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.

On the article DistrictBuilder, while doing new page patrol, I struggled with adding a speedy deletion tag. Ultimately, my decision was based on the contribution history of Undantag (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Basically, he had created his account a week before the article, did a bunch of copyedits in that week and then created the article with no edits and very proper Wiki style referencing and has made no further contributions. If this were a more established editor, I wouldn't have bother with the tag as the article has good form, some references and sounds like advertising but probably could be fixed with notable outside sourcing. I have no issue with removing the tag. My question is about whether other editors and admins think it is proper to take account history as a factor as I did to use a speedy tag. I don't want to bite newbies but I also am not an idiot with blinders. Is speedy tags appropriate for these cases? --DHeyward (talk) 21:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

That tag seems inappropriate, regardless of the editor's history. It's not completely an ad, by any means. Just read the tag you placed: "This article may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion because in its current form it serves only to promote an entity, person or product, and would require a fundamental rewrite in order to become encyclopedic. However, the mere fact that a company, organization, or product is an article's subject does not, on its own, qualify that article for deletion under this criterion. Nor does this criterion apply where substantial encyclopedic content would remain after removing the promotional material; in this case please remove the promotional material yourself, or add the

This article contains content that is written like an advertisement. Please help improve it by removing promotional content and inappropriate external links, and by adding encyclopedic content written from a neutral point of view. (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

tag to alert others to do so. See CSD G11." It seems a well written and referenced article, and while there is some promotional material in it (the Use seems a bit puffery), there isn't much. An awards section is perfectly fine. It is certainly not solely promotional, and would not require a fundamental rewrite. --GRuban (talk) 23:02, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

The referencesfor the software were marginal (e.g. on of the references claimed it came in second fr some award but actually, it was the open source software that won. Sort of like if the wiki model won a prize and wikipedia claimed it.) I don't know how close the seperate entities are to flag it as a real problem or a semantics issue but it certainly weighed in the thr decision. Suffice to say the sourcing looks better on the page than it does when reading them. --DHeyward (talk) 07:18, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I have nominated Chameleon (film). I can complete only step 1, because I'm unregistered. I want a registered, logged-in user to complete steps 2 and 3. 122.17.60.88 (talk) 12:53, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chameleon (film). Hut 8.5 13:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I've just messed up my first attempt at completing an Afd submission (resolved by the helpdesk)

I failed at Step II

(Removed wording, see WP:AFDHOW)

It was that OR that did it for me.

I thought it meant do either the 1st 2 steps OR the 2nd 5 steps. You can guess the rest.

Is it worth rethinking the wording?

SimonBramfitt (talk) 05:12, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I removed the stuff you had as it is acting like this is a page nominated for deletion, and replaced it with a link. CTF83! 05:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Can a user withdraw his/her proposal for an article to delete? Even if in the discussion many users have expressed their opinion? And what happens in this case? There is any provision in the policy about that? Xaris333 (talk) 17:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• As per the deletion guideline WP:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions, nominators are within the guidelines to close an AfD, "if you are closing your own withdrawn nomination as a speedy keep and all other viewpoints expressed were for keep as well."  Unscintillating (talk) 23:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

So, if i decided that my proposal is wrong and i decide to withdraw it, the administrators must close the discussion? Or, they can decide that the discussion must go on? Xaris333 (talk) 01:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

The nominator can always withdraw the nomination, just like any participant can revise their !vote.  The nominator can close the discussion as a "Speedy keep" in some cases, but not in all cases.  In the current cases being considered, the closer should either have noted that the nomination was "withdrawn" and closed as "Speedy keep", or asserted "Keep WP:IAR".  Administrators can reopen any non-admin closure.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Evening chaps. Could someone create an AfD page for Eterniti Motors- Cat O, reason "This article is based solely on recycled press releases from one 'concept car'. A stillborn 'tuner company' on which we lack reliable sources fails to meet any Wikipedia guidelines regarding notability". Cheers! 118.92.203.57 (talk) 21:05, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• • Done. Reyk _YO! 21:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Bonus points to the nominator for including a Category. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:38, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I am guessing that the non "article talk page" used is so a record of the discussion is retained after a deletion event. Maybe there is some administration/bureaucratic advantage. But is there an "official" reason posted anywhere? (And backed by a wide consensus?)

As a bit of transparency logic on my half... It appears to me that:

1. Just maybe this is a form of WP:CAN biased toward "contributors" that hang out in AfD.
   • (This is difficult to research as AfD has a scorched earth MO where even the history of the page is scorched, this makes it difficult to review (and appeal) an article's using content prior to execution.}
2. Taking the discussion away from the article is to (deliberately/accidentally) preclude input from actual article contributors that would (otherwise) have been watching the article's talk page.

Maybe it is time to:

• implement Selection by lot for AfD participant - this would eliminate hang outs.
• a lot would be valid for a month(quarter?) only.
• The lot is drawn from (maybe) the top 10% of active article contributors.

(Also for the record: I have been previously tagged "Troll?" by PKT(alk)

Leng T'che (talk) 00:42, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

You hit the nail on the head for why a separate page is used (for tracking old AFDs). But given that articles nominated for deletion get a big box on the top that points editors there, there's no need to call it out as a way of isolating the process from the article page. Plus Delsorting helps to attract wider numbers. --MASEM (t) 01:03, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

re: "Plus Delsorting helps to attract wider numbers.

I am not sure I agree with you here. AfD looks, more like a cul-de-sac to me. "Indeed posting there could be akin to canvassing for the Status Quo. e.g. Round up the usual suspects."

Besides, even if the article page is cut, then talk page can be retained.

Futhermore, even "articles nominated for deletion get a big box" then contributors that have selected "watch" on the article will only get one notice, and are forced to "opt-in" with watch on the AfD deleted discussion. This is a clear attempt at exclusion.

Leng T'che (talk) 02:59, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

DelSort is not canvassing, otherwise it would have been closed down long before. Nor is it what you think. --MASEM (t) 03:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

The funny thing is I had not even heard about Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting. Maybe the members of this club should identify themselves as such when they "contribute" in AfD. Note also that the DelSort members are self selecting. Statistically: self selecting samples are biased! Leng T'che (talk) 03:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

When AFDs are delsorted, whatever delsort lists the AFD is added to are listed in the AFD. It's pretty darn transparent. --MASEM (t) 04:02, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Yup. Can you offer any evidence whatsoever that Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting are doing anything improper - or are you in fact trolling, as your short contribution history might lead one to suspect? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:04, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Not just the delsorts, but who did the sorting and when. This is a volunteer project; everyone is "self selecting" what they do. VQuakr (talk) 04:08, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll repeat the question: Why are AFD discussions held on some subpage of WP:AFD, and not held on the article's talk page? Is there any valid reason? I ask this as someone who has been around for over 6 years, and has done extensive reading on the history of AFD. I look forward to hearing substantive reasons. - jc37 04:06, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

As for how the decision was arrived at, I've no idea - not been around that long. What would be the advantage of putting them on a page that was potentially about to be deleted though? And why should we make things more complex for those less familiar with deletion discussions by potentially including a lot of irrelevant material (the remainder of the talk page content) in a discussion? What is actually wrong with the way we do it now? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:12, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

If there is no reason to not change to the article talk page, then, due to our want for transparency, we should. requested move and merge and split discussions (and RfCs) all happen on talk pages, there is no reason I know why we can't have AfD discussions on talk pages as well.

And you touch on another interesting question: Is there any substantive reason that we delete talk pages of articles which have been deleted? One would think that keeping such talk pages might be helpful to those editors who might wish to create a new version of the page. If someone sees the discussed deficiencies of a previous version of a page, that can be learned from, one would hope.

So to repeat: Any substantive reason to not have the deletion discussion on the article's talk page? - jc37 04:21, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I could think of a lot of reasons. The question is what the advantage would be. AfD is a large complex sub-system of Wikipedia and trying to do it on the article talk page seems like trying to balance a boulder on top of a pebble. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 04:34, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

"a lot of reasons" - list them please.

"AfD is a large complex sub-system of Wikipedia..." - If I accepted that assertion (and I'm not sure I do) that's a reason to get rid of it per WP:NOTBURO. - jc37 04:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Isn't it more transparent that AfD discussions persist after the article is deleted, rather then having the deletion discussion deleted along with the page? Monty₈₄₅ 21:12, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

"Eliminate hang outs." Uh, no. People who regularly contribute to AfD often have a higher degree of rules expertise and very often make the most solid contributions towards saving articles from deletion. They often have access to the tools needed to research and find difficult sources such as commercial databases. We should be rewarding the "hang outs". AfD participation is already too low. Unless you are suggesting enforced participation like jury duty, we need and want the volunteer "hang outs". -- Green Cardamom (talk) 04:34, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

"People who regularly contribute to AfD often have a higher degree of rules expertise..." - I'm sorry, but I call that BS. We are all Wikipedians here. Discussion is open to the community. And those who edit a particular article should be considered those who might have some idea about the topic under discussion. Indeed, this is one of the main reasons we template the article to alert about the discussion. Remember, policy and guidelines are to reflect the community's wishes, not the other way round.

And we have all sorts of bots and del sorting to alert those same people you note. So that's still not a reason to not have the discussion on the article's talk page. - jc37 04:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I am defending what you call "AfD hang outs" which is a pejorative description, and your suggestion to change the system and implement a "selection by lot" to "eliminate" users. That is non-egalitarian because it banishes users who might otherwise wish to participate (vs. the current system does not prevent anyone from participation). You are also saying the regular editors of an article should be given some "consideration", which is again non-egalitarian, the current system does not give consideration to anyone, but everyone. In the end, your suggestions are non-egalitarian and attempting to shift power to the creators of articles who are not always that neutral when it comes to reviewing their own content. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 09:20, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

First, I think you are confusing me with the person who started the thread above.

That aside, I hope you do realise that AfD is merely a discussion page, and that it, like most discussion pages, is open to everyone. And that that doesn't change, regardless of venue. Talk of "shifting power" makes me nervous as it suggests that there is any power to shift. And this inclusive-ness you suggest is all the more reason to move such discussions away from being sub-pages of WP:AfD. If being here is in any way suggesting that editors are in any way unwelcome to contribute to the discussion, then it definitely should be deprecated. - jc37 10:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

The thing I see in AfD discussions is some people know the rules more than others, and knowledge of rules is an advantage, as it should be. Wikipedia is egalitarian, but it's also a meritocracy - we are fair, but not to the point of being equally stupid. Further, in the real world, people who write content don't peer review their own work! We allow it on Wikipedia, we even go out of our way to notify key content creators when an AfD is opened. My guess is if you go back to the early days of Wikipedia there were discussions about banning content creators from AfD discussions, since that is how the real world works, and that was perhaps when these discussions were moved off the article talk pages to a separate peer review process (just guessing). However, that doesn't mean the current process treats content creators as second class citizens or unfairly, just the opposite, it gives them an equal say which is unusually liberal compared to other peer review processes. In any case, no matter where the AfD discussion is held it is completely irrelevant to any of this. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:10, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that I have not yet seen a convincing argument why having the discussion on the article talk page would be better, there is also the problem that AfD discussions are transcluded on other pages (like the daily log, e.g. this one), where people can read multiple AfDs in a row and only edit those that interest them. Having AfDs as sections of existing talk pages would make that transclusion harder (impossible?). Plus the argument that when articles are deleted, their talk pages are deleted as well, which would be problematic if the AfD was located there. Fram (talk) 09:59, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Fram.

Openness and transparency to start with. And from reading just a few of the comments so far, ending the appearance that anyone is unwelcome, or has more or less of a status in a discussion.

And Wikipedia space is a foreign land to some editors. There's simply no reason why a discussion about an article shouldn't happen on that article's talk page.

And convenience of transclusion doesn't trump that, sorry. Especially since we don't worry about that for RfCs or requested moves/merges/splits/etc. Though obviously there are simple solutions to that, like includeonly and noinclude tags, or if absolutely necessary, merely making the afd a subpage of the article talk page like is sometimes done for proposals. - jc37 10:12, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, how does placing the AFD on the article's talkpage make it any more inclusive? I honestly can't see how linking to a discussion on the talkpage is noticably different to linking to a discussion at a dedicated AFD page. The user sees the notice at the top of the article (which specifically asks them to share their thoughts) and follows a link - how does it change their experience if that link leads to an AFD page instead of the article talkpage? How is it any more open and transparent?

The main difference I can see is that listing article AFD discussions on their respective talkpages would reduce the likelihood that the "hang-outs" (as you don't call them, but Leng Ch'e does) would participate - given that such editors tend to have a far better grasp of AFD-related policies (particularly the more obscure subsections of the notability guideline, but also Arguments to avoid and the various ways that WP:NOT can be interpreted), their absence would mean fewer sound arguments (and possibly more spurious ones), not to mention reducing participation overall (meaning fewer !votes and therefore far more "no consensus" closes). I suppose a notification system (similar to the Feedback Request Service) could mitigate this to an extent, but I still can't personally see any advantages to moving AFD discussions to talkpages. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:40, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with others here, I fail to see how having the discussion at the article talk page would increase openness and transparency in any way. And the difference with e.g. RfCs, moves, merges is that those don't end in the deletion of the page, and thus not in deletion of the talk page, while AfDs obviously often end in such a deletion. Fram (talk) 10:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines "The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page (accessible via the talk or discussion tab) is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject." IMHO: talking about the page at AfD is a form of "obfuscation" and potentially WP:CAN. It is also unfriendly to "fresh" contributors who watch just the article and then need to "opt in" to "watch" the AfD. Leng T'che (talk) 20:03, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

'talking about the page at AfD is a form of "obfuscation" and potentially WP:CAN'. Utter nonsense. Can I suggest that rather than making random misleading assertions about AfD discussions, spamming multiple template talk pages with nonsensical posts about how the "template defaces wikipedia articles", and generally making noises about how you think we should do things differently, you actually do something productive on Wikipeda? We are more likely to take note of genuine proposals from established contributors than from individuals who seem to delight in letting everyone know that they have already been described as 'a troll'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:18, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

It seems like it should be possible to transclude the AFD discussion into the talk page (similar to how the AFD discussions are transcluded into the list of AFDs), which would increase the visibility, and seem to satisfy both groups somewhat? As a possible feature enhancement, we could request that articles get marked as updated when something they transclude is updated, so watch lists are automatically notified? Or that similar to how if you watch a page, you automatically watch its talk page - add any AFD discussion into the auto-watch as well? Gaijin42 (talk) 20:26, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

If the goal is to increase user participation, send a notice to everyone on the article watchlist, via the watchlist mechanism, the same way page move notices are done (they are sticky ie. the notice stays in the watchlist even if later changes to the article are made), or the same way the SignPost sends out its notifications via watchlist. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:58, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this sounds like a good suggestion regardless of what else happens. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I thought of just transcluding the AfD onto the talk page as well, but the problem with that is that inexperienced editors may mistakenly add comments to the talk page, rather then the transcluded AfD discussion, those comments would then by missed by those participating through AfD. Monty₈₄₅ 21:09, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps a custom transclusion template that tries to make that a bit more obvious (colored box etc) Gaijin42 (talk) 21:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• Why would it be better to host the discussion on the article talk page (or a subpage thereof)? If it's done on the article talk page, then what happens if the article gets deleted at AfD? The article talk page will get deleted as well (via CSD G8) and therefore you'll no longer have a non-admin-accessible record of the discussion. If it's done on a subpage of the article (or a subpage of article talk), then there is no added benefit. It's still on a different page. You still have to click a link to get to it, just like you have to today. It's no more or less difficult to search for previous AfD's if you don't have a link to them (i.e. there's no difference between searching for "Talk:ArticleName/AfD" and "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ArticleName"). Also, if the article gets deleted, then there will be an orphaned subpage hanging around with no parent page. There are probably bots that go around and delete such orphaned subpages. The final reason for not changing the venue is that there are loads of bots and tools and scripts that depend on AfD's taking place where they do today. Changing the venue would require all of those bots and tools and scripts to be rewritten, which is a lot of work for no real benefit. Can we put this discussion to bed yet? ‑Scottywong| spill the beans _ 21:18, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Thats the purpose of my transclusion idea above, as none of that other work would need to be done, the AFD discussion would be preserved, but we would still get the increased visibility of the talk page. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

To answer the original question, AfDs were at one point in the dim and misty past carried out on talk pages. There may even still be some stray deletion discussions around on some very old talk pages where the article was kept. I wasn't around then, but I believe the stage after that was something called 'Votes for Deletion' (VfD), which was later renamed to 'Articles for Deletion' (AfD). VfD, I think, used to be all on a single page (like discussions of templates, redirects and categories still are), but was then switched to a page per discussion basis. If anyone really wants to dig into the history of all that, see Wikipedia:Archived deletion discussions/2005 (the transition from VfD to AfD can be seen there) and also at the deletion discussions in page history bit for the pre-2004 history. For an example of old discussions held on article talk pages, see Talk:Engelsism. See also some of the red-links at Wikipedia:Archived deletion discussions/2003#December 2003 for more examples. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ambition seems to be an example of a debate that was moves from a talk page archive (I'm not 100% sure about that). That should give an idea of how things worked back then. Carcharoth (talk) 00:58, 13 December 2012 (UTC) To pick up on Scottywong's bit here: "Also, if the article gets deleted, then there will be an orphaned subpage hanging around with no parent page. There are probably bots that go around and delete such orphaned subpages." That is exactly what did happen. There was a big tidying up of those orphaned subpages at one point, though I don't think all of them were caught. Has all this history really been forgotten?

