Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 71

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 65

←

Archive 69

Archive 70

Archive 71

Archive 72

Archive 73

→

Archive 75

Apologies if this is a daft Q, but I don't have much time around WP presently to research and maybe get nowhere. Is it possible - or even appropriate - to AfD an article that's twice been submitted and rejected (Sept 2017), but remains as a draft? It seems to be only family cruft where WP was intended to be used as promotion for a 13 year old, non-notable schoolchild and it would be better gone, IMO. Thanks.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 17:52, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Use WP:MfD, I think. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:58, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks - I can now read the guidance gradually and prepare it.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 23:07, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Try to begin your rationale with something taken from WP:NOT. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:34, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 20:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• Get WP:TWINKLE, this picks the correct nomination type for any xFD. Guy (Help!) 22:27, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Can you request this article for deletion? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.104.173.120 (talk) 18:14, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Rationale?--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 19:19, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

My rationale is listed right here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.104.173.120 (talk) 20:06, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I replied on the talk page, the IP hasn't disputed the reply, and another editor has removed the tag on the article page.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:55, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

It's a joke meme page that I don't believe to be made in good faith. Does not meet any of the notability guidelines whatsoever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WidowXTracer2Cute (talk • contribs) 03:51, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

 Administrator noteThis is at AFD now. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:51, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello all, I read the AfD policy and thought it said that the nominator couldn't make an extra bolded delete comment. I made a strike-though and note on such a comment in a deletion discussion I am involved in, but my edit was undone. My understanding of policies is that I should not redo my edit but I would like to know if I was correct or not. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 14:50, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

It's not forbidden, however, since it might confuse people, it's highly discouraged, especially when the comment is not signed. Instead of striking it, you can move the comment to the nomination (as NeilN has done now) or add a note for the closing admin that this is the nominator !voting. Regards SoWhy 14:57, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ilyina Olya Yakovna, you're not wrong. The !vote was confusing as it could appear as an unsigned comment from another editor. I've moved it so it is clearly attributed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I understand, thank you for fixing it. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 15:02, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Rationale: WP:INDISCRIMINATE/WP:DIRECTORY - This is just a list of not particularly important information, with barely any context. An article on "Unani Medical Colleges in India" could be an option but the list page is just a directory and needs to go. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 15:58, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Opened at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Unani Medical Colleges in India --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:05, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:V: No sources whatsoever, borders on OR and even if it isn't, the article's primary subject being Indian political parties would require it cites its sources since WP:NOTBLUE would apply, if such knowledge is obvious to readers in India (and then, WP:PARIS could also be valid). Also, I don't know if I'm abusing the criteria, but this falls remarkably short of WP:DIRECTORY. No context, no additional information about linked articles. This needs to be thoroughly checked, along with other topic articles (ex. Elections in Sikkim) and other articles by the creator who has been warned multiple times about creating unsourced articles. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 14:39, 19 January 2018 (UTC) </end of rationale> Maybe this warrants a visit at ANI, since behaviour seems to be persistent? Also, take care to make sure this confusion doesn't happen. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 14:39, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• I have set up the AfD nomination for you. Reyk _YO! 14:43, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Articles is clearly WP:FANCRUFT and fails WP:INHERITED. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 22:43, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Nominated for CSD per A7 and G11. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:47, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Article speedy deleted. Matter closed. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 00:14, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I nominated Paula O'Brien for deletion. I posted my reasoning on Talk:Paula O'Brien#Nominating_for_Deletion. My primary concerns are a lack of reliable sources and notability issues. 2601:545:4503:3BCB:2DD6:388:2EE0:6F9 (talk) 00:54, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done -- see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paula O'Brien. --Finngall ^talk 01:26, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

This AfD has been nominated and shepherded by accounts that have just been blocked as socks. Chetsford (talk) 04:07, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

No harm in letting it run the full 7 days (it's at 6 right now, if I can math right), since there are good-faith contributions and discussions to consider (i.e. doesn't apply for WP:SK#4 as currently written, though I've asked for clarifications). Crossing out the sock comments as you've done is enough. ansh666 18:57, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Far too often, these discussion, particularly mass discussions are conducted in secrecy. While you are discussing subjects that affect multiple articles, somehow posting a notice ON THE ARTICLES AFFECTED seems to get neglected. Then suddenly, those articles are deleted. Decision made, consensus achieved, but nobody involved knows about it. And when you look at those discussions, there is maybe a handful of comments.

We should make it mandatory that a notice is posted on ALL ARTICLES that will be affected by a discussion, at a minimum. Editors who have contributed to those articles (the list of which is available in the edit history) should be notified.

Of course, this idea goes against the desire of the numerous mindless deletionists we have roaming these backroom discussions. Their sheer numbers of ditto heads, and the simplicity to post a thoughtless Delete ivote is far simpler than the work to rescue legitimate content. WP:BEFORE is never enforced. That would require effort. This is a corrupt system to achieve a result (deletion) without following the intended, open process from which consensus is supposed to come from. Trackinfo (talk) 07:00, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• This is already the case and already happens. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:03, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Not how it is done. Or do you suggest there is a recourse when this is NOT done? Trackinfo (talk) 07:47, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
    • I’ve never seen it done otherwise, and I’ve seen many mass AfDs, though I’m sure it must have happened to an article you have on your watchlist given you’ve posted here. I’d talk to the closer about it. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:51, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
• Do you have a specific example? If the AfD tag isn't placed on an article being discussed, the result is void - hence why there's literally a bot that goes around and puts tags on articles under discussion (though it doesn't work for multi-noms). And if by "all articles affected" you mean for example all articles that link to the one under discussion, that's frankly unworkable, as is notifying every contributor to an article - many articles have hundreds, if not thousands, of each. ansh666 09:12, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

That is particularly a problem. Categories for Deletion always neglect notifying the articles that will be affected. Suddenly, no notice, poof. If you want to have the concept of a discussion, then people need to have a discussion. Limiting it to the handful of deletionists who roam the back pages of wikipedia, thoughtlessly casting delete ivotes, gets a lot of valid content deleted. Trackinfo (talk) 19:03, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Categories for deletion? This is the AfD talk page, you're looking for WT:CfD. ansh666 20:24, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Should this AfD close? An editor and I try to close this AfD, but User:GiantSnowman, an admin, revert closing edits. User:GiantSnowman is also this AfD nominator and withdrew this AfD. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 13:43, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

They said that AfD must wait 7 full days. I am waiting other people to comment this case. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 13:45, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Pinging other closer SzzudSzzuk Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 13:47, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

RepingingSzzuk. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 14:57, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Not sure what to say, it'll be closed as keep regardless. Szzuk (talk) 16:06, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• GiantSnowman is technically correct (the best kind of correct!) that deletion discussions with conflicting !votes should not be closed early just because the nominator withdraws, and in that discussion there is at least one editor who is still endorsing deletion even after the change in facts came to light. WP:SNOW is a different case and this one is pretty close, but I'm not going to wheel-war over this. 7 days is not that much longer. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:48, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
• GiantSnowman is right; I see two delete !votes still so a speedy keep#1 closure is not possible. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:53, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
• More other people comments, please. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 14:57, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
• GiantSnowman is right. There have been legitimate delete votes, so a speedy keep isn't a good idea. Reyk _YO! 14:58, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
• To add to the choir: GiantSnowman is right. Not sure what else you want people to say. ansh666 18:55, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Closing I know how to do next. Thanks for everyone's reply. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 02:44, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Self-promotion page about a local band, authored primarily by one of the band's members, and non-encyclopedic in tone and content. I'm requesting that someone else complete the AfD process as I do not have a Wikipedia account.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.184.22.222 (talk • contribs)

 Done SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:39, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

This article is about a building project proposed in 2001 that appears to have never really gotten off the ground. Questions were raised about notability as early as 2007. I attempted to PROD it 5 years ago, but it was contested (not by the creator). Recently, I stumbled upon it again. I have discussed this with the original author who agrees "there is no way that it meets notability guidelines." Therefore, I respectfully request someone please complete the process if appropriate. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mannanan51 (talk • contribs) 06:00, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arch of Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary and International Shrine of the Holy Innocents. Thanks, ansh666 18:44, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

After Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/-physis, I've been looking into transwiki procedure, and it seems like there isn't one anymore, anywhere, since 2012, at the latest; our own transwiki log is marked historical, and the meta instructions are hopelessly out of date. Should we disallow transwiki as a possible outcome at AfD? ansh666 21:56, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't know about disallowing it, but it's not a "common outcome" as claimed here, and never really was. Even when it was less rare, rejected content from Wikipedia was almost invariably unwanted at other English-language Wikimedia wikis. —Cryptic 23:46, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

It seems more to fall into “depracated” although I agree it was never all that common. For Wiktionary, maybe, upon a time, but not so much anymore. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:42, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Alright, I'll BOLDly remove it from the common outcomes then. ansh666 18:45, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

And I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#Transwiki about whether or not it should still be part of that page. There's also a mention at WP:DELPRO which will need to be updated either way. ansh666 19:04, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Not notable, voted previous as a keep but improve with no improvement. Deletion message keeps getting blanked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dermato1 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

@Dermato1: (I have moved your comment as new comment sections customary go at the bottom of the page and it might get missed at the top). There are three steps to nominating an article for deletion: 1) Put the deletion tag on the article, you have done that, 2) create the article's deletion discussion page, and 3) add the article to the articles for deletion log page. You need to complete step 2 and 3. WP:AFDHOW gives instructions on how to do this. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:35, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Haven't nominated for deletion before, so thought I'd post here. Subject doesn't appear notable, has no references to reliable sources, and links to outside sources are broken. [[1]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shtove (talk • contribs)

Hi Shtove. I took a a quick look at the article and my first impression is you may well be right. If you haven't already found it, there is a very useful tool called WP:Twinkle. Once you activate it (directions are at the link) it will allow you to do all sorts of things with just a couple of clicks, including send an article to AFD. I have found it invaluable in my editing. If you decide to send this to AfD I suggest referencing WP:ORG as one of the guidelines it may fail. One of the problems is that this org's name is also a catch phrase widely used in the ongoing debate over Brexit which makes it difficult to get search results specifically for this group. With that caveat, I am not finding much in the form of coverage. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:39, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Cheers - will do.Shtove (talk) 21:49, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I've sent it to AfD. See... Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Britain‎. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:57, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion to amend the usage guidelines for Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list located here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:12, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Should this page exist? Seems redundant with Qualcomm Snapdragon and in violation of "not a directory".

I am affiliated with Qualcomm. I was considering nominating it, but I've never really been certain whether it is acceptable for a COI editor to nominate a page, considering how often someone does so to censor criticisms.

CorporateM (Talk) 15:05, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:East_of_England_Broadband_Network#Deletion_reasons for reasons of deletion. 2A02:C7F:9659:4500:9158:3C4B:7629:188F (talk) 19:40, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

•  Done, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East of England Broadband Network. Thanks, ansh666 20:54, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Need some input here... I came across an article, Goldwasser, with just a single reference and a banner placed on the page in 2009 saying it needs more. Almost all the content is without citation. I thought 9 years was long enough so I put an AfD on it. Within moments it was removed by an editor saying "notability isn't determined by sourcing in the article" Huh? I thought that WAS the point. And in any case, does one editor get to remove an AfD banner without a vote occurring? Please help me understand this. RobP (talk) 15:39, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

@Rp2006: From what I can see in the history you used proposed deletion. A PROD is for uncontrovercial deletions and can be removed by anyone. The next step, if you feel the article does not meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria, would be to nominate it for deletion using the Articles for Deletion process. This process will start a deletion discussion where you and other editors can discuss the merits of the article and the policy based reasons it should be deleted or kept.

Before you nominate an article at WP:AFD you should perform a due diligence to see if you can find sources for the article. See WP:BEFORE for a list of what should be done. Jbh ^Talk 16:07, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I have added one source that confirms basic information. As for the general point of "this article is crap and hasn't been updated in ten years" - I understand that, but it has never been policy to delete articles because nobody can be bothered to improve them. Sometimes you've just got to roll up your sleeves and do the work yourself. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:17, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification on the alternate methods for proposing deletion! Poking my nose here has spurred some improvement so I don't think I will go forward wit the AfD at this time. The subject is not of enough interest to me to spend more time trying to fix the article... I have enough on my plate. HOWEVER, since I took the time to look it over and found it severely lacking in quality, and noticing that after almost a decade with the main citation banner accomplishing nothing, I thought it worthwhile to take the time to point out the specific issues with CN tags so other editors don't have to ponder what needs improvement. (You reverted them all.) Why was this "silly"? RobP (talk) 17:10, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Originally, tags were added because editors believed somebody would fix them. Now we have tags over ten years old, they are effectively de facto vandalism, as they stop the reader from being able to grasp the topic without being interrupted with tags. The general "refimprove" will do for now, as it indicates the entire article needs more references. When I'm improving an article, I generally add sources and review content, then when I am getting close to being done, I will often replace the "refimprove" tag with a few inline "fact" tags. These will be replaced with sources as soon as practical, or the unverifiable content will be removed. Then the article is tag-free. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:24, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

De facto vandalism? Wow. Who says? Maybe CN stops a reader from blindly believing claims which are unsubstantiated, and may well be false. And again, this particular situation is approaching a decade in age. And one more point: There is a Wiki tool specifically designed to show interested editors (like me) random CN flags in articles so that they may be fixed. It only works with the CN on text, not on the page banner. See [2]. So by deleting the tags I added and which you call "vandalism", you are actually actively delaying these missed citations from being corrected. RobP (talk) 03:07, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Or you could just search for sources and add them. The single refimprove tag tells editors that citations need to be added generally, without cluttering up the article and making it difficult to read. It's not actual vandalism because the tags were added in good faith, but it makes the end user experience slightly worse, so it has the same effect as vandalism. See User:Ritchie333/Don't overdose on citation requests. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:06, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Again, that's one way to look at, and certainly appropriate for some articles. For other articles, it is merely polishing a turd, prettifying crap in a way that doesn't warn the reader. Anmccaff (talk) 17:41, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, that's one way to look at it, defacto vandalism that stop[s] the reader from being able to grasp the topic; another, and, I'd suggest better, way of looking at them, is that the warn the reader the article is to be taken cum grano, and possibly a grain the size of a BFB. Anmccaff (talk) 18:37, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Self promotional band page with sources that no longer exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pink noise (talk • contribs) 01:28, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

