Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 78#AFD request: Brenda Dervin

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1721401270}}

As most editors who have been active in AfD discussions for some time have noticed, AfD has seen a decline in participation in recent months. A couple of editors, me included, have also seen a couple of issues with AfD, some of which discourage editors from participating in discussions. Is it time to start thinking of new ways to change the AfD process? This could include new/deleted things, or changed policies. I'm sure that some editors have seen issues with AfD that they'd like to see change, or have ideas on how to gather more participants that would need consensus before they are implemented. If there is sufficient support for such a reform, my idea would be to conduct it as follows:

• Phase 1 ---> Open for proposals. Gather new ideas on what could be changed. If there is sufficient support on a proposal, it is moved to phase 2.
• Phase 2 ---> Refine each proposal (so that the most people can agree with them) in sub-discussions.
• Phase 3 ---> Formally propose each proposal in a sub-RfC.
• Phase 4 ---> Implement the proposals that are validated.

Should this be done, yes or no? Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

P.S. Any user has permission to edit my comment to ping more people.

Please do not suggest ideas (yet) on how to change AfD the goal of this RfC is to know whether we should open for a lot of these ideas.

{{cot|Pinging active AfD users}}

@Liz @Explicit @Doczilla @OwenX @Saqib @Oaktree b @Wcquidditch @Malinaccier @LibStar @PhotographyEdits @Fram @Boneless Pizza! @Daniel @Pppery @Dream Focus @JPxG @Mdann52 @Mushy Yank @HopalongCasualty @LaundryPizza03 @The Banner @Spiderone @JTtheOG @Rugbyfan22 @ComplexRational {{ping|Star Mississippi| CNMall41| Donaldd23|ToadetteEdit| Eastmain| Toadspike| S0091| SafariScribe| Timtrent}}

{{cob}} Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

:Cocobb8, Thank you for bringing up this issue. Yes - I'm a strong advocate for AFD reforms, having observed numerous issues recently. I believe implementing some changes could significantly improve the quality of our articles as well. I'm fully on board with moving this forward. — Saqib (talk) 14:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

:Neutral What is the problem? As far as I know it is about the quality of the arguments, not about the number of people showing up. The Banner talk 14:35, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

::A lot of threads don't get any discussion at all after few relists and are closed as no consensus. Other times, many !votes are not very helpul (IP votes that do not reference to policies, etc.). That's why I wanted to open this to see if there could be some kind of "open for proposals" phase. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:39, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

:::The Banner, But I was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FFashion_Central&diff=1228946753&oldid=1228902123 informed] just yesterday by @Liz that there has been an overall decline in AFD participation, which highlights the need for reforms. In addition to increasing participation in AfDs, I've some other genuine concerns regarding AFDs that I believe need to be addressed as well. — Saqib (talk) 14:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

::::It would be much better IMHO when the rules for notability are set by the Wiki-wide community instead of Wikiprojects. That would make discussions more neutral and argument based than a defensive wall. But that is a totally different discussion and a tough nut to crack. The Banner talk 15:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

:::::Wait, when did I even bring up anything about WP:N as my concern? Saqib (talk) 15:35, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

::::::You did not, I did. Because I think WikiProject-defences are one of the reasons why people do not participate in AfDs. But as said: that is my personal opinion and a totally different discussion than the procedural one started here. The Banner talk 15:39, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

:I am a frequent participant in thrice relisted processes and I do agree there are issues which might deserve a more modern discussion. That's a yes on Phase 1 from me. BusterD (talk) 14:53, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

• Seem to be way too many nominations (not only at AfD but at categories, misc., and wherever else deletions are proposed), dozens a day. Editors who keep up with all of these are few, which makes it easier for deletionists (yes, they exist, and many keep score) to reign. In a perfect WikiWorld, I'd suggest that nominators who prove to have a scatter-gun approach and fail at many nominations (how about a failure rate cap of three a month for each editor?) could be nomination banned for short or long period if they persist. As for relistings, there have been many relisted even after adequate sources have been found to make a Keep an almost-sure possibility. Too many nominations time-sink many editors to the point of not commenting, as do multiple relistings. Not to just complain, praise to Liz, Star Mississippi and the many others who toil in these thankless corners of Wikipedia. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:01, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
• :Thanks for your comment @Randy Kryn! Is that a yes to move on with such proposals in phase 1? Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
• ::Thanks Cocobb8, a "yes". Randy Kryn (talk) 15:06, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

What is the evidence that reform is needed? Not evidence that there's less participation (although numbers would help there, too), but evidence that participation is low because of some flaws with the AfD process itself. Over at RfA, there's a ton of discourse about specific problems with the process that lead to lack of participation (as in candidates). It's toxicity, it's the questions, it's the standards, it's the voting format, it's the crat chats, etc. What are the problems at AfD? If it's just "we need more people to participate and have no idea why people aren't participating" then this skips a key step in determining there's something wrong with the process itself. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:19, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

:See the comments above yours for issues that could need to be addressed. It not only had to do with participation, as there are many other things as well. That's also what phase 1 would be for: what exactly needs to be changed to make AfD better? Phase 1 might very well open and have little to no proposals, as well. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

::That looks like fundamentally "too many nominations", but I can save you the time for that one: there will not be consensus to limit overall nominations as long as there's no consensus to limit overall article creation. I guess I'm not necessarily against this process, but I don't have much faith it'll lead anywhere.
As I see it, there are two fundamental challenges: one is that we need more Wikipedians in general to keep up with millions of articles because it's hard to just recruit new participants to processes like AfD. The second -- and not everyone will agree this is a problem -- is the mismatch between the amount of effort it takes to !vote delete and the amount of effort it takes to !vote keep. Once upon a time the default was keep, requiring a good deletion argument; now the default is delete, requiring a good keep argument. It's a lot easier to nominate articles for deletion than it is to demonstrate notability and/or improve articles. The way this commonly arises in "deletion reform" efforts is to put teeth behind WP:BEFORE, i.e. before nominating you are required to do a thorough search for sources to make sure something isn't notable before nominating. But that's a perennial proposal that never finds consensus (personally, I would support sanctioning people who frequently nominate without a WP:BEFORE, but I don't think there are many who would support codifying that).
Anyway, I guess that's a debate for the next phase, but what I'm trying to express here is concern for a big process that many people will feel obliged to participate in given the stakes, but which will sap already scarce volunteer time (cf. AfD participation) for no payoff. I'm a no unless someone can articulate issues that actually could be reformed. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:37, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

:::Why should nominators do the homework for article-writers that failed to do just that? The Banner talk 16:56, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

::::^^^^ Exhibit A for why efforts to improve AfD don't go anywhere. Assumption of bad faith combined with a disregard for WP:BEFORE and redefinition of WP:N/WP:DEL/WP:E. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:17, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

:::::Contrary, I believe in content based arguments in a AfD-discussions. Not difficult procedures. The Banner talk 22:45, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

::::Because with just one well composed paragraph, an AfD nominator can permanently dispose of several content creators’ work. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:02, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

:{{Edit conflict}} Rhododendrites, As I mentioned above, the lack of participation in AFDs is just one aspect of the problem. There are other issues at play as well, which we can raise them in Phase 1. — Saqib (talk) 15:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

::You've said three times that there are other issues without naming any other issue. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:37, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

:::Rhododendrites, Well I feel my other concerns may surprise some or even offend a few, but I've got some reservations about allowing IPs/SPA to participate in AFDs. Because from what I've experienced lately, their involvement make things messy and harder to reach a consensus. I'm all for more participants in AFDs. But based on what I've seen, letting IPs/SPAs join AFDs hasn't worked out well, for me atleast. So, my concerns are kind of pulling in opposite directions, but both have their legit issues. Does anyone else feel the same way? — Saqib (talk) 15:58, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

::::This is also a perennial proposal, which tends to fail not because IPs routinely contribute valuable perspectives but because (a) once in a while they do, (b) the Wiki Way means erring on the side of participation. If a reader sees an article they're interested in is up for deletion, why not let them say something?, and (c) closing admins already know to weigh low-quality/low-effort/single-purpose !votes less. Beyond that, for an initiative launching primarily because of lack of participation, I suspect there won't be much support for further limiting participation. :) But sure, these are details which could be resolved in a hypothetical next step. I'm not persuaded of any fixable problems yet, though, personally. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:11, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

:::::Rhododendrites, OK how can you address the situation where IPs, related to UPEs, vote to keep articles using strong policy-based arguments, which then leads to AFDs getting closed in their favour? — Saqib (talk) 16:30, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

::::::"IPs, related to UPEs, vote to keep articles using strong policy-based arguments": if the argument are strong and based on policy who cares if they are IPs? — Iadmc♫^talk  16:34, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

:::::::Iadmc, But it is UPE and still a violation of WP:TOU. Right.? Rhododendrites, On a related note, I agree with your suggestion to sanctioning editors who frequently nominate pages for deletion without conducting a WP:BEFORE check. But at the same time, we should also consider sanctioning trusted editors who simply throw votes (keep/delete) based on WP:ATA, don't you think? — Saqib (talk) 16:39, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

::::::::UPE? — Iadmc♫^talk  16:43, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

:::::::::I participate in AfDs a lot and I don't remember ever seeing UPEs causing an AfD to be incorrectly closed as a major issue. SportingFlyer T·C 18:22, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

::::::::::SportingFlyer, But I can share some examples, if asked. Iadmc, UPE means WP:UPE. — Saqib (talk) 21:48, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

:::::::::::Ah! Thanks Saqib — Iadmc♫^talk  03:34, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

::::::::There was a "school" you could attend for New Page Patrol (NPP); I didn't attend, but wondering if something similar here might help. You basically have more senior editors work with a more junior editor and work a page together, to get the idea of the process. Oaktree b (talk) 18:35, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

:::::::::Yet another good proposal for phase 1 :) Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 21:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

• No: I agree with Rhododendrites; I think there should be more direct explanation of what the problems are that need to be solved. A call for proposals on "how to make AfD better" with no specific problems to solve will result in dozens of proposals, all pulling in different directions. Toughpigs (talk) 15:47, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
• :Yes, great point here, some proposals could definitely end up pulling in different directions. But, maybe some could be merged together at the end of phase 1 (if started)? Also, some editors have already started raising concerns about what AfD needs to be better (see above), and as there are quite a few, it would have taken too much to list them all in my RfC. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:54, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
• Comment I'm not sure what the problems are that need to be addressed. Could anyone explain? I find the process fine, personally and have had no problems. Perhaps more emphasis on the BEFORE process though— Iadmc♫^talk  16:23, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
• :This could be an idea... Rather than simply nominating the article, could we create a sort of "checklist" with various boxes the nominator would have to check off before it ends up in the AfD queue. Something similar to what's given when you use the Wizard to upload files? Oaktree b (talk) 16:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
• ::I'd support that — Iadmc♫^talk  16:34, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
• ::Those are the kind of nice ideas I envision to be proposed in phase 1! :) Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 16:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
• Yes The process seems to work well, as is, WHEN we get people participating. I'd be open to talk about how to increase participation, not sure I have any ideas to share at this time. I'm happy to participate. Oaktree b (talk) 16:28, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
• We simply need more participation, but that is true of everything. I don't see a problem here otherwise. SportingFlyer T·C 18:23, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
• Yes It's always a good idea to see if we can incorporate informal learnings into formal guidance and update our P&Gs appropriately if we find a good reason to. Jclemens (talk) 21:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
• No. While I feel the AfD system is inherently problematic at times, I'd say it's down moreso to who participates than it is any inherent flaw in the system. This kind of proposal feels like it will be significantly more drawn out than a normal AfD, creating strain on the few who are even participating to begin with while also being less likely to be consistently checked by members as the discussion grows older. I feel focusing on more heavily advertising discussion or encouraging participation may be beneficial, but at the same time those unfamiliar with guidelines may just clutter the discussion. I feel for now the system isn't so far gone that it needs a drastic overhaul to an extent this large, but encouraging and educating more members about participation may be something to look into going forward. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 03:07, 15 June 2024 (UTC)  
• Yes It's disheartening to nominate articles and see them kept through minimal participation. Most AfD nominations I made were as a result of work on new page patrol (from which I confess I have wandered away, hence little recent activity at either), a process that necessarily creates a number of AfDs (unless you spend your time at NPP passing on the hairy decisions, which I couldn't condemn anyone for, funnily enough). Equally, I could see it disheartening for editors to see their articles deleted through minimal participation, albeit soft deletion. Phase 1 may well be a creative and interesting exercise, although I do agree minimal participation is at the core of everything here. I like Oaktree's idea of a nomination checklist, but do think that ONE barrier to participation is that whole idea that you're pilloried for lack of WP:BEFORE. I do believe that is the creator's burden - nothing should be created on WP today without passing WP:GNG and slinging the burden on others to provide that is just lazy - solve that, and you've already minimised the workload at AfD. The other barrier I think looms is that of being judged by one's 'hit rate' of successful nominations/votes. That metric punishes the brave and there's no reward for getting it right beyond advancing your numbers ready for the day you get it wrong. Do editors use those numbers to judge people? Yes, they do. My 2p worth. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:55, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
• :While it is explicitly not the time for proposals yet, I think the idea of bifurcating requirements for newly created vs. previously existing articles should be on the table, should we decide to sit down at one. Jclemens (talk) 06:13, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
• I'm also not convinced there's a problem here. Admittedly it's been some time since I regularly closed AfDs, but I've just looked through recent logs and the level of participation looks roughly the same as it was five years ago. The outcome of most AfDs is obvious and in those cases you really don't need more than 2-3 !voters. No consensus outcomes are a necessary part of consensus-based decision making (if we always reach a consensus, it's not consensus) and there is nothing inherently bad about them. With all due respect, {{u|Cocobb8}}, how could you possibly observe that there has been a {{tq|decline in participation in recent months}} when you yourself have only been participating there [https://afdstats.toolforge.org/afdstats.py?name=Cocobb8 for a few months]?