There are many disadvantages with a talk page discussion and some of them haven't even been mentioned yet. It already seems clear the idea lacks support so rather than beating a dead horse, let me offer a suggestion for one of the concerns of the supporters: Post the AfD banner to both the article and the talk page. Talk pages of articles at AfD are rarely edited so the nomination edit will not be replaced by other edits for users only displaying the most recent edit on their watchlist. And if the talk page is actually edited afterwards then the edit summary will often reveal a deletion has been proposed. The banner will also take care of cases where interested users view the talk page without discovering the article is at AfD, although that may be rare. I don't think nominators should be required to do the double tagging (AfD nominations are already hard enough for many users), but a bot could check for it. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:08, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

• @ PrimeHunter|, with all due respect, I do not agree with your above statement that this proposal clearly lacks support. Ottawahitech (talk) 20:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

This is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit

Ok, so I've read and re-read the above.

And I think you all seem to have forgotten something.

This is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit.

Not just editors who we think may have read some policy pages, or who may be more experienced with how some bureaucratic venue that has been built up over time currently operates.

We do not disenfranchise anyone from a discussion. That includes everyone from IPs to red linked accounts to the first time editor, through editors of various experience, and all the way to people like User:Jimbo Wales.

If you want to appraise some new editor of current consensus, current policy, or current common practice, in a discussion, then do so. But an editor's lack of knowing the vast miasm that is Wikipedia policy does NOT prevent them from commenting in a discussion. And if this venue in any way is supporting that perception. then this venue needs to be deprecated and deleted. Period.

There have been major discussions of late concerning editor retention, and you all have the unmitigated gall to suggest that we should exclude content contributing editors from any discussion, much less a deletion discussion? Seriously? I'm surprised that content editors aren't screaming at that suggestion right now.

I suggest that you all acquaint yourselves with a bit of Wikipedia policy and precedent. Wikipedia:Esperanza comes immediately to mind. No venue may become closed off to any part of the community.

And as for the talk page deletion arguement, it's simple enough to deprecate that part of CSD. After all, originally it was supposed to be for talk pages of no content (or just merely having templates/banners). Deleting talk pages with substantive discussion simply does a disservice to editors. We don't delete user talk pages, why in the world do we delete article talk pages? Yes, we've all done it, mindlessly following "per CSD". But that obviously should be changed.

And adding templates and/or transcluding discussions and other wiki-magic which can be a black box or unintelligible to some editors is simply not a solution. That to me just sounds like trying to come up with a way to protect a semi-walled garden.

Oh and bots exist to support the project, not the other way round. Every - Single - Bot - Is - Expendable. Period. If the bots are in any way assisting this violation of one of the most fundamental concepts of Wikipedia, then they should be shut down.

And RfC operates with bots from talk page discussions. there is simply zero reason that AfD cannot happen that way.

Deletion discussions are just that: discussions. The community in total is welcome to come discuss. Everyone.

And if anyone comes and says that AfD is that open, I will point them to the comments above which clearly show that that is not the case.

Or to put it another way, AfD is condemned by your own words.

I haven't decided yet whether this will be an MfD or an RfC, but I've started writing it.

AfD is violating fundamental policy in several ways (WP:NOT in particular in several ways), and apparently it's time it was deprecated. - jc37 04:09, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

A simple question. Is it the AfD process you are objecting to, or the fact that articles are deleted? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

A simple answer: Neither.

It's clearly the venue, and the mechanisms (and apparently the exclusive mentality) which have grown up around this venue which seem to be the problem.

We can have an "articles for deletion" process. It just should take place on an article's talk page. - jc37 05:43, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

AFD is open, since AFD pages are just like any other mainspace wikipage - any editor - including IPs - can edit. The complaints about are more about notification and visibility, but as been argued there are advantages and disadvantages to all available methods, and the current way it is done is the choice of community consensus. --MASEM (t) 04:37, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but no, I do not see any advantages AfD has over a discussion directly on the article talk page. If anything, the further we get away from the article, the more we disenfranchise. - jc37 05:43, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

There is no disenfranchisment with the current system. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:04, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I guess I just don't understand what the perceived benefit is for switching discussions to the article talk page. Is there any actual evidence that suggests that an article talk page discussion is more visible or more accessible than a giant red banner at the top of the article with a link to a page that is devoted to a singular deletion discussion? Why would we want to force new editors to wade through a jungle of threads on the article talk page to find the latest deletion thread and then figure out how to contribute to it? Why should we be forced to search through talk page archives (which can be comprised of dozens of pages in some cases) to find previous deletion discussions, rather than just looking at the nifty "Previous AfD's" template on every current AfD? Is there any objective evidence that there is a problem with the current process, or is this just a solution to a problem that doesn't exist? ‑Scottywong| verbalize _ 06:05, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes actually. I believe they've been doing research concerning the learning curve to edit here. (For example, the various things that okeyes has been working on lately.)

So consider this. You're a new editor. you've learned to click a tab at the top of the page to edit. And after being reverted (as sometimes happens) someone explains to click on the talk tab, and edit that to discuss.

Compare that to the complexity of project processes. A big template may seem obvious to you, but it can look like greek to a newbie.

And there are those who think project space is like the "employees only" back room of a business, and aren't sure if they are allowed to comment, and are often afraid to ask.

And this, without getting into the nonsense I just read above about suggesting we should want to draw more of one kind of editor and less of another.

We teach new editors that discussions concerning an article happen on that article's talk page. We should stay consistent to that understanding. - jc37 10:22, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Jc37: "...you all have the unmitigated gall to suggest that we should exclude content contributing editors from any discussion, much less a deletion discussion?" I don't see where anyone suggested that. You appear to be making two assumptions in your arguments above, which I don't think are justified: firstly, that new editors are unable to find AFD, and secondly, that AFD is in some way an elitist cabal dedicated to excluding any editor who isn't steeped in its arcane law. I dispute both of these premises.

Firstly, I don't believe that new editors have any trouble reading a (very prominent) template message on the page they want to edit and clicking on the link which said message actively tells them to use. The very fact that we have to have - and regularly use - ((notavote)) and ((spa)) at deletion discussions speaks to the fact that new users quite capable of locating and contributing to AFD discussions; indeed, sometimes its their sole reason for being here. You say that we "...teach new editors that discussions... happen on that article's talk page", but if we have to teach them that, is it really so much effort to explain that deletion discussions happen at AFD?

Secondly, yes: there are rules to follow in AFD discussions, which contributors need to know. These can be found with minimal effort, but even if transgressed, all that happens is that the editor is advised of their error and pointed to the guidelines; exactly the same thing happens when someone adds unverified information, posts an article of dubious notability, or starts an edit war. Experienced editors are readily available to help out at AFD, just as they are in other areas of the project, and just as in other areas, can advise new users of the policies they need to know.

I didn't intend to end up writing more than a couple of sentences here, so apologies for the diatribe, but I take issue with your implied assumption that newer editors are either too incompetent or too cowed to participate at AFD: I believe they aren't. Most of all, I dispute your suggestion that we're all out to exclude new editors; on a project where universal participation is taken as a core philosophy, that's just offensive. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:52, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I should clarify. When I said "you all", I was referring to those making such assertions.

To just refer to your comments:

• "The main difference I can see is that listing article AFD discussions on their respective talkpages would reduce the likelihood that the "hang-outs" (as you don't call them, but Leng Ch'e does) would participate - given that such editors tend to have a far better grasp of AFD-related policies (particularly the more obscure subsections of the notability guideline, but also Arguments to avoid and the various ways that WP:NOT can be interpreted), their absence would mean fewer sound arguments (and possibly more spurious ones), not to mention reducing participation overall (meaning fewer !votes and therefore far more "no consensus" closes)."

You aren't the only one to express this idea, but you speak of offensive, I find this idea to be contrary and offensive to the sensibilities of anyone can edit. We should never look to have any discussion process to be such. Never. If you want more informed commenters, inform them. don't try to exclude them. And the idea that that leads to closes that you don't like sounds an awful lot like suppression. And suggesting it's better because of this, is not just offensive, it's repugnant.

I'm sorry if that offends you. But we are an open community, where we are all Wikipedians here. Everyone is welcome. - jc37 11:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) response to Jc37Deep breath - this is getting a little more heated than I'd like. Looking again at my comment that you've quoted above, I can see how you might read it like that, so fair enough; I withdraw my offendedness. Let me see if I can explain my thinking in more unambiguous terms (without writing a dissertation...)

The best way I've always found to inform new editors about AFD is - surprise! - at AFD discussions. For that reason, we need experienced contributors there, and the concern I was trying (and apparently failing) to express is that moving the discussions to article talkpages would lessen the likelihood of such editors stumbling across them. Wherever the deletion debates take place, the same policies will apply - is it more sensible to have the discussion in a venue where there are contributors who know these policies, or on a talkpage where such contributors are likely to be absent? Guiding new editors through the labyrinth of notability guidelines and what-Wikipedia-isn'ts is more easily accomplished at a page frequented by editors who've studied the deletion policies and sub-policies (and guidelines, and hell, essays; they get linked pretty often too).

I don't have any particular problem with No Consensus closes when it's evident that both sides have equally valid arguments, but most NCs occur because there aren't enough participants - one keep, one weak delete and three relistings isn't enough of a discussion to close as anything else. In such cases, I'd far rather see more participation than less, and I'm concerned that the talkpages of potentially deletable articles (which are generally fairly rarely frequented) will remain almost unnoticed by anyone other than the page's creator (obviously a Keep !vote) and the AFD nominator.

I hope that clarifies my position somewaht. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:42, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I dunno about heated, but when addressing our fundamentals here: This project is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit; WP:NPOV; WP:IAR; WP:CON; These are where you'll find my full-throated support.

Once upon a time this project operated without a Wikipedia namespace. Did you know that? Basic policies were listed at meta, and all discussions happened on talk pages. This encyclopedia project would still be a project even if we were to remove the Wikipedia namespace, remove all bots, all categories, even all redirects and templates. Would it be less easy to navigate? yes. But none of these are mandatory for the project. All we need is mainspace, and a talk space to discuss. (Once upon a time, even discussion was in mainspace, but that's before even my time as a reader.)

As for attracting policy-knowledgeable editors to deletion discussions, that doesn't need to change. Merely adjust the bots, adjust the templates. That big afd template and the template placed at the top of the discussion are what do most of the notification work, placing discussions in categories, which bots can then develop notification lists from (there are other things too, obviously). It's merely changing the target link from "some subpage of AFD" to the article talk page.

And keeping a separate venue just for the sake of the entrenchment that has built up would seem to me to be another good reason to ditch the separate venue. - jc37 12:07, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

AfD are well placed on a page separate to the article talk page because the talk page is meant for article improvement and AfD is not.

Merge and rename discussions belong on the talk page because they relate directly to article content. Deletion discussions are not directly about the content, they are meta discussions about the subject/topic, and whether the subject/topic belongs or not, in absolute terms.

The AfD tag on the article is good. An additional article talk page notification of the AfD might be a good idea.

I don't think much of DELSORT. To improve ease of access to AfD discussions, I wish someone could get User:Dragons_flight/AFD_summary or User:ArkyBot/AFD summary working again. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:31, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with SmokeyJoe. I don't see any objective evidence that new users are unable to comprehend that deletion discussions happen on a different page. I also strongly disagree that having those discussions on the article talk page would make them more accessible and easier to contribute to. In fact, I believe it would make them harder to find for the average new user, since there might also be 25 other threads on the same talk page. If this goes to RfC or MfD, I would strongly oppose it. ‑Scottywong| confer _ 16:50, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, you'll likely have that opportunity. But for now, I am working on a few other RfCs first. - jc37 14:28, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

While you have the right to open an RfC on this, one can wonder whether it isn't a waste of everybodies time when the above discussion has a lot of people disagreeing with you, and at first glance only one agreeing. Starting an RfC without at least a reasonable chance of success seems useless. Fram (talk) 14:50, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm amazed to see this discussion still going, honestly - consensus seemed clear that this idea did not have the necessary support to move forward. But since we're still here, I have to ask why a page with a bunch of unrelated discussions would be less insular and less arcane to a new editor than a page with no unrelated discussions and an extra "Wikipedia:" in the title. There are articles I won't touch because discussion at the talk page is entirely populated by dedicated editors of that subject and their detractors/opponents/whatever. Try putting a deletion debate there! Good lord man, move and merge discussions are contentious enough, and you want to throw deletion debates into that mix? I don't see how, logistically, such discussion could take place, nor how consensus would reliably be judged in such a setting - too much noise, not enough signal, so to speak. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

However having the discussion/debate on a page's regular talk page may reduce the number of Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion discussions ("but most NCs occur because there aren't enough participants") and "no consensus" closes.

Also it seems strange to me to move the delete discussion "elsewhere" (from the article talk_page to AfD) simply to avert a possible keep vote by the actual page's editors.

Leng T'che (talk) 19:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

You've been fooled.

Honestly, people, you don't half miss the glaringly obvious. Someone is outright saying "I've been labelled a troll." when trolling you. Go and read what's in Special:Contributions/Leng T'che. If there's a grenade to be thrown into a discussion, that person has thrown it, including a failed attempt to get people to rise to the bait here. I've just had to point out similar pot-stirring at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 December 10#Hansard of the Sarawak.

And no, the history hasn't been forgotten totally, Carcharoth. I am the person who moved VFD to AFD, and who went looking for orphaned deletion discussions on talk pages. ☺

Uncle G (talk) 20:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

We await the histories that will be written on this... :-) (failing that, a link to the right point in the archives would be a great help). I'm sure it has been mentioned as a key moment in altering the mindset from voting to !voting (supposedly). Carcharoth (talk) 00:11, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

In a serious manner, I would actually encourage someone to make a page documenting the history of the AFD process. We have a similar one for NFC and it has helped point confused editors on its original, and a process like AFD is just as contentious and could do with a similar set of pointers. --MASEM (t) 00:20, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually... no... You have not been fooled. The point of the original post was to highlight the notability of some articles in small (but notable realms) that are not notable as per WP:GNG. These notable relms articles are slow to evolve and may have few "connected" or "regular" contributors. So sadly these notable relms articles are "efficiently" "weeded out" by members of the AfD "hangout" who (may) have little to no grasp of the article topic core, and (in the case of Sarawak) may not even know which hemisphere the country is. I have seen many (arguably) great article stubs that fail the current WP:GNG policy slip through the gaps and purged with the AfD scorched earth policy (page, history and talk are purged).

Compare: I can draw a crude map of Sarawak, but I'd have little to no chance of doing the same with Nova Scotia. Indeed I suspect that there a more people can sketch a map of Sarawak, then can sketch a map of Nova Scotia. So which is more notable? In yet there is only a handful of articles about the governance of Sarawak and ad nausium articles about Nova Scotia {AND (for that matter) ad nausium articles on Pokemon Characters (649 to date)}.

SOMEONE needs to define and defend the "minor realms". Or at lest give these stub article a bit more time to mature.

The AfD hangout has a plethora of WP:RULES (100+pages) that boggle my mind, and so many rules that (apparently/allegedly) mostly only the members are "experienced enough" to understand (Lawyers/Barristers would be proud). Some of the members of the Afd hangout even have barn stars and brag bags on how many articles they have deleted to date, but sadly some appear to have little knowledge of the world as a whole.

I find many of the comments on Afd talk pages obtuse and distracting. At the moment I find Wikipedia:Canvassing is especially obnoxious as all delete requests are not done on the article talk page, but are diverted (away from the original contributors) to AfD talk pages. Not only is this ossification, but effectively the regular AfD crowd are being canvassed. (IMHO: the cry Wikipedia:Canvassing thus becomes a case of "The Pot calling the kettle black"). Worse still is the claim that the actual original article editors may not be notified/invited to AfD as this would be "Wikipedia:Canvassing"!!!

re: "I am the person who moved VFD to AFD, and who went looking for orphaned deletion discussions on talk pages."

Thank you for stepping up. Seriously... it looks like a mistake was made, especially as it left behind the contributors most likely to actually improve the article. Do you have a link to this ancient discussion? That way I can get a feeling for the original reasoning, and see if the impact of the move has ever been reviewed.

BTW: how did you find out about this current debate.... were you canvassed? (Note: this is not to say you sudden appearance is not welcome, just peculiar!)

Finally: I am outright saying "I've been labelled a troll", this because I am a bit tied of the name calling (and stalking) that goes on in AfD. There is a whole plethora of such "official" name calling used at the AfD hangout, these appear when (at the drop of a hat) when "someone" doesn't immediately get their way. Besides: If someone calls me a name, then it seems reasonable that I then have permission to take ownership of the name, just as the Yanks took ownership of Yankee Doodle.

Vote: Put the delete discussion back on the article talk page - that's my vote... Seems I am the first to vote.