New to this, but I'm thinking this article, Ivan Magrin-Chagnolleau, does not seem notable. It looks like the only editors have been the subject and a few bots. There are some claims of importance though, so I don't think it would qualify for A7 speedy deletion. Would adding it to AfD be appropriate? Ethanbb (talk) 16:46, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Google scholar shows very respectable cite numbers here so the article would probably be kept at AFD, so it would be better to improve it rather than pursue deletion, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 17:31, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

This discussion is over eight days old, and needs to be concluded by an administrator. The keep/delete consensus is unanimous, which should make the process easier. Thanks for the help. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 00:16, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:58, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

As an anonymous user, i can't nominate this. 37.157.105.26 (talk) 05:28, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

You'll need to provide a rationale if you want someone else to do it on your behalf. Hut 8.5 07:39, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Michael Mackmin has been prodded and de-prodded before in July/August 2015. One of the two article references however is certainly a primary and the other is a bio from a source which doesn't seem independent to the article subject. A cursory search only finds passing mentions. Notable? Cesdeva (talk) 04:04, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

It certainly sounds as though it doesn’t meet the significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject criterion. P.S. The prod was a BLP prod for BLPs without sources rather than the regular prod that might be used for lack of notability. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:13, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I see, thanks for the links and help. AfD isn't my usual haunt so i've tagged/highlighted the article for notability until myself or another editor gets around to nominating it for AfD based on GNG. Would you agree that deletion requires a higher threshold than A7 in this instance? Cesdeva (talk) 05:05, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

It’s probably not eligible for A7 because the fact that he is the editor of a ‘notable’ magazine i.e. one that has an article, is an indicator of importance or significance (though the notability of the magazine looks doubtful to me too). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:47, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Chiltern_School#Deletion_reasons for reasons for deletion. 2A02:C7F:9659:4500:945C:527D:BBD6:528E (talk) 14:24, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• I have completed the nomination for you. Reyk _YO! 13:32, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erin Hanson (2nd nomination) doesn't seem to have been started properly or listed anywhere. Could someone kindly fix? (I'm sure I could learn how, but it might take me some time) Thank you, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:39, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. It'll run for a week from today. ansh666 18:32, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, unless some criterion for an early close is satisfied, AfDs are still supposed to run for a full 7 days. Pretty much every day we are getting AfDs closed up to a day early, often with minimal participation, with no explanation. Is this a problem with the 'Closing' link of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion taking people to one day later than it should, making them think that they can close any discussion that started on 'this day last week' irrespective of times, or are people just not able to work out what time the full 7 days is up? --Michig (talk) 19:33, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

• I've noticed this too. I personally think it is best if we just wait until all the AfDs lapse into "Old discussions" (so yes, some will sit 8 days, but it's nbd in most cases, otherwise they would have been speedied). I do close some on the 7th day list, but always try to make sure it has been a full 7 days. I do think it'd be easier, though, if we just waited until the day's log became old. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:46, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Again? Ugh. The main AfD page has 8 logs in the "current" section, so it's not that. Looking through, it seems to be Amorymeltzer and Timotheus Canens (only one, and by 30 minutes, so probably an accident there) who are the culprits this time. ansh666 19:51, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't want to pick out individuals as it seems to be a general problem. I've pointed out to a few editors recently that they have been closing discussions with hardly any input very early. Are people just not aware that they need to leave them a full 7 days? I don't know what the answer is - I don't remember this happening so regularly in the past. --Michig (talk) 19:59, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, that's the reason to pick out the individuals and ask them. Otherwise we wouldn't have any idea why they're doing it. ansh666 20:18, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I've raised this directly with three admins in recent weeks, but as it's not just the odd person doing it I suspect telling each person individually is perhaps not the most efficient way to deal with it. --Michig (talk) 20:36, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Hm, that's odd. I'd be willing to chalk it up to bad math and less-than-careful reading of the rules, plus not knowing of the previous discussions about this (Davey2010 comes to mind, though that was NAC). I agree with Tony - let the log tick over to "Old Discussions" first. If an AfD or an article at AfD was actively harming anything in any way, it would most likely have already been speedily closed. ansh666 21:26, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't mind being called out! I've tried to only close the ones with a strong, clear consensus and only a few hours ahead of time for efficiency's sake, but I take the point and shall desist. Not well done on my part. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:26, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

A deletion discussion should normally be allowed to run for seven full days (168 hours). With the number of hours written into the guideline, the specification is clear. Identify the offending AfDs and the closer. This should be fixed. Trackinfo (talk) 20:03, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Most of the time it isn't worth reopening these, to be honest. At the same time, I do think we should wait and that the easiest way to be sure we're waiting is just to only close AfDs once it hits the old discussions page. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:21, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Rules are rules. I remember being miffed by missing a debate by an hour. Put a count-down clock on the Afd page. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:21, 14 February 2018 (UTC).

Not that I disagree that they should run the full time, but “rules are rules” isn’t really an argument worth making. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:56, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

That being said, it seems that the community has generally frowned on IAR regarding this particular rule. It seems to go back before the AfD running time was even extended to 7 days back in 2009 - see this discussion, for example. FWIW, I supported not having the strict 168 hour limit (or at least not sanctioning closers who violate it) in a certain discussion that I can't find anymore, but I do think that it should generally be followed except in, well, exceptional circumstances. There is no deadline, after all, and there's no harm to keeping the banner up a few extra hours. ansh666 08:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

To be clear, I do agree, unless there is an overwhelming consensus one or another there’s no real reason to close early. Oddly, by my recollection it used to be the opposite, with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old routinely having dozens of things listed. Beeblebrox (talk) 09:46, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Yep, there was a time when AfDs would go 10+ days regularly...and then people (mostly non-admins, including me at the time) discovered the joys of relisting, and now people go through the logs the moment they get to the old section, relisting everything that isn't immediately obvious... ansh666 07:51, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

• Michig does not seem to provide any examples. Anyway, the usual way of challenging this would be to raise the issue with the closer and, if still dis-satisfied, take the matter to WP:DRV. Andrew D. (talk) 10:08, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
• Unless it's WP:SNOWING, it's best to let it sit until it hits the oldafd list. There's no particular benefit from closing an AfD a few hours early. What does happen is you give people an excuse to drag things to WP:DRV. And then you waste more time arguing over silly procedural things like whether it was closed on schedule. Better to just let the clock run out. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:33, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
• Several years ago the problem was more that people would relist debates over and over and over again even after a workable consensus had been reached. Funny how things go in cycles. Reyk _YO! 08:47, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

  Err...that's still happening. A lot. Just people have gotten better at catching and closing 2-3 relist AfDs, so they don't go on for-freaking-ever anymore. ansh666 09:09, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

  We have both extremes - relists when there's never going to be more consensus, and unsafe closes after 7 days with only 2 or 3 participants, often without good arguments for keeping/deleting. --Michig (talk) 09:16, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

• Six early closes by Jo-Jo Eumerus today to add to the list. --Michig (talk) 18:19, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

  I generally close on the seventh day. It probably has to do with the fact that there is no list of things eligible for close other than AFD/Old and that's a backlog list (since it's empty most of the time) and that my impression was that "closing on the seventh day" is the normal procedure for AfD closes, not a down-to-the-hour thing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:15, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

  AfDs should run for a full 7 days as a minimum unless a criterion for an early close is met. What are you clicking on that takes you to the log in question (12 Feb)? I just looked at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Old/Open_AfDs and the latest day listed in both is the 11th, i.e. nothing on there that hasn't yet run for a full 7 days. --Michig (talk) 19:32, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

  The 12th, and I know I am not the only one who goes there (I don't think all these closes fall under early close criteria). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

• Note the second sentence of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion: "Articles listed are normally discussed for at least seven days", and in the "How an AfD discussion is closed" section: "A deletion discussion should normally be allowed to run for seven full days (168 hours)." I would say that's clear enough, but maybe people are not reading it? Does it need to be more obvious at the top of the page? --Michig (talk) 20:40, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

  My own personal theory is that people don't pay attention to the hours because Afd closes are seldom if ever appealed for having been half a day early. I've closed probably over two thousand AfDs and never has anyone complained either on my talk page or at deletion review about it being a couple of hours early. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:57, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

People don't complain because it takes too much effort to grind through the administrative processes. Remember that editors are volunteers with limited time. They don't want to get involved in unneeded administrative tangles. It would help everybody if you would close debates exactly as the rules say they should be closed. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:45, 19 February 2018 (UTC).

I am rather dubious that people wouldn't complain even for a few hours sake. But yes I've been a bit cavalier with the timing, I'll pay more attention to the timestamps in the future. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:32, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Hoax article. Talk:Jorge_Alberto_Rodríguez#Fabricated biography — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.90.44.25 (talk) 16:17, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

 Already done, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jorge Alberto Rodríguez (2nd nomination). Regards SoWhy 16:48, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Non notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.187.172.208 (talk) 23:40, 1 March 2018 (UTC) - this was at the top of the page, so i move it down here. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:30, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

This deletion request fails to follow WP:AFDHOWTO with discussion on talk and with disrupting unsourced editting of an existing article that I am about to revert and put appropriate comments in place.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:16, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I am an anonymous user and can't add the tag to the page. Issues with this include notability, self-promotional, defunct entity, content not suitable for an encyclopedia, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.58.12.206 (talk) 23:38, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

• Moved to bottom. ansh666 00:23, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tattoo (newspaper). Beeblebrox (talk) 02:15, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

No references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.13.181.1 (talk) 16:33, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done. Not a valid reason for deletion. The lack of references in the article is not itself a reason for deletion. Regards SoWhy 16:47, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Please, see these two points from the list of reasons for deletion:

* Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed

* Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP, and so forth)

It has been 10 years waiting for reliable sources. I think it is enough time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.13.157.238 (talk) 22:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• SoWhy has a point - a lack of citations is not a reason to remove an article. As for the notability problem, please open an actual AFD discussion so multiple people can weigh in on the issue. If you want to do the latter, I reccomend registering for an account, as it gives you more cred. Kirbanzo (talk) 22:14, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

That is has been waiting for ten years does not mean sources don't exist, see WP:NODEADLINE. Are you saying you thoroughly tried to find sources and came up empty? Then this would be sufficient but so far, you only cited the lack of sources in the article, not that those don't exist. Regards SoWhy 11:40, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

•  Done, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JBoss SSO. I didn't find any useful sources on a quick search, so the IP's concerns seem well-founded. ansh666 19:56, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

* although the preceding line says done this does not appear to be the case which is distracting as it may have caused me not to look futher. A not necessarily unreasonable merge to Keycloak has also been swiftly removed by an IP address. We also have other articles link to this and dealing with the redlinks has not been discussed. Given Red Hat redirects the article's website to Keycloak its a strong indication it is the successor product. A good solution (if it can be sourced) would be to add a section to Keycloak indicating it is a successor to JBoss SSO and making JBoss SSO a redirect to Keycloak, but we need to have something on the target saying why we've got there.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:48, 6 March 2018 (UTC). @Ansh666 .. Apologies. Comments now in right place. Feel free to remove this.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:14, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

@Djm-leighpark: please make comments at the AfD discussion linked above. ansh666 09:17, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Someone nominated a page (Tehseen Fawad) for deletion which I created but I got no notification or alert on my user talk page. I wonder why? --Saqib (talk) 17:39, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

@Saqib: Probably because there is no rule that requires people to nominate creators. See WP:PEREN#All authors must be notified of deletion for why. Regards SoWhy 18:07, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Peres Academic Center has been replicated as Peres Academic Center. Should it be deleted, and if so, what is the procedure for doing it? 156.61.250.250 (talk) 09:44, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

@156.61.250.250: Actually the wrong place to ask questions, Wikipedia:Teahouse for example may have been a better choice. Regardless the I see the main issue is regards attribution. I have made contributions to address this. In essence simply carry on editing the article in mainspace unless any content is challenged and then deal with it then. I also recommend obtaining a login and not using an anonymous shared IP for editing. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:03, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Just pointing out that "an IP cannot be alerted by any template or links". You have to post on their talk page to get their attention. There is something similar at Talk:Leap week calendar#Revised Gregorian calendar. Here we have a completed draft article that has been approved by two administrators, one of whom said he would transfer to mainspace himself if his native language were English. I think that the delay is actually due to this question of attribution. Can you make the transfer with the appropriate note, as you did with the article above? 2A00:23C0:8601:9701:B480:522A:8371:9C99 (talk) 13:26, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

If an article is copy-pasted into the mainspace, this breaks attribution. The proper way to handle this per Wikipedia:Requests for history merge is to place {{histmerge|<original article>}} on the article so an admin can merge those two pages together again to restore attribution. I have now done so in this instance. Regards SoWhy 13:34, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I see this is more complicated than it looks. In the case of the second draft it was originally given the title User:Megalibrarygirl/Jacinto Quirarte. It was last edited at 10:56, 2 November 2017 when it was 4.709 kb. At Megalibrarygirl's prompting it was copied as a 4.812 kb file at 13:33 on 30th November. The content was identical (the difference in file size was due to discussion around the article). There have been two subsequent edits as follows:

(cur | prev) 15:24, 3 December 2017‎ 2a00:23c0:8601:9701:c825:31ff:3be6:e0ea (talk)‎ . . (21,083 bytes) (0)‎ . . (→‎Revised Gregorian calendar) (undo)

(cur | prev) 13:57, 30 November 2017‎ 2a00:23c0:8601:9701:3066:7135:a200:564f (talk)‎ . . (21,083 bytes) (+137)‎ . . (→‎Revised Gregorian calendar) (undo)

I think the way to handle this is as follows:

• Update the original draft by deleting the first two sentences to make it start with the word "Because ..." and deleting the signature which follows "External links".
• Delete the fourth paragraph, beginning "Extrapolating delta..." and ending "...be extended" and replace it with the fourth paragraph of the revised draft, which begins and ends similarly.
• Merge histories and transfer User:Megalibrarygirl/Jacinto Quirarte to mainspace.

