Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77

For discussions that have not been well-archived (before 2004), the page history of the Articles for deletion page has to be used as a contingency archive. One can look in the Deletion log to obtain date and time of a deletion, then look in the page history of VfD near that time to see which edit regards the unlisting of the page, then view the previous version. Wikipedia utilities/Page titles to be deleted – edit history before 13:45, 19 May 2002 (UTC) – also see its talk page), histories go back to November 2001 Votes for Deletion – edit history (22:22, 15 May 2002 (UTC) to 06:24, 28 May 2004 (UTC)) Votes for Deletion – edit history (04:53, 28 May 2004 (UTC) to 22:58, 20 September 2004 UTC)) Votes/Articles for Deletion – edit history (00:03, 21 September 2004 (UTC) to Current) Old VfD archive index (now AfD archives 1–31) Wikipedia talk:Archived deletion discussions (Archive)

This page has archives. Sections older than 25 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

I'd like to nominate Wayne Doty for deletion. Why does this death row inmate deserve an article?

Although I am an experienced editor, I rarely nominate articles for deletion. I tried with Karen Ashley and Phoebe Hirsch but they are not showing up on the log for today. What am I doing wrong? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:26, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• They're showing up for me at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 August 4; you may have got the date wrong. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 06:36, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Cullen328, I had this problem the first time I nominated an AfD and it drove me crazy. I found out you sometimes need to purge the page's server cache, then it will show up. There is a gadget in prefs to add a link in the More menu. You've probably already figured this out, but I hope this helps. Best wishes,   // Timothy :: talk  18:08, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreamcast_homebrew is very spartan and out of date, while https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Dreamcast_homebrew_games also exists and has much better data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.58.104.108 (talk) 18:00, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On May 9, SNUGGUMS had removed links to this little known voice artist on a staggering 24 pages ranging from Static Shock to The Adventures of Jimmy Neutron, Boy Genius. I have difficulty finding the AFD discussion for her. Tried doing a deep search from all archives, but no mention arose on any of these. Can someone find the link?

67.81.161.226 (talk) 23:47, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It turns out there was no discussion of that nature; somebody placed a WP:Proposed deletion (PROD) notice on her page, and then it was deleted after it received no objections. When a PROD is placed on a page and nobody opposes such deletion within a week of its placement (in which case they'd remove the tag), an admin can simply delete the article altogether. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:23, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article can be returned by WP:REFUND but it would need good references to significant coverage in WP:Reliable sources to be added for it to survive for long, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:51, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In "How to nominate a single page for deletion", these are the instructions:

• The resulting AfD box at the top of the article should contain a link to "Preloaded debate" in the AfD page.

• Click that link to open the article's deletion discussion page for editing. Some text and instructions will appear.
• Give a reason for the deletion and a category for the debate (instructions are on that page).

However no instructions or text appear on the discussion page, it is just a blank page.

Please could somebody who knows the correct procedure update the instructions here so that new editors know what to do.

Thanks Saberking321 (talk) 13:57, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When I click the link, I see instructions. You could ask WP:VPT. Danski454 (talk) 14:53, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Saberking321: I've added the necessary template to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hallucinogenic mushroom--looks like you did everything else right, and the discussion can proceed. Thanks. --Finngall ^talk 16:43, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'm requesting that the article titled "Violence against Muslims in India" be removed. It seems incredibly biased and politically motivated, and systematically distorts the realities of Indian society. For example, it doesn't address issues like anti-hindu rhetoric from Muslim fundamentalist and Naxalite groups, nor does it honestly take into account India's history — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krao212 (talk • contribs) 14:56, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a process for deletion - WP:AFD. I wouldn't say that this is biased - on what basis are you saying this is politically motivated?. There are tonnes of reliable sources listed in the article and regardless of whether there is an anti-hindu rhetoric amongst Indian Muslims or not, there is widespread coverage and it is well documented that some Muslims in India experience violence. Wikipedia's job is not to censor events that happen around the world. I suspect there is a WP:edit conflict here and that you are against the article because you are a Hindu/reside in India? ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 16:09, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone request John Farndon's Wikipedia entry for AfD disucssion, as I am not convinced of the author's notability and there appears to be a number of grossly inaccurate, misleading and unfounded statements.