Leng T'che (talk) 14:30, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not getting involved in the main topic being discussed here, but I feel I should remind you that polling is not a substitute for discussion. You are not the first to "vote" (and that term really shouldn't be used at all), as many opinions have already been expressed in this discussion. The merits of the arguments are what determines consensus, not vote-counting. jcgoble3 (talk) 18:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

• Rule 99 WP:VOTE & Rule 100 WP:POLL, maybe "The AfD hangout has a plethora of WP:RULES (100+pages) that boggle my mind, and so many rules that (apparently/allegedly) mostly only the members are "experienced enough" to understand"
• But consider a topical quote on WP:POLL: "Polls lead to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to... suffering. - WikiYoda" with topical example Syrian civil war. Maybe WikiYoda is right! :-/

Leng T'che (talk) 21:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

If you aren't a troll, I'd suggest that you either (a) do something constructive for Wikipedia, in accord with policy as it stands, rather than telling us that we've got it all wrong, or (b) be prepared to get blocked per WP:COMPETENCE or WP:NOTHERE. We don't change procedures and policies on the say-so of random individuals who show little evidence that they know what they are talking about. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:25, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough... I'll take some time and reconsider my position. (I still feel AfD is obtuse, but will desist from trying to justify it though debate. I also grow weary.) It may be reasonable to call my posts a WP:NTE (Near Troll Event). Please excuse my frustrations.

Note also: I like the quote you have on User:AndyTheGrump page... it is very recent too! (28 August 2012) i.e.

[1]

One important outcome for me is that "consensus" has challenges. However I can not bring to the table any (concrete) alternative suggestions. I can see why any important system must have it's checks and balances in place.

On the positive note: These discussions have led me to read the article about Athenian democracy. It records an assortment of methods the Athenians tried. IMHO: reasonable "Grist for the mill". Has Selection by lot (allotment) been trialled anywhere on wikipedia? (I'm not saying it will work, but I am curious)

(An aside: I note that Athenian democracy has been tagged: ((Refimprove|date=September 2009)) for some 3 years! My first impression is the actual article looks fine. I'll take the time to understand the article's specific issues and (if required) make a more appropriate wikipedia contribution with the long term view to slowly getting the Template:Refimprove removed.)

Thank you all for your (collective) patience - Leng T'che (talk) 02:11, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• History volunteer: Just coming across this discussion and am relieved to see there is no real movement to put AfD discussions on talk pages. It would be bad for many reasons sprinkled about above. But I saw MASEM's comment encouraging someone to create a page on the history of AfD, and I would be interested in doing that if one doesn't already exist. When I researched the history of high school AfDs a while back I was fascinated when tracking down VfD discussions from 2003-04, it was difficult because ones not manually moved had to be dragged out of old revisions to the Wikipedia:Votes for deletion page(s), and discussions would sometimes be closed with the close rationale in the edit summary[2]. Some of these old discussions can be found on talk pages (e.g., Talk:Kew_School), which they were manually transferred to from VfD. When 2004 dawned, Wikipedia had only 188,000 articles, so obviously it was a different smaller world, but the history can still be very interesting and informative. Discussions such as why the VfD discussion period went from 5 days to 7 days, and why people say "!vote", can reveal a lot.-Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes - a history page would be useful. Leng T'che (talk) 19:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I have marked the article on Andrew Wilson (criminologist) for deletion because the author does not seem to pass the notability test for academics, or for that matter the general notability tests. In particular, the article has no secondary sources and there is no evidence in the contents of the article that the author has made a significant impact within their discipline. The article has been marked for two-and-a-half years as failing the WP:ACADEMIC tests and no one appears to have added anything in that time that justifies retaining this article. That said, this is the first time I've nominated an article for deletion and it's only based on my reading of the two cited guidelines. Could someone please create an AfD page for this article?144.82.171.231 (talk) 18:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done jcgoble3 (talk) 18:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Should articles be given relevant project tags before being AfDed? In ictu oculi (talk) 10:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Deletion sorting tags AFD's into numerous broad category, including those that align with many Wikiprojects, though not always. Several projects have linked these pages in their project space for easy of finding them. --MASEM (t) 18:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I found the unreferenced stub Devkota and it made me wonder if there is a specific guideline for the notability of surnames. Andrew³²⁷ 17:59, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

It would be the general notability guideline, there's no subject-specific one for surnames or similar types of articles. They may be used as disambiguation pages which are generally exempt from notability. --MASEM (t) 18:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Andrew³²⁷ 18:37, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Can you withdraw AfD nominations? I tried here due to improvements, but I'm not sure if I can do that or if I did it right. NYSMy talk page 19:28, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

• You can. This may not result in the article being kept if there are significant arguments for deletion, but in this case there were nothing but Keep votes (albeit weak) and so I have closed it as Keep. Black Kite (talk) 19:57, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you very much. `NYSMy talk page 20:32, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

As an unregistered user I have completed stage I of the nomination for deletion process. I am unable to complete II and III and request that a registered user do this on my behalf. The reason for the nomination for deletion is is that: as tags on the article page says, that this shopping centre is wholly not notable and I believe that the article appears to be an advertisement for the mall and the shops within it. If it were to be considered notable, then there are four shopping centres in my own town that are equally (un)notable and would be equally (un)deserving of their own articles. Not to mention a few tens of thousands of equally undeserving centres on the planet as a whole. 86.157.171.171 (talk) 12:50, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

•  Done J04n(talk page) 12:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Should we have a time limit for relisting debates (especially ones that have not closed yet. Everyday I see people (mainly non-admins) relisting debates before they technically usually 1-2 hours before the next day rolls over so they don't get included in the new day debate (what I mean is someone relisting debate at 23:50 January 6, the debate doesn't get included in the January 7th list of debates). By doing this, it decreases the amount of participation because alot of people on look at today's AFD debates, so should we have a time limit for relisting debates, preferably only the first couple hours of the day. JayJay^{What did I do?} 00:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment That seems to be a reasonable idea, although there a number of users who live in different time zones across the world. TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 21:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• While that is true there are plenty of users on when the new day rolls over (for me its 6 o'clock) and what I mean by time restriction is from say 0:00 (UTC) to 2:00 (UTC) since wikipedia runs on the Coordinated Universal Time everyone it what be the same time for everyone. Get what I'm saying? JayJay^{What did I do?} 23:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• Fair enough. TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 17:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

• I think the larger issue is that discussions are also being relisted too many times. WP:RELIST discourages relisting more than twice, but some discussions keep staying open for more than three weeks! Perhaps this is why we should encourage people to use WP:PROD more often, or to treat AfDs with no comments as if they were a PROD nomination. Edge3 (talk) 21:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• That is very well true, alot of the AfD's that get no participation could just be deleted by PROD. JayJay^{What did I do?} 22:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• An easy technical method for this might be to get a bot to take all articles added to Category:Relisted AfD debates between, say, 22:30 and 23:59, and roll them forward to the next day's log. Might be a job for Snotbot, though that bot is already busy. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:55, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• That would be a great task! JayJay^{What did I do?} 23:25, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• I'd definitely support a technical solution to this. --j⚛e decker^talk 16:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support - Non admins do a lot of things that create a lot of extra work for everybody. While this rule probably won't stop them from doing this (Just as a rule against reverting closed discussions doesn't stop them), it will at the very least create a toe-hold for nabbing the more prolific troublemakers. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 04:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• support technical change also support treating uncontested AFDs as PROD - with the obvious caveat that an article deleted via a "prodded" AFD, should not count as having been deleted by consensus for CSD reasons etc. Essentially it should be closed as no consensus, then immediately retroactively PROD deleted. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

• Regarding treating uncontested PRODs as deletes, that is already within policy, WP:SOFTDELETE. I do recommend not making that mandatory, though, in my experience, there are enough cases in which I feel that closing no-consensus would be more sensible that I don't feel that current policy is a problem. As such, I recommend no change to existing policy on that, although perhaps a reminder of that policy would be helpful. --j⚛e decker^talk 23:24, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

If there is a true "non-consensus" then PROD would not apply. This would only be for uncontested AFDs. If the closing admin disagrees, then it would no longer be uncontested, and they could close as non consensus. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:06, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with Joe Decker's no change recommendation for keeping WP:SOFTDELETE as is. I would not favor any change intended to encourage more use of PROD in lieu of AfD. PROD is overused now; it's supposed to be for uncontroversial deletions only, but every days there are items that shouldn't have been prodded, and which end up as kept articles or substantive merges to an existing article. But those are the ones someone willing to slog through the PROD lists happens to find. Unlike AfDs, prods leave no clear record of the considerations that went into an article's deletion, and this is particularly unhelpful to later editors looking to see if a particular topic is appropriate for a potential article (or for coverage within another article). On the question of multiple relistings:there do seem to be more discussions lately being continued to a third and fourth week, but after all discussion is a good thing, and I don't know that we need any new rule or restriction on administrative discretion, just a reminder about what it says at WP:RELIST. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the times suggested are peak WP activity times for most people in the US, Canada, and S & Central America. I recognize the problem of confusion, as I get frquently confused about it myself. One way to avoid it is to select the options in user preferences to a/on "time and date", select "use wiki default, UDC" and in Gadgets, in the part on "Appearance" select "Add a clock to the personal toolbar" . An alternative is at Wikipedia:Comments in Local Time but I find that more confusing than doing everything in UDC. DGG ( talk ) 01:52, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes a nominator wants to withdraw an AfD: more information has emerged, or the article has been edited, so that the previous reasons for withdrawal are no longer valid, or it was a mistake in the first place, or whatever. It's obviously a good thing to allow this, unless anyone else supports the deletion, to save everyone's time.

It has been stated on an editor's talk page that they are allowed/encouraged to close an AfD if they withdraw it and no other editor has !voted for deletion.

But:

1. There is no mention in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, as far as I can see, of how to withdraw a nomination: does one just add "Withdrawn" at the bottom of the discussion, like any other comment, or should it go at the top just below the nomination itself? Are there any other procedures to comply with?
2. The AfD instructions, at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#After_nominating:_Notify_interested_projects_and_, state "Sometime after seven days has passed, someone will either close the discussion or, where needed, "relist" it for another seven days of discussion. (The "someone" must not be you the nominator ..." They make no mention of the above exception.

So I ask:

1. That there be some clear statement, perhaps as a new section "After nomination: Withdrawing an AfD", explaining how to withdraw an AfD
2. That, if it is indeed permissible for a withdrawing nominator to close the AfD, this should be stated as an exception to the above absolute rule.

Thanks, PamD 09:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The actual policy/guideline basis for withdrawing nominations is WP:SK. I agree we could include some mention of it in this page though. Hut 8.5 10:43, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:SK lists " The nominator withdraws the nomination" as a reason for withdrawal, without specifying what action the nominator needs to take to withdraw it. There is no mention there of any lifting of the restriction on who can do the closure (although this seems reasonable).

I'm not wanting to stop nominators from closing AfDs they've withdrawn, just wanting the written procedures to catch up with the practice, if indeed this is standard practice (as seems very sensible). And wanting clarity as to how to withdraw a nomination: I think I've added a note at the top immediately below the nomination, in the past; other editors add a standard !vote at the bottom. One or the other is presumably considered "the best/correct way to do it", so it would be useful to see that stated somewhere. (Or a link provided to the as-yet-undiscovered-by-me place where it's already stated!) PamD 11:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

From my viewpoint, both ways that you indicate are currently accepted.  Perhaps the source of the concern is that the nomination is missing a !vote in bold.  If a nomination contained a bold !vote, then withdrawing a nomination would follow the current practice of striking the !vote.  Since we get nominations in which the !vote is unclear, this would have another benefit.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:51, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support addition of specific guidance. Having a reasonably experienced editor withdraw his/her own nomination by NAC'ing their own AFD seems sensible. After all, the point of WP:NAC (my reading, anyway) is that NACs are okay where there is expected to be no disagreement with the result. That would obviously be the case if the nomination is withdrawn and all !votes are keep. It shouldn't really matter, then, if the NAC is done by the nom (which strikes me as fairly good display of good faith anyway) or some other editor. As always, WP:COMMONSENSE should apply. Also, thanks, Pam, for bringing it up - worth discussing. Stalwart111 11:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support addition of specific guidance. When all the !votes say "Keep" and the nominator decides to withdraw the nomination, he or she should also be allowed to make an NAC closure. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 14:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
• I've withdrawn plenty of AfDs I've started following new evidence of notability and when there have been no 'Delete' votes cast. I think it should be an admissible NAC as long as the closer is aware of all the physical steps a manual AfD closure requires. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:32, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
• Done  See this diff.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Well, partly done. Thanks for adding that clarification to the information for closers of discussions. There is still nothing at the main WP:AfD page, to help the person who has made a nomination and now wishes to withdraw it. PamD 10:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposed addition to WP:AfD

As section 3.6, add a new section. I don't know which of (a) and (b) should be included (or anything else?)

Withdrawing a nomination

If you change your mind about a nomination, you can Withdraw it. This might be because the discussion has produced new information about the topic, or you realise the nomination was a mistake for some reason. Withdrawing a nomination can save other editors' time by cutting short the discussion, if no-one else has supported the deletion proposal.

Either: Version (a) To withdraw a nomination, add "* Withdraw" at the bottom of the discussion and give a brief explanation and sign it.

Or Version (b) To withdraw a nomination, add a note saying "Withdrawn by nominator" immediately below your nomination statement at the top of the discussion, and give a brief explanation and sign it.

You may close the discussion yourself as a WP:Speedy keep if no-one has supported deletion of the article, or you may leave it for someone else to close the discussion.

---

Comments? PamD 10:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I personally prefer version (b) as a process; it makes the withdrawal more obvious. I'd also suggest reversing the order of the last sentence, thus: "If no-one has supported deletion of the article you may close the discussion yourself as WP:Speedy keep, or you may leave it for someone else to close the discussion." Some people might not read past the first phrase... Yunshui 雲‍水 10:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• I think it would be more useful to return to the practice of including a bolded !vote in the nomination.  It would then be more obvious that such a !vote could be treated like other !votes.  That is, the !vote can change while the discussion continues, and strike-out is used to indicate the opinion has changed.  The complication here is that this introduces a requirement that the nominator identify what is intended by the nomination, and this is a non-trivial change from current practice.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:38, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• OK, in the light of these two replies and otherwise lack of response, and in view of the following section which shows the need for this info, I've added a section on withdrawing a nomination. I hope it's helpful and non-controversial. PamD 09:13, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello. The article Paul Lutus appears to be a heavily padded vanity article. There are a few points which are notable - creation of a piece of software for AppleII, and award from some university, etc. Removing all the other unsourced vanity stuff (some of which is quite spammy "He sailed the world, he wrote a book, you can get the book on his website") leaves a tiny stub. I've had a search for anything else to put in the article, or for better sources, but it's really hard to find anything. This man is barely notable. So, should it be deleted? Or should it be left as a stub? --31.127.7.65 (talk) 16:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

It's OK to have stub articles and, when the person is deemed notable by independent sources, it's OK to expand them with some details from primary sources (but not the bulk of the article). So, unless and until the article is actually deleted, it's best to retain it in an intermediate state between this and this. See Wikipedia:AUTHOR for the criteria commonly used to decide whether an article is merited. Diego (talk) 18:29, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

He's not got an article for his free self-published book; he got an article for his software authorship of an ancient bit of software. The subject of the article is reverting any attempt to clean the page. I can't be bothered to keep trying to find sources for anything on that page. So, Wikipedia has yet another vanity article with no worthwhile content. 31.126.69.135 (talk) 19:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

You can nominate it for deletion, and it soon will likely be gone in a puff. Diego (talk) 20:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

and so it was. DGG ( talk ) 01:43, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The American Consumer Institute page has been in a broken state for about five years. There's very little evidence of notability, and people connected to the organization have consistently reverted edits that include information critical of the organization. It's been marked as needing cleanup since 2008, and I suggested deleting it in 2011. Since then there have been no significant changes.

