Misplaced Pages

talk:Articles for deletion: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 12:34, 30 May 2013 editKauffner (talk | contribs)32,539 edits →AFD to keep an article?: reply← Previous edit Revision as of 12:52, 30 May 2013 edit undoUltraexactzz (talk | contribs)26,830 edits →AFD to keep an article?: hrmNext edit →
Line 134: Line 134:
::That said, looking at the article in more depth, it seems that other editors are proposing that it be merged as a result of a merge discussion - where's that merge discussion? I can't seem to find it. A merge is not at all the same thing as a deletion, but of course you know that. ] <sup> ] </sup>~<small> ] </small> 12:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC) ::That said, looking at the article in more depth, it seems that other editors are proposing that it be merged as a result of a merge discussion - where's that merge discussion? I can't seem to find it. A merge is not at all the same thing as a deletion, but of course you know that. ] <sup> ] </sup>~<small> ] </small> 12:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
:::It's ]. I don't expect that much of the article would survive a merger. ] (]) 12:34, 30 May 2013 (UTC) :::It's ]. I don't expect that much of the article would survive a merger. ] (]) 12:34, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
::::That's not a merge discussion, that's one guy saying it's unanimous and another proposing the merge, with you arguing against it. 2-1 does not consensus make. Thus my confusion - the comments seemed to imply that another discussion had taken place. This article has the appearance of a well-organized and properly sourced work, but I don't know enough about the topic to judge it on the merits. Two options seem most obvious - have them specify exactly what they consider OR and what is not and (thus) what they would merge and what would be lost, or ask for more eyes on the discussion in the hopes that some other perspective will clarify things. If there's some flaw in a template, as they claim, then they need to be discussing that as well. ] <sup> ] </sup>~<small> ] </small> 12:52, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 12:52, 30 May 2013

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Articles for deletion page.
Shortcut
? view · edit Frequently asked questions Q1: I don't like this page's name. I want to rename it to Articles for discussion or something else. A1: Please see Misplaced Pages:Perennial proposals#Rename AFD. Note that all of the "for discussion" pages handle not only deletion, but also proposed mergers, proposed moves, and other similar processes. AFD is "for deletion" because the volume of discussion has made it necessary to sub-divide the work by the type of change. Q2: You mean I'm not supposed to use AFD to propose a merger or a page move? A2: Correct. Please use Misplaced Pages:Proposed mergers or Misplaced Pages:Requested moves for those kinds of proposals. Q3: How many articles get nominated at AfD? A3: Per the Oracle of Deletion, there were about 470,000 AfDs between 2005 (when the process was first created) and 2022. This comes out to about 26,000 per year (2,176 per month / 72 per day). In 2022, there were 20,008 AfDs (1,667 per month / 55 per day). Q4: How many articles get deleted? A4: Between 2005 and 2020, around 60% of AfDs were closed as "delete" or "speedy delete". This is about 270,000. More detailed statistics (including year-by-year graphs) can be found at Misplaced Pages:Oracle/All and Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages records#Deletion. Q5: Is the timeline strict, with exactly 168 hours and zero minutes allowed? Should I remove late comments? A5: No. We're trying to get the right outcome, not follow some ceremonial process. If the discussion hasn't been closed, it's okay for people to continue discussing it. Q6: How many people participate in AFD? A6: As of October 2023, of the 13.9 million registered editors who have ever made 1+ edit anywhere, about 162,000 of them (1 in 85 editors) have also made 1+ edit to an AFD page. Most of the participants are experienced editors, but newcomers and unregistered editors also participate. Most individual AFD pages get comments from just a few editors, but the numbers add up over time.
Media mentionThis project page has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

Archiving icon
Archives
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78


For discussions that have not been well-archived (before 2004), the page history of the Articles for deletion page has to be used as a contingency archive. One can look in the Deletion log to obtain date and time of a deletion, then look in the page history of VfD near that time to see which edit regards the unlisting of the page, then view the previous version.


This page has archives. Sections older than 25 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.
About deleted articles There are three processes under which mainspace articles are deleted: 1) speedy deletion; 2) proposed deletion (prod) and 3) Articles for deletion (AfD). For more information, see WP:Why was my page deleted? To find out why the particular article you posted was deleted, go to the deletion log and type into the search field marked "title," the exact name of the article, mindful of the original capitalization, spelling and spacing. The deletion log entry will show when the article was deleted, by which administrator, and typically contain a deletion summary listing the reason for deletion. If you wish to contest this deletion, please contact the administrator first on their talk page and, depending on the circumstances, politely explain why you think the article should be restored, or why a copy should be provided to you so you can address the reason for deletion before reposting the article. If this is not fruitful, you have the option of listing the article at WP:Deletion review, but it will probably only be restored if the deletion was clearly improper.