:AfD is historically probably our best-functioning process (what else churns through dozens of articles a day with minimal drama?) and I'd like to see hard evidence of a problem, e.g. statistics on declining participation and a concomitant increase in no consensus closes. Just to throw out an alternative hypothesis: one thing that has changed in the last few years is that AfD admins have become more reluctant to close discussions as no consensus, and instead relist beyond the old soft limit of three weeks – this may give the impression that there are more stalled discussions, without the discussions themselves having changed. – Joe (talk) 07:11, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

::I personally haven't noticed a decline, but multiple editors and closers, like @Liz, said they had over this past year. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:18, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

::I put together some stats from 2019 and 2023 based on a sampling of 4 days for each year which folks might find interesting. See User:S0091/AfD statistics. S0091 (talk) 15:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

:::Nice, thanks @S0091! Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 16:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

• Yes I'd be in support of changes to the AfD process. My area of editing has very low participation at AfD (quite often it's just myself voting) and while the AfD process seems to work well for topics of high participation, for areas of low to no participation, quite often the results can be skewed some what and very often are inconsistent. For example, sometimes a suitable WP:ATD is used, or sometimes not at all as there have been a couple of deletion votes which they outweigh the closers view and then article history is lost which could be used if coverage is found in the future (quite often the case in sportspeople who's careers were before the internet era and from non-Anglo countries). I don't know what the solution is, but as personally I don't see participation increasing in my area of editing, and with a high number of AfDs daily in my area, I'd be keen to see some form of change to make participation feel like much less of a drag. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:48, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
• Yes, I would be open for discussion with new proposals. An issue I see is that some discussions are controlled by just a few editors and they are often closed (keep or delete) based on weak arguments. And no, that is not a shot at the closers as closing contrary to the discussion would be a SUPERVOTE. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:42, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
• No it already looks like it will be a deletionist v inclusionist battle with AfD nominators targeting their opponents and nominators themselves targeted. This battle puts off a lot of participants at AfD. Regarding WP:ATA I see just as many examples from delete voters as keep voters such as "per nom" votes from experienced editors including admins. The last change which introduced soft delete has not been a success in my view as it has been used more often than expected resulting in too many unconsidered deletions, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 23:24, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
• :I'd actually like to see us get past this longstanding divide, and while sure, people are going to come at this from all sorts of perspectives, it's going to be the dialectic between differing viewpoints that produces change and hopefully improvement. A formal "How can we make this better?" process doesn't presume that anyone is right or wrong, but does create a central forum to discuss disappointments and cultivate hope for improvements. Jclemens (talk) 23:45, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
• No. The more I see large-scale multi-RfCs tried out in practice, the less I like them. Most obviously they have a tendency to end up as trainwrecks (e.g., WP:ACAS), but there are other issues: the way the process is laid out can skew the substantive result, and controversial proposals may not get the scrutiny they otherwise would (compare the number of !votes here with the number of !votes here). If there are conversations that need to be had about AfD (and I think there probably are), the standard procedure for individual RfCs, cumbersome though it may be, will do a much better job of divining community consensus than just throwing a few dozen proposals at the wall and seeing what sticks. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:13, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
• :Totally agreed on this. I suspect they also massively skew the participant base, i.e. the density and complexity filters out anyone who isn't already heavily involved with 'backstage' policy discussions and all the conventions that go with it. – Joe (talk) 06:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
• The structure of AfD is fine. The trouble is poor nominations. A better standard for nominating should be advised.

: WP:BEFORE should be mandatory. Most importantly, nominators should be required to make a statement on why the several (Policy) WP:ATDs are not viable solutions. Of these, the most important to exclude is a possible merge. Merge proposals should NOT be brought to AfD without establishing that there is an impass of disagreement on the article talk page.

: AfD is not for opening “discussion”s. If the nominator is not making a clear and strong case for an AfD outcome, they should be sent away to told to start a thread on the talk page. Tentative proposals and idle discussion goes on article talk pages.

: Poor nominations make participating and an AfD much more difficult. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:56, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

• No. I have often observed that most RfCs receive little participation, and close without any consensus at the end of the 30-day waiting period. I see little evidence of this problem in AfD or any of the other XfD's — even in areas like CfD with few active users. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
• No. The AfD process has worked before. The proposed plan complicates things unnecessarily and is not based on anything proven to work, and I do not see how it would inspire more people to participate. Nominators need guidance on making their cases stronger and clearer up front. Maybe admins need to put poorly formed nominations on pause in order to give nominators the chance to beef things up, rather than simply discouraging them and wasting everybody's time. Nominators and participants can find the whole thing discouraging. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
• Another proposal, remember, this section is for proposals which do not then fall by the wayside because of 'no' opinions. There should be a limit of a number of times an article can be nominated once kept. Three even seems high, but seems a good compromise. I've read many deletion nominations where the page has already survived several AfDs but another whack at it is being taken in hopes that "this will be the time it fails". Maybe A page or category, etc., can at most be nominated three times, with at least a year's separation, before a ten-year moratorium on a nomination is placed (I'd make it no more noms, three strikes and you're out, but the rare reason to nom again may appear although after two or three it should have an exceptional reason to delete). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:06, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
• Could support this, but maybe 5 years, not 10? Johnbod (talk) 16:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
• :This phase isn't actually meant for proposals — we're still talking about whether to open this for proposals or not. Toughpigs (talk) 16:33, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
• ::Anyone can make any proposal at any time. This is a question of whether people are interested in a structured brainstorming/improvement proposals process. Those who say "yes" can always put our heads together, but without the imprimatur of a formal proposals process. Jclemens (talk) 16:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

• About the only thing that I would change is to give more guidance to emphasize that input should be detailed and focused on the question at hand which is usually wp:notability. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

:::There is a big problem at AFD which can't get fixed at AFD which is the variability of how rigorously/strictly GNG is applied. This is due to the nebulousness of wp:notability and not understanding what the practical norm is. North8000 (talk) 20:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC) North8000 (talk) 20:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

• Nah. The lack of participation is a real issue (I myself am part of the problem, having mostly quit AfD to focus on content work). But, unlike with RfA, which has a ton of different problems, low participation is pretty much my only gripe with AfD. In most reasonably attended discussions, the consensus building process leads to the correct outcome, and civility is usually maintained. If there is a specific solution had in mind for fixing low attendance, the proposer should start an RfC for that specifically, but multi phase discussion is inappropriate. Mach61 00:26, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
• I'm a regular AFD closer and there are lots of problems. The easiest to solve is editors who nominate a boatload of AFD nominations (I'm talking 10 to 20 to 50 AFDs) all at the same time. Of course, no participants have the time to do due diligence, looking for sources for this many articles so they just get relisted and maybe Soft Deleted due to a lack of participation. It would be simple to have a limit on the number of AFD nominations an editor could make, say 5 or a dozen. But dozens, all over a few minutes? It's not considerate to our regular participants.
• Secondly, for over a year now, we've seen fewer and fewer participants in AFD discussions. I started to notice it during the deluge of athlete's article when notability rules changed in 2022. People got burned out. I will carry out consensus, whatever that is but I have a soft spot for editors arguing to Keep an article. Some of them spend hours tracking down sources and then the articles still end up being deleted. Why invest all of that time into improving an article and its sourcing when more people show up to argue for deletion? It's demoralizing. So, I've noticed more of our editors who are arguing to Keep an article getting burned out and leaving to work on other areas like article creation which makes the discussions tend towards Deletion. That's just my observation, not a critique on the results. I just know that editors I use to see pop up in lots of AFD discussions have just moved on to less frustrating areas of the project. Those are my first two points, I have more but I'll leave it at this. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:56, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
• Neutral I'm somewhat who used to spend more time in AFD but lately have drifted away. I'm not sure there's anything really that's caused it other than for easy cases, it's pretty time consuming to meaningfully contribute to the majority of AFDs. I'm neutral because while I am sure there are ways to improve the process I'm not sure a big multi-proned discussion will turn out and somewhat fear having to wade through and provide opinions on 20+ proposals within a 30-day window (no idea how many will actually be proposed). Skynxnex (talk) 19:22, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
• Yes I am very supportive of this. Maybe it won't go anywhere, but we should at least try. If Liz says AfD has issues, then AfD has issues. More seriously, I've been checking repeatedly-relisted entries over the past few weeks, and the lack of participation is alarming. I agree that we should investigate limits on how many nominations an editor can make, especially for serially unsuccessful nominators or nominators who consistently perform poor BEFOREs. Other ideas: Expand the criteria for soft deletion (FWIW, these seem poorly documented in the first place and need codifying); encourage bold BLARs instead of preemptive AfDs "because the BLAR would probably have been opposed"; make mass-nominations easier (these are supposed to save time, but most instead get bogged down in complications); reduce relisting, perhaps by encouraging closers to be more proactive in determining consensus, or perhaps by limiting discussions to two or even one relist(s). Anyhow, all these ideas can be discussed later, but I think they should be discussed. Toadspike [Talk] 10:15, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
• :@Cocobb8 I didn't get your ping at the top. I'm not sure why; maybe because it's in a collapsed box? Anyhow, thanks for starting this discussion, and I'm honored that you listed me as an "active AfD user". Toadspike [Talk] 10:19, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
• ::Soft deletion is documented at WP:NOQUORUM. There is already supposed to be a limit of two relists though it seems this is not being followed as strictly as it used to be. – Joe (talk) 10:21, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
• :::Thanks for pointing out the part on relists – I didn't know that the limit was two, since AfD obviously uses a limit of three relists nowadays. WP:NOQUORUM (aka WP:SOFTDELETE) does not actually capture current practice, where there are a variety of factors that prevent soft deletion, such as a previous AfD. I think the only thing that should prevent soft deletion is a previous AfD closed as keep, and maybe we should deprecate that precedent as well. Toadspike [Talk] 07:41, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
• ::::I believe that's covered by the first sentence of WP:NOQUORUM ({{tq|If a nomination has received few or no comments from any editor, and no one has opposed deletion}}) as well as {{tq|the closing administrator should treat the XfD nomination as an expired PROD}}, which links the process to the well-defined one at WP:PRODNOM. – Joe (talk) 09:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
• Yes I am very supportive of this for a number of reasons. Nobody keeps a process for this length of time and expect it to work in the modern age. Everybody knows it and everybody who wants to abuse it, does. The process is not fit for purpose and that is the primary reason that participation continues to fall and will fall further. Even compared to 5 years ago, many of regulars have long gone. The major problems are as follows. Canvassing: Off-site and on-site canvassing is common and heavily used. Its wasteful of time and energy to such an extent that the admin corps has washed their hands of it. It has been allowed to flourish and has a chilling effect on the ability to delete articles. The Group Effect: Similar to canvassing but no interaction takes place, where friends or people from similar backgrounds, or in a similar group clump together and by weight of numbers, bias the result. The Process: The process itself only works well on the simplest types of articles, sports people, singers, actors that kind of thing. It doesn't seem, even to begin to work on the most complex articles, the large articles by established editors whose veracity is in doubt. They don't get a look-in, due to editor weight and the weight of expectation. There are several other things I could mention, e.g. wilful ignorance of policy. Its long past to remove this old process and update it with something fit for the modern age. scope_creep^Talk 18:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
• Comment. The biggest problem at AfD is not the procedure itself but the increasing unpleasantness of "debate", with editors throwing accusations around about the integrity and Wikipedia knowledge of other contributors with whom they disagree. This needs to stop. Anyone should be allowed to state whatever opinion they choose on the notability of an article without being bullied (often on a "tag team" basis) by other editors. I believe that is a big reason why editors are being put off contributing to discussions. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:30, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
• Like the battles, discussionS and RFC around WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES? {{smiley}} The Banner talk 10:48, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
• Precisely. But not just that. The atmosphere at AfD is getting ridiculously unpleasant. There's no need for it. This is an encyclopaedia, not a battleground. Everyone is entitled to their view. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:24, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
• Just using a circular reasoning is making AfD-discussions also highly unpleasant, as it is not a serious content related argument. The Banner talk 15:15, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
• :I've definitely noticed this a lot in discussions. It oftentimes feels like the nominator or various contributors to the discussion have to be personally judged during these debates, and it's really very unpleasant. While I disagree with the nom's proposal here, I definitely feel this should be looked at, because I definitely feel this is a large part of why editors have strayed away from AfDs. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:36, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
• Neutral with a question, although sympathetic for a need to improve. Like others I have seen "less than polite" behavior, the worst being the "how dare you". I have also seen cliques defending a view on specialist pages (often notability issues) which would be laughed away if the topic was of wider interest. Which brings me to my key Question -- are these issues everywhere or in certain specific areas? I mainly do AfD's in physics & chemistry with a little in engineering and other science. I rarely stray too far from my comfort zone, although I do every now and then. In the areas I monitor there do not seem to be massive problems, there is a strong cadre of experienced editors. Maybe it is not simply the process, but what goes on in certain areas. Is there training for AfD that might be advertised in ways to improve involvement in certain areas? I would be interested in more info and specifics -- I might have missed numbers as this discussion is loooong. Ldm1954 (talk) 10:58, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes: While the process has its benefits, it does appear that participation has been decreasing recently, and a discussion for how to reverse the trend is warranted. Let'srun (talk) 20:12, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Owing to my newness to editing Wikipedia, I thought it perhaps best to err on the side of caution and receive a more informed opinion. I have been attempting to improve articles about author-historians on Wikipedia as of late and I stumbled upon the article of Anthony J. Bryant. While he has published a handful of books, he does not seem to meet the criteria of notability. There is a noticeable deficit of reliable secondary sources that are independent of him which makes it extraordinarily difficult to source information for the article. As it stands, much of the article is presently sourced from his obituary and much of the wording of the article seems to just be re-worded from said obituary. Prior to his passing, there was only [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anthony_J._Bryant&oldid=578337626| One] source even listed on the page, with everything else being unsourced claims, and the [https://web.archive.org/web/20050313232842/http://www.ospreypublishing.com/author_detail.php?author=A1962| archive] of his author page from his publisher doesn't list much information at all. Even worse, however, is per [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anthony_J._Bryant&oldid=588708014| this] edit, it seems to imply that the obituary copied from the Wikipedia article. While the bulk of the article content was created uncited by a @Sengoku Warrior who has not contributed on Wikipedia since 2006 and whose first action was to originate the article (whose activity after creating the article [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tokugawa_Ieyasu&diff=prev&oldid=40999210 seems] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Takeda_Shingen&diff=prev&oldid=40999735 to] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ishida_Mitsunari&diff=prev&oldid=40999421 have] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toyotomi_Hideyoshi&diff=prev&oldid=40999490 been] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oda_Nobunaga&diff=prev&oldid=40999666 inserting] Anthony J. Bryant's "Sengoku Daimyo" website as a source on various articles before moving on to Carl Steenstrup). It seems the original article had just taken most, if not all, of the biographical information from the authors [https://web.archive.org/web/20120204101450/https://sengokudaimyo.com/| personal website] that the editor who originated the article was pushing as a source elsewhere, and that most of that information has simply substained the article unverified and unsourced until Bryant passed away, at which point his obituary has been circularly used to verify the claims of the article. The degree to which @Sengoku Warrior was pushing Anthony J. Bryant's website after creating the Anthony J. Bryant article carries the appearance of a conflict of interest at best, and an attempt to advertise at worst. Moreover, the article claims "he completed his graduate studies in Japanese studies (history, language, and armor) at Takushoku University in Tokyo, graduating in 1986", while his own personal website makes no mention of this study at Takushoku University and only mentions that he was seeking a job in history with a [https://web.archive.org/web/20041128010530/http://www.sengokudaimyo.com:80/ MA in Japanese] and described himself as "gainlessly unemployed" from at least 2005 until his passing in 2013. Likewise, none of the other secondary biographies obtainable for him outside of his obituary note any study at Takushoku University. To my understanding, these facts and the lack of verifiability to the bulk of the page means that he fails to rise to the standards of being a notable academic or a notable author. As I am relatively new to the whole editing process, however, I do not want to just offer up an article for deletion without consulting people who might be more knowledgeable. I have spent the better part of today trying to find sources, and I have located very little and almost nothing that substantiates the bulk of the claims made by his obituary and the Wikipedia page. Even the latest good faith attempt by another editor to clarify the contents of his article has resulted in numerous references being added which point to his obituary, and only his obituary. The only source outside of his obituary that I have found is a small mention in Dragon Magazine #222, announcing his position as an editor for the magainze and stating that he previously worked as an editor for other magazines (Such as Mainichi and Tokyo Journal), which does not do very much for the rest of the content of his current page, but does at the very least provide a source outside of his obituary that says he worked for Mainichi and Tokyo Journal. Due to the sparseness of information available about him, I am simply not sure he meets, or will ever meet, the criteria of notability.