There was a failed deletion attempt in 2008. I think the case for AfD is much stronger today, but I can't figure out how to do a second nomination. Could someone who understands this better than me do it or tell me what to do? Thanks. Binarybits (talk) 13:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The process is the same except that the discussion will be at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Consumer Institute (2nd nomination. You need to put ((subst:afdx|2nd)) on the article instead of ((subst:afd)). Hut 8.5 13:28, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello, all. I nominated the Society for Venturism article for deletion, due to doubts about the subject's notability and the reliability of sources. All other editors participating in the discussion have supported keeping the page; some have claimed that some of the sources, Yahoo! message boards, are RS. While looking at the message boards, I noticed that one of the participants in the AfD discussion had instigated a discussion at Yahoo! urging others to vote "keep" in the discussion. A review of participants' involvement with similar movements to the Society for Venturism indicates other CoI issues. Is there any particular thing to do at this point, or is it best to wait for the closing admin? dci | TALK 22:01, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• I posted the relevant link: [3]; it isn't a malicious or ill-intended thing, but probably isn't the most appropriate way to seek participation in an AfD. dci | TALK 22:10, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The article Western stereotype of the male ballet dancer seems quite pointless and not especially notable to me. However, I'm not an experienced editor and don't feel qualified to make that assessment and nominate the article for deletion myself. Perhaps some more experienced editors could give their input on this matter? Kombucha (talk) 01:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Replied at user's talk page. dci | TALK 01:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Using Twinkle to list a page, 💮, I got an error

Failed to save edit: Unknown error: "titleblacklist-forbidden-edit"

Yes, that is the page title and perhaps explains the error. The full log from Twinkle is below. Not sure how to fix it, if the page title is blacklisted.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 13:44, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Next discussion page: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/💮 
Adding deletion tag to article: completed (💮)
Creating article deletion discussion page: Failed to save edit: Unknown error: "titleblacklist-forbidden-edit"
Adding discussion to today's list: completed (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 February 25)
Opening page "💮": Retrieving page creator information
Notifying initial contributor (Petree): completed (User talk:Petree)
Your deletion rationale is provided below, which you can copy and paste into a new XFD dialog if you wish to try again:
Not a suitable topic for an encyclopaedia. Not notable: the ref is a list in which it's an entry, while googling turns up nothing (literally – zero results). Sole article in Category:Unicode_character, which suggests despite there being thousands of them there's no need for articles on characters. Transwiki to wiktionary if such characters have pages there.

I'll have a look. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Update: I've undone my edit to the log as it broke it with there not being a page. It can be put back if the page is created somehow.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 13:50, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Page created, catted as indiscernable, and added to the log. I'm pretty sure the character itself is blacklisted, so that someone can't create a bunch of articles with apparent gibberish/unicode shenanigans. But since this article already exists, I figured an attempt to delete it would not be controversial in that way. (Of course, admins, if I just broke something, please fix it and send trout.) UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:58, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

There is a discussion about the notability tag that may be of interest to those who partake in AfDs. See the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_February_26#Template:Notability. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:41, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I found the new article List of iconic dresses last night and I'm looking for feedback on what should be done with it. Something about it bothers me, but I don't know if it should be sent to AFD, renamed something like List of notable dresses, merged with another article, or left alone. Suggestions? Andrew³²⁷ 18:58, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Looks like it already got renamed. We do try to not use "notable" in titles--that's implied, and it becomes a meaningless word. Right now, seems to be completely blue links, so assuming all or most of those dresses do have sufficient coverage to establish their individual notability, that's probably fine. Does appear kinda light on prose, though, so it'd take a good bit of work to get to FLC status, as far as I can see. Jclemens (talk) 23:12, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! The new name and organization really work well and I'm glad I didn't make a mistake by altering the page before asking. Andrew³²⁷ 02:47, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I have completed the AFD steps for List of market opening times that I as an unregistered editor can do on my own. Please see Talk:List_of_market_opening_times#AFD. Would someone complete the AFD nom on my behalf? Thanks in advance. 72.244.206.168 (talk) 12:53, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done Page has been created with reationale from Talk:List of market opening times GB fan 13:25, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Note has been left on the article's talk page for the reasons for deletion. It's also a contested prod by the way, and the IP that removed the prod might remove the AfD template also. 121.220.107.74 (talk) 00:39, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done jcgoble3 (talk) 00:50, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

This night , a user put in deletion a page that I created during the day. After only eight hours it was deletes and now is impossible to recover it to complete and explain why was important ....

Considere that the pade was put in "deletion" during the night !!!! I think that need more time to discusse about deletion... --Carcamagnu (talk) 11:51, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

The article you must be talking about, 1967 NZ Universities rugby union tour of Hong Kong and Japan was deleted through the speedy deletion process not the AFD process. I see you have already discussed this with the editor that tagged the article for speedy deletion. Smartse has agreed to undelete it for you and send it to AFD, all you have to do is ask. GB fan 12:32, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Note has been left on the article's talk page for the reasons for deletion. It was also a contested speedy by the way, and the IP that removed the nomination might remove the AfD template also. 121.220.107.74 (talk) 02:56, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done jcgoble3 (talk) 04:03, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Just seen yet another Mexican AfD where (1) Spanish sources weren't checked, (2) the Talk wasn't tagged for the project/Alerts. Please someone add this to AfD instructions and stop the wasting of everyone's time with AfDing notable subjects. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:30, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I wish to make a double proposal to add the following to B. Carry out these checks:

4. Read the article's talk page for previous nominations and/or that your objections haven't already been dealt with. While at the Talk page check to see that appropriate WikiProject tags are in place

6. Check if there are interlanguage links, also in the sidebar, which may lead to more developed and better sourced articles. Check also for relevant local language sources in Google Books

In ictu oculi (talk) 04:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose the addition of any more hurdles obstructing the AfD process. Reyk _YO! 05:13, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

These "hurdles" already exist. See existing guidelines for notability. The issue is newbie AfD editors don't always read the full notability guidelines. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:25, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

• Reyk's comment presumes a couple of things, which probably bear examining in specific detail: 1) Is the additional step worth the reduction in appropriate AfDs that won't be brought? 2) Is the additional step justified by the reduction in inappropriate AfDs that won't be brought? Every new rule, new bureaucracy, will reduce both. But the question really is... is the cost worth the benefit? I'm all in favor of reducing inappropriate AfDs... but I'm unconvinced that these two additional directions are the best, most "cost-effective" improvements we could make at this time. Jclemens (talk) 05:35, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

1) Is the additional step worth the reduction in appropriate AfDs that won't be brought?

-On 4. Yes. the checking to see Talk tags are there only takes 2 seconds since the AfDer/PRODer has already been instructed to check Talk.

-On 6. Yes for Spanish/French etc., there is no additional check involved, Google Books brings this up anyway. Unless the user has deliberately switched off French when checking Google Books for sources on a French engineer (who does that?)

-On 6. Not so easy to say for Russian/Arabic etc., there is an additional check involved. In fact the additional check is likely to be impossible for 90% of regular AfD/PROD users. But then should Users with no Russian be AfD/PRODing Russia articles in the first place?

2) Is the additional step justified by the reduction in inappropriate AfDs that won't be brought?

- Without question. About 20-40% of foreign-language AfDs could be avoided by doing 6, and 4 raises chances of good input in the others. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:53, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Are we doing anything on this? I've answered the "cost-effective" question I believe, so how is it "cost-effective" to not guide editors to check properly for notability before AfD and PROD? In ictu oculi (talk) 08:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hazrat Sayed Mehboob Ali Shah Chishti Nizami has been open for 3 weeks now. Yes, I'm involved, but we really do need to sort out the issue discussed above, don't we? Dougweller (talk) 09:54, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Closed. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:04, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much, but I still think we need more specific guidance on the issue. Dougweller (talk) 11:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Which issue in particular? The time of day of the relist or what happens if it keeps getting relisted with little discussion? (If it's the latter, it's a long-resolved issue. A year back or so I was very much involved in coming up with our current solution of "soft delete," "no prejudice against speedy renomination," and of course admin discretion.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:15, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

There was also this archived proposal to change "soft delete" to mean "blank, redirect and semi-protect". It achieved an intriguing rough consensus (I think for the first time on the history of talks for soft-delete-with-access-to-article's-history), but then it was never acted upon. The advantage of that form of soft deletion is that it wouldn't require intervention from an administrator for an editor to review the article's history and reopen the debate. Diego (talk) 13:29, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

They are using "soft delete" in a different sense of the word. It has nothing to do with the issue at hand. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:22, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Can people keep an eye on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Non-Blended Impressionism please? It seems to me that User:LlaelMcd has !voted three times (first as an IP whose argument he later altered when signed in) and has falsified a signature on his latest !vote[4]. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:31, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

per AFD help page please create an AFD page for Peggy Foster. Template has been added to article, it has been PROD'd once before & refused with a recommendation to take to AFD. IMO this fails WP:MUSICBIO, Fosters claim to fame is being a member of The Runaways for one month - before they became famous, notability is NOT INHERITED. Does not feature on any Runaways recordings and has only done minor session work since. Thanks 149.241.58.99 (talk) 00:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done jcgoble3 (talk) 01:41, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Is essentially a mash-up of the pages MC Kinky, which I've just created, and Everything Starts With An 'E', which doesn't exist but to all intents and purposes should given its top twenty placement and how controversial it was. MC Kinky is the only notable member of the group and I think it should be merged into her article and ESWAE's.--Launchballer 15:33, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure why Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdulići hasn't been closed. It was opened on 2 March, but I don't see it in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 March 2. Perhaps it wasn't created properly? If someone would bring it to closure, I'd appreciate that. —Stepheng3 (talk) 04:42, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

The consensus to keep was clear enough that I WP:NACed it as such. jcgoble3 (talk) 06:07, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I'd still like to understand why I can't find it in the daily listings, but I'm glad it's closed. —Stepheng3 (talk) 16:46, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm here per suggestion of User:Frietjes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to request a naming convention for these XfD pages and others. This page is referred to as "AfD" yet the name of the page is "Articles for deletion" which would lead one to expect that it should be referred to as "Afd" or that it should be or the name of the page should be "Articles for Deletion". Then to make it even more confusing, the shortcuts coming here are listed as "WP:AFD", and although they work, "WP:Afd" and "WP:AfD" aren't listed. What would it take to get some uniformity in the naming convention for these pages? I'm guessing the best consensus to unify the references to this page would be to start with the "AfD", rename the page "Articles for Deletion", and add the shortcut "WP:AfD" to the box. Just my on the issue. — User:Technical 13   ( C • M • Click to learn how to view this signature as intended ) 16:42, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Can we please not go there again? jcgoble3 (talk) 17:33, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

This issue is really far too trivial to spend any time discussing it. Hut 8.5 17:55, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:05, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

• Okay, so yeah... Looks like consensus of that discussion was that it should be left as "AfD" (or even changed to "AFD") and it was changed to "Afd" -- Wait for it -- AGAINST consensus. I really don't care what it is as long as it is consistent, which the original proposal said it would be. However, the page Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion uses "Afd" six times, "AfD" thirty-nine times, and "AFD" fourteen times. Where is the promised consistency? That is my problem with the way it stands now. However, since this change was obviously made despite consensus and may need to go to WP:ANI. *sigh* — User:Technical 13   ( C • M • Click to learn how to view this signature as intended ) 18:06, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

• If all the incoming links work (WP:AFD and WP:Afd and WP:AfD, etc), then what is the problem? Different people refer to it differently - is there any ambiguity about which AFD they are referring to? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 21:32, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

• The problem is that all of the references on the page that are there be design should be consistent so there is no confusion. Per Jclemens (talk · contribs) on Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Archive_64#Bold.2C_revert.2C_discuss I prefer to retain the difference in "for discussion" and "for Deletion". This tells me that the the difference in the casing causes ambiguity about which AFD they are referring to. I'm not saying I care if it is changed to WP:Articles for Deletion or if someone goes through and fixes all of the templates to use "Afd", all I'm saying is one or the other should be done. — User:Technical 13   ( C • M • Click to learn how to view this signature as intended ) 21:42, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Serious response: As long as the first letter of the abbreviation remains the first letter of the alphabet, the second letter of the abbreviation remains the sixth letter of the alphabet, and the third letter of the abbreviation remains the fourth letter of the alphabet, it really doesn't matter what you call it. You could call it aFd and the point would still get across. Consider it a case-insensitive abbreviation. jcgoble3 (talk) 00:31, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

• I completely agree with User:Technical_13. It is wrong to use a capital where it shouldn't be used. I have always been in favor of a rename removing the capital, including in that previous discussion, and still am. Debresser (talk) 01:15, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand why I was told that this process would take seven days. We are now beyond seven days. There was a clear consensus given of six(6) "keeps" (five(5), if you discount me) to one(1) delete within the seven day time frame. Furthermore, I posted a request to close it on the talk page and the one person who initially sited the deleted said there was "no clear consensus?" Do we not see bias here? Now after the seven days a new delete arrives. So, I am unclear as to why it has been kept beyond the seven days. Tews (talk) 19:05, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The debate will be closed by someone at some point in the next few days. Although the discussions are supposed to last seven days, often backlogs of discussions waiting to be closed develop and discussions may be left open beyond the seven day figure until someone closes them. There are about 30 other AfD discussions from the same day as this one waiting to be closed. (Incidentally comments added outside the seven day period still count.) Hut 8.5 19:11, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Looks like Delete = 4 && Keep = 6 at this point for Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Robert_Joseph_Greene. Technical 13 (talk) 19:15, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Wow, I like the nice 100% increase in delete notices once I started to ask that it be removed from discussion. Furthermore, Mr. Greene's other page was sited AFTER the notice posted and it was moved away from discussion. Tews (talk) 20:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes that happens when you draw attention to something... I suggest requesting it be move to your userspace for you to continue working on it and then move it back to article at a later time when there are more reliable third party sources and more notability can be shown. However, that is entirely up to you. Technical 13 (talk) 20:37, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

You doubtless remember Technical 13's discussion above about renaming AFD, which is about one screenful above this new section at the moment. Last week, he Feedback (talk · contribs) started a remarkably similar question at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Merging WP:Proposed mergers and WP:ATD-R into Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where your opinions are wanted. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:58, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me? I not only did not start that discussion, I haven't commented on it nor did I know it existed until just now. I would be happy to read it tomorrow (I'm heading to bed now) and comment on it then though if you like. Technical 13 (talk) 01:05, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

My apologies. I saw your name at a completely unrelated discussion on that page (your idea, as reported by Anne, for improving a problem at AFC). I obviously need to pay more attention. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:40, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I didn't even know that page existed until last night (well, I knew it was there but had never looked at it). Anyways, no hard feelings. :) Technical 13 (talk) 16:12, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, could someone complete the AFD nomination process for Betty Furuta? 46.7.236.155 (talk) 23:35, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Betty Furuta. jcgoble3 (talk) 00:09, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, could someone complete the AFD nomination process for Wrestling Superstars Live? 76.235.248.47 (talk) 08:56, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I would say not for the reason mentioned on the talk page for the article and why is there no AfD discussion page for this? Technical 13 (talk) 12:25, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

There's no AFD discussion page for this because IP users lack the technical ability to create non-talk pages, such as AFD pages, hence the request here as directed by the second paragraph at WP:AFDHOWTO. That said, I agree that the reason presented for deletion is not valid and contradicts the spirit of WP:NOTTEMPORARY, and as such I have chosen to revert the AFD tag. jcgoble3 (talk) 20:57, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello,

I am putting in a request for a user to complete the AFD nomination process for article: Jackie Smith. I am an IP user and cannot complete the process.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.60.96.153 (talk) 05:37, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Somebody else created the page, but didn't use the proper format or complete the process. I've fixed it. I chose not to waste time notifying the page creator since he had already commented on the AFD and was thus obviously aware of it. jcgoble3 (talk) 19:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I'd like to request some registered, logged-in user to complete steps II and III for Satō Tadanobu. Thank you. 123.224.83.74 (talk) 16:54, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done jcgoble3 (talk) 17:04, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

An IP user changed the nominator's statement to a vote. When I pointed this out, IP user acknowledged this and claimed ignorance of the process. Can an uninvolved edit revert those edits? It seems non-controversial. Crtew (talk) 05:00, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:12, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm just curious.66.183.107.102 (talk) 04:08, 13 April 2013

There's no exact time. However, any attempt to nominate the same article within a month will probably be shot down immediately. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:22, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

It also really depends on the situation. A no consensus non-admin closure with only 1 !voter, for example, could probably be nominated much sooner than a page that recently had an AfD which closed as an overwhelming keep.--Yaksar (let's chat) 13:21, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Personally, if there were good reasons to keep the article I had not considered before, I could indefinitely wait to nominate the article again. I'm not particularly delete happy.. Are you? I suspect that my answer doesn't answer the question you meant to ask however, and to answer that, I'm afraid we're probably going to need a link to the article or discussion or something so that we can have some context of what you are talking about (I quite frankly don't have the time to hunt down your edit history to see what article you might be talking about). Happy editing! Technical 13 (talk) 13:33, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

• I wrote down my thoughts at:

  Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't see the notability standards met by:

• Simon Dixon (businessman) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and
• Travis Kalanick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

Related user accounts: Sidixon22 (talk · contribs), SimonDixonBanking (talk · contribs), 92.239.226.237 (talk · contribs), Valefebvre (talk · contribs), IDamienL (talk · contribs), Mzoback (talk · contribs). Does so. else see the criteria fulfilled, or can we put them on AfD? --Trofobi (talk) 15:27, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

You can put them on AfD anyway. There might be a chorus of keep !votes. Placing things on AfD is an opportunity for community discussion and possible deletion, not an inevitability.

