Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 74.88.115.197 (talk) at 01:07, 30 June 2013 (→Bowery Street: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

AfD notifications

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

  • Well, 5 might be a bit much. I would just say the creator for now, and we can expand it later on if people like the idea. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • This would have to be done carefully. If you select the 5 contributors who added the most bytes to a page then you might end up notifying people who merely adjusted formatting or added infoboxes and categories and who aren't going to care much about the outcome of the deletion discussion. If the article history is very short then you might end up notifying people who fixed typos. Notifying the creator is safer ground, but even then there are situations where it isn't appropriate (the creator is indef-blocked, is an unregistered user, or who didn't write any of the content). Hut 8.5 08:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • And number of edits made isn't a good metric either, because some editors use preview and others save each single-word edit as an edit. But I can see merit in notifying editors other than the article creator, especially where they created a redirect and 2 years later someone built an article, that sort of thing! Not sure what the solution is. PamD 08:47, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notifying the creator is certainly a great first step. J04n(talk page) 10:10, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, this would be great if we could pull it off. One idea might be to scale it with the size of the article - say, notify the creator if it is less than a year old or has less than 50 edits or some such, the top two contributors if it is older or has up to 200 edits, the top three if it has more edits, and so on. We might also look at the notice requirements at WP:FAR, since they routinely notify major contributors when a featured article is submitted for review/delisting. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a good idea. A notification is quite a minor alert - you get notified if your username is mentioned anywhere, for example. It would therefore be reasonable to notify every editor of an article at AFD. If the article is a new one being nominated by NPP then there won't be many notifications. If the article has been around for years and picked up many minor edits, then it seems appropriate to give it a larger number of notifications. The number of notifications will thus vary in proportion to the age of the article and that seems ideal. Warden (talk) 09:25, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a very bad idea. If I revert some piece of vandalism in an article I'm not going to care if it gets nominated for deletion years later. Same goes for typo fixes, formatting fixes, adding infoboxes or categories, and most other sorts of cleanup edits. People who do lots of this work will get swamped with useless notifications and will get very annoyed or opt out. Hut 8.5 11:13, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I honestly don't think this would be used very often once it was tweaked to avoid excessive notifications (no multi-notifications on articles with under 50 edits; the metric for the top-five doesn't count HG, TW, RB, AWB, vandalism filtered, Bot, or undo edits; and the top-five must have statistically significantly more edits than other editors on the article). Honestly, how many articles go to AfD with more than 50 or 100 edits? The vast majority have a handful from one person, plus a declined speedy/contested prod. And those AfDs of an article with a significant history... either are in bad faith or will already get spread around the grapevine by concerned editors. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 11:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is absolutely a bad idea. AFD already suffers from low levels of participation. If we encourage an influx of users who have a stake in retaining unsuitable content we will either end up with more conflict over closes and accusations of supervotes for admins assessing policy rather than counting snouts or consensus will end up reflecting numbers not policy. Its already custom to notify creators and that should be enough. Spartaz Humbug! 12:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is one of the things where over the years I have consistently taken exactly the opposite approach from Spartaz. I basically am unwilling to accept an argument in any context that if everyone concerned or interested discusses something, we will come to the wrong conclusion. His examples show that if we notify everyone, we will also notify those people who are unhappy about an article. Perhaps we need to find some way to tune the algorithm so it includes anyone who contributes or delete significant amounts of text, or places a tag, rather than the many small copyedits. AfD by its nature attracts primarily people who want to delete articles, and we could use some balance. The very few of us who go there primarily to see what small proportion can be saved cannot look at everything. I'm not worried about irrelevant comments: normally a person who tries to defend their indefensible article makes comments that greatly clarify the need to delete it. DGG ( talk ) 04:12, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AFD to keep an article?