Editing because I have also just discovered that information which Anthony J. Bryant published about himself may also be inaccurate. It would seem that Bryant engaged in self-aggrandization, in that in this [http://www.theshogunshouse.com/2008/09/ interview] he engaged in, Bryant represented himself as a consultant on the BBC Documentary "Shogun: Heroes and Villains". However, there is no evidence of a documentary called "Shogun: Heroes and Villains" existing, rather, there is an episode of the television program Heroes and Villains (TV series) which IMDB had listed him as the consultant for. However, upon watching the episode "Shogun" which IMDB credited him for, the credits of the episode do not mention Anthony J. Bryant at all as historical consultant but as a researcher, but rather list Dr. Stephen Turnbull as the consultant. This casts further doubt on the information in his article, and obituary, which seem derived from his own statements without any verifiable outside sources to confirm them. Chrhns (talk) 22:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

:{{ping|Chrhns}} Please feel free to nominate the article for deletion. The purpose of doing so is to start a discussion with other editors and you will get more opinions there than here. It also sounds like you've already done way more research into the subject than the average AfD nominator. Just as an FYI, though, deletion nominations are usually a lot more concise than what you've written here – a few lines at most. – Joe (talk) 15:45, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

::Thank you. I'll look into doing it once I recover. Presently ill. Chrhns (talk) 18:53, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

please add this article :

Onam and Muslims

reason :

I find that recent comments by few religious leaders, which kerala as a whole took it as communal and non secular , should not be given weightage in Wikipedia here. so i find it is non sense to add as an article.

You can find the artcile here: https://www.deccanchronicle.com/nation/current-affairs/160919/to-celebrate-or-not-to-celebrate.html

another one : https://www.indiatoday.in/fyi/story/muslim-man-celebrates-onam-kerala-payasam-fest-340645-2016-09-12

"There is no legal text compatible to this produced even after five centuries from the region, but some preachers with the influence of Arab cultural Islam and its wide influence in the various realm create commotions through unexpected comments against Onam celebrations of Muslim communities. The idea of branding of other cultures as un-Islamic was introduced as part of ‘reform’, but now it silently lingers even the tongue of traditionalists."

These are comments passed by one or two islamic preachers and never to be considered the view point of all Muslims of Kerala. They have rejected these as seen from the article.

The religious organization of muslims in kerala , which represent 95% of muslims in kerala are : Sunni organizations (AP or EK).

These organizations never said 'officially' any comment on onam. Usually it is through fatwa Muslims organizations declare their views. No one released a fatwa.

Mere communal comments of some communal leaders cannot be considered as a mass view and never to be the part of wikipedia as an article

This is a religious promotional article , only made from 2-3 religious preachers speeches Fsrvb (talk) 15:35, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I'm not sure if it is because of a script I have installed but about half of this daily log page is in pink after the listing of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Chinese Puzzle (TV series) on the page. I tried to add some code to that AFD discussion page to stop whatever wiki code was turning the page pink after Cunard's comment but it had no effect. This pink background is very distracting so any advice, either what script to uninstall or what fix the daily log page might have, would be appreciated. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:07, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

:Is it gone now, Liz? I tried [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Chinese_Puzzle_(TV_series)&diff=prev&oldid=1239552814 this], which seemed to fix it (I think User:Headbomb/unreliable.js was the script affected). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:42, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

::Yes, thank you so much Extraordinary Writ! That did it. It seems to happen when an editor puts a bare URL in a comment. But I'll check that script and see if I should uninstall it. I only see it happening in AFD pages for some reason. Thanks again, it's appreciated. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

An RfC to adopt a subject-specific notability guideline regarding the notability of species has been opened at Wikipedia talk:Notability (species)#Proposal to adopt this guideline. C F A 💬 22:27, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zoe Gardner (migration expert) has been created by a very new editor and hasn't got the necessary infrastructure - I think a bot might pick it up and mend it but wonder if an AfD regular here could fix it? Is there a standard place/way to report these? PamD 08:58, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

:Or, if there is a standard way to mend a malformed AfD or a way to report it, could this perhaps be added to the AfD page? It has info about how to open, contribute to, and close an AfD, but not about how to mend a malformed one. Thanks. PamD 09:24, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

::@PamD fixed. Please refer to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to nominate a single page for deletion for future reference. TarnishedPath^talk 10:29, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

:::@TarnishedPath Yes, I could see those instructions, but was anxious for it not to appear that I was the editor proposing deletion and wasn't sure how to avoid that. Thanks. PamD 11:07, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

::::@PamD, I got around not appearing to be the nominator by not putting in details in the text field or signing the template. I.e., {{subst:afd2 | pg=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zoe Gardner (migration expert) | cat= | text=}}. TarnishedPath^talk 11:18, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

:::::Thanks, I'll make a note of that in my "Useful stuff" bit of my sandbox! PamD 11:34, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I made an AfD located here for a series of articles that I am replacing with a new article, which is currently in draft space located here. I also announced my intentions over a week ago on a very visible talk page and received no opposition, and no opposition in the AfD, rather I was told this wasn't even controversial enough to take to AfD. I also now feel that redirecting the old pages would be preferred in order to preserve page histories, rather than deleting. Should I just withdraw my AfD and take this to the technical section of Wikipedia:Requested moves so I can move from draft space to main space? (I'm hitting technical issues trying to do this myself.) Would this be seen as trying to get around the community, or is it just the obvious uncontroversial thing to do here? Any assistance would be appreciated. StewdioMACK (talk) 05:16, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

:{{ping|StewdioMACK}} I moved the draft to mainspace for you, but I suggest waiting the 7 days so the discussion can be properly closed as "redirect". C F A 💬 15:25, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

::Thanks for the assistance! As suggested, I'll wait before linking from other pages and fully redirecting the old pages. StewdioMACK (talk) 15:45, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Single-paragraph, seven-sentence, four-reference stub discussing a non-notable, long-since-defunct, and completely forgotten children's lifestyle brand. 100.7.34.111 (talk) 13:46, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

:{{done}}. C F A 💬 13:51, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Hiromu Kori - I tried to nominate this myself but found the process too confusing. He only made appearances in the J3 League and was released in 2018 for breaching the club's code of conduct and hasn't played since. He has a few sources on his Japanese Wikipedia page but he's probably not notable enough - I want to see what everyone else thinks. RossEvans19 (talk) 13:36, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

:{{done}} Dan • ✉ 23:15, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

We literally have an article on wiki listing List of Jewish Nobel laureates. The majority of the people on that list are relatively non-observant Ashkenazi Jews.

Yes, this area can attract the nastiest neo-nazi people due to the subject being Jewish people and its closeness to the pseudoscience of eugenics, causing the need for sources to be sorted thru with a fine comb, but observational data on college graduates in the USA and doctoral-level graduates has already made the initial argument. By not acknowledging the so-called 'elephant in the room' and showing the multiple ways it has been attempted to be explained, such as culture or religion, it only leads to greater antisemitic sentiment.

So why go to deletion instead of reframing the article title to address the observed disproportionate phenomenon that has been written about by carnegie and other relatively unbiased institutions or address the vandalism depending on severity by following proper escalation ultimately leading to extended auto confirmed protected.

RCSCott91 (talk) 01:24, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

The first step for responding to a bad page is to try improving it, but it is also one of the most effective ways I've found to completely burn oneself out on Wikipedia, such that I've had to take a hard line of just refusing to improve any article that is up for AFD.

Consider: improving Wikipedia articles is already such a marginally rewarding / unrewarding task that the vast majority of people who could, don't. For the most part, only those of us who are wired a little strange to begin with even bother trying.* And even those mostly don't stick around for long.

Suppose an article has a 50% chance of survival if improved -- that cuts that already-tiny marginal reward of editing in half, and not many folks are going to keep going for long. Add in the fact that negative feedback has a much stronger impact than positive feedback, and the rewards of this kind of work are actually negative. Add in the fact that the actual odds of an article surviving AFD are much lower than 50%, and you have a situation that would make most humans profoundly miserable within a week.

This would be bad enough if the harms of AFD were limited to nominated articles, but -- circling back to TFA -- its harms extend much more broadly. In particular, I suspect the highly subjective and unpredictable way the notability guidelines are enforced in practice on AFD plays a major role in the outcome documented here. It would be very interesting to know if a survey of just AFD-nominated articles would show similarly biased outcomes (I suspect it would, in fact if I had to guess I suspect the effect of gender on AFD outcomes might be stronger). But even if that's not the case, even if AFD itself were firmly dedicated to gender parity -- given how deeply demoralizing the AFD process is, even a small increase in the likelihood of an article being nominated for AFD if it is about a woman would likely have a sufficiently discouraging effect over time to account for the results documented here.

And all of this harm is done (by the gleeful bullies who congregate in AFD where their behavior is socially rewarded and protected from consequences by a culture of weaponized civility) in service of a goal that is, as you note, of very limited value to the project. A hundred bad articles are less damaging than the loss of one good one.

AndrewHart500 (talk) 01:52, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

:You seem to have had a hard time defending an article or two, Andrew - and you're clearly a wee bit more bitter about things as a consequence. I have personally seen articles challenged at AfD through to improvement and survival on many, many occasions. The clear, bright line of three good sources is really what most people are looking for and that basic notability guideline is reasonably clear-cut and, per consensus, fair. My own WP:HEY moment was provided by Winston Churchill's pets, a rotten little stub with absolutely nothing going for it, little sourcing, no chance of ever being notable (who cares about his pestilent pets?) which I nominated for AfD only to see transformed by a growing number of ardent defenders into an absolute titan of an article, currently supported by 29 excellent sources. In short, they're not out to get you, nobody is being a bully (nobody I have seen, in any case) and maybe a short Wiki-break, a little consideration of the policy and process and a cupful of benign intent might help smooth things out a little. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:57, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

::Yep. It might be worth considering why AfD is the only place that kind of improvement generally happens (I think everyone on the spectrum of 'should X have an article' would far prefer that cleanup happening outside the scope of AfD and those articles that are ultimately keeps not ending up nominated at all) but if one is getting burned out on parts of the project, taking a step back is a prudent one. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 11:14, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

:::Poor enforcement of WP:BEFORE is sometimes an issue with some. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 11:32, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

The subject of this article does not meet notability guidelines in WP:BIO. The entire article lacks sources to support Dawson's notibility. Many of the links provided show events Dawson has been part of but fail to establish that Dawson himself is of note. None of those sources are significant coverage of Dawson; he merely plays a minor part (such as moderating a conference or event) in those events. The only source that actually provide coverage of Dawson is the PRWeek article, however, as it is a one-to-one interview of Dawson himself, the source is a primary source and therefore does not support notability of the subject itself, per WP:BASIC. 218.189.35.59 (talk) 23:14, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

:{{done}} Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Dawson (anchor) — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 03:12, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Non-notable record label, complete lack of sources and very little news coverage. Only two of the artists mentioned in the article mention V/Vm Test Records on their page, one of these artists is V/Vm himself. Violates WP:GNG. 74.108.22.119 (talk) 12:27, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

:Done. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:06, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, new user trying to nominate an AFD for R. Scott Bakker.

I used the Twinkle tool to nominate, but I'm not seeing the article show up in the AFD log. I'm not sure if Twinkle only completes step I described here, or if it completed step II/III as well? Does it usually take some time or do I need to do the other steps manually? Just afraid of spamming the pages. Mintopop(talk) 16:47, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

:There are a couple different deletion processes. What you've created on that page is not an AFD (Article For Deletion) but a WP:PROD... a proposed deletion, which means if no one objects to the deletion for a week, it gets deleted, no further discussion needed. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:11, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

::@NatGertler Oops, that was not my intention. I assumed this deletion proposal might be somewhat controversial given it is a biography, so I wanted to open up for AFD. It sounds like it's an either/or thing with AFD and PROD. I guess at this point I just wait to see if the PROD goes through and then take next steps from there if someone objects? Mintopop(talk) 20:21, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

:::That is a normal way of doing things. However, if you do personally feel this is too controversial to take that route, you are free to delete the PROD tag and refile as an AfD now... however, given the lack of substantive additions to the article in years, I suspect you'll just save other editors time by letting the PROD run. (A new AfD is always an option, but once an AfD has been run and the article has survived, PROD is no longer an option.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 20:31, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

::::Understandable, thank you for the assistance! I'll let the PROD run and see what happens in the next week. Mintopop(talk) 20:33, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I've recently nominated quite a few political parties in NZ for deletion for failing NCORP, there are many of them: Template:Historic_New_Zealand_political_parties and most fail GNG, let alone NCORP. Would a mass nomination be appropriate here or would it be better to nominate individually? Traumnovelle (talk) 23:33, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

:Nominate individually, so that each can be discussed on its merits. IdiotSavant (talk) 23:58, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

How should I make a discussion for an article deletion? I've seen it happen as a subpage and as a request here. Tonkarooson (discuss). 23:40, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

:IPs can't create AfDs so they request it here. The page on WP:AFD explains how to create one but it is far easier to install WP:TWINKLE and use that.