Simon Dixon's notability seems to rest on a lack of 3rd party comment about him, and some assumption of notability because he's allowed CNN etc. as a platform upon which to speak as a pundit. That's admittedly greater note than CNN offer to me or you. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Okay. Winkelvi (talk) 20:44, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Liam Hackett.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liam_Hackett

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

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

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

• It looks like MathBot is broken (http://tools.wikimedia.de/~mathbot/cgi-bin/wp/afd/afd.cgi). That's going to cause a major problem if it continues. Black Kite (talk) 18:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Fixed - User_talk:Oleg_Alexandrov#MathBot_AfD_tool - thanks to Oleg. Black Kite (talk) 05:57, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Yes. Wikipedia:AfD#How_to_nominate_multiple_related_pages_for_deletion Gaijin42 (talk) 16:11, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I would like to make a tweak to the policy to add the example of a book and its author that are considered not notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:33, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

In many such cases, the notability is borderline, and the appropriate course is to redirect one to the other--usually I suggest redirecting the book to the author, as the author is likely to write other books and thus the article has potential for expansion. Otherwise, when it's just two, it's easy to prepare both AfD statement, say something like "see the AfD for .., below/above" and submit them right after each other. DGG ( talk ) 04:42, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

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

If the templates aren't removed before the AfD is closed then it would presumably show up on User:Snotbot/AfD report as an article with a link to a closed AfD. Hut 8.5 10:51, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

But until the ((Article for deletion/dated)) templates are removed - which judging by your comment won't happen without manual intervention - it not only gives the mistaken impression that the article is up for AFD, but also confuses the reader who clicks this article's entry and gets taken somewhere which doesn't mention the name of the article upon which the fake ((Article for deletion/dated)) had been placed. Waiting for User:Snotbot/AfD report could take up to three weeks, because AFDs aren't necessarily closed in seven days - there are valid reasons for granting extensions.

When a valid ((Article for deletion/dated)) is removed improperly, I'm pretty sure there is a bot which restores that notice and also templates the perp. What I'm asking for is the equivalent opposite: when an invalid ((Article for deletion/dated)) is added improperly, we should have a bot which removes that notice. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:24, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

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

 Done —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:08, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Is someone volunteering to cross-reference his socks and see what he's tainted by his participation, if not outright coopted by socking? Jclemens (talk) 02:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• He started an AFD at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Andrew_Helm. Note that at the end he complains about three of the keeps were sock puppets, apparently by the guy who created his own Wikipedia page. That guy was only blocked for a whole week as punishment. [5] Is that a mistake? Socking only gets you a week punishment? Dream Focus 03:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

It should be noted that blocking isn't punitive in nature, but is an incapacitative remedy and deters future poor behavior. See WP:BLOCK#Purpose and goals. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:48, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• An administrator has removed the site ban [6] notice at [[User:Qworty].  If this editor is still banned, why is the notice gone?  Also, from what I read of the SPI notice there are no confirmed sockpuppets.  Unscintillating (talk) 06:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• This editor is definitely still banned, per the ban discussion and the listing on WP:LOBU. The user page seems to have been blanked because if some issues relating to real-life media coverage, and lack of a ban notice on a userpage certainly doesn't mean the editor isn't banned. Hut 8.5 08:08, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

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

I'm on it. There was already a deletion debate in 2008, and the template is pointing at that rather than a new one. Give me a few minutes. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:52, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Since there was already an AFD, the next step is to create an AFD with the added suffix of (2nd nomination) or whatever at the end. It's a bit confusing. I've completed those steps for you - the debate is now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/In lieu of flowers (2nd nomination), and has been added to the log by transclusion (thus). You should be all set. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:59, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

The "15XX in India" series of articles were posted to AfD separately (instead of bundling). The discussion is really fractured since the issue is of a bundled nature. I was considering adding the bundle to the first discussion, copy-pasting the other AfD comments, and closing the others as procedural, but wasn't sure it fit the non-admin closure criteria. I'm happy to do it, but I wanted to check for consensus on the best course of action. czar · · 16:12, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

She is a Princess of Gwalior city. Her wiki article is necessary. Shobhit Gosain (talk) 08:43, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Please comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Priyadarshini Raje Scindia rather than here. Hut 8.5 09:57, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

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

In practice, generally not. When nominating an article, you have to articulate a rationale in favor of deleting the article. You don't want the article deleted, and have said so - so any such rationale would be questioned on that basis. Your best play at this point, if you intend for the article to be kept, is to look at the reasons being offered for its deletion and refute them as if there were an AFD. They are concerned about notability? Show sources that confirm it. They can't/won't find sources? Find them first. Etc etc. You don't need an AFD to anticipate what the likely arguments are. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

That said, looking at the article in more depth, it seems that other editors are proposing that it be merged as a result of a merge discussion - where's that merge discussion? I can't seem to find it. A merge is not at all the same thing as a deletion, but of course you know that. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

It's here. I don't expect that much of the article would survive a merger. Kauffner (talk) 12:34, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

That's not a merge discussion, that's one guy saying it's unanimous and another proposing the merge, with you arguing against it. 2-1 does not consensus make. Thus my confusion - the comments seemed to imply that another discussion had taken place. This article has the appearance of a well-organized and properly sourced work, but I don't know enough about the topic to judge it on the merits. Two options seem most obvious - have them specify exactly what they consider OR and what is not and (thus) what they would merge and what would be lost, or ask for more eyes on the discussion in the hopes that some other perspective will clarify things. If there's some flaw in a template, as they claim, then they need to be discussing that as well. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:52, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words. Of course, it wasn't just me who wrote the article. I have to give credit to LiliCharlie, who helped me out with character display issues and a wrote a template so they can appear in the right font. He supports the article as well, as you can see here. He doesn't want to be part of the public merger debate. If you have read it, I am sure you can understand why. There's more of the merger debate here. It's just more of same sort of grandstanding. Kauffner (talk) 15:17, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Ultraexactzz well said, you are absolutely correct, that's "not a merge discussion, that's one guy saying it's unanimous and another proposing the merge, with [the article creator] arguing against it, 2-1." The link given is exactly that. However that link isn't the merge discussion, but is the post-merge discussion discussion on a different page of what to do next. The actual merge discussion is at Talk:History of writing in Vietnam#Proposed merge from Han-Nom, where the original merge tag was placed by User:BabelStone (FWIW whose User page self-identifies as a university professor and published expert on Chinese scripts), BabelStone's merge was seconded by myself (No.2), thirded by User:Itsmejudith (No.3), fourthed by User:Kanguole (No.4), and now by User:Gaijin42 (No.5).

Unfortunately, while I'm sure Kauffner means well, the problem here is that the term "Han-Nom" doesn't exist as a subject, as Itsmejudith has explained several times the hyphen, eg of the Han-Nom Institute, is a Vietnamese was of saying "chu Han and chu Nom," in other words "Chinese-language written by Vietnamese in Vietnam during Chinese cultural domination" + "Vietnamese-language written using adapted Nom characters".... which already have two large separate articles. Plus a third article on the actual Literature of Vietnam. 5 editors say we don't need an article on "Han & Nom", it's surplus (and contains a lot of duplicated content). This is exactly what WP:MERGE is meant for, creating WP:FORK. Anyone, please join the discussion, your input will be warmly welcomed. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I concur that you should not create an AFD with the intent on keeping the article. However, based on my layman's reading of the two articles, the argument for merging them is very strong. They are both discussing use of Chinese chars to write Vietnamese writing, and both articles are using the other article's title in its own text extensively. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:39, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

• I think the original reason I wrote the article is still valid: Non-Latin characters shouldn't be cluttering up the running text. They should be in a language template. Such a template needs an explanatory article to link to. A template of this kind has been around for years. It's descriptor is Han-Nom, so that's what I named the article. Without the template, Han-Nom would just be a highly detailed article about an obscure term -- but there is certainly no rule against that. Kauffner (talk) 17:12, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

If that's an argument against the merge, you need to make it in the merge discussion. I don't know if a template needs a single article to link to, but please do make the point and then we need to ask for the merge discussion to be closed. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:57, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

As per Gaijin42 and Itsmejudith. User:Ultraexactzz we really need your and other 3rd party editor eyes on this. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:31, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a great deal to add; the consensus for a merge of some sort seems clear. I will note that a template can link to a relevant section of a larger article just as easily as it can link to an article, so that's not an issue for this article. Beyond that, the subject is absolutely outside my expertise, so I can't really add anything on the merits. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• I agree, and think that a valuable role for AfD would be to get wider-community consensus in such cases.

However this view is not widely held. In practice, using AfD in this way will see the AfD summarily closed and you censured for disruption instead. I can't recommend it. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:13, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

You know, we routinely see editors propose changing AFD to Articles for Discussion (rather than deletion), but there's never consensus for it. Something to think about, perhaps - but it's already such a high-traffic area of the project... I don't know if it would have the benefits you'd expect. Worth considering, perhaps. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• We already have an "Articles for discussion" process... we call it WP:Request for comment (RFC). Blueboar (talk) 13:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Would somebody please check on the status of this AfD, including its strange history? I'm wondering about 2 things. 1) Why was it closed as a keep and then three days later relisted? 2) Why isn't is it currently on any list? The only way to get to its AfD discussion is through the article. I'm not sure what is going on here as I've never seen anything like this. Crtew (talk) 22:41, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Looks like the closing admin reconsidered their action and decided to relist instead. A bit unusual, but not unheard of. The debate is listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 June 2, it's not true that the only way to get there is from the article. Hut 8.5 23:11, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Lots of people also find debates by going through topics at CAT:AFD - and open debates get listed automagically. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 01:55, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Could a registered user help me complete the deletion nomination for Helana_Brigman. I have left comments on the talk page detailing the reason. I am not a registered user and need someone to complete this work for me. Thank you for your help. 216.116.162.226 (talk) 18:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Looks like someone took care of this at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helana Brigman. You'll want to head over there and throw in your two cents, as the other editor made their own nomination instead of using yours. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:50, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Shadow the Hedgehog - I nominated it for deletion because it was very poorly written. The writters gave no credible information and it seemed loaded down with fan fiction. To put it bluntly I think the individuals who wrote this article may be mentally unstable and in need of professional intervention, very possibly suffering from pervasive developmental disorder or at the very least depression. I openly challenged them to dispute this nomination if they actually have the mental capacity to do so!96.2.110.63 (talk) 01:52, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

You cannot say that about editors (No personal attacks). Additionally, while there may be an overload of fandom aspects, AFD is not for article improvement, only if the article isn't notable (which this doesn't appear to be given the reception section). --MASEM (t) 01:54, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Masem; as I elaborated on in Talk:Shadow the Hedgehog#Nominating the Article for deletion, please abide by WP:Civility and support your AfD requests with reasons that comport with Wikipedia's deletion policy. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 18:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Just curious ... is there a consensus on how many times a nomination should be relisted for lack of comment? And are articles that get relisted multiple times usually kept or usually deleted? Blueboar (talk) 13:24, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Consensus is up to twice, though it can be relisted again under special circumstances (see WP:RELIST). czar · · 03:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

• Well, 5 might be a bit much. I would just say the creator for now, and we can expand it later on if people like the idea. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
  • This would have to be done carefully. If you select the 5 contributors who added the most bytes to a page then you might end up notifying people who merely adjusted formatting or added infoboxes and categories and who aren't going to care much about the outcome of the deletion discussion. If the article history is very short then you might end up notifying people who fixed typos. Notifying the creator is safer ground, but even then there are situations where it isn't appropriate (the creator is indef-blocked, is an unregistered user, or who didn't write any of the content). Hut 8.5 08:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• And number of edits made isn't a good metric either, because some editors use preview and others save each single-word edit as an edit. But I can see merit in notifying editors other than the article creator, especially where they created a redirect and 2 years later someone built an article, that sort of thing! Not sure what the solution is. PamD 08:47, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• Notifying the creator is certainly a great first step. J04n(talk page) 10:10, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
• I agree, this would be great if we could pull it off. One idea might be to scale it with the size of the article - say, notify the creator if it is less than a year old or has less than 50 edits or some such, the top two contributors if it is older or has up to 200 edits, the top three if it has more edits, and so on. We might also look at the notice requirements at WP:FAR, since they routinely notify major contributors when a featured article is submitted for review/delisting. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• This is a good idea. A notification is quite a minor alert - you get notified if your username is mentioned anywhere, for example. It would therefore be reasonable to notify every editor of an article at AFD. If the article is a new one being nominated by NPP then there won't be many notifications. If the article has been around for years and picked up many minor edits, then it seems appropriate to give it a larger number of notifications. The number of notifications will thus vary in proportion to the age of the article and that seems ideal. Warden (talk) 09:25, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• That's a very bad idea. If I revert some piece of vandalism in an article I'm not going to care if it gets nominated for deletion years later. Same goes for typo fixes, formatting fixes, adding infoboxes or categories, and most other sorts of cleanup edits. People who do lots of this work will get swamped with useless notifications and will get very annoyed or opt out. Hut 8.5 11:13, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• I honestly don't think this would be used very often once it was tweaked to avoid excessive notifications (no multi-notifications on articles with under 50 edits; the metric for the top-five doesn't count HG, TW, RB, AWB, vandalism filtered, Bot, or undo edits; and the top-five must have statistically significantly more edits than other editors on the article). Honestly, how many articles go to AfD with more than 50 or 100 edits? The vast majority have a handful from one person, plus a declined speedy/contested prod. And those AfDs of an article with a significant history... either are in bad faith or will already get spread around the grapevine by concerned editors. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Warden is proposing to notify everyone in the edit history of the nomination. For instance I would have been notified a few days ago of the nomination of Elise Jackson, where I removed an inapplicable cleanup template two years ago. If extended to include proposed deletion I would be told about Street Fighter X Tekken: The Devil Within, where I removed some copyvio in December. Hut 8.5 12:09, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• This is absolutely a bad idea. AFD already suffers from low levels of participation. If we encourage an influx of users who have a stake in retaining unsuitable content we will either end up with more conflict over closes and accusations of supervotes for admins assessing policy rather than counting snouts or consensus will end up reflecting numbers not policy. Its already custom to notify creators and that should be enough. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• This is one of the things where over the years I have consistently taken exactly the opposite approach from Spartaz. I basically am unwilling to accept an argument in any context that if everyone concerned or interested discusses something, we will come to the wrong conclusion. His examples show that if we notify everyone, we will also notify those people who are unhappy about an article. Perhaps we need to find some way to tune the algorithm so it includes anyone who contributes or delete significant amounts of text, or places a tag, rather than the many small copyedits. AfD by its nature attracts primarily people who want to delete articles, and we could use some balance. The very few of us who go there primarily to see what small proportion can be saved cannot look at everything. I'm not worried about irrelevant comments: normally a person who tries to defend their indefensible article makes comments that greatly clarify the need to delete it. DGG ( talk ) 04:12, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Can someone please figure out to to create the AfD discussion p. for [7]. I don't just want to destroy the old redirect. The deletion reason desired is "non notable company, with sources being only PR and content being mainly name-dropping." DGG ( talk ) 03:59, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

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

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

• I've completed the AfD nomination for you. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

I suppose that no one wants to do so, then. The page is a total embarrassment, but it seems no one can even be bothered to look at the thing. 87.113.216.108 (talk) 00:09, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

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

Who knows! The name "Chris Alexander" is virtually un-Googleable because too many people have the same name and the fact that he's frequently cited by other reliable sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:34, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

The fact remains his only claim to fame is editing Fangoria. Since when should a magazine editor get his own wiki page? The editor of Rue Morgue doesn't have one and from my understanding that has been the highest selling horror mag the past 10 odd years. If you look at the wiki page the only citations are really his My Space page and the Fangoria website. I really believe either he or one of his friends created that page and there really isn't enough there (Magazine editor and reviewer for a free newspaper are his only real credentials) to justify a personal wiki page.Giantdevilfish (talk) 15:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

This is Chris Alexander. I see Mike Bianco is up to his old troll tricks. Please google "Chris Alexander Horror" or "Chris Alexander Blood for Irina" and you will find thousands of third party articles about my work as an author, journalist, editor of the world's largest print horror periodical, my work with the band KISS, my work as an award winning filmmaker and music composer. giantdevilfish/Mike Bianco is an old high school acquaintance who oddly has opted to target me in the virtual world often. Please reconsider termination of my page and please consider who you employ as a Wiki editor as well...I expect more from this esteemed website that I use daily for professional and recreational purposes than simple troll enabling.

Excuse me? I have no idea who you are. Firstly you got my name wrong. Secondly I don't troll you often as we have never met (I don't even read Fangoria or interact with you on any messageboard) and secondly I've never even edited your page in the past so I have no idea what this whole scenario is about. I simply felt the page and you (if you are Chris Alexander) doesn't have enough notability or enough viable citations to justify an article and a couple of administrators even agreed you were borderline notability.Giantdevilfish (talk) 15:27, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Again, please note that this is Michael Bianco who posts under the aliases of Giantdevilfish or devilfish69 or any number of handles - Giant Pacific Octopus etc - on a number of online forums and sites and has sent me insulting messages and posts for some time. His fixations include an obsession with giant monster films. And me apparently. Memo to other PROPER wiki admins - be cautious as to whom you allow into your temple. This guy has an axe to grind and has exploited what little power you have given him. I strongly advise you steer clear of this individual. We have IP traced him some time ago for legal reasons and would be glad to share our findings.