List discussionsWP:Articles for deletion
WP:Categories for discussion
WP:Copyright problems
WP:Deletion review
WP:Miscellany for deletion
WP:Redirects for discussion
WP:Stub types for deletion
WP:Templates for discussion
WP:WikiProject Deletion sorting
WT:Articles for deletion
WT:Categories for discussion
WT:Copyright problems
WT:Deletion review
WT:Miscellany for deletion
WT:Redirects for discussion
WT:Stub types for deletion
WT:Templates for discussion
WT:WikiProject Deletion sorting

AFD request

PythonTurtle doesn't seem to meet any of the notability requirements. 121.75.246.79 (talk) 13:08, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done. See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/PythonTurtle. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 14:05, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

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)

  • 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)
    • 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)
  • 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)
  • Notifying the creator is certainly a great first step. J04n(talk page) 10:10, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
  • 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 ~ Did 12:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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//Δ's/ 11:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
  • 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 12:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Can three related articles be considered in one AfD?

This is a policy question. If this is the wrong place, please tell me where to go. Can two, three, or four related articles for deletion be considered in one request? If they were listed separately, can they be consolidated? The particular example has to do with a book and two of its authors being separately nominated for deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:55, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Misplaced Pages:AfD#How_to_nominate_multiple_related_pages_for_deletion Gaijin42 (talk) 16:11, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. I would like to make a tweak to the policy to add the example of a book and its author that are considered not notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:33, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
In many such cases, the notability is borderline, and the appropriate course is to redirect one to the other--usually I suggest redirecting the book to the author, as the author is likely to write other books and thus the article has potential for expansion. Otherwise, when it's just two, it's easy to prepare both AfD statement, say something like "see the AfD for .., below/above" and submit them right after each other. DGG ( talk ) 04:42, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Dimensionaut

Is the above named article eligible to be an article at this time? It seems to me that per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOTADVERTISEMENT that it shouldn't exist until the day of and after the album (Dimensionaut) is released. But maybe I'm reading those two policies too literally? I tried putting a speedy delete tag on the article but soon found out that was not appropriate. The rationale I gave for deletion on the article's talk page is as follows:

I have nominated this for speedy deletion for the following reasons: WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOTADVERTISING. The article is premature and would serve only as advertisement for the album, the band, and the album's label. Even though a future release date for the album has been determined, there is nothing to say the album will be released on that date, nor that it will ever be released. The band that recorded the album has no previous releases. If this were a band with prior albums, I could possibly see this article as relevant before the release date. The article creator also has been in personal contact with at least one of the band members. I'm not saying WP:COI definitely applies, but because of their personal contact, that makes is a possibility. I say delete the article now but have the creator keep it and re-create it only after the album has been successfully released.

Thanks in advance for your help and advice on this. Winkelvi (talk) 20:27, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I've nominated it for deletion via the regular deletion policy. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:42, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Okay. Winkelvi (talk) 20:44, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Please can a registered user complete the deletion of this page:

Liam Hackett.

http://en.wikipedia.org/Liam_Hackett

Article is poorly referenced, clearing self serving, arguably extremely premature. Article is highly padded out with useless filler. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.5.255 (talk) 08:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done jcgoble3 (talk) 00:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Old/Open AfDs appears to be broken

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Old/Open AfDs lists no open AfDs but April 28, 29 & 30 have open discussions. The 27th looks like everything is closed, haven't checked further back yet. J04n(talk page) 18:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Detection of misused Article for deletion/dated

Is there a process for detecting misuse of {{Article for deletion/dated}}? This is in relation to these four edits where a chunk of Wikicode, including a {{Article for deletion/dated}}, was copypasted from one article (presumably Jigo Tensin-Ryu Jujutsu) to each of the others. It's demonstrable that these were not valid AFD noms, because (i) the four chunks are identical save for the number of blank lines; (ii) the parameters |timestamp=20130509202904 |day=9 and |date=9 May 2013 do not match the actual dates and times of the edits; (iii) the page Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jigo Tensin-Ryu Jujutsu does not list any of the four pages in question. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:52, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