Alternatively User:Megalibrarygirl/Jacinto Quirarte could be transferred "as is" and the changes edited in. Apparently this is the wrong venue for this request but I don't want to post in the wrong place. 2A00:23C0:8601:9701:B480:522A:8371:9C99 (talk) 14:48, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Shafi Ahmed. Hi, I'd be grateful if someone could continue the process for me. Page is self-promotion (seems to be a CV updated by a single anonymous user) and fails notability and NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.205.225.57 (talk) 14:40, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Are you sure you want to proceed on this as it has many reliable sources such as The Guardian, The Telegraph, BBC, ABC and is likely to be kept? Atlantic306 (talk) 15:22, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Recently came across an article that was written in horible English and bordering on not notable. So deside to look at more...I found more problems but think it's best to bring this here, so that ediotrs more familiar with this can take a look.....as there is lots to look over.....pls see User:CrisBalboa#Articles that I created (in chronological order).--Moxy (talk) 00:55, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

• • Have just started cleaning them up, Japanese references are permitted as per WP:Reliable sources, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 11:07, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Rohan Brown has been marked for AfD on the basis of the subject being non-notable. Requesting steps 2 & 3 be completed for this AfD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.244.118.113 (talk) 22:44, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done, copying in the reasons you added to the talk page, but I'm not expecting it to be deleted myself as he appears to pass WP:NAFL. Iffy★Chat -- 23:15, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

See Talk:Tik Tok short video#Deletion reason for reasons for deletion. 2A02:C7F:963F:BA00:35A9:1579:6BFD:67FF (talk) 17:02, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done ~ GB fan 18:38, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

No notability aside from releasing one project as a group. All the information in the article is included in the article for Huncho Jack, Jack Huncho and each rapper's (Quavo, Travis Scott) individual page. BAPreme _{(T / C)} 15:08, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

@Bapreme: The instructions for nominating a page at AfD are at WP:AFDHOWTO. As you have an account, you should be able to do this yourself, but if you need help, feel free to ask me on my talk page for assistance. Iffy★Chat -- 21:09, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Her page should be there in Wikipedia no need of deletion.. suggesting to keep the page Santhu788 (talk) 17:26, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Santhu788 (talk · contribs) you need to comment and vote keep or delete at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anusha Rai, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 17:45, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Santhu788 (talk · contribs) please make sure to have a look at the relevant guidelines at WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR though, before you comment in the deletion discussion. Arguments based on these or other content guidelines are generally more persuasive in such deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 17:58, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello. I stumbled across the Rosalind Productions Inc. which was recently created and I feel like it is a candidate for deletion but I am unsure,

• I can't seem to find any reliable secondary sources for the article anywhere and the only sources given that mention Rosalind Productions Inc. are the website of the company and their partners website, the rest don't even mention the company.
• I am also concerned because the article seems quite promotional and the username of the person who created the article and the only person to edit it is "Abigail Rose Solomon"[3], who is the founder of the company the article is about, "Rosalind Productions Inc. was founded in 2005 by Abigail Rose Solomon"[4]. Would this be a conflict of interest?

HanotLo (talk) 17:49, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi all,

Requesting an AFD for Caspar Weinberger Jr. because of a lack of notability. Caspar Weinberger Sr. was famous, but his son's appearances in RS are mostly related to his father's obituary. --2607:FEA8:5A40:325:925:D136:FCDF:353B (talk) 13:28, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

•  Done--see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caspar Weinberger Jr. --Finngall ^talk 18:29, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Please help complete this request for me. This is a contested prod and a contested merge too. The shopping centre is not notable itself, it just happens to be the site of a disaster that is notable. 92.11.146.197 (talk) 00:45, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

This has been waiting a while, is there anybody who can help? 89.240.131.212 (talk) 16:28, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done. ~ GB fan 16:34, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much! 89.240.131.212 (talk) 16:57, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Nominating per following rationale (after removal of prod by another editor):

Why is this scholar particularly notable? Scholars are usually authors of numerous articles in their field of study, nothing extraordinary. Journal editors are not inherently notable either (even if they are the editor of some prestigious journal like Nature, though in that case, someone selected for such a position would probably be notable for plenty of other reasons, as the current editor is). Preparing exhibitions in museums seems also pretty run of the mill. The Polish Center for Holocaust Research is not a "a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society". It is highly specialized, yes, and I assume it holds some prestige in it's own field of study, but that's pretty much it (argumentation based on WP:NACADEMIC). 198.84.253.202 (talk) 21:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

NVM, already nominated by somebody else. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 21:20, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Article fails on all counts of Wikipedia's notability criteria. --Zubedar (talk) 15:57, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

As a registered user, you can create the discussion yourself. Please follow the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO. Thanks, ansh666 06:16, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Article currently does not satisfy the requirements set by WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG; contains no sources and no known reliable coverage exists. 2601:589:8000:2ED0:2993:8646:CE13:27D9 (talk) 20:00, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monstercat Uncaged Vol. 4. ansh666 06:17, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Article seems to fail WP:GNG. I could not find any source other than the forum post linked in the article. deadwikipedian (talk) 05:43, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

As a registered user, you can create the discussion yourself. Please follow the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO. Thanks, ansh666 06:16, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. deadwikipedian (talk) 09:34, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

See Talk:List of animated box office bombs#Deletion reasons for reasons for deletion. 2A02:C7F:963F:BA00:D916:B41F:C1C2:BE5A (talk) 08:06, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Iffy★Chat -- 08:49, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Can anyone help with the technical error on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gunpal_community? This was a Twinkle edit where loss of session token occurred. As a result, the original article was tagged appropriately but the AfD was created without a title. Adding elements manually does not help. Thanks, — kashmīrī ^TALK 09:44, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Looks like it's been fixed. ansh666 17:49, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done Yep, cheers. — kashmīrī ^TALK 22:52, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/36th and Market station was closed by RoySmith with a result of merging. Since the articles have remained AfD-tagged over a month later with no existing redirect or merge target (to convert to {{afd-merge to}} tags), what should be done here? Also pinging SounderBruce, epicgenius, and DanTD, who supported the merge in the discussion. ansh666 21:06, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I guess we can mass-redirect the pages in that AFD to List of SEPTA Trolley and Interurban stations#Subway–Surface Trolley Line stations. The only thing precluding an immediate merge is that we have to also move the coordinates over to the list page. epicgenius (talk) 21:11, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

As the AfD closer, I have no particular opinion. Whatever you guys come up with works for me. Thanks for pinging me. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:52, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Hmm. Looking closer, 43rd and Baltimore station (the only article mentioned in the AfD to be actioned) was redirected to the route article - I think that could be a better way to go. If there are no objections I'll go ahead and do that. (Speaking of which, does anyone know of any mass-redirecting scripts apart from the AfD closer? This certainly won't be the first time I've done this kind of thing manually.) ansh666 20:22, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, looks like I've got everything. There were a few that had multiple routes, so I redirected them to the station list; the others went to the route. Now I need to go rest my hands... ansh666 00:55, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

• Please start a deletion page. Reason for deletion is on the talk page. 46.211.110.167 (talk) 18:40, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Some users revert back the deletion tag. Is it a correct action? [5] [6] 46.211.156.128 (talk) 20:22, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
    •  Done Created. KingAndGod 20:26, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

• Please create an AfD for the above, per the instructions at WP:AFD, as IP's are locked out. Thank you very much. -- BobTheIP editing as 92.29.28.146 (talk) 21:45, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

This page is for discussing WP:Articles for deletion. The article's talk page is the place to request the deletion notice to be place; you can make use of {{edit semi-protected}} to raise awareness of your request. Huon (talk) 21:55, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

"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." It's in the instructions at WP:AfD. I even linked to them. -- BobTheIP editing as 92.29.28.146 (talk) 21:57, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Looks like it's been done. Primefac (talk) 22:02, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry about the misunderstanding, I took "as IP's are locked out" to mean that the problem was semi-protection of the article. Huon (talk) 22:15, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Propose deletion per following: Article subject appears in only supporting, minor roles. Fails WP:NACTOR (since he does not have "significant roles in multiple notable films", neither does he have a "significant cult following", nor did he make a "unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment", and does not meet any of the WP:ANYBIO criteria, since the "Star Awards" are an internal award to actors all working for the same media group, and addition they are not a "well-known and significant award or honor" (since they are not significant, nor are they well-known outside of Singaporean-media variety/entertainment reporting, unlike say the Academy Awards, which are well covered in independent, international media). And he hasn't won any anyway (2 nominations is not really that many...). 198.84.253.202 (talk) 15:44, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zen Chong. Thanks, ansh666 18:36, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Can someone take a look at this? There is a second AfD hidden in there which hasn't been discussed, all that is showing is the first AfD which has long since closed. Some kind of bot problem I presume. Szzuk (talk) 17:30, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

The diff is here [7] Szzuk (talk) 17:33, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

The new AfD should be at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Culture Trip (2nd nomination). One of the tools - I think it’s the page curation one - doesn’t recognise when there has been a previous nomination and dumps the new nomination on the old AfD page. I’ll look at this. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:29, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I see, thank you, Szzuk (talk) 19:31, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

OK, we’re sorted. I copied the nomination to a new Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Culture Trip (2nd nomination) page and relisted it. Pinging User:Vexations so they know what has been done. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:49, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Yep, it's the Curation Toolbar. ansh666 20:30, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

delete my account i2601:98A:500:D984:48F0:D84C:B0B2:8E5 (talk) 21:52, 26 April 2018 (UTC) did not make it

Accounts cannot be deleted, there is no way to do so on Wikipedia. If you think someone has created an account to impersonate you, please contact OTRS. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:15, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

This appears to be correctly nominated in Billy Greenwood, but the discussion is not properly formatted and it is not in the log. Can someone look into this. MB 04:58, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Fixed. @Strikerforce: please follow WP:AFDHOWTO in the future. Thanks, ansh666 05:18, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I am also asking this at Miscellany for deletion and hope that the duplication is not too annoying. Sometimes someone creates multiple drafts on a given topic, and moves one of the drafts into article space, leaving a draft in draft space, a sandbox in user space (with that subject), and so on, and the article doesn't pass notability. The article is tagged for a deletion discussion. Can the drafts be bundled into the AFD discussion, or is it necessary to discuss them separately? If the drafts are nominated at MFD for deletion as duplicating the article, the usual response is that they should be redirected, which is fine if the article exists, but a redirect to a deleted article is G8. Can we have one discussion at AFD, or do we need a separate MFD discussion?

The more general question, I guess, has to do with when it is appropriate to bundle XFDs in different spaces, and which XFD forum is to be used. If multiple spaces can be bundled, then the discussion certainly should be in the most visible forum, which is AFD. Thoughts? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:26, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

• I don't think you can bundle them like that. Anybody who wants to take part in deletion discussions involving drafts will be monitoring MfD but not AfD, so they wouldn't notice the draft deletion nomination if it was only listed at AfD. Something similar applies if the discussion is listed the other way round. The fact that an article on topic X should be deleted as not meeting our standards doesn't necessarily imply that a draft on topic X should also be deleted, if an article isn't up to scratch then it's typically fine for someone to work on it in draft space to improve it. Hut 8.5 18:34, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
• I'd say that, if you're nominating them all at the same time, bundle the non-mainspace in one MfD, open a separate AfD for the article, and link both nominations to each other. However, I'd recommend doing the AfD first and see the results before dealing with the drafts, since the outcome of the MfD (if necessary) would depend on the AfD outcome somewhat. ansh666 19:05, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
• Any such bundled XfDs should be speedy closed as out-of-process, as per Hut 8.5's comment above. I would suggest that one be done first, not both at once, and the other should wait on the outcome. I can see arguments for doing AfD first, as if the AfD is closed as keep, the draft can just be redirected. But ther might be cases where the other order makes sense. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:09, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Nominate per following:

Does not appear to meet WP:NALBUM (all coverage seems to be press releases) and album notability is not inherited: this can even be seen in the article: one source is the press release and the other doesn't even mention the album. It also does not have significant and independent coverage (i.e. press releases and websites which sell the album [all that could be found on google] aren't either significant nor independent). Might be WP:TOOSOON, or might just not be notable - a redirect would do better. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 14:37, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done Beeblebrox (talk) 19:19, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Withdrawn Nominate per following:

Fails WP:NACADEMIC. Per that guideline, being a professor at Harvard is not a free pass, and "vice-dean" doesn't quite pass criterion no. 6 of that guideline either. The linked bio page from Harvard Law School lists positions at some other organizations, but none of those seem to be notable enough to have an article. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 20:45, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

This ip is nominating every day and should sign up or desist — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.150.0.7 (talk) 19:17, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

If you disagree wait for the AfD, and your argument is WP:ADHOM anyway. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 20:25, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Is there a banner or tag or something that can go on the top of an article being drafted that is basically a carbon copy of an article that was already deleted (with the same title)? I could swear I've seen it before, but am unable to find it after several different types of searches. Thanks,-- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:19, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Then it's CSD criterion WP:G4, the corresponding template being {{db-g4}}. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 04:04, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

You could G4, yeah. But if you didn't want the draft deleted, I don't think there is such a tag. You could stick an {{old AfD multi}} linking to the prior discussion on the talk page, but that seems to be about it. ansh666 04:26, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 13:40, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I originally tagged at as fan POV, but it seems as though most of her notability comes from her accusations of Melanie Martinez, as described in the article. I looked through Billboard, her songs have not charted there (Im unsure how to check other countries charts). would love some input.Melodies1917 (talk) 14:30, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

• • Advise against nominating as it scrapes by on GNG apart from the Martinez content and refs Atlantic306 (talk) 14:42, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
  • That's not a reason not to nominate; it might be a reason not to delete.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 20:15, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Nominate per following:

Does not seem to meet WP:NSINGLE, all coverage seems to be from sales websites, lyrics databases or other sources which fail to be anything but routine, or are simply trivial mentions, and WP:BUTITEXISTS is not sufficient to have an article. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 12:56, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

• I've redirected it to the album. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:06, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Perfect, nothing more to be done. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 13:10, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Can someone help create the deletion discussion for Green Lantern Corps (film) so we can talk about it?

It deserves discussion page to have talk about it because it's an actual production that's got good sources and good edits to save please. 96.249.215.234 (talk) 11:55, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

@96.249.215.234: Hi, why do you place AfD tag then? - see here [8] CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:34, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I couldn't create the actual page. 96.249.215.234 (talk) 12:36, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

• This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Articles for deletion page. The article you mention has not been tagged for deletion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:38, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah but I want it to be discussed there so can someone put it up for a discussion? 96.249.215.234 (talk) 12:45, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi, You placed AfD tag - see here [9] then you removed it see here [10]. I am not sure of your intention. However, You can find the the redirect page here [11]. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:51, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I WANT TO HAVE AN AFD PAGE TO HAVE A DISCUSSION. PLEASE CREATE THE AFD SUBPAGE SO WE CAN HAVE A DISCUSSION AND THEN ADD THE AFD PAGE BACK AFTER THE AFD PAGE EXISTS. 96.249.215.234 (talk) 12:53, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I have restored it for you with version which you have placed the AfD tag. If you want an AfD discussion, then please do not remove the tag. Other editor will place the AfD discussion thread sometime later. You can find the article here Green Lantern Corps (film). Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:04, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you !!!!!! 96.249.215.234 (talk) 14:40, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Nominate per following:

Subject appeared in a few small films and was an extra in a couple large ones, but there's literally NO reliable coverage of this individual.[12] I didn't even find any passing mentions, rather just inclusion in databases like IMDb. Obvious WP:GNG fail. Article has slid under the radar for years, supported by crumbly self-published articles about businesses that don't even exist any more.