Restored and raised at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Alexander Please discuss there. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:27, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

can someone take back "considered for deletion" on Antonio Bujcevski file ... i am updating the page ... and put articles and links connected to him .. the article meets the criteria .. the league is fully pro and the player is proffesional . thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkoheroj (talk • contribs) 23:10, 7 July 2013‎

At this point you can update the article and discuss how he meets our notability guidelines at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antonio Bujčevski. The discussion there will run for 7 days so that other editors can discuss the article. GB fan 23:25, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Oz_(TV_series)_characters

Could someone nominate all of this crap for deletion in one batch, please? I tried simply redirecting, but some fanboys keep reverting. (That's except the list of characters, of course.) --Niemti (talk) 18:25, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello. --Niemti (talk) 17:34, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

That's an awful lot of articles for one AFD. I would suggest throwing five of them in at once, seeing how consensus falls, and then proceeding with the rest. Put another way: I would recommend a procedural keep on any AFD that had 40 articles at once, unless they were all identical or nearly so. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

You have no idea. There were around 150-200 of them when I first started redirecting them. Many of them under 1KB of data (not even text). There was 1 (one) I did not redirect, but because it;s now lost in the sea of crap again, I don't care to find it. --Niemti (talk) 20:22, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I nominated Bermans for deletion some three months ago, closed by Courcelles a few days later with no consensus. When I browsed through yesterday's AfD log however, the same nomination appeared for no apparent reason. What's going on? hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 05:20, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Someone seems to have attempted to re-nominate the article, but did so by adding the old AFD to the current template and starting a new discussion on the same page. Tokyogirl fixed it and listed it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bermans (2nd nomination). UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:51, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, can you all direct me to any research on new article fates? Maybe

• overall percentage deleted by some time point
• number of PROD, SD, AFD and % outcomes
• changes before/after AFC submission process was widespread
• percentage acceptance of AFC submissions to new articles

Thanks in advance and I realize different people may structure the questions differently, so whatever is out there, appreciate it.

TCO (talk) 19:36, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Could someone please complete the nomination process for the article "Decline of library usage?" I explained my reasoning in the talk page. 67.233.152.231 (talk) 01:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't see your reasoning on the article talk page. I see that you nominated the article, but that your nomination is incomplete because the Article for Deletion page can only be created by a registered user. Please add your reasoning to the article talk page. You may also consider creating a registered account, which has several advantages. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:03, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I see. You put your reasoning at the top of the talk page, rather than creating a new section at the bottom. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:05, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

OK. I can move it. Thanks for the suggestions/advice and I'll consider joining. 67.233.152.231 (talk) 02:08, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I created a new topic for the AfD reasoning. 67.233.152.231 (talk) 02:26, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

When is it proper to use AfD or Merge to deal with articles that are spawned in pretty clear attempt to disseminate commercial URLs for spamming purpose? Cantaloupe2 (talk) 23:49, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I need somebody to please complete the AfD process for me on Vernacular Music Center. Two hours ago I put a speedy deletion tag on the page because it's all promo which should be obvious to anyone considering the ridiculous amount of external links in the body of the article. My tag was removed 20 minutes later without the promotional tone or the external links being fixed so I would now like to nominate it for AfD. I've completed step one already like the instructions said to. For a longer reason on why I want to nominate it please see Talk:Vernacular Music Center. Thank you. 211.181.131.34 (talk) 14:25, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Done, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vernacular Music Center. I've copied part of your talk page comment as a rationale. Hut 8.5 14:54, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for taking care of it for me. 211.181.131.34 (talk) 15:08, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi everyone. I would like to ask whether this upcoming album should be deleted or not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Archives_Vol._1 I have mentioned my reasons in the Talk page for this album. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:44, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Can someone please complete the nomination process for me. Here is my reason for nominating the article for deletion:

First AfD in 2009 ended in Keep, but by a very slim 2-1 margin. There is still no evidence of this individual meeting WP:NACTOR or WP:ANYBIO. So far, she has only had two supporting roles, three single-episode guest appearances, and two short film appearances (one of which is currently in production). None of these roles have led to any awards or recognitions for her. While she does have an official website, it does not show any fan base or notable contributions to the entertainment industry. She has no Facebook or Twitter account and searching her name on search engines comes up with a whole bunch of other people with the same name.

Thanks. 24.146.211.221 (talk) 00:38, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:16, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• I don't do the AFD thing; I'm not gonna paste templates etc. But Rodomontade is just a wikt entry. If you folks wanna afd, then go ahead. • Serviceable†Villain 01:56, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

AFD requested, thanks in advance. 109.176.196.50 (talk) 16:24, 22 July 2013 (UTC)  Done but you did not provide a reason, so you should comment on the AFD. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:35, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Er, yes, the IP did provide a reason on the article talk page. I've created the page with that rationale. Hut 8.5 16:37, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

These logs are completed, so they can be removed. Bearian (talk) 18:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

July 9 log is also done, except for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hongdoushans. Bearian (talk) 18:50, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Ditto for the July 10 log, except Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Sarvis. Bearian (talk) 18:52, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minecraft 2 was speedied and needs closure czar · · 21:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 21:33, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Can someone please complete the nomination process for Pornography-induced erectile dysfunction? I have explained my reasons for nominating it on the talk page. Thanks. 86.161.251.139 (talk) 23:49, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:54, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

All now done. I've also removed all closed days from WP:AFDO and updated the note to try to prevent people from re-updating it using Mathbot (which will replace all the completed days since Mathbot failed). Black Kite (talk) 09:15, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

This discussion has been transferred to Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Proposing_IPs_be_unable_to_AfD_articles. Please continue the discussion there.

Jguy _Talk^Done 18:43, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Note: A discussion about this is also taking place at: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Proposing_IPs_be_unable_to_AfD_articles. As the WP:VPP discission is older, I suggest commenting there.Jguy _Talk^Done 15:12, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree. Moving this discussion to the Village Pump site. Please make comments there.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:52, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

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

WP:AGF covers a lot of ground here. If the IP provides a rationale, as this one did, then we generally complete the AFD steps on their behalf, as a pro forma gesture of good faith. If the nomination is obviously flawed ("This article on a tv show should be deleted because it was a stupid show" or "This article should be deleted because the main editor is an asshole", etc), then I'll remove the AFD tag and advise the user. But I would do the same with an incomplete nomination from a registered editor (and we get those too). Put another way - what would change if this inexperienced editor went and created a login and THEN nominated the page? How would that be different, if they had a valid rationale for deletion? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:03, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

As long as Wikipedia permits anonymous editing by IPs, I think that preventing an IP from nominating an article for deletion would be inconsistent with other permissions. And while it is true that many IPs lack experience, others may have been editing for years, and undeserving of restrictions. I would suggest that if restrictions regarding AfDs are to be proposed, it needs to be done in the context of a broader debate on the merits of IP editing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:28, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Generally I agree that discussion about IPs being able to make AfD nominations should be in the context of a broader debate on IP editing. Regarding the question by Ultraexactzz, I am thinking that not merely creation of a login account gives a person the power to nominate; rather, there should be some period of waiting, perhaps a month, when the community can get a sense of how responsible the IP is, before the power is granted. My general concern is that there is an imbalance here: it takes only perhaps a minute to nominate an article for deletion, but it can result in a week's worth of bickering, back and forth, actions by third parties such as administrators or reviewers. In short, one inexperienced user can cause a huge amount of fuss for experienced users. It could lead to bigtime abuse. The principle that editing privileges become greater as a user contributes more, and develops a track record, is well established at Wikipedia. Users who learn the guidelines, edit responsibly, and who do so over a period of time, get greater privileges such as rollback rights, possibly become administrators. So I think it is thoroughly consistent with Wikipedia policy to withhold power-privileges (I see AfD nominations as one of these) until users demonstrate a commitment to Wikipedia and some understanding of its guidelines and procedures. An IP, dissatisfied with an article, can tag it with notability, original research, or other problems, and suggest on a talk page that the article should be deleted; but letting an IP nominate an article seems like giving too much power to a neophyte. True, some IPs have edited for a long time, but then why can they simply not take the logical step of getting a free account, and editing under that?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

To repeat what AndyTheGrump said above, you can't assume that an IP is a neophyte, not even by looking at their edit history. A highly experienced editor working from a dynamic IP will have a series of very short histories that would be hard to assemble into one coherent user history. And surely any argument about inexperience would apply just as much to new people with registered accounts. As things are now, an IP editor needs a second from someone with a registered account to complete an AfD nomination. That seems like enough of a safeguard to me. Rklear (talk) 18:21, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I just want to say that I edited for years with an IP account and regularly ran into "IP-bashing" where a few registered users drew general conclusions based on run-ins with a few vandals. I only created this account so I could file a AfD and will return to my IP account tomorrow. It's where my editing history is and every time I have created a username account, I've been hassled and Wikihounded. That has never happened when I use my IP account because when you're an IP, people don't start following where you go or what pages you edit. There is no personal identification with an IP number and no superficial assumptions over who you are.

I guess I went off-tangent, I just get irritated when I see people say that IP accounts are all teenage vandals. I have three graduate degrees that would contradict your stereotype. I don't know why I should have to register an account to file a proposed deletion. If you want to prevent vandalism, why not make sure that the person has been editing Wikipedia a month or longer? Newjerseyliz (talk) 20:10, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Due to Mathbot being down, unclosed AfDs are not showing up in the list at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. There are 5 needing to be closed for July 14, 2 for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 July 15 and 20 for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 July 16. Could someone please take care of this? Prioryman (talk) 20:59, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I wanted to add that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Soldotna Airport Turbine Otter crash has still not been closed from 17 July 2013, making it five days overdue for closing. It seems to be the only AfD from that date that hasn't been closed or re-listed and has possibly been overlooked. Perhaps this is because it was a particularly complex debate that requires a careful read to resolve, but could an Admin please have a look at doing the close on this? Thank you. - Ahunt (talk) 11:17, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Zenryoku Gu Shōjo!! Action!! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Need AFD steps II and III completed for this. Rationale: WP:CRYSTAL for an unknown series - it isn't even clear if it is a TV series, video game, or what it even is, or if this is even the title. 192.251.134.5 (talk) 14:56, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Done. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:23, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I have completed step I, and noted the justification for deletion on Talk:Special When Lit (album). Now I'm requesting that some registered, logged-in user complete steps II and III. Thanks. 114.164.216.48 (talk) 21:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done Monty₈₄₅ 21:53, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Late here, had a "moment", forgot anon editors couldn't complete AFDs; my apologies. I've placed my rationale on the article's talk page, would some kind stranger complete the process, please? 84.203.39.131 (talk) 04:14, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:04, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I need an administrator or somebody who can access deleted article histories to inspect the AfD of Moad Gouzrou for a G4 issue. When I looked up the deletion log [8] for Mouad Gouzrou (notice the "u" in Moad), I discovered that it had been deleted three times before and is now listed again after further creation. Am I reading the history correctly? I can't find a undeletion. If I am correct, is this not grounds for a G4 Speedy Delete? Crtew (talk) 04:50, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

A previous version of the article was deleted at AfD, yes, but I'm afraid it doesn't qualify for G4. G4 also requires that the new version be substantially identical to the deleted one, which isn't the case here - the new article is considerably longer and cites a number of sources that weren't present in the original. Hut 8.5 10:08, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I have stated the reasons on the talk page. Thanks. 58.164.105.136 (talk) 00:49, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Done, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australian Gridiron League. Hut 8.5 10:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello there,

I'm not familiar with the procedures at en:wp, so I thought I'd just leave a note here. I have no idea what this was supposed to be but it's certainly not an article. Please have a look at it and do whatever seems appropriate. Thanks, --El Grafo (talk) 09:52, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Spam for a company selling football shirts, I've speedied it. Hut 8.5 10:00, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Meanwhile I've nominated the image file for deletion at Commons (this is how I came across the "article" in the first place). Cheers, --El Grafo (talk) 10:18, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I have completed step I, and noted the justification for deletion on Talk:Strings (Arthur Loves Plastic album). Now I'm requesting that some registered, logged-in user complete steps II and III. Thank you. 114.150.82.38 (talk) 09:23, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strings (Arthur Loves Plastic album). UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:19, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

(Re-asking for wider discussion) Why exactly is this advice in the template? Articles must never be blanked, as that is a form of WP:Vandalism. Is this an actual concern, or just historical cruft? -- Kendrick7^talk 03:15, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Blanking an article as to leave a redirect is perfectly acceptable practice - though blanking can also be vandalism too. But, in the course of an AFD, one should not blank an article that is the subject of AFD even if the consensus is obviously towards "merge" or similar that would necessitate the blanking; only after closure should that happen. --MASEM (t) 03:21, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Aren't merge discussions properly to take place outside of WP:AFD? -- Kendrick7^talk 03:38, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

A merge result is a valid outcome of an AFD, but the AFD should not be initiated if the desired outcome is a merge. (Often the case is that people agree with "deletion" of the stand-alone article per the nom, but identify a redirect/merge target the nom did not see. This is reasonable to allow). --MASEM (t) 05:14, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

The idea is to prevent an editor who wants the article deleted to go and blank the article, then complain that it's been blanked. We also sometimes see people come in and blank sections, then complain that the article has no real content. But there's a caveat there too - if the author blanks it, and no one else really edited it beyond tags and maintenance edits, then that can count as a speedy deletion request (WP:CSD#G7). UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:16, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, I've had experiences in AFDs where a couple of editors who want to delete an article actively try to re-edit it to make their quest a fait accompli, and thanks to the Pong game that is WP:3RR all you can do is sit back and watch it happen. Would it not be better to generalize the sentiment and to remind editors to abide by the WP:PRESERVE policy? -- Kendrick7^talk 03:09, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Good idea. I think a call to not remove references during the AfD would achieve that, and is in the same spirit of the no blanking, as it allows editors to assess the existing support for the article content. Diego Moya (talk) 07:59, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I dunno, normal editing should be possible even during an AFD - and if the refs are indeed rubbish, I should be able to remove them. Now, I should also explain at the AFD what I did and why, so that it's clear. On the other hand, it's pretty transparent when a nominator goes in and guts the article after nominating, and they'll usually get called out on it in the debate. I think that sort of thing would fall under Disruptive Editing, without a separate policy - but mentioning it here might make sense too. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:22, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Zero1 Australian National Championship. I need this completed. This article should go and I have said why on the talk page. 101.173.170.151 (talk) 00:07, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Done, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zero1 Australian National Championship. Hut 8.5 11:03, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I nominated an AfD and it got no response from anyone so it's been relisted twice without any feedback. Will it be relisted a third time? At what point does a decision get made if there is just complete indifference except for my nomination? NewJerseyLiz ^{Let's Talk} 15:50, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

The AfD is here. I've !voted. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:05, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Adam_Kadmon_(character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The page is related to a minor Italian television character (from the program "Mistero" / Italia1 http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mistero_(programma_televisivo) ). I think that the wiki page was created only for self-promotional purpose to create a "background" to the character by producers of the show. The page have no international encyclopedic relevance so I think it should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.229.51.18 (talk • contribs) 10:34, 21 August 2013‎ (UTC)

 Done. The debate is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Kadmon (character). UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:12, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I have placed the reasons on the talk page. Thanks. 58.164.105.136 (talk) 03:00, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Done. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AWF Australasian Championship. One suggestion: you state that the promotion was previously found wanting at AfD on notability grounds but did not provide a link to that prior discussion. It is a big gap you should fill.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:34, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Done. I couldn't find it straight away which is why I didn't add it to begin with. 58.164.105.136 (talk) 08:40, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

List of largest automotive companies by revenue looks like WP:OR, but then each item is referenced. How are lists handled? If forbes or someone published the list it would be a no-brainer to keep (or at least merge). --76.110.201.132 (talk) 01:24, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Based on advice I receive on the Notability/Noticeboard I nominated some WP:BLPs of Howard County politicians to Afd. Most got clear consensus, but these two got caught up in an irrelevant banter about the merits of copy/pasting. They have both been stagnant since the relisting a couple of days ago. I would appreciate an objective look-see if someone has the time. Thanks! MilaPedia (talk) 06:23, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

May I suggest that the template used to add nominations to the list be stripped of the "link header" function? Just below the header, the article is linked, so is it necessary to also link it in the header? Some editors like myself prefer the "right-click to edit" rather than "edit links". When the linked section header is right-clicked, all one gets is the usual choice box that one gets when one right-clicks a link. To edit the page, one has to go back up to the "edit" or "edit source" link and click it. Then one must hunt for the particular article one wants to edit. If the article-name headers are stripped of their links, then this problem would be solved:

• Gua (First Wave) → Gua (First Wave)
• Ref.: Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing – General options

A right-click of the unlinked version in a header will allow editors to edit the individual article entry instead of the contents of the entire page in the edit field. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 16:06, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose even though I really don't have any idea what you're proposing, or even what template would be changed if your proposal was adopted. ‑Scottywong| prattle _ 21:08, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

  I'm at least encouraged by your taking the time to respond. Okay, each title of each article that is discussed is [[linked]] both in its subject header and just below the subject header. What I propose is the way it is already done at Rfd. At Rfd one finds the redirect name linked only once just below the section header, and the header itself is not linked. So two thoughts arise... Why are two links to the article title needed when only one will do the job, and what about those poor souls like myself, those of us with no [edit] links to click on? We are supposed to be able to right-click a section header to open the edit screen, but that doesn't work when the section header is itself a link. So please shine your light on us poor souls and support the delinking of section headers here at Afd. Heck, I'd even thank you for that! – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 22:29, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, well I just discovered by experiment that my major concern here is unfounded. I played with it and found that if I right-click the page anywhere to the right of the section header on the same line as the header, even all the way to the right edge of the page, the edit screen for just that article opens. So I don't really have to open the entire edit page to leave an opinion or comment. Now, I still don't see the need for two links for each article, one in the section header and one just below that header, but at least I've found that there is a way to edit an individual entry that does not require my jumping thru hoops. Joys to all! – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 22:48, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
PS. Oh! and I won't edit the links out of the section headers; however, I would support that if others want it. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX!

