, and we could use some balance. The very few of us who go there primarily to see what small proportion can be saved cannot look at everything. I'm not worried about irrelevant comments: normally a person who tries to defend their indefensible article makes comments that greatly clarify the need to delete it. DGG ( talk ) 04:12, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete process

If someone puts the AfD template on a page without explaining a reason and doesn't follow through to create a page here on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, is it okay for others to remove the template after a certain period of time has elapsed? Ranze (talk) 12:08, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Check their edit summary, check the talk page, and see if they had other edits around the time they posted the AFD tag. If there is not an obvious rationale, then yes - remove the tag and let them know why. Usually they'll redo it themselves (if you link to WP:AFDHOWTO) or pop over here to make the request. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:19, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Flood keep listed since May 20th

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jesús_Huerta_de_Soto Maybe someone could close it? Thanks. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 22:59, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Ingold

Jon Ingold (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)}

Please can someone take a look about the article about Jon Ingold. I do not believe he is notable enough to have a article about him and he appears to have written the page himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.128.238 (talk) 15:07, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been nominated for deletion, but it isn't clear that the process was properly followed. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:42, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

articles of no interest in English

I couldn't find anything in the policy about cases such as Hyvät ja huonot uutiset, a TV show in Finnish that it is completely senseless to have an article about in English. The policy apparently needs to specify when links and other references that are exclusively in a foreign language establish notability and when not. I'm a great fan of this show, but no one interested in information about it would want or need it in English. --Espoo (talk) 16:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have a requirement that the topic be of interest only to English-speaking people - only that we can reliably write about the topic in English, meaning good translations of foreign sources. --MASEM (t) 17:07, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

incomplete AfD

Can someone please figure out to to create the AfD discussion p. for [1]. I don't just want to destroy the old redirect. The deletion reason desired is "non notable company, with sources being only PR and content being mainly name-dropping." DGG ( talk ) 03:59, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - your second nomination is now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peanut Butter & Co. (2nd nomination). Cheers, Stalwart111 23:18, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Alexander

I'm just curious if Chris Alexander is considered notable enough to have a page. I know he edits Fangoria magazine but since when should all magazine editors get a wiki page? Outside of Fangoria he writes movie reviews for a free newspaper called Metro News. And that's pretty much it. Looking at the history, I get the impression either he or one of his friends created the page in the first place (an editor called "AlexanderEternal" wrote most of the article). So I'm getting the impression this page fails quote a few notability guidelines.Giantdevilfish (talk) 17:10, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who knows! The name "Chris Alexander" is virtually un-Googleable because too many people have the same name and the fact that he's frequently cited by other reliable sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:34, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The fact remains his only claim to fame is editing Fangoria. Since when should a magazine editor get his own wiki page? The editor of Rue Morgue doesn't have one and from my understanding that has been the highest selling horror mag the past 10 odd years. If you look at the wiki page the only citations are really his My Space page and the Fangoria website. I really believe either he or one of his friends created that page and there really isn't enough there (Magazine editor and reviewer for a free newspaper are his only real credentials) to justify a personal wiki page.Giantdevilfish (talk) 15:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Domenic Johansson

Would someone be willing to look at Domenic_Johansson_custody_case and evaluate whether to continue with the deletion process? Thanks! 68.0.215.230 (talk) 02:37, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bowery Street

Can someone please complete the nomination process for Bowery Street? I have explained my reasons for nominating it on the talk page. Thanks. 74.88.115.197 (talk) 01:07, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bowery Street and my comment at the article's talk page. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of book-based war films (future wars)

Could somebody have a look at List of book-based war films (future wars) and see if it's appropriate for deletion? It appears to be very unencyclopedic. 87.113.216.108 (talk) 21:47, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing IPs be unable to AfD articles

IP editors -- no Wikipedia account -- are generally new, lack a proven track record, often do not understand Wikipedia's guidelines and procedures, lack experience. While it is good to allow them to edit articles, giving them the power to AfD an article seems unwise. AfDs eat up considerable community time and attention. They often result in much battling. Being able to AfD an article is a real power. It can be abused. I propose that only established users (account; track record of perhaps one month of edits) be able to AfD an article. I had thought IP editors can not AfD an article, but I found that Urban coyote was just AfDed a few days ago by an IP. The IP did not even sign their name on the talk page. The problem is compounded when IPs can not create the deletion discussion page.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion&oldid=562687864"