I'd appreciate if someone could nominate this for deletion, as I don't have an account and don't want to open one just for this. Thanks. 2A02:C7F:8E0C:6600:190A:3502:884A:E0BD (talk) 20:24, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

• Has prominent main roles in Can't Buy Me Love (film) and cult hit Mac and Me so passes WP:NACTOR and would probably be kept on that basis, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 20:31, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Even when there's literally no coverage of this person? I don't mean to sound rude: it's a genuine question. I don't see how this actor could possibly pass GNG. 2A02:C7F:8E0C:6600:190A:3502:884A:E0BD (talk) 20:35, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
    • This actor is pre-internet so google is not enough, there are likely to be offline sources such as press and film magazines, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 20:38, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
• I've set up the AfD nomination for you. Reyk _YO! 07:31, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks. 2A02:C7F:8E0C:6600:E4E0:7F41:22:B075 (talk) 10:37, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Prod has been removed and I'm unsure if its vandalism or not, but nevertheless, nominate per following:

Not enough WP:RS coverage (I only found blogs, forums and the game website...) to support notability. Might be WP:TOOSOON or might simply not be notable outside of niche area. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 12:26, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• I have set up the nomination for you. Reyk _YO! 12:44, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I just tried to nominated this with Twinkle and it was added to the log file but creation of the deletion discussion failed with something like "invalid CSRF token". Can someone repair this nom? MB 17:01, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@MB: Just create Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adiken with {{subst:afd2 | pg=PageName | cat=Category | text=Why the page should be deleted}} ~~~~ and maybe report it at WT:TW. Regards SoWhy 17:05, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, created that manually. Hope that is everything needed.MB 17:15, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Please see the current page move request on talk:Confederate (TV series) [13]. Questions have been raised regarding whether an AfD or a request to move the current article to draft space is procedurally correct. The move request cites WP:DRAFTIFY which is described as an outcome following a deletion discussion, so I’m wondering if this should be changed to an AfD. DynaGirl (talk) 13:02, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

• • The consensus on the talkpage is move to draft, when its picked up by a station and shooting begins it can be moved back to mainspace, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 13:15, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not asking about consensus, I'm asking about procedure. I agree current consensus is leaning toward draft, but what is the proper procedure here? To WP:DRAFTIFY a page, should it be listed at AfD? WP:DRAFTIFY specifically describes it as an outcome following a deletion discussion rather than a simple page move request. DynaGirl (talk) 13:25, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOTRM explicitly excludes moves from draftspace. Imho, this also includes moves to draftspace. Draftifying an article is, as DynaGirl points out, akin to deletion and should thus be handled by the established deletion processes. Handling it via RM based on notability guidelines circumvents these processes and more importantly hides the discussion from the eyes of the AFD regulars. Regards SoWhy 13:37, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't see anything wrong with this. Pages are unilaterally moved to draft all the time, so the comparison to deletion isn't quite apt (among other reasons). There is nothing explicitly forbidding this in either of the pages cited in this discussion. ansh666 19:12, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

New Page Patrollers are encouraged to consider moving articles to draft space as an alternative to deletion when those articles are not ready for mainspace, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 20:41, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

• as per Wikipedia:New pages patrol here, see the flowcharts Atlantic306 (talk) 20:44, 16 May 2018 (UTC) Also see WP:NPPDRAFT as this clearly instructs moving to draft. However an editor can revert it and it should not be moved back but then AFD is an option, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 20:51, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  • But Confederate (TV series) is not a new page. It's about a year old and revision history statistics shows it’s been edited by 59 editors. WP:DRAFTIFY gives criteria to draftify which this article doesn’t seem to meet. WP:DRAFTIFY also specifically states "old pages, and pages by experienced editors deserve an AfD discussion", so it seems this should be handled by AfD. DynaGirl (talk) 12:28, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Sorry, thought it was a newish article but in the circumstances of opposition to drafting by some editors I agree it should go to AFD, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 15:19, 18 May 2018 (UTC) 15:18, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Similar issues as described in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Au5; none of the listed sources are reliable; fails WP:MUSICBIO. 2601:589:8000:2ED0:3D67:DBB9:27A7:F7EA (talk) 01:35, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

• I've set that up for you. Reyk _YO! 21:00, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

For [14], second half is all blue indiscrimate closed or open, can someone look into it??? --Quek157 (talk) 18:08, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• I've fixed it [15] - the closer of one of the AfDs removed some HTML closing tags by accident when removing relisting categories, which messed up the HTML of the rest of the page. Hut 8.5 18:17, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, or else no one know which to open which to close --Quek157 (talk) 18:18, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jasmine Directory appears to have been reopened after being (non-admin) closed. Is this a breach of procedure? It may well be concluded the non-admin closure was inappropriate but is the re-opening done in the correct way? Will any conclusion now have to go to WP:DRV? My understanding of the correct process would be to to undo to [16] and then if people feel strongly to re-open a discussion or bring to DRV if anyone feels this is necessary. What has happened has breached The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. in my opinion. I'd prefer someone univolved looked at this ... I dont want to wade in myself and make a bad situation worse.Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:24, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• NOTBUREAUCRACY and I know what I'm doing very well.There were multiple ANI threads documenting Kirbanzo's spate of ill-advised cum hasty closures and relists and this AfD mentioned at a COIN thread was just another glaring example of it.Pinging TonyBallioni.~ Winged Blades^Godric 12:26, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Godric probably shouldn’t have done it, but that’s fine. I take ownership of his reopening in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator because it is not proper for you to close an AfD that you commented on and the comments in favour of keeping (including your own, which while in between had much more of a “keep” tone) are fairly weak. If you want, I can roll it back and then reopen it myself, but seems like a waste. I’ll leave a comment to this effect on the AfD. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:32, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Getting really ugly this. Two wrongs do not make a right. We have a bad precedent here. I am minded if Godric knew what he was doing it was dishonourable and underhand and out of process. The courtesy of explaining clearly what had happened to those who were not aware of the ANI thread would have been the minimum expected as going out of procedure. The only good this was the admission above that TonyBallioni was pinged. The bad news is Godric has involved TonyBallioni by pinging him. And if I recall rightly there is history between myself and Godric on a Conflict of Interest editor that was welcomed by Godric and then not supported .. poor show. And I'm hacked off because edit summaries on the article defames the work of people outside of Wikipedia …. crappy blog on edit summaries in inappropriate …. poor use of a blog as a source is appropriate. So this is uglier and uglier. This was likely heading for a WP:RENOM at AfD at some point anyway given some article degradations. So why not wait for the 2 months recommended …… or have kept in procedure and gone to WP:DRV. Now having spouted all this off the main supporter of the article, he with the COI, is acceptable to the relist. I need to chew my cud over my next action.Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:21, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
      • I have no clue who you are. I have never seen this article before. I watch this talk page and would have done the same regardless of being pinged. I am uninvolved, and policy allows me to reopen a NAC. I have done so and explained my reasoning. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:25, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict)I really don't understand most of what you're saying (dishonourable?, and the rest about being "hacked off" I literally can't make sense of), but anyhow uninvolved admins can undo non-admin closures per WP:NACD, and TonyBallioni has taken responsibility as that uninvolved admin, and thus there are now not two wrongs but just one. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:27, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
      • I defer and accept reopen per WP:NACP. Still feel best practice would have been if an admin other than TonyBallioni had done the re-open due to the ping though it is likely any other admin could have done the same.Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:39, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
• Just a waste of time discussing this anymore, that user is clearly lacks competence to judge consensus, vote properly, nominate properly and all the rest. He should never have closed the discussion. This is not red tape and there is only one error, is the NACR of the AFD, not anything else. Such wrongs need to be rectified and I thank the admins here who did their job. Period. Endorsing the reopening. --Quek157 (talk) 18:11, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• "The result was keep. No deletion votes besides initial nomination in a week" does this even make sense, since this user like to relist, why not relist it anyway. Such erroneous things yet we are complaining about the reverse??? Please for anyone who opposes the reopening or whatsoever look deep into the user perpetual issue of relisting / closing and you will see what happen. I happened to notice and raised this in AN/I and the admins there are doing right things --Quek157 (talk) 18:18, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Please refer to [17] / [18] --Quek157 (talk) 18:25, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• @Quek157 Really thankyou for your good work identifying the problem user. However the manner of re-opening was imperfect and that has caused me an issue and it is why this discussion has occurred, leaving bad taste in a lot of people's mouths. The AfD discussion carries much verbosity and a clear simply renominate in 2 months would likely have been a better choice in my opinion. And one reason for this discussion was the lack of obvious explanation why a closure was removed and replaced by a relist without adequate obvious information as to what had happened and why ... history was changed .. removed .. rules were ignored. Compared to the relist for Hugo Andersson which was after a few hours by a administrator with a rv inappropriate closure comment (which was not logged in the discussion itself which I would have regarded as best practice) this was far less appropriate with a reversion after 2 weeks by a non-admin with a comment of Vacate close. Still I guess we are where we are and I hope we are not here again.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:20, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

@Djm-leighpark:, you know how many AFD that person disrupted. If I can count, they relisted almost 40 AFD before 7 days (168h), they closed more than 10 AFD (with ridiculous reasoning like in 2 days 2 keeps, then keep, in 2 days, no one oppose, SNOW???) as well. It took almost 4 admins to trawl through the entire history of their closing. And it is not as if that person have any experience, a 2018 account with zero content creation as well as a less than perfect Afd record. This is ridiculous enough already. All their closes can be perfect if it was in 2007 (and I'm sure some of those people will recall we start Afd and close after 1 or 2 votes, come on then 7000 edits to mainspace is so great already). I agree that a Non admin should not reopen the discussion under NACR rules, but given the amount of disruption, we must act fast. The Hugo Andersson case was one day later, where I filed a second AN/I report. Do note that Ashn666 need to undo many closes at once, so there is no chance to type and it is a NACR and admins have all the rights to overturn (so called admin discretion). I personally will not do any relisting, or closes (unless there is a urgent need like under SKCRIT / NACR#4) but I hope you can understand the full context. I will be against other such unilateral non admin reopening of closes (especially if it is reopening of admin closes by non admins which is a no no - DRV is the avenue) but for this particular user whose competency wasted so much time, this approach though regretable, but appropriate. Hope you can understand --Quek157 (talk) 10:38, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I read through the Afd (till the close), I will give it not a keep but a non consensus, the opposing viewpoints are correct to state that there is no WP:GNG / WP:NWEB while the keep points are really "why I need it, why this is useful, why other sites are allowed" and veer very close into the COI issue without addressing the WP:N issue. All these cancels it out and the discussion is still ongoing, so I will prefer a relist in this occassion for more discussion of notablity. --Quek157 (talk) 10:45, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I started an AFD for Premiere Speakers Bureau but the page was already deleted in 2006. It was re-created in 2017 by User:Shankstn, whose contributions were mostly about this page. Could an admin please delete it? I don't think we need a second AFD. Or if we do, how do I AFD it given the fact that this is not working (it links to the 2006 deletion). Please ping me when you reply. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:38, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Atlantic306 replaced it with a speedy deletion tag. This is probably the best way out of this.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:48, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry I can't find the info on this page. How do I create a second AFD please? I don't remember. Specifically I'd like to AFD Griffin Technology. Please ping me when you reply. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:46, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

@Zigzig20s: I've launched the second AFD using Twinkle for you; please put in the deletion reason. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:01, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:04, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Can you please nominate Sportswear for deletion? Rationale: There are only two topics on Sportswear, so there is no need for a disambiguation page per WP:ONEOTHER. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:183:101:58D0:B5CD:42EE:E561:79B2 (talk) 13:36, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Given the recently started RM at Talk:Sportswear (activewear), I suggest you wait for it to end: if that article is moved to the primary title, then the disambiguation page would become unambiguously redundant and it will be possible to delete it without the need for an AfD. – Uanfala (talk) 10:23, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

After the first AFD the indent seems odd [19]. Thanks --Quek157 (talk) 18:48, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't see it. Maybe the problem was with one of the transcluded AFDs and has been fixed by now. Regards SoWhy 18:57, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

SoWhy yupp, it was transcluded Afd which is fixed. Thanks for the attention --Quek157 (talk) 19:07, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

The article Giants Challenge has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This "article" (if one can even call it that) is nothing short of ridiculous. It cites zero sources (which was first pointed out almost 12 years ago yet no one has taken action), it is an orphan, it doesn't follow basic punctuation, capitalization, or grammar rules in any way, and it is not written in "encyclopedic tone" AT ALL. Not to mention that the "official website" the creator put at the bottom of this page does not exist (404). Plus, searches on Google, Yahoo, DuckDuckGo, & several other search engines turned up absolutely nothing about any "Giants Challenge" biking competitions, let alone one in S. Africa., besides this Wiki page; quite frankly, it's sort of embarrassing and slightly worrying (in my opinion) that a bogus "article" like this has lasted so long without being spotted. Feel free to discuss and please possibly consider for SPEEDY DELETION!

68.5.231.50 says- If this does end up being deleted, lol, then I guess I've just accidentally become an unofficial novice "hoax hunter"-- w/o even using my account!