If the templates aren't removed before the AfD is closed then it would presumably show up on User:Snotbot/AfD report as an article with a link to a closed AfD. Hut 8.5 10:51, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
But until the {{Article for deletion/dated}} templates are removed - which judging by your comment won't happen without manual intervention - it not only gives the mistaken impression that the article is up for AFD, but also confuses the reader who clicks this article's entry and gets taken somewhere which doesn't mention the name of the article upon which the fake {{Article for deletion/dated}} had been placed. Waiting for User:Snotbot/AfD report could take up to three weeks, because AFDs aren't necessarily closed in seven days - there are valid reasons for granting extensions.
When a valid {{Article for deletion/dated}} is removed improperly, I'm pretty sure there is a bot which restores that notice and also templates the perp. What I'm asking for is the equivalent opposite: when an invalid {{Article for deletion/dated}} is added improperly, we should have a bot which removes that notice. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:24, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Daniel Bolton AfD

I need someone to complete the process here. The AfD tag has already been removed once and I have restored it. The explanation is on the article's talk page. 137.147.76.44 (talk) 10:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 11:08, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Qworty

There was recently a sock puppet investigation of User:Qworty (more info) - however no one looked into his AfD history. Qworty was very active in AfD. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:14, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Is someone volunteering to cross-reference his socks and see what he's tainted by his participation, if not outright coopted by socking? Jclemens (talk) 02:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
It should be noted that blocking isn't punitive in nature, but is an incapacitative remedy and deters future poor behavior. See WP:BLOCK#Purpose and goals. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 05:48, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • An administrator has removed the site ban notice at .  If this editor is still banned, why is the notice gone?  Also, from what I read of the SPI notice there are no confirmed sockpuppets.  Unscintillating (talk) 06:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • This editor is definitely still banned, per the ban discussion and the listing on WP:LOBU. The user page seems to have been blanked because if some issues relating to real-life media coverage, and lack of a ban notice on a userpage certainly doesn't mean the editor isn't banned. Hut 8.5 08:08, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Help

Yesterday I nominated Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 May 23#In lieu of flowers. I don't see any of the usual prompt discussion. The thing is the page has already been deleted twice and I am not sure a proper active AfD page was created. Can somebody what's going on? trespassers william (talk) 11:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm on it. There was already a deletion debate in 2008, and the template is pointing at that rather than a new one. Give me a few minutes. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 12:52, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 Done. Since there was already an AFD, the next step is to create an AFD with the added suffix of (2nd nomination) or whatever at the end. It's a bit confusing. I've completed those steps for you - the debate is now at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/In lieu of flowers (2nd nomination), and has been added to the log by transclusion (thus). You should be all set. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 12:59, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

PWWA Championship nomination for AfD

Can some one please complete my AfD nomination for this article? Thanks. 101.172.85.56 (talk) 07:30, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done. See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/PWWA Championship. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 23:06, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Incomplete IP AfD

An IP editor began an AfD at Zagreus (audio drama), but appears to have forgotten to put a note here. (There was then a complicated series of edits, leaving one user banned for sock block evasion, but an admin has now put things back to the incomplete AfD.) Can someone tidy things up please? Bondegezou (talk) 16:08, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done - But if the IP editor was involved in sockpuppetry or the like, the tag could easily have been reverted. Feel free to do so if I missed something. For now, the debate may be found at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Zagreus (audio drama). UltraExactZZ ~ Did 20:25, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

AFD to keep an article?

I wrote an article called Han-Nom which my Wiki-stalker and various other editors are insisting we must get rid of. This issue has been dragging on months, and it would be nice to get some closure. Would it make sense for me to bring it here? Kauffner (talk) 11:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

In practice, generally not. When nominating an article, you have to articulate a rationale in favor of deleting the article. You don't want the article deleted, and have said so - so any such rationale would be questioned on that basis. Your best play at this point, if you intend for the article to be kept, is to look at the reasons being offered for its deletion and refute them as if there were an AFD. They are concerned about notability? Show sources that confirm it. They can't/won't find sources? Find them first. Etc etc. You don't need an AFD to anticipate what the likely arguments are. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 12:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
That said, looking at the article in more depth, it seems that other editors are proposing that it be merged as a result of a merge discussion - where's that merge discussion? I can't seem to find it. A merge is not at all the same thing as a deletion, but of course you know that. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 12:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
It's here. I don't expect that much of the article would survive a merger. Kauffner (talk) 12:34, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
That's not a merge discussion, that's one guy saying it's unanimous and another proposing the merge, with you arguing against it. 2-1 does not consensus make. Thus my confusion - the comments seemed to imply that another discussion had taken place. This article has the appearance of a well-organized and properly sourced work, but I don't know enough about the topic to judge it on the merits. Two options seem most obvious - have them specify exactly what they consider OR and what is not and (thus) what they would merge and what would be lost, or ask for more eyes on the discussion in the hopes that some other perspective will clarify things. If there's some flaw in a template, as they claim, then they need to be discussing that as well. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 12:52, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Category:
Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for deletion: Difference between revisions Add topic