:Enable Twinkle in the Gadgets tab of your preferences.

:Go back to the article, and choose "XFD" from the new Twinkle ("TW") menu.

:Fill in the form and submit it.

:thumb Traumnovelle (talk) 00:17, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Currently, the listing for September 28 is saying that all 73 discussions are closed. However, the Báthory family (of the Aba clan) AFD that is also from that day is actually still open for some reason. Does anyone know why this happened? And can an admin close the AFD? Liu1126 (talk) 08:35, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I came across an article that I think is a candidate for AfD, but I'm still pretty darn new to Wikipedia. I've read WP:BEFORE, I just don't feel confident enough to do myself yet - from a knowledge and a practical using Wikipedia standpoint. I will learn how someday, but I'm hoping it's okay if I share it here for someone with more experience to nominate?

The article in question is Osborne Morton and I didn't find evidence of notability for WP:NACADEMIC or WP:NAUTHOR. It seems to be created by the person originally, and largely edited by them, with no COI declared (not sure how long that policy has been in place). Although they seem to have been very active in the past, the user's accounts (all self-declared) Osborne (contribs), Gigartina (contribs), and Phycodrys (contribs) don't have activity past September 2020.

Thank you! Cyanochic (talk) 01:32, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

:Given the lack of active editing on the article, I suspect that you could use the much simpler WP:PROD and it would likely lead to the article's deletion. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 02:03, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

::Great I'll do that, thank you! Cyanochic (talk) 03:26, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_impact_of_Christina_Aguilera

This article should be deleted altogether. It is packed with fan-fiction and should not be on Wikipedia. 2003:E7:1746:B700:6C0A:5319:96AF:62D8 (talk) 10:47, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

:Do you know what fiction means? Geschichte (talk) 07:04, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josette_Baisse

Is it appropriate to delete this article because she's too insignificant of a person to have her own article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yusuf Michael (talk • contribs) 20:41, October 13, 2024 (UTC)

:I'm not sure why you're posting here when you already [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Josette_Baisse created an AfD]? You'll doubtless hear whether other editors feel the article should be deleted as part of that discussion. DonIago (talk) 17:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Could someone please fix the formatting for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xuemin Lin? The nominator appears to have just created a plain text page with their nom reason. The article appears to be tagged correctly though. Fork99 (talk) 10:04, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

:Fork99, I've fixed the discussion page. --Ratekreel (talk) 11:32, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

'Unregistered users placing this tag on an article cannot complete the deletion nomination and should leave detailed reasons for deletion on Talk:Francesco Banchini and then post a message at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion requesting that someone else complete the process. If the nomination is not completed and no message is left on the talkpage, this tag may be removed.'

Hello, see the message above. I'm new, don't want to register, but would like to help clean up a self-promotor...could some chap please take over? 31.30.165.218 (talk) 11:53, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

:Hello and welcome! The AFD process is somewhat redundant to the PROD process you've also tagged the page with (and in fact, AFD normally prevents a PROD from going through) but I believe our speedy deletion process is appropriate, so I have tagged the page accordingly. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:00, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

::Cheers, I'm new and not with the lingo 31.30.165.218 (talk) 14:15, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

There is no lighting in the sources. 95.153.180.247 (talk) 09:10, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

:Given the lack of substantive editing on this article in recent years, I have used the WP:PROD system to suggest deletion on your behalf. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:45, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

There is no lighting in the sources. Only press releases and links to themselves. 95.153.180.247 (talk) 09:07, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

:Given the lack of substantive editing on these articles in recent years, I have used the WP:PROD system to suggest deletion on your behalf. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:44, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

:: I'm not sure back door deletion of possibly unwatched articles is a good thing. If no one is watching them then AfD will give them proper attention, Atlantic306 (talk) 18:52, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

:::You are certainly welcome to deprod them and take them to AfD. The problem with unwatched articles going through AfD is that the lack of people watching often means no one participates in the AfD, and they end up going through several rounds of relisting and sticking around not because anyone objects, but because no one bothers to be involved. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 20:02, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

::Possibly irrelevant, but I couldn't figure out what "There is no lighting in the sources" meant – is this some obscure jargon I haven't encountered before? — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 23:59, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

:::Given that the IP is Russian-based (and is commenting on Russian-related entries), I am not expecting perfect English. I guess I took it as nothing that shines the light of notability on the subject. The first is only sourced to an annual report, the second has no references (one external link, but it's to the subject's website.) The one below has more sourcing, but I'm not in position to easily evaluate the quality of that sourcing. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:56, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Would appreciate discussion being opened. Cannot go through process myself as an unregistered user. "Daughter of Someone Famous". This is a vanity page which refers to self-published poems and lists university awards as reason for notability. No substantial or notable press or internet presence. Not something one would expect in a generalist reference. Rebecca_Tamás 80.194.211.108 (talk) 22:50, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

:I don't understand your comment about this article. Would you be able to explain about what your concerns are? It is important to make certain that this conversation is grounded in Wikipedia's content policy, and not personal opinion --and without ad hominem reasoning. Rebecca Tamás is an established poet with an emerging body of published work and critical recognition; this seems to meet the notability criteria. If you have any specific elements that you find lacking or problematic in the article itself, please point them out so we can work to constructively improve the page. :PaliGol (talk) 10:29, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I just found this suspicious redirection page and marked it for possible deletion, but as IP cannot complete it's deletion subpage. Please have a look and help. My reasoning, given in the edit summary, is: "this is a redirection of a meant-to-be-funny term, created by an editor to redirect to his favourite playground. The term is by no means usual, or ever been used by anyone other than this editor who likes to link to this page. I reccon this misuse of redicection pages" 47.67.225.78 (talk) 10:07, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

:I think you want Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion instead. But I don't understand the problem. List of Super Heavies redirects to a list of rockets called "SpaceX Super Heavy". Commander Keane (talk) 11:18, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

::The problem is not where it redirects. The problem is the term of the redirection page itself: "List of Super Heavies" is not a common term someone would look up, but "a meant-to-be-funny term". There is no need at all to have that page, it's a joke - "Heavies". With the same reason one could make a redirection page "starshipies" to redirekt to "starship". 47.67.225.78 (talk) 11:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

:::Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap has some thoughts on the matter. But by all means open a Redirects for Discussion thread. Commander Keane (talk) 11:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

::::What is the sense of putting me down here and telling me to open a Redirects for Discussion, just to oppose there speedily again. Reccon you find it funny to let me do all this effort just to put me down again? 47.67.225.78 (talk) 09:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

:::::Check out the RfD discussion again. I changed from keep to delete (before I read this post). It may end up retargeted though. Thanks for opening the RfD. I think we will get a positive outcome. Commander Keane (talk) 09:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

:::::: Thanks. While I still think this redirect page is misleading and superfluous, a redirect to the page listing everything "super heavy" is a compromise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.67.225.78 (talk)

:The redirect is fine. The bigger issue here is your personal hounding of Redacted II. Your posting history on this IP and on the other IP you've used shows a pretty extreme personal vendetta. Ergzay (talk) 16:40, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

30px

The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Vote_for_deletion&redirect=no Wikipedia:Vote for deletion] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at {{slink|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 4#Wikipedia:Vote for deletion}} until a consensus is reached. TheWikipede (talk) 21:36, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Lack of academic criteria for the biography https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges-Claude_Guilbert

And risks of self promotion regarding creator and editors of the article Paul John Dedalus (talk) 13:33, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I would like to nominate the following C-SPAN interview lists for deletion:

• List of After Words interviews first aired in 2005
• List of After Words interviews first aired in 2006
• List of After Words interviews first aired in 2007
• List of After Words interviews first aired in 2008
• List of After Words interviews first aired in 2009
• List of After Words interviews first aired in 2010
• List of After Words interviews first aired in 2011
• List of After Words interviews first aired in 2012
• List of After Words interviews first aired in 2013
• List of After Words interviews first aired in 2014
• List of After Words interviews first aired in 2015
• List of After Words interviews first aired in 2016
• List of After Words interviews first aired in 2017
• List of After Words interviews first aired in 2018
• List of After Words interviews first aired in 2019
• List of After Words interviews first aired in 2020
• List of C-SPAN Q&A interviews first aired in 2004 and 2005
• List of C-SPAN Q&A interviews first aired in 2006
• List of C-SPAN Q&A interviews first aired in 2007
• List of C-SPAN Q&A interviews first aired in 2008
• List of C-SPAN Q&A interviews first aired in 2009
• List of C-SPAN Q&A interviews first aired in 2010
• List of C-SPAN Q&A interviews first aired in 2011
• List of C-SPAN Q&A interviews first aired in 2012
• List of C-SPAN Q&A interviews first aired in 2013
• List of C-SPAN Q&A interviews first aired in 2014
• List of C-SPAN Q&A interviews first aired in 2015
• List of C-SPAN Q&A interviews first aired in 2016
• List of C-SPAN Q&A interviews first aired in 2017
• List of C-SPAN Q&A interviews first aired in 2018
• List of C-SPAN Q&A interviews first aired in 2019
• List of C-SPAN Q&A interviews first aired in 2020
• List of Washington Journal programs aired in January 1995
• List of Washington Journal programs aired in February 1995
• List of Washington Journal programs aired in March 1995
• List of Washington Journal programs aired in April 1995
• List of Washington Journal programs aired in May 1995
• List of Booknotes interviews first aired in 1989
• List of Booknotes interviews first aired in 1990
• List of Booknotes interviews first aired in 1991
• List of Booknotes interviews first aired in 1992
• List of Booknotes interviews first aired in 1993
• List of Booknotes interviews first aired in 1994
• List of Booknotes interviews first aired in 1995
• List of Booknotes interviews first aired in 1996
• List of Booknotes interviews first aired in 1997
• List of Booknotes interviews first aired in 1998
• List of Booknotes interviews first aired in 1999
• List of Booknotes interviews first aired in 2000
• List of Booknotes interviews first aired in 2001
• List of Booknotes interviews first aired in 2002
• List of Booknotes interviews first aired in 2003
• List of Booknotes interviews first aired in 2004

All these lists were created by KConWiki, who remains an active editor on this site but has not created pages of this ilk since 2020. I believe these lists all fall foul of WP:NOTDIRECTORY, to say nothing of them not being needed on a site like this - one can simply go to the C-SPAN website and look up the interview they want to watch instead of relying on these lists for such. 100.7.34.111 (talk) 00:59, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

:Good evening- These articles/lists provide a quick service for users who are interested in the interviews listed. It is true that I have not added to the Q&A or After Words programs recently, perhaps I should put that back towards the top of my to-do list (or others are welcome to do so as well). I do not see how it makes WP weaker to have them, and I do see where users could benefit. Also, I should mention that I have recently reverted some edits on other C-SPAN-related articles such as In Depth, American Writers: A Journey Through History, The Alexis de Tocqueville Tour: Exploring Democracy in America, and others. As noted in my comments on those reverts, I am concerned that this is a misreading of WP:NOTDIRECTORY, which says in part "although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable." Let's discuss further as appropriate. Thanks KConWiki (talk) 06:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

There is something really odd with the close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S. B. Deorah College. It was apparently closed at delete on the same day it was nominated but without a clear consensus... And then it was never deleted and the article is still live but with an AFD tag that leads to a closed discussion. I'm confused...4meter4 (talk) 01:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

::Never mind... just realised there was a Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S. B. Deorah College (2nd nomination).4meter4 (talk) 01:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Can I please get some more commenters here. All opinions welcome. We are having a hard time reaching a clear consensus as not enough people are participating.4meter4 (talk) 19:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

File:Symbol watching blue lashes high contrast.svg You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation § Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects/Reviewing instructions#Other types of submissions. 76.71.3.150 (talk) 07:00, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Not sure how much of a priority this is, but I've noticed that every nomination below Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Hit Music Network on the November 30 log is indented. I see what the cause is, but I don't want to mess around with it though (since I'd have to go to the actual nomination page for it, therefore being unable to preview properly), so leaving it here in the hopes that someone notices. Procyon117 (talk) 15:06, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

:I believe I fixed it. There was an unclosed ordered list (

::Yup that fixed it. Sweet. Procyon117 (talk) 12:59, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Why is this still hanging around in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 21? Relist it or close it please.4meter4 (talk) 04:05, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

:@4meter4, the answer to that question is on the AfD itself. -- asilvering (talk) 08:31, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not exactly certain this is the correct place. But recently there has been a conflict about the line

:'An admin who is uninvolved and has not participated in the deletion discussion will assess the discussion for consensus. For how to perform this, see WP:AFD/AI.'