2605:E000:3545:5C00:E8C0:BAAD:C991:18EF~ "YES PLEASE DELETE THIS ARTICLE ASAP!" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:3545:5C00:E8C0:BAAD:C991:18EF (talk) 00:34, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. 68.5.231.50 (talk) 05:49, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

This definitely is a real event; the latest info I could find for it is 2015, so it may have gotten folded into one of their other events. But it is not a hoax. [20] [21]

NotARabbit (talk) 03:59, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok. While I wouldn't say "definitely" just yet, I get what youre saying. -- 68.5.231.50

Just please consider the notability (or possible lack thereof) of Giants Challenge-- does it really deserve its own article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.231.50 (talk) 22:37, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

As per: WP:N

This article reads like a CV. There isn't anything particularly notable about this political candidate. Similar to this article deletion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Toni_Giugliano — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.116.24 (talk) 16:09, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

 Already done at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zara Kitson by User:Kuyabribri. Iffy★Chat -- 13:06, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Can you nominate Climate of Dubai for deletion? It is redundant to Dubai#Climate section and United_Arab_Emirates#Climate. --192.107.120.90 (talk) 17:32, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done -- see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climate of Dubai. --Finngall ^talk 18:01, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Appears to not have enough significant coverage from reliable sources to satisfy WP:NMUSIC; current coverage is insufficient and the remaining sources only discuss the subject in mere mentions. 2601:589:8000:2ED0:4405:EFCC:6A6D:494F (talk) 22:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

•  Done: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Desirée Dawson. Thanks, ansh666 22:44, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:BEFORE now says: Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects. and goes on to say If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination. Instead, you should consider citing the sources .... However, many nominators apparently do not do such a search, and if asked in the course of an AfD discussion, at least some simply ignore the query. I therefore propose that if an AfD nomination cites notability is the primary reason, or a major reason, for deletion, the nominator must include a description of the search for sources that has been done, and its results. If this is not included, any experienced editor may speedy close the discussion as improperly nominated, although such an editor would have the option of insted doing the WP:BEFORE search and describing it in the discussion. If some editor other than the nominator has done such a search and posted a description to the discussion, then the discussion may not be closed because the nominator omitted to describe such a search.

This should rapidly become a routine part of an AfD nomination. It will not impose any more burden on nominators than WP:BEFORE is now claiming to do, it will merely adress nominations that omit to shoulder that burden. It may keep articles about notable topics, where the article currently lacks citations to sources, from being dragged through an AfD, thereby wasting time and effort. Remember that notability is suposed to be a property of the topic, not of the current state of the article. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:29, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support in principle. Time after time in academic AfDs proposers fail to check Google scholar for citations. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:01, 30 April 2018 (UTC).

Only if we give it teeth in the other direction. "BEFORE" you start an article, find the references you'll be using for the subject and cite them during your writing, rather than just handwaving that they must be out there somewhere. I understand the frustration of bad nominations, but bad articles are a problem too. Even if the sources are out there somewhere, they should actually get cited, and the writer of the article should have bothered to actually verify they exist, not just guess that they do. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I am sorry, but I must disagree with Seraphimblade on this one. Indeed if we had to enact both my proposal and Seraphimblade's or neither, I would take neither. Let me explain why. I agree that articles should start with sources cited, not assumed. I agree that we must do our best to instruct new editors to do this. But if we delete probably notable but uncited articles, or if we block editors who create such articles in good faith, we will, I think, put off more new users than we educate. I have seen a number of new users start with creating uncited drafts or articles, and by a combination of example and instruction, become editors who are eager to find and add reliable sources, understanding that it is the only way that content will stick over the long term. But I am convinced that had those initial efforts simply been deleted, we would have lost the editors as well as articles on valid topics. This is very much in the spirit of WP:BITE

I must also point out that the verifiablity policy still requires that articles be verifiable, not verified. Strictly speaking, cited sources are only required immediately for direct quotations or close paraphrase, for contentious or negative content about a living person, and for content that has been or is likely to be challenged. Many articles are perfectly policy compliant with zero citations. General references, although not considered best practice, are also still acceptable according to our policies an guidelines. Now maybe some would like to change that policy, but it hsn't happened yet.

Now perhaps I have misunderstood what Seraphimblade is proposing. Is it that articles be summarily deleted for not being created with sufficient source citations? Or that users be warend an perhaps blocked for creating such articles? If neither of those, what are you proposing? Please be clear. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:41, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

@DESiegel: I don't think it should be a speedy criterion, nor a reason for a block (unless an editor's doing it disruptively, but then it's the disruption that's the reason for the block). Maybe just expand BLPPROD to all articles. That gives the creator plenty of time to find and cite at least one reference without the article getting deleted, gives them an easy way to get it undeleted even if they can't do it in time, and still gets across to them that references actually are needed without being overly harsh. And of course that would apply only in mainspace; drafts are expected to be unfinished. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:50, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I see, Seraphimblade. That is more moderate and more sensible in my view than what I thought you had in mind. I would still be concerned with the WP:BITE implications -- perhaps if such a PROD could not even be placed for a day or two after an article was created? I see many new editors who get scared off by plain PRODs or contestable speedy tags, or even maintenance tags such as {{refimprove}}, especially when they are placed just minutes after an article is created. Frankly I wish it were the advised best practice tha every article start as a draft --- I now start all of mine that way. I can't get an article in good enough shape for mainspace in a single edit, and if i can't, then I suspect few inexperienced editors can either. But I seriously doubt that such an idea would gain consensus. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I fear that this would be used to blanket shut down in a WP:BITE fashion any AFD noms by inexperienced editors, who may be doing a reasonable initial job of detecting the unnotable even if they don't know how to express/test it. I'd be closer to agreeing that a nomination without a sign of BEFORE could be quickly shut down by an experienced editor who lists significant sources not in the article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:36, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

That might be sufficient, NatGertler, or perhaps we could limit the "early close" option to noms by more or less experienced editors. Perhaps it would only apply to those with over a thousand edits, and participation in several AfDs, say? And we could encourage doing a subsequent search rather than closing. I agree that we don't want to discourage inexperienced editors from coming to AfD, but we do neet to get more experieced editors not to take the BEFORE search for granted, in my view. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:47, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• Has anyone ever considered the possibility of automatically tagging articles and Drafts with 'No sources' as soon as they are created? The special:NewPagesFeed automatically flags them as such in its list entries. The template on the article would automatically send a message send a message to the creator something like: "Thank you for creating xxxxx. This article cannot (will not?) be published or reviewed until you have supplied WP:Reliable sources that assert notability" ?

The onus is (or should be) on the creator to offer Wikipedia compliant content. Our AfC and New Page reviewers aren't obliged to do their work for them. Trying to is one of the resons for the huge backlogs. Of course, this doesn't prevent anyone from wanting to rescue an article who want to. See also WP:BOGOF in a slightly different context. Much are the problems are due to Wikipeia not providing the right information to new users before they start; what we have is the Article Wizard, but nthat links the user to TL;DR guidelines than take anything up to an hour to wade through - that alone is sufficiently offputting.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:21, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• I think that would be a major mistake, for much the same reasons as i objected to Seraphimblade's suggestion above. I cannot agree that the onus must be entirely on article creations, particularly when thgey are novice editors. If we don't assist and guide novice editors, we will never have the next group of high-quality, experienced editors. If anything, we need to do more of that, not less. I will agree that the Article Wizard could and should be improved. And such automated tagging would be positively perverse when applied to drafts. Drafts are supposed to be incomplete, by design. Even when I start a draft, sources may not be added in the first few edits. Such an automated tag would be massively off-putting to novice editors. And if it is ever implemented, I will advise all new editors to start articles in a userspace page, not in draftspace. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:08, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Also, exactly how would "sources" be automatically recognized. Would only ref-style footnotes count? General refernces are still policy compliant, after all. And i have seen new editors try to cite sources by insertign tjhem as external links inline. This is not MOS-compliant, and needs to be corrected, but the sources are in fact there. Would the automated tool recognize such a situation? if not, it is not good enough to use. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:12, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

And I still find WP:BOGOF a positivly pernicious essay, and anything supported by it is probably not a good idea. See my last year's comments on its talk page. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:24, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• Hugely agree with giving WP:BEFORE some teeth, no earthly idea how to do it. Am I wrong that it would be sort of a tautology? If you find something, you won't nominate; if you don't, you nominate. If you nominate, and nobody finds anything, WP:BEFORE met; if somebody finds something, WP:BEFORE failed, and the teeth bite you. I do think nominations, as well as some !votes, have gotten lazy lately, merely saying "I did WP:BEFORE, not notable" or something to that effect. The more we can encourage folks to give a clear and meaningful rationale, the better. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:32, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• To some extent it would be, or should be, self-enforcing: f you find something, you won't nominate. The major impact would i think be on borderline cases: the nominator finds something, but thinks it isn't enough, others may disagree. Also, the process of looking may help prevent noms that will otherwise result in keeps, or even in incorrect deletes of notable topics poorly drafted if no one does a search. The "teeth" are merely to encourage and prod nominators to do what they should have been doing all along. Deletion should be a last resort, not a first option. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:18, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• "WP:BEFORE some teeth, no earthly idea how to do it"? WP:TROUT and WP:Speedy keep for inadequate nominations. Specifically, the nominator must comment on a search for new sources, AND, must comment on an evaluation of the potential for WP:Merge by a Wikipedia search for the topic. To encourage consideration of merging, can we implemtn the following suggestion: Template_talk:Find_sources#A_+wikipedia_search_to_assist_with_consideration_of_the_option_to_merge? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:19, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• Strong support for Seraphimblade's teeth on both sides. Nominators should make some check to see if the topic is notable. Article writers should source uploaded content. The onus should be on content uploaders to include the source of the content in the page save when they upload the content. If the content is unsourced, it should be WP:TNTed. Tell authors that content must be sourced, and the onus is on the provider of content to source it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:28, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• How would you implement and enforce this, SmokeyJoe? The extension of BLPPROD to UNCITEPROD that Seraphimblade proposed above, or in some other way? How would you address the WP:BITE implications, or would you? Would you delete unsourced articles on probably notable topics? Currently, that would violate WP:V. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:35, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• When creating a new page, the boiler plate text includes five dot pots:

• Before creating an article, please read Wikipedia:Your first article.
• You can also search for an existing article to which you can redirect this title.
• To experiment, please use the sandbox. To use a wizard to create an article, see the Article wizard.
• When creating an article, provide references to reliable published sources. An article without references, especially a biography of a living person, may be deleted.
• You can also start your new article at Special:Mypage/New page titel. There, you can develop the article with less risk of deletion, ask other editors to help work on it, and move it into "article space" when it is ready.

TL;DR

Can that be condensed?

Dot point 1. OK

Dot point 2. OK, maybe could shorten.

Dot point 3. OK

Dot point 4. Too long. Change to Provide reliable references for this information or it will be deleted.

Dot point 5. OK. Long, but this is the optional slow down becuase the above is too hard.

We don't have to tell article writers at this point the technical boundaries of deletion policy and process. If the material remains unsourced, it should be deleted at AfD, and so the statement ("or it will be deleted") is true. BLPPROD and UNCITEPROD are not enforcement but post-decision execution processes; we can't force people to upload the source information, but we can delete unsourced material.

WP:BITE applies to people, not content. We do not do the newcomers any favours by not speaking plainly about unacceptable content.

To pre-emptively avoid the appearance of biting, all new registrants should be auto-{{welcome}}d. That template is nicely newcomer friendly. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:14, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the last point, the vast majority of Wikimedia projects (i.e. other language Wikipedias, Wiktionaries, etc.) already do this. Why do we not? ansh666 03:18, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Use a bot to welcome new users. —Cryptic 03:31, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Three silly reasons:

1. If a bot is used, it is cold and impersonal, and the bot is incapable of mentoring and assisting newcomers.
Cold is never welcoming a newcomer, and then deleting their work for something they have never been informed about.

2. Many vandals are exposed when an edit made by them receives extra scrutiny because their user or talk page shows as a redlink.
Userpage redlink is good enough for this little trick.

3. The bot would make thousands of pointless edits welcoming vandals and accounts that never make an edit.
WP:PERFORMANCE. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:44, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• Also want to note that given search engine algorithms, nobody's searches will be the same. If someone who regularly visits websites regarding one topic searches something about that topic, they'll easily find what they're looking for; another person who doesn't may have to go a few pages deep to find the same material, if it even shows up at all - especially if there are many things with similar names in topics that the second person frequents. The failure to find sources that seem to be obvious to the first person doesn't necessarily mean that WP:BEFORE wasn't met by the second. Despite the nominal intent of the process, AfD is a great place to find sources to improve articles from people who may be interested in the topic but perhaps weren't aware that a specific article needed more. ansh666 03:24, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• The most likely result I see from such a rule would be additional boilerplate in nominations by users focused on deletion and deletion process ("{{subst:yes i did before}}→I didn't find anything good enough in my own searches either."); and nominations by new users and users who usually stay far away from deletion getting shutdown not on their merits, but on their lack of such boilerplate. The reality is that there's no way to distinguish between someone who didn't search at all, someone who didn't but said they did, and someone who did but just has higher standards than you do. —Cryptic 03:28, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I would ask for a mandatory comment by the nominator on their searches. Someone who repeatedly fails to find things that other find will find themselves at the receiving end of searching advice. It would be a self-correcting problem. If the nominator is made aware that they should do a search, that is a good step forward, and probably sufficient. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:41, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Most of the time I've seen "I found these sources" invoked in AFDs where BEFORE was also invoked, the sources didn't actually demonstrate notability or suggest any way the articles' problems could be addressed, and in fact indicated either that the users posting "I found these sources" hadn't actually read the sources before linking to them, that they hadn't read the deletion rationale, or both. If anything I would say that editors who repeatedly fail to not claim they found things that others noticed and rejected for various reasons should be TBANned or otherwise sanctioned in some manner to prevent repeated disruption of this kind. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:39, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose- I'm not against retaining WP:BEFORE as advice describing good practice, and I don't really mind modifying that advice. But I am against making any part of WP:BEFORE mandatory. Experience has shown that it's very often used just to heap contempt and abuse on AfD nominators, and to derail quite adequate nominations on a technicality. BEFORE-thumping does more to poison AfD than a few sloppy nominations, and leaves the encyclopedia full of uneverifiable trivia. As for this specific amendment, I cannot support it for the reasons outlined by User:Cryptic just above. Especially the point about people with high sourcing standards getting lambasted for allegedly not searching at all- that describes the majority of "did you even BEFORE?!?!?" complaints in my experience. Reyk _YO! 06:36, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• I tis already mandtory in theory minimum search expected. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:30, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose as I said in my RfA, I consider BEFORE to be the most important part of the AfD process, but this is ridiculous and would be subject to gaming to the point that virtually every AfD nomination would be speedy kept based on the ambigious wording suggested ("describe their search", what the heck does that even mean? I'm one of the more thorough AfD nominators who goes into detail about the sourcing in the article, and I don't know if I've ever "described my search" beyond saying something like 'Google News and Google Books don't appear to return anything much else.'")
  On top of that, this promotes the non-policy based idea that notability is the most important thing in the AfD process. That's simply false: it is one of 14 reasons for deletion, and too often notability is simply distilled to the GNG, which is not supported in the slightest by WP:N, which makes it clear WP:NOT must be passed in addition to the GNG or an SNG. I don't care if it is worded as when notability is the primary reason, it will only serve to bolster the idea that the GNG is some super-policy above all other policies: an idea that has no consensus, and has been rejected every time WP:N is attempted to be brought from guideline status to policy status.
  BEFORE is very important, but there are plenty of cases that come to AfD where notability is only one of many reasons to consider deleting it. Making it harder to use the rest of the deletion policy serves the interest of no one except those who want to keep Wikipedia's culture in 2003 and forget that we are now the world's default reference work. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:47, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - we need prod to have some teeth - no removal of prod without 2 refs being added. Szzuk (talk) 07:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support WP:BEFORE already has some teeth. Disruptive editors who fail to observe it will eventually get shut down. The poster boy for this is TenPoundHammer. They failed many RfAs for their clueless nominations. More recently, after nominating many notable topics just because they didn't have sources, they were banned from all deletion activity. Note also that WP:BEFORE is not just about searching for sources. It lists 16 separate steps such as checking for previous nominations or considering alternatives to deletion. Andrew D. (talk) 07:42, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

