Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#AFD template error

I'm not sure if this page qualifies for AfD, but based on what I’ve seen, I don’t think it should remain on the platform. Anyway, I’ve left a message on its Talk page, so if someone could verify my request, I’d really appreciate it. Please note that there’s no COI involved here—I’m simply trying to learn how to start an AfD myself, but I don’t want to mess anything up. I’m hoping someone else can handle it. Thank you. Aona1212 (talk) 14:36, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{done}} Toadspike [Talk] 21:31, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

::By the way, @Aona1212, I suggest that you install Twinkle, which makes the nomination process a lot easier. Toadspike [Talk] 21:32, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Cool! Thank you for sharing and for helping with the deletion of this page. Aona1212 (talk) 13:38, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello,

I’d like to request a closure for the AfD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bangladesh Mosque Mission. The discussion has been open for over 7 days and has received several comments, with it leaning toward keep. Since I participated in the discussion, I’m not eligible to close it myself per WP:NAC.

Requesting an uninvolved admin or experienced editor to close.

Thanks! BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 08:27, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:@BangladeshiEditorInSylhet - the discussion was relisted a few hours before you left this message; further discussion from others is needed. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 09:44, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello! I was originally looking for a list of all political entities combined, but such a list does not exist, but then I was recommended the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_and_geographic_subdivisions_by_total_area lists. I have never in my life seen such messy and low activity articles on Wikipedia before. It seems like over half the entire entries have no reliable sources and there's so many articles as well! Is it really necessary with so many?

There seems to be no consistency in which regions/nations/unions etc. are added, we have everything from historical nations to modern nations to historical unions and modern unions and region. We have Bharat in South Asia, who you know... NEVER EXISTED. We have the Moon(not a planet, I know) but what about Mars and the other bodies in the galaxy? what about the rest of the universe? Where's the cut-off? What is the point of these articles? can anyone just add anything they want? imaginary nations and concepts and whatever they want? I'm of course joking about adding random entries, but it surely seems like that has been the go-to move ever since.

I know my personal opinion have no meaning, it means nothing, I know. I just can't stop myself from laughing when i saw these lists and the lack of sources and random entries, I thought I was on a fandom Wikipedia or something, and not the actual Wikipedia. I am also unsure what my goal is here, but shouldn't something at least be done with these messes of articles? they are so random and rarely edited and looks like nobody is keeping an eye out for what's added? MindfulGalaxy (talk) 03:10, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:"political and geographic subdivisions" is so inherently meaningless it could mean "everything", so I doubt those lists have much value. "all political entities combined" is likely similarly nebulous, although we have focused lists like List of first-level administrative divisions by area. CMD (talk) 04:00, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::Hello! thanks for your quick reply! I agree that it seems kinda pointless and it seems like most people don't even know those lists exist? I am not big into Wikipedia, but other articles seems to be patrolled by admins and knowledgeable editors, but not these ones? I just want to know what the consensus is, can we add anything we want to without sources like half the articles have?

Edit: Just checked the list you provided, it seems very relevant and much more important and consistent than the lists i mentioned here, thank you for the list! MindfulGalaxy (talk) 04:08, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:: Sounds like a cleanup task. So WP:NOTCLEANUP. Hyperbolick (talk) 04:19, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Thank you for your reply! I clicked and I am embarrassed to say that I have no idea what I'm looking at. Sorry to take up your time but can you briefly explain it to me? MindfulGalaxy (talk) 04:28, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::: Rule that if it can be fixed, fixing is the solution, not deletion. Unsourced can be fixed with adding sources. Seeming problematic entries can be discussed. If consensus forms they can be removed. All fixable. Makes this the wrong page to raise these kinds of things. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:29, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Ah I get it now. I probably shouldn't have bothered you guys in here then.. I apologize.

:::::I have seen some articles having some banners/boxes above them that says that the respective article is missing sources, is incomplete or should be merged, shouldn't that be added to all of those maybe? MindfulGalaxy (talk) 01:08, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::: Seems they all already have the "incomplete" tag. Will ask about the others. Hyperbolick (talk) 03:10, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::: Thanks for the note. I have clarified the lede for these pages to note that "references for the information provided in this table may generally be found in the individual articles on each of the bodies listed therein". BD2412 T 17:31, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Would someone mind nominating {{la|Terrorist tactics, techniques, and procedures}} on my behalf with the following rationale:

WP:CFORK of Tactics of terrorism. Collection of this as a distinct topic seems to be due to a single author, C. Flaherty, which not so coincidentally is rather similar to the username of this article's creator and primary contributor.

Thanks for your assistance, 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:00, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{done}}. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terrorist tactics, techniques, and procedures. Thryduulf (talk) 21:15, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

MicroSIP is an unreferenced spam article. It has recently started being edited to link to malware. Please see the talk page for my rational. 107.115.5.36 (talk) 23:02, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:This article cleanly survived AfD last year (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/MicroSIP.) Is there any reason to believe the outcome will be different this time? --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:41, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{done}} - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:53, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

There are several AfDs way overdue for closing: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Sol Foundation and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jon Hartley (2nd nomination) are nearly a week overdue, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of victims of the 2015 Tianjin explosions three days, and over a dozen around 24 hours. I'd appreciate if any lurking admins would pitch in to help, especially with the three several-day-old ones. Toadspike [Talk] 13:05, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

The subject of this BLP (not me) requests deletion, but a PROD was declined with no substantive explanation. The deletion rationale is at Talk:Janet Tavakoli. 173.79.19.248 (talk) 14:04, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:{{already done}} by {{noping|Russ Woodroofe}}. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Janet Tavakoli. [[User:CanonNi]] (talk • contribs) 14:31, 4 June 2025 (UTC)