Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Secondary proposal: AFDiscussion

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)

::::::: For those who did not follow the discussion, this was nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of political and geographic subdivisions by total area from 50 to 250 square kilometers, which resulted in a vote to keep and clean up the lists. That has now been done. BD2412 T 21:55, 10 June 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)

Upward of 90% of the article concerns the other works this individual has worked with, besides his own. From what I've discovered, the only references that talk about him concern his wedding with Courtney Stodden. Notability has not been established and frankly this is really starting to look like autobiographical/free web hosting. BOTTO _(T•C) 15:12, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:{{already done}} by Launchballer. Toadspike [Talk] 22:13, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

I nominate this article for deletion because the subject is not notable and references do not show that the actor passes WP:NACTOR. as an IP I can not finish the nomination process. All of the references right now are unreliable or mentions with no sig cov 2600:1011:B03A:9C5:A43F:90D:A2C4:9E5C (talk) 17:05, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:{{done}} Toadspike [Talk] 22:16, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Would someone kindly nominate MERMOZ for AFD on my behalf with the following rationale? Thanks in advance!

Contested WP:PROD with no reason given. My original concern was: Appears to be a nonnotable project. Most of the sources cited don't even mention it, and those that do are either press releases or written by people involved with the project; can't find any secondary independent coverage. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 20:15, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:The topic seems sourced and notable. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:46, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

::It most definitely is not, for the reason I described above. If you feel otherwise, you should feel free to opine at the AFD, which is a reasoned, good-faith request, and whose opening has no real reason to be denied. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 13:03, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

I found this article Calcutta Historical Society unsourced. Could someone kindly confirm if it’s eligible for AfD? Thank you. Aona1212 (talk) 15:03, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:It now has sources. Rublamb (talk) 23:04, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

::Yes, but not yet enough to get it past deletion concern at this point, as at most one of them is both in-depth and independent. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:34, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:::@NatGertler, I thought I had added enough for this short article, but went back and found more. This India society consistently had coverage in newspapers in the US, England, and Australia in the first quarter of the 20th century. I have not looked at Indian newspapers yet. Rublamb (talk) 01:37, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello. Can someone close this page? It has been wiped clean by the nominator, and the nominator lacked the required extended confirmed to edit or make nominations for this article in the first place, WP:GS/AA. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 05:14, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello again! I just found another article that has been unsourced since 2012, and it looks eligible for AfD. I could be mistaken, but I felt it was important to report this here. Could you please find time to review the page? Thank you! Aona1212 (talk) 16:44, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:This is a mandatory bar association (lawyers are required to belong) of a US state. There's no way it's eligible for deletion. Please look for sources. Jahaza (talk) 19:11, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:Article is no longer unreferenced. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:11, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

I nominated this article for deletion as the subject is not notable. It reads like the subject's own LinkedIn page. As IP I cannot complete the process. 2600:1700:3522:3740:F001:D969:9012:B477 (talk) 19:15, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:To me it seems like the sources in the article impart notability, as multiple give significant coverage to him/his actions leading a company. This appears to be bolstered by looking up his name (Tom P.H. Adams).

:However as most of the coverage is due to his business, I would understand if another editor does nominate and likely would not object at the AfD. Emily.Owl ( she/her • talk) 21:43, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::File:Yes check.svg Done -- see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Adams (entrepreneur). --Finngall ^talk 22:13, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

The last AfD for this subject was closed as soft delete which was treated as an expired PROD. recently the soft delete was challenged by user User:124.104.175.128 and was accepted and moved back into mainspace by an administrator despite there being zero usable sources. The IP user then removed the notability tag without a reason and made no improvements to the article. This leads me to believe WP:COI as the request for undeletion was the first edit the user ever made. Requesting an AfD. 2600:1011:B037:C57F:2834:79AD:326B:D5B6 (talk) 22:47, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::File:Yes check.svg Done -- see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter New (2nd nomination). --CNMall41 (talk) 23:00, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Nico

:::love danny kipperman lucnh 32.223.179.89 (talk) 02:42, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

I have raised a proposed deletion template in the article and it was removed under a flimsy pretext, so I would like to open a discussion about the deletion so that the matter can be discussed and deleted.