I'm requesting that someone else complete the process, per instructions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.236.136.184 (talk) 18:17, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Can someone please complete the nomination process for Wenwen Han. Here is my rationale for deletion:

This individual has only one supporting acting role, thus failing WP:NACTOR, which states an actor has to had "significant roles in multiple well-known films and shows." She also does not seem very notable as a dancer or violinist as she has not competed in any well-known competitions or shows, fails WP:NBAND too. The references and external links do not provide any indication of notability at all. Having accounts on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and YouTube do not equal notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.122.93.42 (talk) 23:56, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, could an admin take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kim Ju Ae, there is a possible procedural close involving a fork. There are two articles about the same person, Kim Ju Ae and Kim Ju-ae. They were created at nearly the same time and the nom apparently did not know there were two. The first one (currently under AfD) should be redirected to the second one because 1. it's the newer one and 2. it's the lower quality. Then, if the nom or anyone still wants to delete it should be with Kim Ju-ae. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 14:41, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done. I've redirected this title to Kim Ju-ae and closed the AFD. I also restored this entry, so that it can go into the archive. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:14, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

If an article is a "redirect" but it was was an encyclopedia article for a really long time before it became a redirect (and now has been a redirect for a long time too), and you think it should be deleted, do you try to do that at the articles for deletion page or the redirects for discussion page? The article was never deleted and it was never considered by articles for deletion, it was just made to be a redirect one day by one person. I don't think the history of this article should be viewable because of its improper content. Lady in polka dot (talk) 14:11, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

We would need to know what the article is before any action could be considered or taken.Theroadislong (talk) 14:22, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Obviously created as an advertisement but now out of business and as such a totally pointless article on Wikipedia. 68.38.197.76 (talk) 04:53, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Notability is not temporary. Consensus in 2010 was that this restaurant was notable. The fact that it has closed is irrelevant. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:04, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I would like to nominate 100 Sexiest Women in Comics for AfD but I haven't done that before so I wanted to confirm how here or have someone take a look. The article does not seem to be based upon concrete criteria for inclusion, have verifiable content, or have a logical reason for its construction. The list appears to be unique on Wikipedia: there is no other list of sexiest people and the content is of little encyclopaedic interest. The list has no lasting notability. Thanks! Antiqueight (talk) 23:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

It's also a copyvio (these are subjective lists and thus outright recreation is not appropriate.) There is a possibly the list might be notable as a separate issue without including all the names, so the AFD and the copyvio has to be handled separately. I'll tag the AFD for you but also will need to do copyvio cleanup. --MASEM (t) 23:52, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Civil recognition of Jewish divorce is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Civil recognition of Jewish divorce until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.


Concern, reason or rationale=It is an original research largely by its creator as part of his series of work also of original research on the theme of the subject of the Conflict of laws; only an Israeli Jewish (religious) divorce can be recognized by civil authorities overseas, and that is only an automatic legal right in domestic law in the United Kingdom and in the Republic of Ireland; the article is unnecessarily, unacceptably and unreasonably hypothetical and legalistic, and ought to be merged with the main article, being Get (divorce document). 212.50.182.151 (talk) 11:02, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Amanda Hughes article is waiting to be patrolled. I read it. The author in question seems to have had her first book published some years ago. Since then it is all self published and the first book is available that way too. The page was set up by one person and it looks like it was the author herself - though obviously I'm not sure. I'm just not convinced of notability. Someone else tagged it for proposed deletion and the creator objected arguing that the books were on Amazon. It is through Kindle and Create Space which are both Amazon self publishing tools. The references on the page are extremely local. Several of the reviews of her book on multiple different sites seem to be by the same person (Goodreads, Amazon etc). I'm wrong more often than I'm right about notability. Can some one take a look?--Antiqueight ^confer 16:45, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Both WP:COI and WP:SPS apply. Just because you can publish them through amazon doesn't make the books or the author notable. As the editor did remove the PROD, the only next step is AFD. --MASEM (t) 16:48, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks--Antiqueight ^confer 16:51, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to formally request that the AfD for Devil Shit be re-opened. It was closed as no consensus, but I think that this was a little premature given that the closure was done only a day after the AfD was re-listed. I think that it'd be better if it ran for another week, especially given the extremely poor sources in the article. I'd be willing to just create another AfD myself, as there's an extremely clear lack of notability here. I'm asking here as well as on the closer's page, as I think that this should go through another week. In other words, let's give it more than 8 days to get noticed at AfD, especially since it didn't get that full second week. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:04, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, it was closed 8 days after relisting. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:11, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

• Ah... I misread. I'll just start a new AfD then. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:20, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I have made a proposal to deprecate PROD in favor of closing unchallenged AfDs as if they were successful PRODs. If you have an opinion on the matter, please chime in there. --erachima talk 17:37, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I think outline articles should be deleted such as Outline of arithmetic as a list-style duplicate of content in Arithmetic and Category:Arithmetic. Rather than tag every outline article, I thought it might be helpful to have a conversation here. — Reinyday, 18:33, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Bitstamp looks like spam. It is very praise worthy of the website. It has no references. It's existed like that for more than a month and a half without being fixed up. 197.159.28.252 (talk) 11:06, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

This Vice article is required reading for anyone doing regular AfD work. Related Daily Dot and The Signpost. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:59, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I've never done an edit, so please forgive my ignorance! I would like to propose the Standing Stones of Lougheed article for deletion. It appears to be a hoax. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_Stones_of_Lougheed. The link is broken for Reference #1. Reference #2 shows an ancient stone circle at a location other than this one (about 8 km away). The link to Reference #4 is broken, and I cannot find evidence of such a document anywhere on the Web. The article states that the boulders are ancient. While any boulder is obviously ancient, the placement of these particular boulders is modern. The article states that the stones are in First Nations territory. This is true for the stones as it is for the entire City of Burnaby (that the stones are located in). There's nothing particular about this site. I contacted the landscape architect responsible for placement of the stones. She indicated that there was no special significance to the boulders. They were simply meant to accompany the adjoining rapid transit station. If the page is deleted, reference to the stones on [[9]] should also be removed. Thanks. Stu — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.34.170.129 (talk) 23:04, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Should Garleton College go through AfD or can it be deleted speedily as a hoax? Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:59, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• The hoax article Garleton College has been deleted. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:09, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I came across BBMpins whilst searching for the format of the PINs used on BlackBerry smartphones. I'm not entirely sure if it meets WP:Notability standards as it's both an orphaned page, and appears to reference a specific website that I myself do not know or use. However as I use WP rarely, I'm not sure if this should be AFD'd or handled in some other way.

Can someone else please carry out the WP:Notability checks for this and handle it as appropriate? I'm not online very often, so cannot participate in an active debate or discussion over it. I'm basically flagging it for the community. :-)

+++ DieselDragon +++ ^{Talk, Contribs} - 26 October 2013CE = 20:36, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Can someone please complete the nomination process for Parkside Avenue? Here is my rationale for deletion, thanks. 69.122.92.152 (talk) 01:45, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Articie is about a tiny, minor street in Brooklyn that fails WP:NTSR and Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Streets#Guidelines. Parkside Avenue has no unique features, did not become synonymous with a major industry or organization, nothing notable ever happened there, and was never mentioned significantly in any books, films, shows, etc. Having one measly local subway station named after it (which was actually named for another street when it opened) certainly does not make it notable since we don't have articles on every single street that has a station serving or named after it and they're meant to serve the surrounding area, not just the one street they're named after.

 Done Ansh666 01:19, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Pardon me, I'm sure this has been discussed before, but the archives are all but unsearchable. Is it really fruitful to relist an AfD when no one has responded, as opposed to soft deleting it right then? I suspect many more editors monitor AfD versus PRODs, and I'm concerned that relisting such discussions in effect punishes editors for not using PROD, which doesn't strike me as a very good idea. WP:SILENCE also applies. Regardless of whether we can come to a consensus about such one-week soft deletions, would anyone get really angry if I started doing so myself? --BDD (talk) 20:59, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

One of the previous discussions is at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 53#Proposal, treat AFDs with little or no discussion as "uncontested prods". Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:07, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Personally I would favor deprecating WP:PROD entirely in favor of closing uncontested AfDs as deletes. Would solve the drive-by tag/untag problem PROD has, consolidate processes, and reduce backlog. --erachima talk 21:18, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with this. PROD is supposed to be for uncontroversial deletions and, in theory, is a good idea. But when some proddeclinebot deProds a bunch of them thoughtlessly, that are then taken to AfD and uncontroversially deleted, the whole thing becomes a huge time sink. Agree that AfDs with no responses should be treated as uncontested PRODS. Reyk _YO! 21:41, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

This issue shouldn't be decided here without any wider debate. This suggestion needs to be more widely discussed, like when it was previously proposed and apparently rejected. I support relisting rather than silent deletion because a sizeable percentage of AfDs are dubious, e.g. claims of non-notability by people who've not done WP:BEFORE, irrelevant justifications like "this doesn't have any references", "bad article", "liable to vandalism", or calls for deleting lists by people who've never heard of WP:CLN, and well-meaning mistakes. Silently deleting is not the answer. And certainly this needs to be explained to AfD users, since I previously assumed that if nobody agreed to an AfD it would generally be either relisted or closed as no consensus. Often I see a topic which might be salvagable but without taking the time to do actual research I don't contribute and wait for others to comment. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:10, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Ah I should have read further on, this is being discussed elsewhere. Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Deprecate PROD, close unchallenged AfDs as delete without prejudice. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:14, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I understand that it's acceptable to have references in foreign language literature on an article. But what if an article has plenty of references (I believe it's around 8-10) but all of the information is in Korean and a fair amount of the article is also in Korean? I don't know if an article on the English Wikipedia has to have a minimum amount of English use to be acceptable.

I should say this isn't a brand new article. It concerns a South Korean men's rights activist who died and the main contributors work primarily in that language. I am not seeking a speedy delete, just a translation into English and the primary Editor hasn't responded to any messages on their Talk Page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:10, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Citing foreign language sources is fine, but the article text should be in English. I recommend deleting Korean language article text. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:53, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

See WP:NOTENGLISH for details on what to do in these situations - it's mainly for articles that are entirely in another language, but articles with a large amount of vital information in another language fits there too. Good luck, Ansh666 05:43, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Ricky is a real person who starred in the TV program treasure island and this webpage proves he exist: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0642290/?ref_=fn_al_nm_2 Must his Wikipedia be deleted? Venustar84 (talk) 00:10, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you comment at Talk:Ricky O'Neill - a comment here is unlikely to be noticed by those involved with the article. You should however note that existence is not a criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia: notability is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:24, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Tried refreshing the old discussion using toolserver and purging cache, but the 31 isn't showing up even though it clearly has some open processes within. Anybody else seeing this? BusterD (talk) 01:08, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Everything's closed now, so this is resolved, but for several hours after my note above the queue had open discussions yet it didn't appear on the Old Discussions list. BusterD (talk) 14:28, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

This article seems outdated with a "proposed deletion" but not in AFD. Should I create a log entry? Recommend create a deletion page for Fly MI BrandonWu (talk) 01:27, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

No, let it sit. One of the admins who works PRODs should get to it soon. Ansh666 08:04, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I do not believe this meets WP:AUTHOR & cannot find multiple secondary independent sources discussing this person or his books/reviews. Article has been maintained for 5 years by an static Newport Beach,Ca ipaddr, which is where the subject lives/works...possible wp:COI? As outlined at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_nominate_a_single_page_for_deletion I have completed step I and request that steps II & III be completed thanks. 78.105.28.140 (talk) 07:39, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done Ansh666 08:26, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Non-notable topic. Appears to be a slight restatement of systems engineering without significant sourcing justifying this as worth a separate entry. This article has been around for a couple of years without real improvement.

Recommend replacing with a simple redirect to Systems engineering.

214.4.238.180 (talk) 21:42, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done Ansh666 20:45, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Can someone please complete the nomination process for that article. Here is my rationale for deletion. Thanks 24.146.209.22 (talk) 23:49, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Article is about a small, single block street that is used primarily used as a parking lot for the Chicago Firefighting Academy, the only structure on the street. Other than being the starting point of the Great Chicago Fire, there is no evidence of this street meeting WP:NTSR and Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Streets#Guidelines. Yes, it is mentioned in several books and newspaper articles, but they are all in reference to the fire. This seems to be a case of WP:NOTINHERITED as the street is only known due to the fire and just because it is named after a notable figure doesn't mean it is notable itself (if there was a small residential street named "John Adams Place" or "Benjamin Franklin Way," I highly doubt we would have articles on them).

 Done Ansh666 03:33, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

This article is really misleading and doesn't tell the truth. It had some source to Star of Mysore which is run by one guy in India who has a "hocus pocus" and "abrakadrabra" section, but I could not find it in any archive and the entire site is garbage. And the one source you'd think that be objective is just running Potter-fever.[10] The entire article is like some April fools joke with lines like "There he lives with Morning Glory, and a small bearded dragon who lives on his shoulder all day. He drinks a herbal drink he calls a 'Pengalactic garglegaster'." This is not a school so much as an attempt to cash in on Harry Potter and push new-age religious beliefs on children for the low price of 17 euros. This "school" is fake and will not teach its students magic. Zewai (talk) 14:10, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

We do cover hoaxes and frauds, so long as they're notable by coverage in sources (see WP:N and WP:RS). It's quite likely these two articles (a merge with Grey School of Wizardry is clearly needed) should remain, although obviously we can't give credit to the incredible. I suggest AfDing both, now that you've started one, because we should demonstrate merge consensus anyway and it's as good a place as anywhere to garner some eyeballs. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:17, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

They are actually one in the same with almost the exact same content. The sources are the same and the claims are. It is the same neopagans who run it and articles are some endorsement or pitch to students. At least three of the sources do not back there lofty claims, but for 17 Euro and a purely "online" presence I do not see how 450 classes are really done and given "enrollment" its 2 students per class if that. It is a sales pitch and a scam. Zewai (talk) 14:33, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I've completed formatting on the nomination and added the duplicate article. Zewai, you need to post a detailed rationale at the AFD, or someone will close it on procedural grounds. The statement you started with here isn't quite sufficient, as it doesn't cite a policy basis for deletion. "It's a hoax" is insufficient, given that there are sources - your task is to show that the sources aren't enough to prove the subject notable. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:21, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

This school is NOT a hoax, and the many notable authors and religious leaders involved with it would not lend their names to it if it were. Among them are: Raymond Buckland, Raven Grimassi, Donald Michael Kraig, Nicki Scully, Robert Lee "Skip" Ellison, Patricia Telesco, Sam Webster, Trina Robbins, Ronald Hutton, Amber K, Jesse Wolf Hardin, Ellen Evert Hopman, Jeff McBride and Morning Glory Zell-Ravenheart. Zewai may be something of a hoax, though. I see no previous contributions for him, no talk on his talk page, and a definite attitude to his posts here. I hate not to extend AGF, but I suspect an agenda. The headmaster of this school, Oberon Zell-Ravenheart, has been a respected leader of the neo-Pagan community for over forty years, and the members of the Grey Council are among the most respected authors in that community. The articles should definitely be merged and/or the less complete one eliminated, but the subject is certainly notable due not only to the notability of the faculty, but all the news media and other coverage of the subject.Rosencomet (talk) 18:07, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

In answer to Zewai (talk) 14:10, 26 November 2013 (UTC), and 14:33, 26 November 2013 (UTC), I created one of the articles, "The Grey School of Wizardry". A little digging will tell you that I am a university lecturer and am registered in the Wikipedia Education Program. I am a fairly novice Wikipedian with only a little over a year's experience at editing and creating articles, but I am independent of the source. I currently teach Rhetoric and Composition at the University of Sydney, have no connection with the Grey School, am an atheist, and did not create the article to "promote", "pitch" for sales, or any other such activity. I have degrees in Archaeology and Religious Studies (which focuses on ALL religions and is not theological), my PhD is on eschatology of Dante's Divine Comedy, and I hold a degree in teaching in higher education. My students come from various academic disciplines, learning writing and research and I, again, stress that I have no connection with the Grey School of Wizardry. I edit and create articles where I see a need, to extend on or improve articles my students are working on, or when my interest has been awakened. I created this one after conversations with a student, tutor, and a colleague at my University about the Grey School which is not a hoax. Finally, after consulting with editors/administrators from Wikimedia AU, I created the a stub and began to add source material. The claim that the article was a "hoax" was the first block I stumbled on when I requested that the article be created and I clearly satisfied the administrator at that time that it was not. The interest for me intensified with each ensuing obstacle, and I went on to add more "credible", "secondary" sources and evidence to the topic's notability, community benefit, etc as requested by successive administrators until the article was finally approved and went live. I do hope you can look back over the article's history and see that the tests you are suggesting the article be put through again have already been satisfactorily passed. I do agree that the information on the second article should be merged with this one.