By describe I mean somehting like "I searcehd google news and google books with search stings 'X' 'X Teacher" and 'X <town>'". It is often the case that notability is the only significant issue in play at an AfD. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:30, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose as unworkable (certainly as proposed, and as worded). As noted above, editors' searches are tailored to their own browsing, and it will be perfectly possible for one to perform a WP:BEFORE and find nothing, and others to see results immediately. If anything, this may poison the atmosphere at AfD; already, occasionally, a pressure cooker. Andrew Davidson indicates too that BEFORE—with its sixteen other facets—already has sufficient teeth. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 09:00, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Comment I'm certainly in favor of giving BEFORE teeth! I wonder if it could be accomplished within the status quo simply by 1. Keeping a list of BEFORE-offensive nominations. 2. piling on quickly in the AfDs when a nomination fails BEFORE and 3. Hauling offending editors to ANI quickly. Jacona (talk) 11:07, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose As noted above, it is far too easy to game BEFORE. However, BEFORE problems should be considered to just a nominator's behavior. If I nominate 10 articles in separate AFD claiming no sources after a BEFORE search, and and all ten of those, a very obvious google search show clear legitimate sources that can be used, then I'm being disruptive at AFD by ignoring BEFORE, and that might mean some admin action to be taken against me. But a 1-off AFD like that , that's a different story, and I would not expect someone that makes that type of mistake once in a while to be acted upon. --Masem (t) 15:41, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose this is likely to just result in pointless bureaucracy. Forcing people to include boilerplate text in AfD nominations won't deliver any tangible improvements. New users, who already find the process of nominating AfDs complicated, would be further frustrated when their nominations are speedily closed because they didn't include the boilerplate. It isn't really possible to determine on the level of a single AfD whether the nominator followed BEFORE, as there are many reasons why the nominator may not have registered a source which someone else found. If there's a pattern of someone failing to find sources which others do then that's different, but that would also be true if someone kept making defective nominations for any other reason. Hut 8.5 18:16, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per Hut 8.5. KingAndGod 18:24, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• pile-on oppose per all the above. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:16, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
• Massive support for requiring nominators to describe the sources they found whilst searching in enough detail (a) to prove that they have conducted an exhaustive search and (b) to prevent those !voting for deletion pretending to be blind (ie insisting that sources don't exist when they obviously do). If we require nominators to say eg "there are X number of sources in GNews/GBooks/GScholar/Highbeam/whatever and they contain Y number of pages/words of coverage" etc, it becomes much easier to identify liars. Nominators should also be required to disclose which search terms they have used (it is usually not enough to stick the name in quotes because of alternative names, OCR problems, background noise, the fact some search engines seem to 'choke' on speech marks and fail to deliver relevant results etc; so we need to know exactly what words the nominator put into the search engine). [As for the comment above about PROD: we need to abolish PROD or at least require a valid rationale for deletion and a BEFORE search for sources.] James500 (talk) 08:18, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
  • This blatant assumption of bad faith on the part of nominators and AfD participants proves perfectly why WP:BEFORE can never be made mandatory. Calling people liars or wilfully blind for the crime of having higher standards is already enough of a problem at AfD without our policies and guidelines enshrining this misbehaviour. Reyk _YO! 12:43, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - What an interesting variety in reasons for opposing and supporting, including some overlap! I just don't see this as something practical, and think it would likely cause more problems than it would help. Also don't agree with Seraphimblade's reciprocal proposal -- at least not as a reciprocal proposal. I might be able to get behind a "unsourced prod" idea, but not as tied to this. The basic reason is that the most directly affected audience of each is quite different -- experienced editors for deletion nominations and newer editors for unsourced article creations. That means it would be the latter that would more likely come up more often and affect more people -- new users -- which is not ideal. Might be a workable idea on its own, but I don't see it as a balance. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:19, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - While it is almost invariably true nominators and supporters understandably will search and explore sources less vigorously than any opposition, and there is currently little consequence if due diligence has not been given to BEFORE, I agree I don't think the result would be a tangible improvement. That said, I can see frustrations above where little effort is required to raise an AfD however significant effort may be required to oppose a nomination over several weeks in an often fruitless attempt to achieve consensus.Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:16, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose These processes are already overly complicated, primarily because of disruptive editors who don't like the processes being used editing the subpages that include the instructions and no one apparently noticing them (!), so making it more difficult is not going to help. Additionally, every time I have seen BEFORE invoked in an AFD discussion as a rationale for keeping, the AFD was not based on notability or sources (the pages were POVFORKs, the articles were FORKs without a particular POV, the articles violated NOT in some other way...) so demanding an explicit statement of having checked for sources in those cases would be entirely counterproductive. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:20, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Also should note that of the two support !votes so far, one is completely out there and includes stuff that would be even less likely to pass than this (abolish PROD?), and the other appears to be more of a "support on principle because I like the idea of making AFD more difficult, even though I don't actually agree with the premise of this proposal". (BATTLEGROUND and inappropriate discussion of named editors who are unable to defend themselves aside.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:15, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

(1) Andrew's comments are not battleground. Nor can I see how saying he wants additional teeth to the existing teeth constitutes disagreeing with the premise of this proposal. (2) There are more than two supporters here. You seem to have missed Xxanthippe's !vote, with which I agree (there is persistent failure to check the h-indexes of academics before nominating them for deletion, despite the fact that PROF requires this). James500 (talk) 07:14, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Thr first sentence of AD's comment indicates a disagreement with the premise of the proposal that BEFORE is currently toothless, and the last part of his comment indicates a disagreement wih the idea that the proposal should only be about source-searching (which is what pretty much everyone else seems to be interpreting it as). The rest is a typically-AD "deletionist-vs-keepionist" attack on an editor who was TBANned for a variety of reasons, a failure to adhere to BEFORE not being one of the primary ones (having hardly been invoked in the discussion, including in AD's own !vote), and who is therefore unable to defend themselves. Furthermore, AD's history of citing BEFORE (explicitly or implicitly) in a BATTLE-ish fashion as though the goal was to rack up as many "wins" for the "keepionist side" as possible[22][23][24][25][26] (one of those diffs is included to show that AD will invoke BEFORE even in completely insane situations where the editor he is addressing has spent hours upon hours going every "source" in the article and waited months after this to allow anyone who wanted to to chime in on the talk page before opening the AFD) makes it difficult to read otherwise. As for Xxanthippe's !vote: you are right, I did miss that. I honestly have no beef with what they said, although I do have to question it's accuracy or general applicability: most of the academic AFDs I have been involved in had the opposite problem, where a proper source check would support deletion or merging of an article for reasons other than notability, but "keepionist" editors who showed up to the AFD just to "win" started invoking GNG and a superficial Googling of scholarly sources they had neither read nor understood. If what is being discussed is AFDs about academics like this one: honestly the proposal would not make a difference in cases like that since AFDs default to keep unless there is a clear consensus (and at least one strong argument not made by a blocked sock) to delete. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:25, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support in principle. WP:BEFORE merely builds on what WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE (both policies) already say, i.e. that material that can be kept should be kept. This includes material about notable subjects where the necessary sources to establish said notability are not yet in the article but can easily be found (arg. ex. WP:IMPERFECT). I don't think requiring nominators to prove their BEFORE search is the right way to go though. Instead, repeated failure to follow BEFORE should be treated like the competence-problem it is and editors who repeatedly nominate articles about notable subjects for deletion should be sanctioned instead, preferably faster than this has been the case so far. After all, new editors who are willing to learn when told about it are not the main problem. Regards SoWhy 09:08, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support in princicple, though the specific need some further thought. I don't think it will be particullarly difficult to institute some enforceable requirement for reporting on BEFORE checks, which is something that nominators are expected to do anyway. Boilerplate rationales are an issue even now, and this can be solved by requiring a specific description of the search: N "A thorough search revealed no results", Y "I've checked the first 30 results in a google search for 'Foo bar' and 'Fooish bar', and there was nothing beyond press releases and social media posts.". If in such a specific description the nominator is lying, then they will be easily caught. And it will also save subsequent AFD participants some time by letting them not duplicate the search effort of the nom. And I don't see how this will complicate the AfD process: first of all, it only requires nominators to be a bit more explicit about something they're supposed to do anyway, and second, this won't affect the number of steps that are technically required to create an AfD dsicussion (and most people use TW anyway, which arguably makes nominating too easy). – Uanfala (talk) 11:38, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Here is an example of what I have been grumbling about for years. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:33, 4 May 2018 (UTC).

Except the nominator specifically said that they did a BEFORE search, so that would satisfy the requirement proposed here. That's why this proposal is pointless. ansh666 07:56, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I just closed Bridget Stutchbury as speedy keep. The AfD was a classic example of random patrolling by someone who has no knowledge whatsoever about notability guidelines. After closing, I Googled the subject and saw plenty of sources. The original idea behind the creation of The New Page Reviewer user group was supposed to prevent this kind of thing, but the community in its wisdom insisted that inexperienced users and maintenance-hungry newbies should nevertheless continue to be allowed to practice their button mashing with deletion listing tools. The nominator shouold be trouted. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:16, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

(ec) ... and this demonstrates the kind of abusive BEFORE-thumping that makes it ineligible to be made mandatory. Reyk _YO! 08:24, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose simply on the basis that it's unenforceable. It's a nice idea, but the Stutchbury Afd clearly demonstrates that until the use of tagging tools can be limited to people who can be trusted to know what they are doing, nothing will change. Experienced, qualified reviewers rarely make such blundering errors - they may not win all their nominations at AfD, especially the truly borderline cases where subject experts on notability come to comment, but how thorough is a BEFORE expected to be before even qualified users have to move to the next item in the patrolling queue? Some of those commenting above are possibly unaware of our limited manpower for addressing the huge backlogs. I see two possible solutions which are both needed: 1). those who tag pages for deletion should have demostrated their competency to do so, and 2), vastly improving the way we inform new users about what they can and can't create. In September last year we suddenly went from an Article Wizard that was hopelessly full of TL;DR walls of text to a dramatically over simplified iteration that users just click through without bothering to read anything at all. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:21, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

• It is clearly enforceable as we have fresh examples. Individual nominations can be closed per WP:SK, as Kudpung just did, and we can encourage more of this. Nominators who seem too trigger-happy can be warned and sanctioned if they don't improve and this might be encouraged too. And there's more that might be done to improve our tagging tools. I recall Uncle G explaining that AfD was originally made an onerous process so that it would not be used too lightly. Twinkle then subverted this design by automating the steps required. But the trouble is that Twinkle doesn't also facilitate or encourage the steps listed in WP:BEFORE. Nominating a page for deletion is now much easier than researching the topic, improving it or suggesting merger or discussion on the talk page. AfD then gets used in a casual manner like speedy deletion; as a first step rather than a last resort. Twinkle could be improved with a checklist of steps taken and then it could list these in its nomination format so that it would be clearer what had or hadn't been done by the nominator. Andrew D. (talk) 10:51, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Editors who continue to abuse WP:Before after warning could be banned from making further AfD nominations under WP:Competence is required. Xxanthippe (talk) 12:34, 4 May 2018 (UTC).

Both good ideas (improving Twinkle and tbanning bad nominators) but neither is what was proposed here. Regards SoWhy 12:56, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Correct, SoWhy, but as IMO 'Give WP:BEFORE some teeth' is not the best solution to an existing problem, because improving the process software and demanding competence from the patrollers are the underlying causes, it is appropriate mention them here as reasons to oppose the proposal. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:21, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate DESiegel's concerns, and I certainly agree that AfD is too frequently abused, but IMO, his suggestion of giving BEFORE more teeth is not addressing the issue from the best angle. In November 2016 we introduced a user right to limit the use use of the Curation tool to accredited users. However, the community insisted that inexperienced users and newbies could continue to practice their MMORPG skills from the Twinkle platform. No one wants to scold editors for doing what they think is in good faith, and they could be open to being educated, but rather than let them do it in the first place, a filter could limit the use of PROD, CSD, and AfD in Twinkle to qualified 500/90 users (the required qualification for Page Curation).