I couldn't Upload Discussion Delete article. I spent about 3 hours reading and searching and I couldn't. I've completely failed. I'm helpless and my head is about to explode.

This is the name of the article Laffa I hope you can raise the discussion for deletion on my behalf so that I can discuss deleting it. 217.142.22.254 (talk) 07:49, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:The proposed deletion tag looks to have been correctly removed. TarnishedPath^talk 08:00, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

::@TarnishedPath Is this a valid forum for making decisions regarding article deletion so that I can post my responses here?

::—Note: I may be late in responding due to my work. 217.142.22.254 (talk) 10:30, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

:::If you want this to go to a deletion discussion you'll need to request someone start an Articles for Deletion discussion for you. However you're going to need a much better rationale than what you provided in your proposed deletion template for anyone to consider starting the discussion for you. I suggest you read WP:DEL-REASON and WP:BEFORE prior to any request. TarnishedPath^talk 10:39, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

With all the fancruft gone, there's really nothing to say about him other than that he's inspired by Billy Ray Cyrus; notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. 2605:B40:1302:6C00:BCF5:4CC4:BE4D:E506 (talk) 19:11, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

I made the following [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion&diff=prev&oldid=1297656074 addition], which was then [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion&diff=next&oldid=1297656074 deleted] by User:Alexandermcnabb. Let's discuss this:

{{blockquote|

• Before nominating, consider fixing any problems. Whenever possible, we prefer that new articles be fixed rather than deleted. AfDs are very disruptive and time-consuming processes, as well as a discouraging affront to the author, so they should be avoided if at all possible. There must be very strong reasons to delete, and many AfDs are opened without such reasons, but rather because someone does not like what they see or it offends their beliefs. Perceived problems with NPOV, bias, balance, etc. can all be fixed without deletion, so seek to preserve the article.}}

Maybe this is already covered, but I didn't notice it, so I feel it provides necessary mention and considerations. As my edit summary said: "We could probably avoid 70% + of AfDs, as they violate PRESERVE and are just various flavors of IDONTLIKEIT." -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:53, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

:There is nothing 'necessary' about using Wikipedia project space to put your own personal spin on normal Wikipedia processes - of which AfDs (including those that result in deletion) are very much core. Save the comments about what is or isn't 'disruptive', or an 'affront to the author' for contexts where you can provide actual evidence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:25, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

:: Reminding readers that IDONTLIKE it and PRESERVE are very relevant to the topic of AfDs is not "personal spin" but an explanation of how policies affect each other. Also, anyone who has had a very notable and well-sourced article immediately taken to AfD for no legitimate reason (other than poorly disguised IDONTLIKEIT because it hurt my polical beliefs and feelings) knows it is a personal affront and very discouraging to an author who has put in a lot of hard work, and those who start such AfDs should be trouted or topic banned from AfDs and MfDs. They waste a lot of our time. These are just observations any seasoned editor will understand. BTW, you don't really have to live up to the Grump part of your name at every opportunity. {{;)}} Being a bit more relaxed, civil, and collegial wouldn't hurt at all. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:36, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

:: BTW, I'm very open to rewording of my proposed addition. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:38, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