What happed if someone not participated in the in the discussion? The article will be deleted? Xaris333 (talk) 20:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

It usually gets relisted for another week, possibly another two, like what happens when only a few people participate and there's no clear consensus. I think it's tremendously unlikely that nobody will participate in an AfD once it's been relisted a couple times. But supposing nobody participated at all, and there's a consensus the AfD should be closed rather than relisted, I think you could make arguments for (1) closing as no consensus, or (2) (providing this hadn't come up before) deleting it as though it had been put up for PROD. Keep in mind that this past weekend was a major holiday weekend for many Wikipedia users, so traffic is probably a bit lower among editors, even in a high traffic area like AfDs. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Article does not provide enough useful material beyond the seed article and merely references a single play from the game referenced in the seed article. Article creator keeps removing the delete tag and is the only source of any material on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.58.168.83 (talk) 19:22, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done Ansh666 11:16, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Could a registered user do this please? In my assessment, it is a crank article with no independent citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.223.38 (talk) 05:27, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Topological computing. Ansh666 09:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Not sure if this sportcaster is notable enough to warrant her own Wikipedia page. Most of the information posted appears to be nothing more than a rehash of her CV. No mention is given of any notable events she may have covered or of any notable interviews she may have conducted.

Moreover, no improvements at all have been made since March 2013 (when originally requested) and the only source appears to be a local media blog site. I am posting here because I am new to the Wikipedia process and not sure if deletion is even warranted in this case, so if I am way off base, please do not hesitate in slapping some sense into me.

Thank you. Marchjuly (talk) 06:56, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: This isn't the place to nominate an article for deletion. Please follow the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO. Ansh666 07:36, 10 December 2013 (UTC) (Moved from top of page)

It says at the top of this page and elsewhere that AfD is for deleting articles not for merging. Apparently not all nominators are aware of this. It is also fairly common, regardless of the nominator's proposal, for AfD commenters to support Merge as a proposed resolution. I don't think and I don't think the policy intends that merges be discussed at AfD. Merges should be discussed on article talk pages where editors who are more familiar with the articles in question can make a better decision. AfD is a good process for removing articles that don't belong in the encyclopedia. It is not such a good process for determining how best to organize information in the encyclopedia. I'd like to see two changes to how AfD is run. ~KvnG 15:46, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

1. Promptly close as invalid any AfD where the nominator proposes Merge as a possible resolution. On AfD, nominators and others supporting AfD proposals must make a case for outright deletion.
2. Remove Merge as a valid AfD result. Resolve these as No consensus instead. Anyone who supports a merge is welcome to put up banners and start a merge discussion at any time.

Oppose at least in part. A current consensus of "merge" would map to delete not no consensus, as the meaning of the result is "this should not exist as its own article". DMacks (talk) 15:55, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

My proposal to resolve these as No consensus is to allow time for merge discussion and merge to take place. If that is unsuccessful, someone may renominate the article. The failed merge attempt would satisfy WP:BEFORE requirement to consider a merge and allow the nominator to make a stronger argument for deletion. ~KvnG 16:11, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose, for different reasons:
  • Oppose first point - if someone thinks that a merge is a possible solution, that someone should open a merge discussion, not a deletion discussion. This I agree with. However in case this happens, the article still can be judged on its merits, and not merely on the nomination's merits. If someone, after nomination, makes a valuable case for not merging, or for outright deletion, then AfD discussion deserves to continue.
  • Oppose second point - Yes, AfD is not primarily meant to discuss merges, but it can easily come out that editors decide, in this venue, that a merge is the correct result, and the closer takes such consensus into account. It is quite useless to increase our already terrible bureaucracy by disallowing assessment of consensus as "merge".--cyclopia^speak! 16:21, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Do you think AfD is the best place to have these discussions? IME it is not. I've been involved in a couple cases recently where a merge conclusion was reached but when I attempted to do the merge, it became clear that the context was not given adequate consideration. I think merge discussion is better handled on article talk pages with editors more familiar with the material and the timescale is more conducive to reaching good decisions on what can be complicated questions. ~KvnG 17:09, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Do you think AfD is the best place to have these discussions? - No, it is not necessarily the best place, but it is a place where such discussion happen very regularly and it usually causes no trouble at all to do so. I am also puzzled by your argument about talk pages: did not talk page regulars take part in the AfD discussion? --cyclopia^speak! 17:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

No, for two reasons I don't believe participation in these AfD discussions is adequate. These are not theoretical concerns. If you need examples, let me know. ~KvnG 19:50, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

1. Many articles have sporadic editor participation and slow timeframes. It is not unusual for it to take 6 months to get good input on a merge discussion.
2. There is not a reliable mechanism to alert editors of the target page when a merge is being discussed as part of AfD of another article

• Oppose both. About the first, where the nominator proposes only a merge, it's closed as invalid, but a "maybe delete but possible merge" is just as valid as straight "delete"; generally this happens when the nominator is not sure about either the sourcing or the suitability of certain content. About the second, there are templates for merging as a result of AfDs: see the dab at Template:Afd-merge; the normal Template:Merge can also accept parameters that will point the discuss link to the AfD in question. I've carried out a couple merges myself, albeit smaller ones (which they usually are); there is little controversy over the majority of them. I suspect that the examples you have are edge cases, which would make this a typical WP case of creating a solution in search of a problem. Ansh666 20:04, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand why it is OK to nominate an article for deletion if you are unsure if it should be deleted or merged. Nominators should consider merging WP:BEFORE nominating. If the nominator is unsure whether a merge is a good idea, he should put up merge banners and/or start a discussion on a talk page.

One problem I'd like to solve is AfD workload. If you don't think this is an issue, I'll be happy to start a separate discussion thread to discuss that. I propose we need more of this work done WP:BOLDly with merges, WP:PROD and WP:BLAR. ~KvnG 20:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. On the first point, when a nominator sees the possibility of merging it is often conditional on things like the content being verified. When the deletion option is on the table the AFD should run its course. On the second point, disallowing a merge consensus from an AFD discussion is an impedement to reasonable compromises, is too inflexible, and a talkpage discussion would in most cases yield the same result anyway. On the fairly rare occasion that a consensus to merge is wrong on the merits, where those who work with the articles in question find that merging them together is inadvisable, a talkpage discussion may be opened to revisit the issue. Sjakkalle (Check!) 20:19, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

If an AfD Merge result is simply a recommendation to article editors then I'm fine. There are cases where the outcome is Merge and redirect and the nominator or administrator takes this as an authoritative edict to WP:BLAR and I'm not fine with that. ~KvnG 20:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. In addition to the valid points already raised, I will add that I do not agree with the notion that a consensus reached by the wider audience found at AfD should be dismissed in favor of decisionmaking by a more narrow group of editors on a talk page. Sometimes it's valuable and productive to get the broader view. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:56, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support point 2 I can't really support point 1 per WP:BURO. But I've seen, in my time, other editors basically abuse AfD to force a merge, and then when the merge happens, turn right around and insist on deleting encyclopedic content per WP:UNDUE, despite our WP:PRESERVE policy. I'm reminded of an old Burr Shafer cartoon featuring Augustine of Hippo meeting a man in the woods in the middle of the night who is handing him a large sack of money. "Augustine," the man says, "There are a few things I'd like you to leave out of your Confessions." Unfortunately, there are editors among us who don't want our readers to have all the facts. (I wish and pray that someday we'll have a WP:PRESERVE noticeboard.) We have a perfectly valid system for doing proper merges. Bringing the issue before the hoi polloi at AfD seems largely like a way to WP:GAME the system, imo. -- Kendrick7^talk 03:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Is your WP:BURO objection the same as what Cyclopia described above? ~KvnG 03:47, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, he's gotten at the gist of it! -- Kendrick7^talk 01:02, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Merges should leave behind redircts - or if we have a merge-and-delete, a history merge should take place - and that means that the remove of merged material is not losing previous contributions. --MASEM (t) 04:30, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect were recognized as fully valid AfD outcomes at WT:Articles for deletion/Archive 61#RfC: Merge, redirect (January–February 2011). I think that AfD does a passable job of determining whether a standalone article should exist. Notifying potential merge targets' editors should be improved. Flatscan (talk) 05:14, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  • As mentioned by others, WP:Speedy keep 1 covers nominations where "The nominator withdraws the nomination or fails to advance an argument for deletion—perhaps only proposing a non-deletion action such as moving or merging, and no one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted." Flatscan (talk) 05:24, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Request that someone completes deletion of Colares UFO flap. Reason: No reliable sources, none added since March 2013. 78.73.162.169 (talk) 19:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colares UFO flap Ansh666 23:41, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think this person meets the requirements for relevance to have their own page. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.183.30.96 (talk) 02:05, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

 Good enough, I've opened a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amber Naslund, please comment there. Thanks, Ansh666 04:25, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

The deletion instructions that appear during step II are very usefull. Still the last steps can be improved:

• Suggest to open the articles for deletion log page in a new browser tab or window ( there are two unfinished edits)
• The last step should say: First go back to THIS (Preloaded debate) edit page and save; after that, save the edit on the articles for deletion log page.
  

After all the order does not matter, so you can also simply instruct to save both edits. --Wickey-nl (talk) 14:05, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, as explained on the page on how to nominate an article for deletion, I'm requesting that someone complete the process for Don K. Preston. Here is my rationale: I searched both google news and the google news archive and found no press coverage of him at all. [11] I also searched for references to him in google books and found only his self-published books [12]. Google scholar similarly did not turn up any coverage in academic journals. [13] Therefore, I think this person does not meet Wikipedia's basic notability criteria "the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." The article has had the notability tag on it for two and a half years. Thanks. 184.147.136.249 (talk) 17:15, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Done. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:15, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, anonymous user here, kindly requesting assistance. I wish to open a discussion on the article Guy Newland but as an anonymous user cannot complete Step II of the process. I have done Step I of the nomination. Reason is failure to show notability for an academic. Can a registered user assist? Thank you. 108.95.154.128 (talk) 18:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done DES ^(talk) 19:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Please see and join the emerging discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Drafts#Deletion_and_Draft: regarding part of the potential usage of the Draft: namespace. Fiddle Faddle 19:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, someone has created Sibir (nuclear icebreaker) to redirect to Sibir (icebreaker), but the latter is a completely different (earlier) ship. As far as I can tell, Wikipedia has no article for the nuclear icebreaker Sibir, so the redirect needs deleting and Sibir (nuclear icebreaker), which is linked from various places, needs to go back to being a "red link". 86.160.218.11 (talk) 03:49, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for giving a heads-up here, but this isn't exactly the right place to list a redirect. I nominated the redirect for deletion at WP:RFD. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:30, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I solved the problem by creating a stub for the nuclear icebreaker - it had several incoming links already. PamD 08:19, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Great, thanks. 86.176.211.137 (talk) 13:36, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Discussion here. Wnt (talk) 23:49, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

When working on Special:NewPagesFeed, I started working on Matias Nunes Cabral, which seemed to be created for essentially genealogical value, from what I can tell - this person is just listed in several genealogical books and isn't particularly notable. I did some searching on the web and couldn't find anything additive. Matias' article links to one about his wife and daughter, neither of whom seem to be notable either. I started tracking this down and ran across more such situations, having the same style, many of the same sources, etc. Another common denominator in many cases is an external link with "http://www.genealogiafamiliar.net/" - and there are 42 articles with that link.

It seems as if there is a new user ID being established for each article.

I had posted a speedy delete tag on the articles, but the tags were removed stating that it isn't the proper situation for speedy deletion, it would be better to follow the AfD route. (Discussion on User talk:CaroleHenson#historical figures.) The advice for identifying the least notable, etc. makes a ton of sense... so I'll work on that. I thought I'd give a heads-up here, that there will be some inter-related AfD nominations... and to check to see if you have anything to add in terms of recommendations / approach.--CaroleHenson (talk) 07:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Update: I looked at a number of articles, up to 20 I think, that seemed to be part of a cluster of inter-related articles. Most of them I either copy-edited or tagged as potential notable issues. There are only four that really seem to stand out as non-notables:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cristóbal Cabral de Melo Alpoim
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antonio Cabral de Melo
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maria Simões de Melo
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matias Nunes Cabral--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:18, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Since there's been no input, should I tag these four for "Speedy deletion"?--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:45, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

No need to speedy. (I think speedy has been removed by an admin in at least one case.) I'm no scholar on South American biography, but I didn't see any reliable sources either applied or on search engines which gave these figures any significant coverage. I've given a delete assertion on each biography because I can't see any reason for keeping. Just because historical figures are verifiable doesn't mean they warrant inclusion. Unless someone comes along to dispute, these article are headed for deletion via process. BusterD (talk) 05:24, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Buster - for taking the time to do the online checking and weighing in!--CaroleHenson (talk) 06:12, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Could someone please complete my nomination for this article for deletion? Reason is on the article's talk page. Thanks in advance. 101.172.213.57 (talk) 21:22, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Question: the PROD guideline clearly states that a proposed deletion is not valid on an article previously discussed at AfD. If I understand correctly, the reasoning is that, once discussed, it is obviously not completely uncontroversial. This applies to AfD's that closed as "no consensus" as well. What about AfD's that closed as "no consensus" where no one participated besides for the nominator?

Specifically, take the discussion I started: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Home Run For Life. No one seems to care whether the article exists or not; after two relistings, no one has commented. Can I withdraw the nomination and PROD instead?

הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 17:52, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

• After having a look at that, I'm going to suggest that it be selectively merged to the article about the town. From all indications, the softball marathons don't deserve their own article, but the fact that this tiny Alberta town got together to set a world record (as documented in reliable sources, not just Guinness) is a significant fact about the town. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:15, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Good point in this particular case, but what about the general issue? I cannot find any clear policy that answers my question. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 18:41, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't no-participation AfDs be closed as WP:SOFTDELETE? Ansh666 21:59, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_major_beauty_pageants This page is candidate for deletion. I would like to ask some help here how can this be improved and be retained on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markimatix (talk • contribs) 02:27, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

• You're going to have to start by demonstrating that the grouping of the five major beauty pageants isn't just something that you made up, or something that's promotional by Miss Supramax and that it's a notable grouping used by reliable sources. Neonchameleon (talk) 03:03, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

As I am an unconfirmed user of Wikipedia, could someone please kindly complete Step II and Step III of the AFD process, started here? Thank you in advance. - 2001:558:1400:10:D4BF:9258:EE2F:4F9A (talk) 19:35, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

• appears to be done Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WikiMaps. Thanks. Protonk (talk) 21:03, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Can someone please complete the nomination for deletion of The Mighty Don't Kneel? Nomination reasons are on the talk page. 101.172.213.65 (talk) 05:22, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Only three people have contributed to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Redwood Software (2nd nomination), and the discussion has been open for more than 2.5 weeks now. Dear all: Please contribute to the discussion. Thank you! —Unforgettableid (talk) 08:05, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Could an admin consider closing the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antonia Gerstacker discussion? It is obviously causing a great deal of distress to the subject/author of the article (she has also been blocked for repeatedly trying to delete the article herself). Sionk (talk) 19:07, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I second that, the craziness continues (new account set up after two sockpuppet accounts were blocked) and more people have added their votes for "Delete" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antonia Gerstacker.--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:27, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

FYI, Template:Cleanup AfD (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 02:18, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alpha Phi Epsilon (3rd nomination) is about a fraternity at Ursinus College in Pennsylvania. The earlier 2 AfDs were about "Alpha Phi Epsilon Inter-University Collegiate Service Fraternity and Sorority" in the Philippines. This is confusing people who assume the article existed before - how do we fix this? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 21:54, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Your comment looks good. Hopefully people will read it. A general note at the top might be useful too, if the comment doesn't seem to be working. Ansh666 02:37, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 17:15, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I am an unconfirmed user. I am requesting someone to please create the AfD page for the Wikipedia article William Sledd. Please note that this is the fifth nomination (the last was in 2008), so sufficient time has passed. I have posted my reasons on the article's talk page in this entry.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.255.102.180 (talk) 08:37, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:48, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Can someone complete the nomination process for me? Here is my reason why the article is not needed:

Article just duplicates or refers to content that already exists in Kelsey Smith-Briggs. It has been a stub tagged with "Unreferenced" and "Expert needed" tags for over four years and I cannot find anything substantial beyond what is already in this short article. This is one of the cases where separate articles for the murder victim and a law named after him/her is completely unnecessary like Kendra Webdale, Nixzmary Brown, Leandra's Law, or even Amber Hagerman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.118.139.6 (talk) 15:02, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done. Please put your reason for wanting this article deleted on its talk page next time as per the rules. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 14:15, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't this discussion be closed after more than half a decade? --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Did they even close those back then? It was VfD, and very early, huh. Dunno. Ansh666 05:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Went ahead and threw a close on that one, just to keep things clean. Near as I can tell, the article was kept - and has been there ever since. Interesting, the things you find... UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:31, 21 January 2014 (UTC)