I won't mention names or places because I am not posting to extend that conflict but rather to make the same conflict less likely in future. I interpreted the line 'has not participated' to mean that any admin/user who has taken part in the conversation in any form should refrain from closing. I assumed that the line was there to stop any uneasily resolved conflict around what constitutes 'involvement' so that we had a clear point of fact that someone taking part in a conversation should not close it. However, it appears that the passage can also be interpreted along the same lines as 'involvement', as meaning that posting in the conversation previously is OK and does not constitute participation itself as long as, I think, they indicated no stake in the result (or something along those lines). It therefore appears that the passage is either redundant or insufficiently clear in expression. So what I think would help is either to remove the line about participation or be more explicit and leave less wriggle room about what participation is. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:03, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

:Context: @asilvering closed an AfD as redirect, after making a single post in the AfD: {{tq|@Deacon of Pndapetzim, can you give us your WP:THREE best sources that would show that the subject meets the notability guidelines at WP:GNG? That would help bring this discussion back on track.}} Deacon then suggested that asilvering was {{tq|unduly involved}} in the AfD and part of a {{tq|bully squad}} because when Deacon was brought to AN over his conduct at the AfD, asilvering stated that Deacon's conduct was {{tq|astonishingly poor}}.{{pb}}The second paragraph of WP:INVOLVED states that "an administrator ... whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits that do not show bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that ... topic area". That paragraph also provides examples of actions that do not make an administrator involved, including "suggestions on possible wordings and approaches". asilvering's invocation of WP:THREE was quite literally a suggestion of an approach to get a discussion that had deteriorated back on track.{{pb}}I'm going to go ahead and boldly delete the phrase "and has not participated" since the obvious intent of that bullet point is to link readers to WP:INVOLVED. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:57, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

::I reverted. "has not participated in the deletion discussion" helps clarify what is considered "involved." SportingFlyer T·C 02:01, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

:::I think INVOLVED is pretty clear on what being involved means. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:03, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

::::INVOLVED says nothing about participating in deletion discussions, whereas what you boldly reverted does. It clarifies that participating in a deletion discussion is something which involves an editor. SportingFlyer T·C 02:08, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

:::@SportingFlyer, does it? Because it seems to be introducing confusion here. I don't think that asking people for sources in the AfD body text is any different from asking people for sources in the relist note, which closers do pretty frequently without being considered to be involved participants. -- asilvering (talk) 02:06, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

::::I disagree. Your involvement in that AfD was not a purely administrative function - I'm sure the mileage will vary on that - and I would have voted to overturn if this had gone to DRV and not to a talk page. SportingFlyer T·C 02:09, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

:::::When I relist with the comment "a source review would be helpful here", is it your position that I can't close that AfD? Or, if I remind editors to remain civil, can I no longer close the AfD? voorts (talk/contributions) 02:11, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

::::::I have asked admins whose relist comments have gone beyond merely relisting to be careful in the past. Just because someone relists a discussion doesn't make someone involved, but sometimes relisting a discussion with a specific comment may make an admin appear involved. It's very frustrating as a participant. As to your examples, though, those would probably be fine. SportingFlyer T·C 02:18, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

:::::::I'm not sure why my examples are any different from what asilvering did. If I can ask editors to do a source review, why can't a relister (or otherwise uninvolved editor) ask a keep !voter to provide their three best sources? voorts (talk/contributions) 02:23, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

::::::::Because you start to blur the lines between an administrative role (relister) and a participant in the discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 02:24, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

:::::::::How is asking a question blurring a line? voorts (talk/contributions) 13:58, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

::::::::::I don't see it either. The exercise here would be to try to guess which side of the debate I would agree with, based on what I'd said. My comments were that Deacon's conduct was poor, and that it would be helpful to show sources. Does it follow from that that I am biased against Deacon's "side" of the discussion? I don't really see how, since conduct has nothing to do with the outcome of AfDs, and while asking for sources does imply that I don't presently see sources that would help (which would suggest I was "anti-keep"), it also throws a clear lifeline to the keep proponents (so how "anti-keep" could I be?) -- asilvering (talk) 17:49, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

::I don't think rehashing this and editorialising like that does any good except to distract from its clarity of purpose. In any case, I didn't say anyone was part of a bully squad, I said this user posted along side it. Did you actually read some of the nasty things said towards me in that thread? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

:::Nasty is certainly an overstatement. The focus of this discussion is whether the closer was defined as being involved or not. There's concerns by some about the intention of INVOLVED vs people reading too much into specific verbiage. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:07, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

:Contextually speaking, asilvering trying to help push the discussion in the right direction (away from the bickering to keep it on topic), while voicing no opinion or participating otherwise, does not at all come across as WP:INVOLVED from my perspective. Frankly I'm not sure how the discussion could have been closed any other way. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:57, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

::I have to agree with voorts and asilvering. The comment seems to be in the context of seeing assertions that may be valid, but feeling that more evidence is needed to close it that way. And so he is asking for that evidence. That isn't making him involved, it is giving the people making the assertions an opportunity to strengthen their case before closing the other way. Rlendog (talk) 20:01, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

:::I do agree that discussion couldn't really be closed any other way, and that comment did not prejudice the deletion outcome. But I've also been in situations like this before - WP:INVOLVED says {{tq|whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits that do not show bias}}, and it really does not take much for a comment to go from a minor administrative comment to being INVOLVED, and as I've mentioned before, this doesn't happen frequently, but I have reached out to admins after a closed AfD to let them know I've thought the INVOLVED line was in play. In this instance, a participant thought this showed enough bias to post here, and asilvering themselves just said that it may imply that they were "anti-keep." If that implication exists at all, it's very easy to let someone else close a discussion... SportingFlyer T·C 23:12, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

::::{{tq|a participant thought this showed enough bias to post here}} Did you read any of the context provided about the conduct of this participant? voorts (talk/contributions) 23:54, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

:::::Yes, I did, and it hasn't influenced how I see this at all. SportingFlyer T·C 00:41, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

::::@SportingFlyer, that's not a very fair restatement of my comment, which was decidedly ambivalent. In order to arrive at "may imply that they were 'anti-keep'", you'd have had to stop reading there, without continuing to the end of the sentence. -- asilvering (talk) 03:09, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

:::::{{re|asilvering}} I'm not doing a very good job of explaining myself then, and I apologise if I'm making it seem like you weren't ambivalent. The point I'm trying to make is that it may not come off as ambivalent if you're not experienced with the AfD process. SportingFlyer T·C 06:00, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

:I would just like to point out that I am an administrator on English Wiktionary, which has a comparative dearth of administrators, and well-participated discussions, meaning that there are often discussions for which there is no uninvolved administrator to close. On that project, I frequently close discussions where I have been a participant (even a very involved participant), but where I can uncontroversially close the discussion because the outcome was very clear. Frankly, I see no reason why an administrator on this site should not be able to close a discussion in which they have participated if there is a clear and overwhelming outcome, and the close clearly reflects that outcome. BD2412 T 01:01, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

::I entirely agree with the above. It is perfectly OK for an admin to close a discussion, even if they had taken part, as long as the result is clear. Note that I was an admin but gave it up when I got old. but I am still clear about this point. Bduke (talk) 02:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

:ONINVOLVEMENT I had no objection to Asilvering's actions on the AN thread, Voorts or anyone else interested. I came across as rude on a aritcle for deletion thread in regards to two of its proponents, and Asilvering voiced the opinion commonly expressed on the AN thread that she disapproved of this alleged rudeness. Asilvering is entirely in her right to disapprove of anything she wants to, I have no objection. The perception of involvedness from my part has more to do with the fact that she came across to the deletion thread with a group of associates, then asked a question that I interpreted as partly adversarial. She requested that *I* in particular, only one of the opponents of the deletion proposal, provide three sources, I presume to establish the article's notability, and hence to determine what !vote. I'm not sure I quite understood the point of the question, because the article already contained three sources. I also withdrew from the thread because of threats on the AN thread. The article appears to have been subsequently deleted because a number of users completely misunderstood what the proposer was saying about the provenance of the saint, confusing the fact that the saint (like Beowulf) is known only from one medieval source (which I'm not sure is true actually & has nothing to do with Wikipedia guidelines) with the extent of commentary about the saint in modern scholarship. Asilvering subsequently closed the discussion. Even on the basis of "Involvement" I don't think she was the right person. It's completely reasonable for me to see her as involved here. On the other hand, I WAS definitely heavily involved and a stakeholder in the outcome as the creator of the article. MY opinion on this bears weight accordingly. Asilvering and I have discussed this already, Asilvering for their part did not see asking that question as constituting WP:INVOLVEMENT. She does not care that I saw her as involved. I also accept that the wooley nature of the 'involvement' guideline isn't decisive here, and that means that her closure is reasonable and that also she is entitled to the benefit of the doubt. This matter is already solved and WAS ALREADY solved before I opened this thread. I do not seek to revisit the outcome of that discussion, if nothing else it is not worth it. It's a loss to Wikipedia but not a big loss.

:However, in addition to the wooliness of Wikipedia 'involvement' guidelines, this page's own guidelines appear to list participation separate from involvement. Involvement is a wikilawyery concept, the meaning differs from standard English; participation is simply posting in the discussion. As a matter of fact Asilvering posted in the discussion. But the way its worded it can also be read as an oblique and redundant reference to 'involvement', and interpreted accordingly. I posted here because I am seeking to make the line clearer. I tried to keep Asilvering and her friends out of it by not mentioning them or the dispute. Part of the reasoning is that I thought it might be difficult for them to see the issue clearly because they would see it as tied up with Asilvering's closure rather than its own merit and might derail the discussion. They aren't tied up. When Asilvering closed the thread, the wording was ambiguous and fixing that ambiguity now would not make her action more or less judicious.

:On the topic of participation as separate from involvement . The line 'has not participated' can reasonably be interpreted to mean that any admin/user who has taken part in the conversation in any form should refrain from closing. I assumed that the line was there to stop any uneasily resolved conflict around what constitutes 'involvement' so that we had a clear point of fact that someone taking part in a conversation should not close it. However, it appears that the passage can also be interpreted along the same lines as 'involvement', as meaning that posting in the conversation previously is OK and does not constitute participation itself as long as they appeared to have no stake in the result (or something along those lines). It therefore appears that the 'participation' passage is either redundant (covered by involvement) or insufficiently clear in expression. So what I think would help is either to remove the line about participation or be more explicit and leave less wriggle room about what participation is. As I indicated in the opening post above, I am interested in clarifying the line about 'participation'. Not by ad hoc interpretations of the line that may suit one party one way now, another future interested party differently another time. Voorts to his credit tried to solve the problem by fixing the ambiguity, but as I suspected he was opposed. SportingFlyer has posted indicating that they did not share Voorts' interpretation, though they have not said enough for me to be certain about how their view relates to mine. But where things stand nothing has moved on, the offending line is still open to reasonable interpretations that are potentially contradictory.

:If you'll forgive me, as much as I've love to devote all my Wikitime to this topic (or even to correcting sidetrack editorialising), I also want to do other things. So if it has to be ambiguous because of opinion stalemates I'm just going to lump it as another part of the dogpile of chaos that makes Wiki guidelines.... but we'll all live. But if it can be fixed then great Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

::{{tq|The line 'has not participated' can reasonably be interpreted...}} – The problem is you seem to think someone trying to ask a question as an impartial observer, to help steer the conversation in a productive way instead of allowing it to spiral, constitutes being involved whereas other participants in this discussion do not feel that way. They were not involved in trying to sway the discussion in any capacity. They were clearly a neutral party to any observer. As such, there's no issue, and we can argue about specific verbiage til the cows come home, but I think it's fairly clear what the intent of INVOLVED is supposed to mean. Don't close discussions you were involved in on either side of the issue. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:10, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

::: All I've got from this is that you haven't followed anything I've said, that you put a lot of more store in the concept of neutrality than I do, and that you think policy and guideline pages are 'verbiage'. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:19, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

::::When you dig your heels in and take a stance you sure do love to be dismissive of how others interpret and think of things. Must have some pretty long legs if you're able to do that from your high horse... I read it and I'm unswayed. I think INVOLVED as a policy is clear. I'm sorry that you feel my usage of verbiage somehow invalidates everything I've said. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:25, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

::::: I'm not being dismissive, Josh, I'm not trying to put the 'involved' policy into consideration here, you can't have understood my posts if you think I opened this thread to invite opinions on the clarity of the Involved policy. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

::::::If you say so. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I say yes, as it aligns with current practice, which is that we apply INVOLVED rather than asking whether a closer "participated" in the AfD discussion. The current language was added in September 2014 after a discussion in which the issue was raised that the guideline as then written was narrowing the definition of INVOLVED, rather than adopting that standard. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:17, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

:Seems fine to me, though obviously on this question I am myself Involved. We could also try for the spirit of what they were going for back in 2014 with "!voted in" or "offered an opinion in" or similar. -- asilvering (talk) 00:26, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Symbol watching blue lashes high contrast.svg You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion § Is RFD a valid forum to discuss cases of PTOPIC disambiguation pages?. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 13:47, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Stub page for a random, no-name college professor that has just 6 sources and a "Life" section that consists entirely of 2 paragraphs - the first 4 sentences, the second just one. In addition, the first external link (which directs to an archived page from 1997) admits it has outdated content. Finally, this page's creation was literally the only edit its creator, Dani4, ever made. 100.7.34.111 (talk) 18:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

:: Passes WP:PROF criteria 1 with large numbers of citations for her works as shown [https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ORFiUwQAAAAJ here] on Google Scholar, so it is very likely to be kept at AfD, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:54, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

{{closed-top|Closing to avoid duplication. The parallel discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#AFD clarification remains open for anyone who wants to contribute. Thryduulf (talk) 13:26, 13 December 2024 (UTC)}}

The article states that:

{{TQ|If a redirection is controversial, however, AfD may be an appropriate venue for discussing the change in addition to the article's talk page.}}

Does this mean that an AFD can be started by someone with the intent of redirecting instead of deleting? Plasticwonder (talk) 04:06, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

:Yep. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:18, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

:Don't post things at multiple places. There's no reason to have two separate discusssions on this at VPP and here. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:07, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

{{closed-bottom}}

I am the subject of this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Blade. I don't think it meets the notability criteria for an article on Wikipedia. The article is semi-protected. I'd like to request that an editor nominate it for deletion please? BladeTerry (talk) 01:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I have started a discussion at the Administators notice board about AfDs that are closing before 7 days/168 hours that watchers of this page may be interested in. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:09, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Is there a way or tool to check how many closures an editor has performed, particularly when the XfD closure has resulted in a 'keep' ? Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

:https://sowhy.toolforge.org/afdcloses.php? Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

::Yes, thank you. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I have marked Mr. Beat for deletion and kindly request that someone complete the process for me. Thank you very much. 2A02:C7C:2DCE:1F00:4D29:6661:1D4E:6058 (talk) 19:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I would appreciate some regular AFD reviewers commenting on this page. There's been lots of activity from potential WP:SPA accounts, and it would be good to have some clearly non-partisan people participating. All opinions are welcome.4meter4 (talk) 01:30, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

BEFORE (D)(1) currently states {{tq|The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects.}} (links omitted) Given our relatively robust access to academic sourcing through the Wikipedia Library, and the number of recent AfDs I've seen that have completely missed obvious Google Scholar sources on fictional literature (e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spacing Guild (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of James Bond villains), I'd like to make Google Scholar expected, rather than "suggested for academic subjects". We have a lot of pop culture media and literature that are being addressed as "academic subjects" and I believe the current wording doesn't well serve the encyclopedia.