:::It is a simple fact that amongst 'seasoned editors' there are a broad range of views as to the appropriate scope of something presenting itself as an 'online encyclopedia', and it does little to further the cause of those taking a more inclusivist perspective to present AfDs as inherently malicious in intent. Which is very much the way your edit came across. The AfD mechanism exists for a reason - because over the years, the community has consistently enacted policies which constrain what can be presented as a Wikipedia article. Neither made-up 'statistics' (per your edit summary) nor your general griping about the supposed motivations of those who have the temerity to disagree with you will alter the fact that the AfD mechanism (along with Deletion Review) is seen by the community as a necessary part of an imperfect process. Sure, there will be inappropriate AfD nominations on occasion, and sure they are going to be annoying for those having to deal with them. I'd have to suggest (without inventing statistics to back it up) that in comparison to the problems Wikipedia has with inappropriate article content, often due in part at least to poor enforcement of existing notability standards, they are a mere drop in the ocean. And a lot less damaging to the credibility of the project, such as it is. And I'm also inclined to suggest that having one's work subject to a critical gaze regarding such factors as Wikipedia-'notability' very much goes with the territory, when working in a collaborative environment. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:34, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

:::: Well, I largely agree with what you wrote, but there is more to the matter. I find it unfortunate that so many nominations are NOTLIKEIT and ignore that the article clearly passes GNG, and also ignore that any defects can be fixed, per PRESERVE. Those latter two points are not mentioned a single time, and NOTLIKEIT isn't mentioned either. That is three key omissions I tried to fix. Maybe they are mentioned somewhere, but I don't see it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:33, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::How many is 'so many'? And is this verifiable fact, or just your opinion? If there is a specific, verifiable, issue with 'NOTLIKEIT' nominations, we should maybe look at finding a way to prevent, or at least discourage them. First though, we need something more to go on than mere assertions. And frankly, I fail to see how your edit would do anything to actually solve the problem anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:15, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

:I did not delete your addition, I reverted it. See WP:BRD. It was impetuously BOLD to add a paragraph to policy with no attempt to discuss or obtain consensus. Any editor can challenge any edit and discussion follows. Ideally, without silly Ad Hominem distractions like calling other editors grumpy. The addition adds nothing to existing policy, it is accepted that deletion is not cleanup. A small footnote: I have a personal dislike referring to Wikipedia as 'we', instantly othering the reader and conferring some degree of insider status to the magical 'we'. As for {{tq|AfDs are very disruptive and time-consuming processes, as well as a discouraging affront to the author}}, just no. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:13, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

:: Alexander, I followed BRD, that's why we're discussing. Keep it civil. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 06:38, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Looks like @Notaoffensivename has closed a string of AfD discussions manually but neglected to remove tags, etc., in the articles in the right way. Could someone please help them fix that? Cielquiparle (talk) 23:45, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

:I am sorry about that. I am currently working on it. However, I cannot delete the AfD templates as I am not extended confirmed. Notaoffensivename (talk) 00:26, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

::I'd have to suggest that someone with only Wikipedia 154 edits in total shouldn't be closing AfDs in the first place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:38, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I'm quite sorry I was closing discussions. I simply wanted to be closer to the Wikipedia community. Notaoffensivename (talk) 01:41, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

::::I have to concur with Andy here. Someone who isn't WP:XC probably shouldn't be closing discussions of any kind. If you want to help and be closer to the community go copy edit stuff that interests you and participate in discussions. If you've got a grasp on our notability guidelines you could even create some articles on subjects that we don't currently have articles on. TarnishedPath^talk 13:00, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{ping|Notaoffensivename}} I have to agree that closing AfDs before becoming extended-confirmed isn’t a great idea, but to be fair, none of the closes I saw looked otherwise like bad closes. Thanks for your interest in contributing. --Finngall ^talk 19:34, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Would someone kindly nominate MERMOZ for AFD on my behalf with the following rationale? Thanks in advance!

Contested WP:PROD with no reason given. My original concern was: Appears to be a nonnotable project. Most of the sources cited don't even mention it, and those that do are either press releases or written by people involved with the project; can't find any secondary independent coverage.

Thanks in advance, 35.139.154.158 (talk) 03:15, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

:Done: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MERMOZ. --JBL (talk) 20:03, 28 June 2025 (UTC)