Anyone can revert a misplaced PROD or CSD, but cancelling an AfD early once it's started is not such an easy matter - except in the case where as Andrew Davidson observes, a couple of users have voted Speedy Keep. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:11, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment One of the problems is editors who rapidly nominate a large number of unconnected articles on the basis of notability and then claim to have performed extensive searches for reliable sources when it is obvious that it would not have been possible in the timeframe. Other editors will then believe that the nominator has extensively searched and so won't bother to do more than a very quick search or none at all and articles that are or might be notable are unfairly deleted. Where the nomination is not about notability but about something else such as WP:PROMO or WP:BLP1E then thats fair enough, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 14:52, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

@Atlantic306: The guidelines on this page are subordinate to WP:AGF: if you can find evidence that this or that individual editor has repeatedly lied about having done source-searches ("timing" is not adequate evidence -- maybe they did a bunch of searches and then nominated all the ones that failed at the same time) for topics where a basic search would have come up fruitful, then you should report them for abuse of AFD; we can't write the guidelines for AFD based on the assumption that such editors are the rule rather than the exception. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:29, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

The guidelines for AfD do not need to assume that such behaviour is the rule. They just need to make it more difficult (which is not the same thing). AGF applies to the actual behaviour of individuals, not the in which guidelines are framed. James500 (talk) 08:09, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

That seems like a fairly unique/idiosyncratic interpretation of the policy, and I've never seen it invoked in my 10+ years on Wikipedia. It is, simply put, not acceptable for a guideline or a set of process instructions to assume bad faith on the part of the Wikipedia editors utilizing it, and the only time I've seen such things pass was through sneaky abuse of subpages so that no one noticed for almost a year. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:41, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

The existence of the policy Wikipedia:Vandalism suggests your interpretation of AGF is mistaken, as WP:VANDAL is entirely and explicitly concerned with the prevention of bad faith editing, and assumes that bad faith editing has taken place in the past and is likely to take place in the future. Likewise criteria 2 of the guideline Wikipedia:Speedy Keep expressly applies to nominations that are "unquestionably made for the purposes of vandalism or disruption", and assumes that such nominations have taken place in the past and are likely to take place in the future. As far as I am aware AGF does not require us to assume that vandalism by way of bad faith AfD nominations is impossible or even unlikely. In ten years here, I have never seen the argument that we should assume that vandalism by way of malicious AfD nomination is impossible invoked before. What I have seen are endless assertions that AGF is not a suicide pact. James500 (talk) 06:48, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

There's a massive, very obvious difference between a policy specifically addressing bad-faith behaviour and explaining how to deal with it and a process page assuming bad faith on the part of the Wikipedians utilizing the process. Red herring much? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:53, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment the most obvious examples are where a nomination is for notability when there are already prior to nomination multiple reliable sources with significant coverage present in the article. This happens quite often so perhaps there should be an admin looking at all new AFDs and speedily closing those that are obviously notable as they stand and save time at AFD where keep would be the obvious result, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 20:59, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
• Abuse of WP:Before. Here is another scandalous example. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:34, 16 May 2018 (UTC).

• Is it just me, or are we focusing on the wrong thing here because of violently "anti-deletion" editors trying to make all deletion about notability and then arguing against a strawman? In the last four months, I have not seen a single instance of BEFORE being invoked when the main concern actually was notability and the problem actually was that a preliminary check for sources should have been performed, but I've seen several instances where the problem was that the article actually should have been speedy-deleted for copyvio reasons but this wasn't noticed until after the AFD was opened for whatever reason. Given the legal ramifications, it seems like plagiarism would be the bigger concern than notability. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:50, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  • NPP reviewers are supposed to check for copyvio but not all do, Ive spotted a few at AFD in the past and put a G12 on them, so perhaps someone could volunteer to use the earwig tool on every day's AFD noms as it would save time if they are copyvios, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 21:36, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Removing inappropriate articles created by the lazy, the ignorant or the inexperienced is already almost impossible. Agree with User:Kudpung and User:Hijiri88. Deb (talk) 08:39, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. There are several AfD regulars (who should know better) who routinely nominate clearly-notable but badly-written articles, or repeatedly make comments that amount to "delete, just not notable" without even taking the effort to tailor their comments to the claims of notability in the article and why they should be discounted. In some of the more egregious cases I've seen editors make a carefully written nomination that focuses on the single least-notable aspect of the subject, argues that the subject should be deleted because that aspect is not enough to make the subject non-notable, ignores all the other more notable aspects, and hope to attract more like-minded people to chime in with their agreement that that aspect is indeed non-notable. (I could provide examples, but I think it would not help this discussion to do so.) This is not a healthy dynamic and it would be good if something could be done to rein those people in. All that said, I don't think this proposal is likely to do anything to discourage the people who do this, nor to improve the deletion process. Instead, it seems likely to cause good nominations of non-notable subjects to get closed on technicalities, and further inflame feelings between the deletionists (who would see this as another obstacle to cleaning out all the cruft and spam) and the inclusionists (who would be more inclined than before to make bad-faith accusations of nominators for not making that extra effort to see the notability of their targets). —David Eppstein (talk) 05:35, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi, can someone please fix the AFD for this page, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 20:05, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done. ansh666 22:57, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

This page Toffael Rashid seems to be a resume. I have added a tag for deletion but not sure what else needs to happen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.33.124.252 (talk) 02:58, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

You need to supply a reason why you think this article should be deleted. Is "seems to be a resume" a full statement of your reason? Thincat (talk) 09:28, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Can you nominate List of national capitals in alphabetical order for deletion? My reason for deletion is in List of countries by national capital, largest and second-largest cities, there is a table with capitals in it and can be sorted in alphabetical order. --2601:183:101:58D0:9C15:8D0B:3367:7B21 (talk) 16:43, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of national capitals in alphabetical order. Thanks, ansh666 18:24, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I wish to nominate the article Private sector involvement for deletion. Per the instructions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to contribute, I have completed stage 1, and now need someone else to complete the remaining parts of the process. Per instructions, I have posted the reasons for nomination on Talk:Private sector involvement. Thanks in advance, 21:18, 12 June 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.197.65 (talk)

 Done, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Private sector involvement. Thanks, ansh666 21:29, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks again. 86.147.197.65 (talk) 23:44, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Time to close?

This discussion seems to have petered out. I think it would be useful to have a formal close so that Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Redirection, WP:BLAR, and WP:SK, can be updated accordingly. As it stands they have conflicting advice on this issue. – Joe (talk) 07:15, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

@Joe Roe: The above comment is bordering on disruptive. You well know, as I explained to you several times, that the above was not a formal proposal or anything of the sort, so requesting a "formal close" in order to update the policy accordingly is ... well, it would look like a good-faith mistake if I hadn't already painstakingly clarified for you. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:19, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Meh. Your intention may not have been to make a formal proposal, but it kind of did turn into one. ansh666 08:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Seriously? Asking somebody to close a discussion is disruptive? What harm could possibly come from it? You may not have intended this as an RfC on whether AfD should be used for redirects, but that is what it turned into. 20+ editors other than yourself participated and I think it will be useful to summarise the consensus (if there is one) on this ambiguity. – Joe (talk) 08:28, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Your first interaction with me consisted of you accusing me of "vandalism" for trying to premptively implement whatever proposal you thought I was making; I corrected you on both fronts and while you apologized for the vandalism bit you seemingly ignored the latter, and now several weeks later have repeated the latter, at roughly the same time as your accusing me of an AGF-violation for my having criticized another editor's repeated and unapologetic citing of fringe sources like Woodward, Carter Covell, etc. in order to push a POV that pages should not be deleted. It is really looking like you only apologized for the "rvv" thing because you thought you couldn't get away with it, but are happy not to retract benign-but-false accusations like the "premature implementation of proposal" bit (which you didn't retract, and repeated weeks later) or completely-inappropriate-but-unlikely-to-go-anywhere accusations like the ABF bit. That is disruptive, yes. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:05, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed and this addendum seems to have little to do with it. I'm sorry, but I'm really only interested in discussing matters relevant to the administration of this project. Your bruised ego is not one of them. – Joe (talk) 10:24, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I won't deny that ego might have something to do with it, but in my experience when editors engage in disruption, and then either refuse to apologize or actively deny they did anything wrong, that's a pretty good indicator that they'll do it again. Now, in neither of these two cases did you actually disrupt the administrative process in question (this closed against you, the other will likely close the way you want it to because the OP was right on the substance but clumsy with the evidence and so it was doomed from the start), so I guess it doesn't matter that much, but in the future it might. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:22, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I proposed that Self-sustainability and Self-sufficiency be merged 2 months ago. There was no response within those 2 months. Should I nominate one of them for deletion and have one redirect to the other? --2601:183:101:58D0:1119:4FFF:1508:1FCA (talk) 16:48, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Since nobody has objected, feel free to perform the merge yourself. Neither of the articles need to be deleted. Just pick which one has the more appropriate title, copy the content from the other one into it (being sure to say where it came from in the edit summary), and then set up the redirect. Adding {{merged-from}} and {{merged-to}} templates to the respective talk pages is also a good idea. See Wikipedia:Merging for more information. – Joe (talk) 10:37, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't know how to do the merge. Can you have someone else do it? --2601:183:101:58D0:80D9:BD88:1B03:AE8D (talk) 12:56, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done See this. I didn't copy the links from the see also section since I am not sure all of them are really relevant, you might want to check that if you feel some are appropriate enough. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 01:46, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:BUNDLE AfD request, per following:

• Vector Prime (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Dark Tide: Onslaught (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• and every other book listed in the "Novels" and "e-Books" sections of Template:New Jedi Order series

None of the sources seem to be independent (i.e. Star Wars website) or significant (a database). A google search reveals plenty of sales websites, but again nothing significant. Given that WP isn't a fansite, that all of this seems to be based primarily on the books themselves (WP:PRIMARY), and that the situation is the same for every single one of the books, I contend that all of these articles should be deleted, since WP isn't the proper place for this (rather, try Wookieepedia, where there are already articles for all of these...) and they fail WP:NBOOK. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 19:31, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• Too many for one AFD Atlantic306 (talk) 20:17, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• Agreed, that's probably too many articles for a single AfD, since each one could be individually notable. Bundles are usually best where the notability of the nominated articles are tied to each other. ansh666 20:22, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@Ansh666:@Atlantic306:Could we nominate then only the first one and see what happens with it? Or, nominate each one individually (despite the hassle that would be...). 198.84.253.202 (talk) 21:34, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Combination of both. It'd be best to do one or two first and see how those go, then after that you can nominate the rest one by one, referencing the first discussion(s) - do a few every day to not overwhelm AfD at once. Of course, I strongly suggest that you register an account to make things easier for everyone (and if anyone gives you any grief about the nominations over being a new account, point to this discussion), though of course we can't force you to. ansh666 22:49, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neighbourhoods of Ciudad del Este does not have the proper headers and its transclusion makes it look like part of the nomination above it. SpinningSpark 16:05, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I think I've fixed it. Sarahj2107 (talk) 16:13, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

There's an interesting discussion going on at DRV. The gist is that the AfD had gotten as far as there being clear consensus not to delete, but had not yet zeroed in on whether to redirect, rename, keep, etc. One camp is saying that since we got as far as do not delete, AfD had done its job and the rest of the details could get hashed out on article talk pages. The other camp says since we hadn't yet figured out all of the details, the AfD should have been relisted so the discussion could continue there.

I'm not looking to rehash this particular AfD. Rather, I'm asking a broader question. Is it OK to close an AfD discussion once you know it's not going to get deleted, even if the final outcome isn't clear? That's generally been my practice, but there are some cogent arguments made in the DRV that it's not the best practice. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:43, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

If an AFD is closed redirect there is sometimes opposition to the article later being recreated, based on the supposed authority of the AFD. So the closer's statement should be rather clear about what the AFD supported (as it was in the case being discussed). AFD is not a good way of discussing how to handle a group of closely related articles. It was best to close as soon as possible suggesting (or even initiating?) handing over to talk page discussion with notifications on the other talk pages. Thincat (talk) 06:36, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

The consensus at the AfD is a bit more specific than not to delete the article. There's agreement that the article should be merged with/redirected to another article, the only question is which article should be merged into which one. AfD isn't a great place to have that discussion and you certainly wouldn't go there if you wanted to propose such a thing. Hut 8.5 06:46, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

What I think AfD should always be absolutely clear about is whether the information in the page is to be WP:PRESERVEd. Whether or not the article subsequently gets merged and where to is a secondary issue. Too often a close of "keep with no hindrance to editors deciding to redirect" is taken by opponents of the page to achieve deletion by redirect without merging anything. SpinningSpark 16:19, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello everyone. User:Scutterfly says she is the aforementioned academic and she wants her article deleted. I told her to take it here but she was confused. Would someone please show her the ropes to nominate the article? ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 13:45, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi everyone, firstly, I am male, not female (it's in the article I want deleted). Secondly - and please don't take this the wrong way because I respect what you all do - I don't want to be shown the ropes. I don't want a crash course in how to edit wiki articles or navigate the processes because I'd rather leave that to the experts, I just need someone to put the article in the queue for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scutterfly (talk • contribs) 13:53, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Greetings, all. In this AfD, an editor copied and pasted comments made elsewhere by other editors onto the AfD page. The result was that the AfD falsely contains suggestions never actually made there. I find such practice to be highly irregular and very counter-productive, no matter what the intentions of the copyist or the justification might be, e.g. "I'm just helping out these newbies." If allowed, such practice could lead to chaotic controversies, easily imagined. I suggest that it is explicitly forbidden, through adding the necessary text to WP:AFDEQ and/or WP:DISCUSSAFD.

Does anyone agree with this? -The Gnome (talk) 07:54, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

• By posting on Wikipedia, you agree that your comments can be freely reused, as long as you are attributed. You may like to be more careful with what you write. Or you may like to go to the AfD to clarify your meaning. Ideally, perhaps it should be a rule, when someone copies your comment, they should WP:ping you. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:24, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

There is something slightly but importantly wrong with your argument. When I attribute a text to the editor who wrote it, it is absolutely clear that I am copying someone else's text. E.g. "As User X wrote, etc". That's attribution. It is me who's signing that. But writing text as if the writing was done by the original editor and signing it by that other editor is a very different thing! It's not at all a question of being "careful with what we write," but, rather, a question of context. A comment made by an editor may mean something quite different or point to a different direction when placed out of the original context. This would be a very dangerous path to take, if we allow it. -The Gnome (talk) 08:57, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

• Don't see anything wrong with the copying itself. The comments that were moved were clearly meant for the main discussion page (they were moved from the discussion's talk page), and there's no attribution problems since the edit summary mentions where they were copied from. The only suggestions I'd make for Curb Safe Charmer or anyone else, should the situation arise again: add a note in the discussion saying that you moved the comments from somewhere else; perhaps put them in a {{ctop}} to set them apart, possibly with parameter "|collapse=no" so that they're not automatically hidden; and, as SmokeyJoe suggests, ping the people whose edits you moved. ansh666 08:32, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, this time the copying was made from a rather similar context and was made with probably good intentions. But this is a Pandora's box we're dealing with. Since Wikipedia policy is very strongly against interfering with other editors' comments (to the point where we're not allowed to fix even the orthography!), how can a wholesale use of comments, selectively and potentially out of context, be allowed? The practice is equivalent to a forged signature. Users are not obliged to be checking the History of the page every time they visit it! -The Gnome (talk) 08:57, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

P.S. Agree with the ping suggestion, which is the least a copyist should do. -The Gnome (talk) 08:57, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