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

In practice, generally not. When nominating an article, you have to articulate a rationale in favor of deleting the article. You don't want the article deleted, and have said so - so any such rationale would be questioned on that basis. Your best play at this point, if you intend for the article to be kept, is to look at the reasons being offered for its deletion and refute them as if there were an AFD. They are concerned about notability? Show sources that confirm it. They can't/won't find sources? Find them first. Etc etc. You don't need an AFD to anticipate what the likely arguments are. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That said, looking at the article in more depth, it seems that other editors are proposing that it be merged as a result of a merge discussion - where's that merge discussion? I can't seem to find it. A merge is not at all the same thing as a deletion, but of course you know that. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's here. I don't expect that much of the article would survive a merger. Kauffner (talk) 12:34, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a merge discussion, that's one guy saying it's unanimous and another proposing the merge, with you arguing against it. 2-1 does not consensus make. Thus my confusion - the comments seemed to imply that another discussion had taken place. This article has the appearance of a well-organized and properly sourced work, but I don't know enough about the topic to judge it on the merits. Two options seem most obvious - have them specify exactly what they consider OR and what is not and (thus) what they would merge and what would be lost, or ask for more eyes on the discussion in the hopes that some other perspective will clarify things. If there's some flaw in a template, as they claim, then they need to be discussing that as well. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:52, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your kind words. Of course, it wasn't just me who wrote the article. I have to give credit to LiliCharlie, who helped me out with character display issues and a wrote a template so they can appear in the right font. He supports the article as well, as you can see here. He doesn't want to be part of the public merger debate. If you have read it, I am sure you can understand why. There's more of the merger debate here. It's just more of same sort of grandstanding. Kauffner (talk) 15:17, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User:Ultraexactzz well said, you are absolutely correct, that's "not a merge discussion, that's one guy saying it's unanimous and another proposing the merge, with [the article creator] arguing against it, 2-1." The link given is exactly that. However that link isn't the merge discussion, but is the post-merge discussion discussion on a different page of what to do next. The actual merge discussion is at Talk:History of writing in Vietnam#Proposed merge from Han-Nom, where the original merge tag was placed by User:BabelStone (FWIW whose User page self-identifies as a university professor and published expert on Chinese scripts), BabelStone's merge was seconded by myself (No.2), thirded by User:Itsmejudith (No.3), fourthed by User:Kanguole (No.4), and now by User:Gaijin42 (No.5).
Unfortunately, while I'm sure Kauffner means well, the problem here is that the term "Han-Nom" doesn't exist as a subject, as Itsmejudith has explained several times the hyphen, eg of the Han-Nom Institute, is a Vietnamese was of saying "chu Han and chu Nom," in other words "Chinese-language written by Vietnamese in Vietnam during Chinese cultural domination" + "Vietnamese-language written using adapted Nom characters".... which already have two large separate articles. Plus a third article on the actual Literature of Vietnam. 5 editors say we don't need an article on "Han & Nom", it's surplus (and contains a lot of duplicated content). This is exactly what WP:MERGE is meant for, creating WP:FORK. Anyone, please join the discussion, your input will be warmly welcomed. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • I think the original reason I wrote the article is still valid: Non-Latin characters shouldn't be cluttering up the running text. They should be in a language template. Such a template needs an explanatory article to link to. A template of this kind has been around for years. It's descriptor is Han-Nom, so that's what I named the article. Without the template, Han-Nom would just be a highly detailed article about an obscure term -- but there is certainly no rule against that. Kauffner (talk) 17:12, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If that's an argument against the merge, you need to make it in the merge discussion. I don't know if a template needs a single article to link to, but please do make the point and then we need to ask for the merge discussion to be closed. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:57, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As per Gaijin42 and Itsmejudith. User:Ultraexactzz we really need your and other 3rd party editor eyes on this. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:31, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a great deal to add; the consensus for a merge of some sort seems clear. I will note that a template can link to a relevant section of a larger article just as easily as it can link to an article, so that's not an issue for this article. Beyond that, the subject is absolutely outside my expertise, so I can't really add anything on the merits. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, and think that a valuable role for AfD would be to get wider-community consensus in such cases.
However this view is not widely held. In practice, using AfD in this way will see the AfD summarily closed and you censured for disruption instead. I can't recommend it. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:13, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You know, we routinely see editors propose changing AFD to Articles for Discussion (rather than deletion), but there's never consensus for it. Something to think about, perhaps - but it's already such a high-traffic area of the project... I don't know if it would have the benefits you'd expect. Worth considering, perhaps. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Free Press (magazine)

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

Looks like the closing admin reconsidered their action and decided to relist instead. A bit unusual, but not unheard of. The debate is listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 June 2, it's not true that the only way to get there is from the article. Hut 8.5 23:11, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of people also find debates by going through topics at CAT:AFD - and open debates get listed automagically. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 01:55, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Complete Deletion Nomination

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

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

Reflections on my nomination for deleting Shadow the Hedgehog

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

You cannot say that about editors (No personal attacks). Additionally, while there may be an overload of fandom aspects, AFD is not for article improvement, only if the article isn't notable (which this doesn't appear to be given the reception section). --MASEM (t) 01:54, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Masem; as I elaborated on in Talk:Shadow the Hedgehog#Nominating the Article for deletion, please abide by WP:Civility and support your AfD requests with reasons that comport with Wikipedia's deletion policy. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 18:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting

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

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

Incomplete process

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

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

Flood keep listed since May 20th

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

Jon Ingold

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

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

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

articles of no interest in English

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

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

incomplete AfD

Can someone please figure out to to create the AfD discussion p. for [1]. I don't just want to destroy the old redirect. The deletion reason desired is "non notable company, with sources being only PR and content being mainly name-dropping." DGG ( talk ) 03:59, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Chris Alexander

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

Who knows! The name "Chris Alexander" is virtually un-Googleable because too many people have the same name and the fact that he's frequently cited by other reliable sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:34, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The fact remains his only claim to fame is editing Fangoria. Since when should a magazine editor get his own wiki page? The editor of Rue Morgue doesn't have one and from my understanding that has been the highest selling horror mag the past 10 odd years. If you look at the wiki page the only citations are really his My Space page and the Fangoria website. I really believe either he or one of his friends created that page and there really isn't enough there (Magazine editor and reviewer for a free newspaper are his only real credentials) to justify a personal wiki page.Giantdevilfish (talk) 15:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Domenic Johansson

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

Bowery Street

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion&oldid=562184742"