:1) Is there a good reason to not add Google Scholar to the expected list for general topics?

:1a) Could we wordsmith it so that obviously non-academic topics such as BLPs are excluded?

:2) Is going from 4 to 5 expected searches too much effort? If so, would it be appropriate to swap out one of the other four?

I believe the encyclopedia suffers when things that are clearly notable are nominated for deletion, and I'd like to make sure our efforts here are the best balance of making the nominator do appropriate work to find and evaluate the most obvious sources before creating work for the community and administrators. Jclemens (talk) 00:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

:I'd support that. I think common-sense exceptions already apply (you don't need to check Google Books for a breaking-news story), but if that's a concern we could just stick an "in general" on the front. To compensate (or either way, honestly), we should get rid of the Google News Archive search, which has never worked properly and isn't really supported anymore. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:20, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

:::I would oppose this, but only because access to the Wikipedia Library is contingent on time (one has to be active for six months if I am remembering correctly), and one has to apply for access (which may not have been done by all participants at AFD). There are enough access barriers in place that I don’t think this can be required.4meter4 (talk) 00:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

::::One need not have access to the Wikipedia Library to use Google Scholar; it's just a great tool to get access if you want to see "does this scholarly article really cover this topic in depth?" for those who don't have access to a University library's online collections. So to clarify, the Google Scholar search would be expected, Wikipedia Library use would be recommended as it already is per (D)(2). Jclemens (talk) 00:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

::::Oh, and to clarify: BEFORE is only about the nominator's pre-deletion expected work. Nothing about BEFORE creates any obligation on anyone other than an AfD nominator. Jclemens (talk) 00:46, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::I think you are splitting hairs here. Simple facts: 1. Google scholar's materials are in most cases behind paywalls and are not viewable to most people. The assumption that people can still use it without the Wikipedia Library is false. 2. Those without a university library access are unlikely to be able to access the majority of materials. 3. The Wikipedia Library has spotty access to the works in google scholar with roughly a 1/3 of all materials remaining unavailable even with an account (more or less depending on the content area; many law and science journals for example tend to be not viewable even with a Wikipedia Library account ) 4. Users cannot qualify for the Wikipedia Library until 6 months after their user account creation and if they have meet the minimum editing participation requirements as required by that application. 5. AFD participation is open to all and those with a user account can make a nomination not long after account creation. 6. Imposing this rule would stop new people from having access to making AFD noms due to Wikipedia Library access rules and it make enrollment compulsory.

:::::Fundamentally, we can't put a rule in place that creates a barrier to free and open access to AFD nominations. Making Wikipedia Library enrollment compulsory (which is the effect of what you are proposing) to participate in the AFD process is morally wrong. It doesn't fly. We are an encyclopedia anyone can edit. That includes AFD. The spirit of that policy is an ethical core must for the project, and per that reason this is a hard no we can't do this from my point of view.4meter4 (talk) 08:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::First, no one has suggested that actual access to materials must be gained. That's not what the current document says, and no proposal to change it has been advanced. Second, your objection would also be an objection to BEFORE as currently written--I'd really rather you provided a critique in the context of the change from current practice; you're treating this as if it's a new proposal rather than a tweaking of existing expectations. Third, your ethical argument fails as deletion is asymmetric--it's far easier to destroy content through a misapplication of deletion policy than it is to create new content--which is why 'deletion' and 'editing' are different concepts. Wikipedia never promises to be the encyclopedia from which anyone can delete articles. In fact, the majority of our editing tools, including content removal within an article, are arbitrarily reversible, which is why anyone can do them. Deletion, of course, is outside the scope, only being doable or reversible by administrators. Jclemens (talk) 09:04, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

::I have no issue deprecating or outright deleting the Google News Archive search. It's not linked on {{tl|find sources}} and I haven't used it in so long I wasn't even aware it didn't work. Jclemens (talk) 00:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

:::I've just gone ahead and removed Google News Archive; it didn't seem to have any defenders the last time I mentioned it either. Happy to discuss if anyone disagrees. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

::::I would have preferred this been dealt with as one change, as folks seem to be disagreeing about things that area already part of the expectations. That is, I don't think people perceive that upgrading scholar and removing Google News Archive together make a net zero change in effort required of nominators. Jclemens (talk) 17:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

:The two examples you put forth call into question the necessity of doing so. For the Spacing Guild example, the first example appears to be a single paragraph, not the sort of in-depth coverage we expect; the Guild is not mentioned in either the abstract of the article or the first page of the article shown on the store page. The second doesn't look deeper. Meanwhile, in both deletion discussions you cite, there look to be enough non-Google Scholar-ly sources to render a Keep. WP:BEFORE is already a burden; before we increase its weight, I'd want to see not just that Scholar can point to sources on such topics, but that it can point to sources on such topics that would not have had enough sources through other means already required by BEFORE. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:10, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

::There are more examples; I picked two. Whether you agree that those are sufficient to demonstrate GNG being met by themselves misses the point--it is the nominator's job to find such obvious issues and either make a compelling case for non-retention (merging, etc.) despite the presence of that coverage or to abandon the idea of a nomination. As far as scholar vs. other choices, I'd actually argue that Scholar is probably more useful than a "vanilla" Google search, in that if we can identify multiple truly relevant hits in Google Scholar, the value of those hits is sufficiently higher than a random plain Google search hit that it is more efficient to evaluate Scholar sources first, rather than basic Google hits. Jclemens (talk) 02:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

:::No, I don't think it misses the point if this added effort is just going to identify as keepable things that would be identified as keepable anyway. WP:CREEP is a problem here, and is my concern with this proposal. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 02:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

::::The entire point of BEFORE is to identify as keepable things that would ideally be identified as keepable in an AfD discussion, but to put the workload on the nominator so AfD discussions aren't either 1) a waste of time, or 2) risking deleting something notable because no one is paying attention. This changes nothing about that, merely seeks to optimize the work that's already expected of nominators. Jclemens (talk) 05:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::Yes, but if the only things doing this step is going to identify as keepable are things that should've been detected by the other existing steps of BEFORE, then it's just putting an unneeded additional step on the process. So that's the question I see before us. And if you say "I found it in these articles, so it was something that the nominator should've checked", that's an argument that can be made for checking everything that gets discovered during AfD. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 06:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::Ah, I see--you're saying that if the nom had done the rest of BEFORE correctly, this wouldn't be an issue. I can't disagree with that, but I am very much trying to make sure processes are optimized before considering approaching this as a user conduct issue. I will take issue with the additional characterization: It's already listed as a suggested step, I'm just proposing we change it to be clear when we can reasonably expect it to be beneficial. I completely agree that we shouldn't be doing box checking, but rather intelligently searching out the most relevant couple of web search methodologies likely to generate usable sources. And, as noted above, I'm also suggesting we consider if this should be prioritized, should another expected search step (or more?) be deprecated to avoid making the pre-nomination burden unwieldy? How can we get the best outcome with the least required work on the nominator's part.

::::::Just as a side note, this whole section feels like teaching EMT class. We give students about 20 things to check in order in patient assessment, and once they've demonstrated they can do them in a regimented fashion, we turn them loose to parallelize those tasks (e.g. checking skin warmth and a radial pulse simultaneously). BEFORE should ideally be that sort of thing that transforms from a formal checklist into a natural methodology that skilled nominators can breeze through. Jclemens (talk) 08:00, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose I am the sort of elderly nerd that read Dune well over a half a century ago back when SciFi seemed "very important" to me, and I will not bother to mention all the other portentious novels I read back then because there were just too many. But the notion that we need to force AfD nominators to use Google Scholar in their BEFORE search for sources about pop culture topics comes off like a Saturday Night Live skit to me. If another nerd wants to use Google Scholar to find sources to save an article, then bravo! But let's not force other editors to be nerds against their will. Cullen328 (talk) 08:57, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
• :To clarify: You're fine with Google, Google News, Google Books, and Google News Archive being required as it stands now? Jclemens (talk) 09:05, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
• ::No, I am not fine with that, {{u|Jclemons}}. Sadly, Google News Archive has been worthless for years, so getting around to removing it makes sense. If someone wants to use Microsoft Bing instead of Google, why should we object? I am fine with suggesting tools to editors but not fine with forcing them to use tools. Cullen328 (talk) 19:00, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
• :::So, the status quo requires specific tool use. How would you prefer we improve it? I think you make a great point about general purpose search engines--we should not be requiring a specific for-profit company's tools be used for a free as in freedom project. Is there a Bing equivalent to Google Books, Google News, and/or Google Scholar? Jclemens (talk) 20:19, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
• ::::Well, then there is something wrong with the status quo. I am not a regular Bing user so cannot comment on their range of offerings. I use many Google products including several for running my small business unrelated to Wikipedia. I use them because I freely choose to, not because someone forces me to. Cullen328 (talk) 03:26, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
• :::::Again, how do you propose we improve on the status quo? Would it be appropriate to change {{tq|normal Google search}} to {{tq|a robust general-purpose search engine search, such as Google or Bing}}? Jclemens (talk) 06:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

:Not against adding Scholar but a caution that it's listing's often include thesises and other non peer reviewed grad school output, more commonly seen for non traditional academic topics, which themselves aren't reliable. Editors should be checking for sources in non predatory journals with Scholar searches. — Masem (t) 17:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

::This is absolutely a balancing act. Scholar, just like the other search engines, is a great way of identifying things to be further investigated. The main use in a BEFORE search is the negative result: If a topic isn't covered at all, no further work is needed and the AfD proceeds. If there are results, then things get a bit more nuanced about what should happen next, as you can see from the rest of the discussion above. Jclemens (talk) 20:21, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Please either correct completely or else delete the article on Govinda (actor) Sir immediately as it is libellous and false. Based on communication from Wikipedia Foundation Legal Counsel office we had posted an edit request on article talk page. It is more than 36 hours, actually 72 hours and the libels have not been removed and our communication completely ignored. Hence you are once again requested to completely remove all defamation and libels from article page of Govinda Sir. NB: As per laws of India, Wikipedia is a PUBLISHER irrespective of what other persons may have published elsewhere.

I am unable to post to this page as I am a new user. अधिवक्ता संतोष (talk) 04:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

:{{u|अधिवक्ता संतोष}}, there is no chance that an article about a very well known actor and politician such as Govinda (actor) will be deleted. That is simply not going to happen. As for your request at Talk: Govinda (actor), it is far too vague. You need to explain specifically why the content that you want removed violates Wikipedia's Policies and guidelines. Cullen328 (talk) 05:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

::Kindly note that we are not concerned with Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines as they have no legal force India and are not compliant with requirements of India's internet regulations. As per the advice of your legal Counsel We have approached the editor community to voluntarily correct all self evident libels in Govinda Sir's article which have been inserted by his political opponents using anonymous user IDs and IP addresses. Also note that defamation in India is a criminal offence unlike USA and definition of defamation in India is also quite different from USA's. Since this website is allowing [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Govinda_%28actor%29&diff=1263614237&oldid=1262291575 anonymous and unverified persons to defame Govinda Sir by publishing he is a failed actor], you may either correct / delete the article within 36 hours or else surrender intermediary status in India. अधिवक्ता संतोष (talk) 05:33, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

:::I strongly recommend that you look at WP:NOLEGALTHREATS. DonIago (talk) 07:08, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

:::@अधिवक्ता संतोष - to be clear, the policy on defamation is to delete libel as soon as it is identified. However we need you to tell us what specific statements in the article you believe are libelous and should be removed. The statement about "failed acting career" has already been removed, but what else would you like to see delete? The people you have already engaged with are trying to help, but they cannot to read your heart and mind so we need you to tell us what you think should be removed. If you are not satisfied with the assistance of these volunteers, you're welcome to email info-en-q{{@}}wikipedia.org who can directly assist you further. TiggerJay (talk) 07:11, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

::::Thanks for your assistance. What you are proposing is a chicken-egg pretzel logic situation. We have availed the info-en-qwikipedia.org and our email was forwarded to Wikimedia Legal Counsel who suggested we make an edit request on the talk page. Only when this was not acted upon speedily did we post to this forum. The policies of this website, being grounded in USA laws, do not apply in India where defamation is primarily a criminal offence not a civil action. A person from India who is being defamed cannot be compelled to acquiesce in surrendering their legal protections afforded under India's laws to sue/prosecute by polices such as WP:NOLEGALTHREATS. In which case, it would be far better that this website does not publish articles on Indian data subjects, as such policies and also those like WP:VERIFIABILITY and WP:RELIABLESOURCES do not apply under India's new data protection regime which incidentally [https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2019/12/26/indias-proposed-intermediary-liability-rules-could-limit-everyones-access-to-information-online/ WIKIPEDIA is unhappy with]. In the alternative, Wikimedia can appoint a [https://static.pib.gov.in/WriteReadData/specificdocs/documents/2021/jun/doc202162411.pdf legally qualified grievance officer] so that aggrieved persons or their lawyers do not have to publicly deal with unpaid volunteers who are mostly ill-equipped to handle what they perceive to be legal "threats" conveyed in the form of due legal notice. अधिवक्ता संतोष (talk) 07:59, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::@अधिवक्ता संतोष, do note that we are unpaid volunteers, and that when we see calls to legal action, we usually block people as we are unable to deal with these complaints and any party who would wish to file suit would know to file with the right body, the Wikimedia Foundation. Given the legitimacy of your complaint, nobody has blocked you and the defamatory content has been resolved. If there ever end up being grounds for legal recourse, again I will stipulate that is the business of the Wikimedia Foundation, not for a bunch of unpaid internet users—the internet users can only modify pages, not deal with legal paperwork. However, in most instances, as the people you emailed told you to do, simply asking for removal of the damning, untrue content on a page works perfectly fine. Which it did here. Because unpaid internet users can remove content on pages. It's really the question of invoking the right tool for the job. Thankfully, as you have performed the steps that you have performed, the defamatory content is resolved, which resolves the dispute before any legal action needed to be taken. Have a nice day. BarntToust 13:05, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::I would posit that any further push by this user for additional, unspecified actions, while continuing to spout legalese, should be considered in violation of WP:NOLEGALTHREATS. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:36, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::The user is now blocked for legal threats. They absolutely had a legitimate grievance, and may have others, but they are going about it the wrong way. 331dot (talk) 12:03, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

When reviewing new articles, I focus on company topics which were previously deleted at AFD as non-notable. Does the new article and/or available references indicate that the topic is now notable? If not, a new AFD is needed.