While in ideal terms, the copier should both put a note on the copied text noting where the comment was copied from and alert the copied user via ping or message on their talk page, the base concept of copying such a message is sound. These were comments clearly made for the AFD, just misplaced (one rarely actually needs to use the talk page of an AFD.) I myself have done similar with messages left in response to the AFD on the Talk page of the AFD, the Talk page of the article, and the Talk page of the AFD starter, because the users are clearly trying to involve themselves in the question of whether the article gets deleted, which is what AFD discussion is for. One does not need to be fully competent at Wikipeding to have something of value to offer in an AFD discussion. The editor was serving the goals of both the users they copied and of the project as a whole in doing what they did. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:45, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Fails WP:NMUSIC as I cannot locate significant coverage of this band; only source leads to the homepage of a blog website. 2601:589:8000:2ED0:3D42:EA06:7801:3CDD (talk) 23:50, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I think this article could even be WP:PRODded using this rationale. It's had a notability tag on it since 2010 and hasn't been improved since. clpo13_(talk) 00:01, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I went ahead and PRODded it. Iffy★Chat -- 09:15, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

If you create an AfD for a topic where references are more likely to be found in a language other than English, consider adding {{Find sources AFD}} with alternative names (including acronyms, translations and alternate-script versions of names) to your nomination. If someone can find references using {{Find sources AFD}}, then it may be possible to save the article. And if the Find sources searches in alternate languages don't find anything, then that fact is an argument in favor of deletion. You can also link to the corresponding article in other Wikipedias and argue whether those articles are evidence for or against notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:27, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

• This is a common issue, even within a single language like English, as there are often many forms for a topic name, due to synonyms, abbreviations and alternate spellings. For example, an article that I started – Queen Elizabeth's corgis – was recently renamed Royal corgis. Andrew D. (talk) 15:09, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Could you complete the process for this article? It is not notable and has no references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.13.143.6 (talk) 10:59, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I've set that up for you. Reyk _YO! 11:59, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Next time, use {{subst:afd2}} to create an AFD page, so that it's consistent with all the other AFD pages that appear in the log. Iffy★Chat -- 12:18, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi everybody,

I'm not quite sure I'm at the right place, if not, tell me where the discussion should be transfered. I'm currently a student at the CVUA and my coach is Hummerrocket. In my final exam before I graduate, I have to nominate an article for speedy deletion and quite frankly I struggle with it. I've tried to nominate two articles and each time my changes were reverted. I've also applied to be a new page reviewer and I was denied of the right because I have basically no experience with page moving and AFD and CSD. I would like to have some tips and tricks to master all of this. Regards. RafaelS1979 (talk) 23:28, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Who on earth sets exams to get people to speedy articles? What a bizarre idea - we are here to write an encyclopedia, not destroy one. In particular, since the permanent restriction of article creation to autoconfirmed users, the amount of eligible speedy candidates has gone right down. If somebody was forcing you to find an article to speedy at gunpoint, I'd suggest WP:CSD#G12 blatant copyvio candidates at NPP. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:31, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

This is part of WP:CVUA, see User:Hummerrocket/CVUA/RafaelS1979. ~ GB fan 23:39, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

It's theory in practice it seems. The question is "Correctly nominate one articles for speedy deletion; post the diffs of your nominations below." So if I understand, I should say to my coach that he can't ask me to speedy delete an article? RafaelS1979 (talk) 23:44, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Whaaaat?!?! -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:52, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I would say that a change in circumstances and policy means it's more difficult to find legitimate speedy candidates these days. Checking for copyvios is pretty straightforward though; add the line importScript("User:The Earwig/copyvios.js"); to Special:MyPage/common.js, then if you see a brand new article at Special:NewPages that looks fully formed and extensive, click on "Copyvio check" and confirm it hasn't just been copied and pasted from somewhere else. If it has, then tag it as {{db-copyvio}} and job done. (I'm not a fan of exams I'm afraid, I think J K Rowling said it much better in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix than I ever could....) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:53, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Could also find an expiring draft to tag G13, waste of time, but its a CSD! Monty₈₄₅ 23:56, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Fellow WP:CVUA instructor here. Yes, the CSD question is a relic of the pre-WP:ACTRIAL days when it was more common to find vandalism and other easy speedy deletion candidates at Special:NewPages. Nowadays, I'd agree that it's more difficult to find such candidates. As I understand, that CSD question was originally drafted by Callanecc, and it's part of a standardized set of training material we use as part of the training program: see User:Callanecc/CVUA/Tasks. It's probably time the speedy deletion section got updated to be more theoretical, i.e. "What would you do if you saw this article?". Mz7 (talk) 08:14, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Ok thanks Ritchie333 and [User:Mz7|Mz7]] for you explanations. RafaelS1979 (talk) 01:06, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Could you complete the process for this article? It is not notable and has no references.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.82.50.121 (talk • contribs)

• On quick search ISBN:0201604582 likes indicate WP:BEFORE not properly performed ... surely.Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:47, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done. For the record, unless a request like this would constitute vandalism, we usually go ahead and do it. Nomination is by no means equivalent to automatic deletion and the place to argue the point is at the AFD itself, not on this talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:50, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

The article about Dan Backer should be removed I believe because the subject is not notable enough for a Wikipedia page. I cannot complete the process myself but have done step one and am posting here as per instructions so others can complete the process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GongSnack (talk • contribs) 18:16, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

• Done. @GongSnack: Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Backer Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:22, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bepi_Pezzulli — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:6A0E:D800:9162:76AD:6CBC:D32 (talk) 20:51, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

2Joules, who has been blocked as a sockpuppet, has created a number of AfD discussions, some of which (such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Furniture Choice) have some merit and may succeed. However, it seems counter-intuitive and against our normal practice to endorse or support the actions of a sockpuppet in any way. Could we not find a better way of handling this situation? One possibility might be to delete the discussion as G5, and immediately re-nominate with a ping to anyone who had already contributed to the previous page. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:55, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

@Justlettersandnumbers: It's covered by Speedy-Keep criterion #4: "The nominator is banned, so they are not supposed to edit. In that case, the nominated page is speedily kept while the nomination can be removed from the log, tagged with {{db-banned}} and speedily deleted as a banned contribution. However, if subsequent editors added substantive comments in good faith before the nominator's banned status was discovered, the nomination may not be speedily closed (though the nominator's opinion will be discounted in the closure decision)". Hope all's well! —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 12:07, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, Serial Number 54129, it's the second part of that I'm suggesting that we re-examine. If a blocked/banned editor makes a good edit, one way of dealing with it is to revert and then redo the edit – please see for example this sensible comment at ANI (about removals of BLP violations). I'm asking if there's any support for trying to establish a similar way of dealing with AfD nominations, that's all. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:47, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

What would be the point? The outcome the blocked editor wanted still happens; all you achieve is to annoy good-faith editors by making them repeat themselves. – Joe (talk) 15:02, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• • Oppose, such an action would effectively make the editor a meatpuppet carrying out the socks wishes, there are plenty of other articles to be considered without obeying a sock Atlantic306 (talk) 15:11, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
• WP:NOTBURO - if there are valid reasons for deletion and others have already agreed, just strike the sock comments and continue. The current text of SK4 strikes the only reasonable balance between disallowing banned editors and minimizing disruption to the AfD process. ansh666 18:53, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
• Agree per NOT:BURO which I didn't have the heart to mention would soundly tank such a proposal, earlier  :) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 19:04, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I got my answer. Anyone who wants to can close this as far as I'm concerned. I don't support or endorse edits by sockpuppets, per WP:DENY, so I won't be participating in any AfDs or other discussions created by one. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:17, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• FTR this discussion was just brought to my attention but I wish to note that over the last day or so I have proceduraly closed a number of nominations by this sock per WP:DENY. I believe it sets a potentially dangerous precedent to allow sock puppets to get away with nominating articles for deletion. All of the closes are w/o prejudice to a speedy renomination. That said if another admin believes that there should be an IAR exception here they can revert any of the closes. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:38, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

  @Ad Orientem: you mean, that there shouldn't be an IAR exception? What you did is explicitly not allowed by policy, and I'm going to revert all of them. ansh666 23:27, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi ansh. Yep. I stand corrected. SK4 (which I missed when reading the above) does cover this. FTR I don't like it but it's there in black and white and I should have known that upfront. Mea culpa mea culpa... No issue with your reverts. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:51, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

@Kudpung: Regarding this revert, I'm not entirely clear what you mean. I don't think the edit was a "bold change to policy" so much as a description of existing policy, as it already was backed by consensus, per this recent discussion. That's what I said in my edit summary -- am I missing something? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:52, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

That's different - the discussion determined that it was okay to recommend a redirect instead of deletion when nominating an article for AfD. It's perfectly fine to redirect a page without an AfD discussion, per WP:BOLD, which is what the text you removed is saying. ansh666 08:28, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Hijiri88, what Winged Blades of Godric fails to express in his albeit more or less accurate summation is that 'redirect' as an alternative to outright deletion, is a 'policy' at WP:ATD-R: There is a Yes clear numerical and policy-weighed(For one, the arguments about utilizing RFD is flat-out improper.)consensus that AfD is a right venue to seek for redirect(s), which have been challenged.The first attempt at redirection ought be directly attempted per our principles of being bold.Thankfully, There is a further explanation at WP:BLAR, a guideline which is based on that policy. I reverted you edit because it contravened the overriding policy. If you want consensus for your edit, you will first need to obtain consensus to change a long-standing policy. I don't really care either way and I will respect any policy changes, but I personally feel that an attempt to change that policy would be a solution looking for a problem. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:54, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Suppport Kudpung's revert, (which seems a no-brainer to me) and will entirely echo Ansh66. My closure basically established that utilizing an AFD for the explicit purpose of redirecting an article cannot be challenged on procedural grounds and that it is indeed better to use AfD to establish a redirect, after it has been challenged, per BRD. ∯WBG^converse 09:25, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

This person is attempting to delete his own Wiki page. His career was noteworthy prior to his arrest, confession and conviction for creating child pornography (among many other offences). He now repeatedly (under various screen names, easily traceable) deletes the section on his page regarding his crimes. He remains on the registered sex-offenders list for at least another 15 years.

He previously went by "Sandy" but now goes by "Xander"; these are both nicknames for Alexander but the change makes it difficult to search for the many news articles about his arrest and conviction.

If his career warranted a Wiki page prior to his crimes, is it permissible for him to request deletion of his page for no other reason than hiding his past? Thank you for any information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:35F4:DF40:99BC:9576:B9B8:23A3 (talk) 18:54, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

The Casual Playing is Not Notable in the term of Wikipedia. All casual releated site are not reliable, and for wikipedia this kind of game suck if we compared to Hardcore Playing. All user of Wikipedia Hate this kind of games. So all the casual games is not notable. So it's better to deleting all the Casual Games articles.72.10.135.251 (talk) 18:02, 30 July 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.10.135.251 (talk)

Yeah, no. That's not how it works, and pretty much blatantly untrue. ansh666 18:57, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Can you nominate these articles for deletion because they are non-notable schools? Thank you. --108.49.247.206 (talk) 16:44, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

The article for Sarah Begum should be deleted. It is clearly promotional in tone, the majority of statements are supported by two sources that are not reliable and those sources are what support any claims to pass GNG. Thanks Battleofalma (talk) 11:34, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done I've set that up for you. Reyk _YO! 11:56, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#What to do about user pages for unroutable and public DNS IP addresses?. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:16, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Recently a Wikipedia page devoted to Sarah Jeong was the center of a hot debate. Her biography was modified several times concerning her tweets dimmed racist. In a couple of hours, the paragraph talking about these numerous offending tweets was deleted then reinstated then deleted etc... it has become a joke and a bad publicity for Wikipedia since it clearly shows that the online encyclopedy is not immune to political bias. Other than this, there is absolutely no reason why a page should be dedicated to a person who didn't achieve some extraordinary goal or someone who is famous in her field, apart from her derogatory tweets. Which is certainly not a good reason to get her own Wikipedia page because it would mean hundreds of thousands of people should get the same personal page. This is why you should simply delete this page since it brings nothing new or important to the community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertdor (talk • contribs) 12:26, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

If you believe the article, Sarah Jeong, should be deleted you will need to follow the directions at WP:AFD and nominate it for deletion. ~ GB fan 12:52, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Noting that such a discussion would most likely result in a speedy keeping of the article Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:55, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

That discussion is already going on, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Jeong - you are welcome to join in.... although I suspect you'll find the argument that it's being edited a lot, therefor it doesn't belong on Wikipedia to be a weak one (oddly, someone in that discussion has already argued that it shouldn't be on Wikipedia because it hadn't been being edited a lot.) And hundreds of thousands of people do, in fact, have Wikipedia pages about them --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:16, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I have completed step I of the deletion process for this page and left a note on the talk page, please carry out the remainder of the process. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 17:18, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zechariah Seal. --Finngall ^talk 18:10, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! -165.234.252.11 (talk) 18:59, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:ROTM artist; no reliable sources present, current sources depict social media pages and interviews. 2601:589:8000:2ED0:FD68:8051:64AE:6F73 (talk) 16:57, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:09, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Firstly, apologies if incorrect location - I considered other venues and talk pages, but this still seemed most viable.

There are some !votes that indicate (for example) delete per A7.

Obviously this is a !vote that has been justified, but if the article in AfD has been nominated for that CSD and had it declined, recently, would that indicate that an unsuitable/insufficient justification has been provided? Interested in thoughts

Nosebagbear (talk) 10:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Since A7 is one of the most widely misinterpreted CSD it’s fair enough to disagree with a reviewer who declined a speedy. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:11, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Currently, if you're on an article's AfD page, as is the case post-edit, and you click on the hyperlink above "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion", it drops you back on the front page of AfD. I would say that in almost all circumstances, editors not leaving AfD entirely would prefer to return to the page they were on beforehand, the specific date's AfDs of that entry.

Thus two questions come to mind:

1) Am I boldly asserting an incorrect statement, and I am alone in preferring a return to the date's page?

2) Is it within our technical ability to alter the hyperlink to return the user to the article's AfD date page? I realise this would be more complicated than a link to a stationary page, but wondered on the level of complexity to resolve this.

As a note to "why not just back", this is fine for cases of clicking on an entry and not altering it, but backing through an edit page can cause problems.

Cheers

Nosebagbear (talk) 18:36, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

There's already a link. At the end of the first line with all the article links is another one that says "View log". That takes you back to the log that the AfD is transcluded on (the "View AfD" link takes you to the individual discussion page from a log, and so will be bolded when you're on the individual page). Not sure what happens if it's on multiple log pages, but that usually won't be an issue. ansh666 03:55, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

ansh - you are a star amongst editors. That is exactly what I was looking for. Not quite sure how I would have predicted that the link worked, but fine now that I know it's there. Many Thanks. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:18, 31 August 2018 (UTC)