Because of the low participation at AFD these days, these then rattle round the relist cycle. The soft-delete option is unavailable to reviewing Admins, precisely because of the previous AFD deletion. This seems a somewhat perverse position - that an article can't be deleted because of the previous consensus to delete!

So to my suggestion... If a previous AFD decided on deletion (except on TNT grounds), then any subsequent AFD which has not attracted a "keep" opinion can be closed as deletion after 7 days, in line with prior consensus.

Views? AllyD (talk) 08:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

:Why should a discussion be closed as delete if everyone !votes "merge"? Thincat (talk) 10:03, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

:"an article can't be deleted because of the previous consensus to delete" - Well, soft deletion works by pretending like the AfD is an expired, uncontested PROD; recreating the article is, in effect, contesting the PROD, so it is by design that soft deletion is not allowed a second time. However, I am partially sympathetic to your point, and would like to distinguish between two different situations:

:#The article was soft deleted at AfD the first time. In that case, the article never gained consensus for deletion, so a recreation should not be eligible for soft deletion.

:#The article was hard deleted at AfD the first time. In that case, it might be eligible for speedy deletion under G4, but that could be controversial, and edge cases should be brought to AfD. For this situation, I think soft deletion could make sense, but as a theoretical framework we should not be treating it as an expired PROD, but rather requiring an affirmative consensus to overturn a previous consensus to delete. Currently, there is no consensual process to overturn an AfD that resulted in deletion on substance, as opposed to on procedure (which would be DRV), with the only option being to try recreating an article and see if somebody nominates it for G4 or AfD, making it a very capricious process.

:King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:50, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

::What if the original soft-delete was of an article that was about a different topic with the same name?

::No, personally I cannot see why recreations should not be treated as new articles. PROD/soft delete should not be avoidable on mere technicalities - someone should have to act to avoid them. FOARP (talk) 12:11, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

:This proposal makes sense as long as you adjust {{tq|which has not attracted a "keep" opinion}} to {{tq|which has not attracted a "keep" or "merge" opinion}}. TarnishedPath^talk 23:46, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

::Or a "redirect" for that matter! Really, this is about the "empty room" discussions: ",(Project listings),(silence),..." where a previous AFD decided on deletion (meaning after actual discussion, not soft-deletion). Perhaps I should have said "...which has not attracted a "keep" opinion substantial response can be closed as deletion after 7 days...". AllyD (talk) 15:20, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

I feel like lately there have been AFDs that are actually merge proposals showing up pretty regularly. Policy would seem to indicate that the administrative reaction to this would be to speedy keep if we catch them before anyone has voted to delete and/or all comments agree with a merge. I just found myself closing one as "merge" as it was the result, but at the same time not what AFD is for. I guess I'm asking if others agree that speedy keep is the correct close, and can be done at any time if there are no conflicting comments to delete or whatever? Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 22:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

:Unless the notability of the article that's suggested to be merged is so obvious that it shouldn't be at AfD, I don't think we should necessarily be discouraging this. SportingFlyer T·C 23:02, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

::Should be totally discouraged. Deletion inclined editors will delete needlessly. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:31, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

:Until and unless WP:PEREN#Rename AFD is implemented, yes, pure merge proposals do not articulate a reason for deletion and should be speedily kept and kicked back to the talk page. Jclemens (talk) 04:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I nominated the article Astronaut-politician for deletion:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Astronaut-politician

... but messed up the template at one point. Any idea how to best fix this? Cortador (talk) 13:47, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

There is an RfC on the proper venue for BLARed articles at {{slink|Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)|RfC: Amending ATD-R}}. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:23, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

I asked a relevant Project to either source this stub or take it here. The [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Iceland&diff=prev&oldid=1271990389&diffonly=1 diff is here]. A member of that project, {{U|Snævar}}, [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Iceland&diff=next&oldid=1271990389&diffonly=1 somehow misinterpreted my innocuous post as an "uncivilized threat"] despite WP:AGF. Can we either source this, or discuss it? What would be a better process or "accepted workflow"? Bearian (talk) 21:17, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Can someone please finish the process and nominate the article for deletion? The reason for the deletion is at Talk:Bengals–Chiefs rivalry#Reason for deletion. 134.204.117.34 (talk) 19:56, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I recently put the leaked Kendrick Lamar track "Money Without Me" up for deletion. Can someone please finish the process? My reasoning is in the talk page under [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Money_Without_Me#c-35.20.154.84-20250129213000-Article_for_Deletion_Justification Article for Deletion Justification]. Thank you. 35.20.154.84 (talk) 21:34, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

I've just come across this malformed AFD which was never closed because presumably no one ever knew about it. I'm unsure how to handle it given that it's from 2006. Thoughts? TarnishedPath^talk 12:52, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

:I closed it. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 14:33, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I nominate Steven B. Haas for deletion and have posted the rationale on the talk page. Per WP:AFDHOWTO I request a registered editor complete the process of listing. Thanks, 109.76.178.90 (talk) 09:47, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

:File:Yes check.svg Done - UtherSRG (talk) 13:10, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Please list it for deletion according to #4 of WP:DEL-REASON criteria based on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pizza_73&oldid=1273278213 that revision] (some guy reverting everything including article deletion template I et, so just restore it when processing current request to avoid WP:WAR from my side). [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pizza_73&oldid=1273277120 here] you can see whole set of sources self-published marked by appropriate templates (also 've been hardly reverted). More details are provided [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pizza_73&oldid=1273278789#Delete_request here] (also 've been heavily reverted). Thank you in advance. 46.211.121.105 (talk) 16:14, 1 February 2025 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.211.98.91 (talk)

:Tendentious request. The IP was blocked and the page protected. The main problem here is Competence. There is no problem with the article. Lard Almighty (talk) 17:18, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

::it does not look you are neutral to that article and article looks really weird not only by style or translation errors. Looking back to provided sources, starting from 2017 primary sources only warning template you deleted today with no improvement and, in fact, really self-published ones it still looks worth for deletion community discussion. 94.153.4.34 (talk) 17:54, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

:::LOL. The primary sources tag is still there. (I deleted the advert tag which it clearly is not.) The article has enough third-party sources to pass any deletion. Translation errors? The article is about a company in English-speaking Canada and was originally written in English! The article was made far worse by this editor. Hence the page protection and the block. Lard Almighty (talk) 17:59, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

::::Oh, yeah, sorry, just dive deep into history where it was repeatedly deleted. But you still don't look neutral to it. I just wondering what way sources provided are primary if all of it is self published (from 2nd to 4th sources are just official site and 1st & 5th are based on speech from founder - "said Goodwin, who founded the company" - and CEO - "Pizza 73 CEO Paul Goddard said.". What way yo see it as having "enough third-party sources to pass any deletion" if that all sources it have? 94.153.28.165 (talk) 18:29, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::What got repeatedly deleted? This article was created in 2006 and has been on Wikipedia ever since. Yes, poorly written (even nonsensical) content has been repeatedly deleted because it's not improving the article. No better sources were being added. There are two third-party sources which cover most of the statements in the article, and there is nothing contentious or promotional covered by primary sources. This article does not need to be deleted. Lard Almighty (talk) 18:35, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::Your excessive commenting and activity shows you are not neutral to it. What I mean here you have not to try to be the only who both edit and/or judge the article, Especially to be honest you have not to block the article nomination for rfd listing you do initially commenting above because you looks not neutral to it. Save your arguments for the time if and when it will be listed there. That will be fair and according to wikipedia community vision. I mean no more. 94.153.28.165 (talk) 18:51, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::talking about the article age - read WP:LONGTIME. but, I repeat, it's too early for such an arguments. 94.153.28.165 (talk) 18:55, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I am not talking about Wikipedia:LONGTIME. I am simply saying that there is enough there to make a deletion discussion a waste of time. I am arguing here against listing it for deletion, which are different to the arguments I would make if it was, especially since the proposer has been blocked over COMPETENCE issues and tendentious editing. This is just another example. If there were reasons for deletion I would support it, but there aren't, especially as more sources are already being suggested on the TP. Lard Almighty (talk) 19:03, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::#What rule gives you right to vote vs rfd nomination and not it's deletion?

::::::::#What community discussion reflects your statements about some block you mean? Where's the WP:CONSENSUS (based not only on your own words like as some your request somewhere but with no any discussion) about it?

::::::::#You can not support or deny deletion reasons until it will be listed.

::::::::So please just stop, stay calm and let someone else except you to judge the current afd request. It's enough for me looking how you manipulated admins to block your article opponent to understand that you are trolling until opponent won't make a mistake to be banned. I won't follow your manipulations. Just let the request be processed acording to the rules and not according to your only will. That will be great. 94.153.28.165 (talk) 19:29, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::I have the right to discuss this as much as anyone else. This page is about discussing whether or not it is appropriate to list a given article for deletion. THe editor who made this request has been blocked for disruptive editing (this request is part of that pattern).I am giving my reasons why it should not be. BTW I have added a couple of newspaper refs that were discussed on the TP so now it is even better sourced. Lard Almighty (talk) 19:32, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::BTW you sound a lot like my "opponent". Are you block evading? Funny that you are both from the Ukraine, as is the other involved IP. Lard Almighty (talk) 19:45, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::What I see about your clash is the {{diff||1273293833||only comment of admin, who made an edit defence to the article}} where he unblocked your opponent for article discussion continuation between you both you ignored and preliminary deleted and detailed description of what happened from the opposite side, that upside down your statements. So no any your other manipulations lead to actions blocking your "visavi" have no force as being obviously errorous because of lack of full info.

::::::::::When there's no more arguments it's usual to make an empty claims, you know. Still ask yo tobe wise and stay on topic. "I can do what I want" is not the argument. 94.153.28.165 (talk) 20:12, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::ROFL. He also protected the page so you could not restore your edits and urged you to get consensus before making changes. You know you can't get consensus so you nominate the page for deletion. The block evasion is also not helping your cause at all. Lard Almighty (talk) 20:17, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::Pal, stop empty accusations. As of added sources (2nd and 3rd now): one tells: "The vice-president of marketing for Pizza73..." and another: "at least Pizza pizza royalty fund is hoping",which means both are article subject affiliated and therefore is not WP:RS. as a result there's no any WP:RS in the article and never was. Even if to mean that sources as RS, it's obviously about only news, but WP:NOTNEWS 94.153.28.165 (talk) 20:31, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::You really don't have a clue. And you are clearly block evading. Lard Almighty (talk) 20:37, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::ok, continue, if that makes you happy. At least you are no more arguing. At last. Thank you. 94.153.28.165 (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

::::5th also looks like just a promo, so no way reliable 94.153.28.165 (talk) 18:30, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

I bet it's time to update the request taking in view fresh communication there that is not linked above - Talk:Pizza 73#Delete request. So can anyone process current request?94.153.26.171 (talk) 09:41, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

The template says {{tq|do not blank [...]] or remove this notice}}.

WP:BLANK defines blanking as {{tq|removing its [the blanked page] content to leave it completely blank, or without any substantial content.}}

Assume there was a page which could be blanked while not at MfD. Would removing everything but the MfD notice be considered leaving "substantial content"? Paradoctor (talk) 11:41, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

How to renominate a page for deletion? XYZ 250706 (talk) 14:56, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

:WP:AFDHOWTO includes instructions for what to do if a page has previously been nominated? DonIago (talk) 03:21, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

This is not a notable person 174.197.65.221 (talk) 21:10, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

:If your intention is to nominate Sam Bloch for deletion, please follow the steps outlined at WP:AFDHOWTO. DonIago (talk) 03:29, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello. I'm nominating Marissa Kurtimah for deletion due to my belief that she isn't notable for inclusion. I have included my reasoning on the talk page. 99.142.64.153 (talk) 00:27, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

:Done; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marissa Kurtimah. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:54, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Can I ask that the following almost identical nominations are merged into a single discussion to avoid having the same debate three times:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chalkwell (Southend-on-Sea ward)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Milton (Southend-on-Sea ward)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Westborough (ward)

Thanks. MRSC (talk) 05:03, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Can please someone help to complete the afd nomination process for 5 similar articles?

Main issue is WP:GNG/WP:NOTNEWS violation, but there's stand-alone detailed reasons provided for each of it on their talk pages under the "justification for deletion" section.

Here they are:

• 2020 Ligier European Series
• 2021 Ligier European Series
• 2022 Ligier European Series
• 2023 Ligier European Series
• 2024 Ligier European Series

Thank you in advance. 83.142.111.90 (talk) 23:27, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

:Your main concern here is a lack of secondary sources and... the fact the pages have "mostly not been updated" since the seasons finished? Do you understand these are all past events?

:All articles seem complete to me – 2020 and 2021 are well-sourced with independent coverage, WP:GNG certainly not an issue – WP:V not an issue either for 2022, 2023 and 2024 as the results PDFs are linked in the respective results sections ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Ligier_European_Series#Results], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Ligier_European_Series#Results], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Ligier_European_Series#Results]). WP:NOTNEWS doesn't track. Doubts arise on whether you've done the research before mass-pinging these for AfD. MSport1005 (talk) 00:46, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

:Brother that's not how it works how do you update something that happened in the past? MrVC25 (talk) 05:12, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Ugh. A poor newbie proposed this for deletion and started an AfD, simultaneously. Can an admin please fix this? Bearian (talk) 16:16, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Explosive Pro Wrestling - category is "O" and the reason is "Very limited third party sources to the point of a fail in WP:ORG and WP:GNG as previously mentioned in the previous two AfD's" (see also the talk page of the promotion) 2001:8003:5130:2601:167:D2C7:4D20:837E (talk) 21:51, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

:Done. --Here2rewrite (talk) 23:52, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Need Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/P.J.W._Restaurant_Group opened regarding P.J.W._Restaurant_Group and P.J. Whelihan's. Rationale: Contested PROD. Not sure this meets WP:CORP; bulk of references are primary; secondary coverage seems to be establishing it as existing locally, but not establishing it being notable. 50.202.176.117 (talk) 18:39, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

:{{Help me-helped}} Flagging this with help me as I'm not sure if this page is frequently monitored enough to complete the AFD process as an unregistered user as suggested on the main page. My intention was to have a single AFD covering both articles, but User:Moritoriko has opened the restaurant as a standalone AFD. 50.202.176.117 (talk) 17:34, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

::Both AFDs have been created. Primefac (talk) 18:57, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Various_anon_IPs_closing_AfDs_in_breach_of_WP:NACIP, possibly a long-term thing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:53, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BuickCenturyDriver, probably. Knitsey (talk) 19:55, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

AFD appropriate for this article given lack of notability. I believe User:Ponyo shares my opinion. 65.88.88.56 (talk) 19:34, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Zindeeq

Talk:Zindeeq

It has been notability tagged since early 2022 with no reactions, and also reads sort of like an advertisement. 80.63.74.10 (talk) 10:00, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

:You could redirect to to Rahman Abbas instead, if you believe the subject to be not notable. TarnishedPath^talk 10:16, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

I am concerned that someone unilaterally deleted the "List of The Octonauts DVD releases" article, and now getting that decision reviewed requires heavy debating the move to try and find consensus to revert a decision already made without such precautions. A discussion for the article's deletion was started, and there were a number of people that commented that it should be retained, albeit outnumbered by those requesting its deletion. It was said that the ultimate decision on its deletion required consensus, but that 'consensus' clearly was not obtained in the original discussion for deletion, i.e. "Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/List of The Octonauts DVD releases". I would like to know how the decision to delete that page could be reviewed and reverted. I have started a discussion thread in that Wikipedia article talk section, i.e. "Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/List of The Octonauts DVD releases", but I feel that that is a futile gesture now. Was that the correct approach to take? Please advise! SMargan (talk)

:The AfD discussion took place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Octonauts DVD releases. The decision to delete looks clear cut enough, and I doubt that deletion review (see [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Deletion_review]) would get you far. To justify this type of article, it needs to be demonstrated that the subject matter itself (the DVD releases as a group, not the Octonauts) is notable - which would require evidence of significant discussion of the subject in unconnected reliable sources. Find them- if they exist, which frankly I doubt.

:And please note that you must not edit an AfD discussion after it has been closed, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FList_of_The_Octonauts_DVD_releases&diff=1283359557&oldid=1283251075] and trying to start a discussion in an obscure place where nobody will see it is not only out-of-process, but counterproductive. I've blanked the talk page you just started, and suggest you read up on deletion policy, on subject notability, and on the requirements for independent sourcing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:42, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

:Adding to what Andy wrote, on Wikipedia consensus does not mean everyone agreeing with each other. Please refer to WP:CONSENSUS and as Andy stated the consensus on that discussion looks pretty clear. TarnishedPath^talk 03:48, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

::Octonauts#Home releases solely consists of a red link to the deleted list, some three months after deletion. If someone finds DVDs important and wants to write something about the topic they can contact an admin to make the sources of the deleted content available. Actually User:SMargan's post was undated but on April 1st, sorry if I am being cynical but I just got [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#c-Rjjiii-20250401035100-Sdkb-20250401031100 fooled on Pump Tech]. Either way, Octonauts#Home releases needs fixing. Commander Keane (talk) 04:43, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

:::@Commander Keane (talk) - I realise that some Wikipedia articles may warrant deletion. I cannot comment about those deletions, as they are decided on a 'case-by-case' basis. I am just worried about the bad faith way in which this deletion was achieved. The discussion on the deletion of the "List of The Octonauts DVD releases" Wikipedia article was started on 29 November 2024. Shortly after, on December (13 December 2024), i.e. 2 weeks, the discussion was closed (see "Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/List of The Octonauts DVD releases"). During that short tine a few people had written that it should remain open. Whilst that was 3 months ago, consensus suggests that there should be general agreement. Since the debate was terminated then naturally no further discussion was had, or indeed possible as all subsequent discussion edits have been reverted by one of the editors. However, I would argue that a surface discussion in bad faith falls short of finding consensus. SMargan (talk) 08:20, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

::::@SMargan: Wikipedia:Deletion review is what you want then (as linked above). As Wikipedia has evolved, for better or for worse, it has become more legalistic. You can argue about the process if you wish. To me, and I had quick look at the policy, consensus is about finding the strongest argument and running with that. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Octonauts DVD releases the strongest argument is in the last delete, which agrees with the other delete arguments directly above it. The nomination and first delete are a bit silly (and you rightly objected), but there is no indication that the closer considered those. Further discussion about including something, anything, about all of those DVD releases is welcome at Talk:Octonauts. If a travesty of justice has occurred I would expect some action there about including deleted content. As I said above, the content is available to anyone that requests it. At some point we have to stop discussing policies and write for the encylopedia. In this case, someone could have incorporated the list contents into the article. They still can. I am also guilty of delving into policy discussion rather than contributing content, I guess that is why I'm here. Commander Keane (talk) 08:53, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

::::@SMargan, 6 people over 2 weeks is not at all unusual number of participants or length of time for AFD. I still don't think your quite getting that {{tq|Consensus on Wikipedia does not require unanimity}} per Wikipedia:Consensus (see also WP:NOTUNANIMITY). If we had to satisfy every single person in a discussion before establishing a consensus, very little of substance could get done. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 10:27, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

:::@Commander Keane removed the section. TarnishedPath^talk 09:51, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

:::@Commander Keane (talk) - If it is based upon the strongest argument and only the last argument was decisive, then I would suggest a bad process has occurred. The last two arguments occurred on 7 December 2024 and 10 December 2024, and the article was deleted after that. That gives only 6 days at the most to render a counter-argument. Given the limited time that elapsed, I doubt whether full consideration of the alternate arguments to deletion could have been received or considered. Indeed, no other comments have been possible since the debate's closure, meaning replies to those final convincing arguments have gone unheard. I do not intend to make a big thing of this, after all Wikipedia is about consensus, but it just looks bad. I am sure you get many requests for deletion, and justifiably cannot wait until unanimity to decide on deletion. However, surely not all deletions are contested, and if they are, sufficient time would likely be given for counter arguments. SMargan (talk) 11:35, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

::::AfDs are usually closed after 7 days. This one was extended ("relisted") once and so ran for 14 days. Seven people participated and the tally was 5-2 in favour of deletion. So as others have said above, this deletion wasn't at all out of the ordinary – if anything it is slightly better attended than usual. We do indeed have to process a lot of deletion requests–about eighty a day—so obviously things have to be kept moving. – Joe (talk) 11:47, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::To add to the above, it needs to be noted that, per the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion, "rough consensus, not unanimity" is what is aimed for. And note also that AfD discussions are not a vote. The closer is supposed to weigh arguments according to relevant existing Wikipedia policy - which in AfD discussions almost always comes down to questions over whether the relevant notability guidelines have been met. Notability, as always, being demonstrated through in-depth coverage in independent sources. Something this list appears to have been entirely lacking in. Find these sources, if they exist. If they don't there is no point whatsoever continuing this discussion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:58, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I hope this is the right place to ask. The page for Articles for Deletion said to write something here if one is unsure about Deletion. The following living biography article I came across some time ago Charles Read (historian), originally included a large number of uncited claims (before my edits resulting in the current version) that I believe did not conform with Wikipedia's best practices. These were claims such as that the subject's thesis received the most academic awards ever from learned bodies of his generation, that he predicted various economic collapses or issues, and other spurious claims mostly referenced from the subject's own bios and statements he has made. The article also listed minor academic (college) prizes in the biography box, and made lots of "best X, first ever X, youngest X" claims that essentially read like a CV/personal statement.

Looking into the original user who created the article, that user only edited articles that were related to organisations that the subject of the article is part of, as well as the very specific academic field of the article's subject. I am fairly convinced (though of course impossible to prove) that the author of the article is the subject themselves.

I made a host of changes, each one annotated both in the history and talk pages, to try and make the article more neutral. I extensively set out reasoning for each edit there and in the "Talk" page. Earlier this month another user has reverted these changes to the original page with the spurious claims - without engaging in dialogue - simply claiming "vandalism". Possibly again the subject themselves.

The subject appears to be a (well-respected I'm sure) young academic with two books, who had a twitter post that received 1400 shares and which was mentioned in the Guardian. A human interest journalist at a local newspaper (20K circulation, which so far has not been seen as notable enough to merit its own wiki page) also wrote a piece in which he said the subject claims to be Cambridge's avatar economist of the 21st century, which was of course also proudly displayed on the original Wiki page as fact, without clearly stating the nature of the source. Next to that, the twitter post seems to be the main argument for relevance and featuring on Wikipedia. I am myself not sure if that merits to have a biography on Wikipedia, but also don't want to biased against the subject simply because he himself appears to have written the article, so wanted to check here if I should schedule the article for deletion. One thing I am certain, however, is that if not monitored this Wikipedia page will be continuously edited to restore the original grandiose claims.

I'm open to any suggestions (and hope this is the right place to post).

Et in Arcadia 1 (talk) 20:08, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

:I'm pretty sure you're right, I see no reason to think that Charles Read (historian) is notable. It looks like a vanity page. It fails every test of notability in WP:N (most importantly including WP:ANYBIO and WP:ACADEMIC). I think this is unlikely to be controversial, so you should go ahead and use Wikipedia:Proposed deletion, which is a pretty simple process. nhinchey (talk) 04:52, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

:Note: I just changed the title of this section to be the name of the article you're asking about nhinchey (talk) 04:55, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

::It doesn't read too well. No disrespect to the guy. But a little boastful spunding versus factual. I don't know if deletion is deserved. But he could clean it up and cote better sources. It reads like a soundcloud bio. Bmm29 (talk) 07:51, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Clean up need -yes - but very notible .....more so then most porn stars , Wikipedia:Notability (academics) Moxy🍁 08:02, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

::::It looks like there is some contention about whether this academic is notable after all, so I'll make an AfD and link it here. (Aside: I'm not sure why porn seemed relevant to this discussion, but notability of performers falls under WP:ENT.) nhinchey (talk) 14:29, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Read (historian) nhinchey (talk) 15:27, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::The article was nominated for deletion, and the result was Keep. I think this thread can be deleted/archived/whatever happens to resolved discussions. nhinchey (talk) 21:17, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello, there is a Wikipedia Page (Claire Buchar) about me that I would like taken down. I didn't write it, I do not know who did and it is very outdated. I am still somewhat active in the mountain bike industry, yes, but I just don't want a Wikipedia Page that I have to worry about updating or having others adding things about me and my life. Can somebody please help? I have been trying to resolve this with several conversations on here and I have been directed here. Thank you. Claire Buchar (talk) 15:37, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{replyto|Claire Buchar}} At Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Claire Buchar, you were not directed here but to WP:AFD, which is the main page for the "Articles for Deletion" (AFD) process; that page gives all of the guidance that you should need. The main things to do are (i) ensure that everything at WP:AFD#Before nominating: checks and alternatives has been carried out; (ii) perform all of the steps listed at WP:AFD#How to nominate a single page for deletion; (iii) wait for others to join in and for consensus to emerge. This third step typically takes at least seven days, sometimes longer. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:50, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

A relatively new editor closed this AFD a couple of days early as keep, citing WP:SNOW (I was one of the keep !voters). Should anything be done here or is there anything worth adding to the message I wrote at the editor's talk page? Graham87 (talk) 00:55, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

:As you said, there's no point in taking this to deletion review, and your comment seems fine so I don't see anything to do here. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 01:11, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

@OwenX has recently closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barron Trump (4th nomination) and I wasn't suprised that they determined no consensus.

The article has been previously nominated for AFD three times and was closed as redirects at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barron Trump (3rd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barron Trump (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barron Trump.

In relation to No Consensus closes WP:CLOSEAFD states "{{tq|If consensus seems unclear the outcome can be listed as No consensus (with no effect on the article's status) ...}} and WP:NOCON states {{tq|When discussions of proposals to delete articles, media, or other pages end without consensus, the normal result is the content being kept}}. in relation to deletion discussions. However in relation to other types of discussoins states {{tq|When discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles end without consensus, the common result is to retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit}} and {{tq|When article title discussions end without consensus, the applicable policy preserves the most recent stable title}}.

Should the policy and guidelines in relation to deletion discussions (WP:CLOSEAFD and WP:NOCON) be modified for consistency with content and renaming discussions such as that when there is a no consensus close in a deletion discussion, and where there has been prevoius deletions discussoins in relation to the same page, that the outcome defaults back to what the last consensus outcome was? TarnishedPath^talk 00:31, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

: The article under discussion was a materially different article from the one that had been previously deleted. Consider the frequently arising circumstance where an article on a film is nominated for deletion and deleted because the film has not been released yet, but then the article is recreated after the film has been released and garnered notable reviews. It would be odd if a minority of arguments to the effect of "well, we deleted this last time" were allowed to override a majority noting that this was not the same circumstance.

: I would agree, however, that if a deleted article were recreated with no significant changes to its content, then the bar for keeping the recreated version should be higher. BD2412 T 01:22, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

::{{tq|It would be odd if a minority of arguments to the effect of "well, we deleted this last time" were allowed to override a majority noting that this was not the same circumstance.}}

::Those sorts of arguments should be disregarded in any case as they were in the AFD I referenced. However it is clear in the referenced AFD that Owen arrived at no consensus after considering policy/guideline based arguments. So I guess I'm asking a broader question in relation to that sort of circumstance where prevoius consensus was to delete. TarnishedPath^talk 02:14, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

::Noting of course that recreated articles where there has been no significant changes to content are already covered by a CSD WP:G4. TarnishedPath^talk 02:16, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

::: This is, however, part of the reason why WP:AFC exists, and why we have AFC reviewers. Of course, we do have the problematic circumstance of single-purpose editors moving drafts to mainspace, but the point of AFC review is to determine whether a draft proposed for moving to mainspace meets the requirements of existing in mainspace. Considering previous deletions of a title, and whether the content is sufficiently changed from a previous deletion to constitute a new article, is absolutely part of that process. BD2412 T 02:32, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello. In my opinion, these articles have no significance according to Wikipedia rules.

1. Anastasia Negoda - has been deleted many times in Russian Wikipedia. There is no coverage in authoritative sources. The article is a "hanger of links".
2. Valentina Lyapina - only episodic roles. There are no reviews or overview articles on her work.
3. Diana Galimullina - many shows have been announced, but there are no overview materials about her professional career.
4. Maxim Kozlov - cellist. There are no authoritative overview sources. 95.153.178.206 (talk) 10:14, 10 April 2025 (UTC)