hi CambridgeGraduate, probably won't fly, his books are held in 100s of libraries, have reviews ie. Kirkus Reviews here, Publishers Weekly here, School Library Journal here, may be a case of a cleanup/rewrite rather then afd. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:31, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm an IP user so I can't start an AFD - I'm also not interested in creating a Wikipedia account just for this purpose - I prodded the following articles for deletion but the prods were both removed Avi Benlolo and Mark Zubek. If they don't meet the deletion criteria that's fine but I think in the case of Benlolo there isn't much there to justify the article (an earlier version of the article was full of unsourced claims and looked like a promotional piece - and most of the article was about the organization he headed rather than the person himself) and in the second case, it also seems rather promotional and the subject doesn't seem notable. I'm wondering if editors who are are more knowledgeable of the relevant criteria could review the two articles and if they don't pass muster, put them up for deletion using the AFD process? Thanks. 75.119.247.192 (talk) 17:48, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, may I suggest reviewers and administrators to check on these articles if they should be deleted. From what I can see, these are not notable and there is no significant coverage about them except merely as being activist against/victims of Martial Law under Ferdinand Marcos, nor does their existence have any lasting impact. Most of the names below are included in the Wall of Remembrance of the Bantayog ng mga Bayani, though my understanding is that their inclusion in the monument does not mean they should have their own Wikipedia article.

Also, please take a look at List of torture methods used by the Marcos dictatorship. I can see possible violations like WP:Original research, WP:Synthesis, WP:Undue and also uses several self-published, partisan/advocacy, and/or single sources with unknown/relatively unknown publishers.

–Sanglahi86 (talk) 14:34, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• From the several which I perused, they seemed to be notable and well-sourced. There may be some sourcing issues, I haven't examined that closely, but it would be a mistake to nominate all of them. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 14:43, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • My initial response after looking at only a few is "keep". The ones I looked at seemed well-written. We have articles like Mike the headless chicken and we have articles on graffiti artists. By comparison these individuals seem like important people. Bus stop (talk) 14:49, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for the prompt response. My understanding is that WP:SINGLEEVENT applies to several of those people.–Sanglahi86 (talk) 15:55, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are a bunch of articles for departments at specific universities (see some of them listed here[1]), including Princeton University East Asian Studies Department. These seem to be on very shaky ground to me in terms of notability, as well as in terms of evaluating why a Physics department at one university is notable but not at another university. A lot of these pages seem to rely on primary sources. They seem kind of promotional also. Is there a way to go about requesting the deletion of a large number of these articles or do I have to request deletion of each manually? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:49, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Snooganssnoogans, There's nothing that requires you to nominate them one-by-one, but historically, large bundles of articles at AfD has not worked out well so I wouldn't recommend it. It may well be that the physics department at one university is notable while the physics department at another isn't. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:12, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Snooganssnoogans, Princeton University Department of Mathematics is clearly significantly more notable than most other University's maths departments, having had more significant faculty and famous prizewinners than many entire universities. I don't think it should be deleted. Many articles on departments can be viewed as reasonable subarticles of long articles about a university, per WP:Summary style. Of the list you link to, actually none look like a slam-dunk delete to me. Princeton East Asia Studies looked weakest of those I checked. Before you go and try to delete a large number of these articles, I would suggest to start by nominating one or two of the weakest ones and see how it goes. Nominating all of them at once will probably result in a trainwreck (and a keep). —Kusma (t·c) 22:23, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re the AfD of Chris Vice, it is clear that my nomination is being misunderstood. The full stop after the mention of pro wrestling is being ignored as is the hyphen after the invocation of WP:ATHLETE for his Lethwei career. One user in particular provoked my personal opinion on pro wrestling world titles. I need to edit the nomination, but I'm not sure if I am allowed to do so. I intend to strike out the current text and re-present it thus; "Contested prod times two (my fault as I forgot about the first prod). Reason given on the talk page irrelevant (wikilinks). Fails WP:ATHLETE as a Lethwei fighter. Not a notable wrestler and only one source in the article. "World" title claim is controversial as that title is not recognised as such by any major magazine. Recommend deletion." Please advise. Addicted4517 (talk) 09:42, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Editing comments in discussions is frowned upon because it means subsequent replies lose context - people look like they're responding to something which isn't there. You can certainly add another comment beneath your nomination, or strike out any parts you want to retract. Hut 8.5 17:07, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above, but I would not even strike out parts. I would say in the comment that I now retracted part of the nomination clearly indicating which parts. --Bduke (talk) 23:01, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have thanked both of you via the system and I thank you in this reply as well. I thought it would be frowned upon and I'm glad I checked. It has also been helped by the fact that the nomination has been relisted, and HHHPedigree finally provided sources to prove the title was a world title in the appropriate way. I will start the relisting with an amended nomination. Addicted4517 (talk) 00:46, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And done. Addicted4517 (talk) 00:57, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article: Beheaded Children Contest Reason: Fails WP:NALBUM. 100.37.166.70 (talk) 00:25, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Step 3 of WP:AFDHOW says:

Consider letting the authors know on their talk page by adding:

{{subst:Afd notice|NominationName} ~~~~

I'm confused; who are "the authors" here? Momo824 (talk) 09:59, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The editor(s) who wrote the article. Hut 8.5 11:45, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article was deleted and recreated two times before [2] [3], but also it fails WP:NACTOR, to reflect its general notability. --122.2.10.69 (talk) 13:57, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged as CSDG4 --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:19, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tyw7: would you re-nominate for deletion? but instead of speedy deletion, it's completely nonsense. --122.2.10.69 (talk) 21:57, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mason Vale Cotton (3rd nomination) --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:48, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As a frequent AfD closer, I often try to close the hard cases that have been repeatedly relisted or lingered for days after their expiration. This leads me to wonder what can be done by AfD closers as a community to handle these discussions more efficiently. What causes a discussion to be difficult to close? Are there specific common characteristics to problem discussions? Are there changes that can be made to the process to facilitate clearer and cleaner outcomes? For example, should we have some sort of discussion board where closers can bring difficult deletion discussions to get multiple AfD closer opinions on how they should be closed? In my experience, closing discussions is a rather lonely task. You go in relying on your own experience, judgment, and knowledge of policy, and there is no established practice of discussing and addressing discussions presenting difficult closes. BD2412 T 05:06, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I think you saw one of the big problems yourself in an AfD you recently participated in. "Consensus is that we always keep articles like this." "What? No." "Yeah, yeah." "Show me where this is in WP:N" "Well it's not written down but it's from lots of AfD closes". Plenty of discussion about rules and guidelines, bickering about what can be found in dust-encrusted talk archives, but not a lot of discussion about the article or the available sourcing. Reyk _YO! 05:33, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia doesn't do much in the way of treating past AfD discussions as precedents for future discussions. Occasionally, a particularly contentious AfD will lead to the amendment of notability guidelines. I would definitely encourage editors who assert an unspoken rule to take the steps necessary to make it a written rule. BD2412 T 05:53, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not necessarily a fan of bright-line rules. They tend to lead to bad outcomes such as excluding decent articles that don't quite fit the mold or, more often, including a lot of vacuous microstubs about non-notable topics. I've also often found cleanup to be as thankless a task as you seem to find closing discussions. It seems one can't nominate an article or !vote delete in an AfD without getting called names or being accused of all sorts of weird things. May I respectfully suggest pulling up people who make personal commentary when you do closes? This may seem like an additional burden but I hope and believe it will pay off in the long run. Firstly it will encourage voters whose first instinct is snark to actually make pertinent comments. Secondly it will encourage people who'd otherwise be driven off by the personal attacks to participate at AfD. That should make it easier to get either an informed consensus or a robust unequivocal non-consensus. Reyk _YO! 10:12, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per WP:CREEP. This is a discussion about setting up a committee to discuss discussions. And when they can't agree you create another level of discussion? And then it all goes to WP:DRV for another discussion? Enough, already.

Someone once put it quite well – if you are having to debate whether there's a consensus then you haven't got one. WP:DGFA puts it like this: When in doubt, don't delete. And note that it emphasizes the point.

Andrew🐉(talk) 09:24, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• One way to make AfDs easier to close is to require that everybody put down a bolded bullet point. Then you could just count them up. It wouldn't make the process better, but it would make it easier :-) Somewhat more seriously, I could see writing a "How to effectively argue your case at AfD" document (my WP:THREE essay started out to be that), and having a bot which notices the first time somebody posts to AfD and drops a link to that on their talk page. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• To be clear, this is a discussion about any ideas that might help resolve the more difficult closes. I have thrown a few out there, but this is not any sort of formal proposal. An AfD doesn't get relisted three times and then sit in the backlog for five days after the last relist expired because administrators haven't noticed it there. It's because whatever is going on there is such that no one wants to touch it. Often the discussions in those cases are so convoluted and vitriolic that any close is bound to go to WP:DRV. I think that can be avoided if a number of admins get together and talk out the problems. BD2412 T 14:45, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not the worst idea ever. Something similar happens with contentious RFAs, where a panel of crats closes the intractable ones. This seems to work well. We could at least give the admin discussion idea a try. If it works, great. If not, no harm done. Reyk _YO! 15:09, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I think having some sort of semi-formal area where closers can work out things together is something that's very much worth trying-- to the point that I almost proposed it here myself. I think not only would it allow people to work out and discuss policy (the more people who look at something the less change for their implicit biases to impact the outcome and likely the assessment of consensus will be better), but it might also allow newer admins (such as myself) to better learn how experienced admins approach closing controversial discussions (given the current atmosphere where non-admins are expected to not make close calls). There's a big jump between closing a discussion with 6 'delete' !votes and zero keep !votes or 14 keep and 0 delete and closing something with, say 4 and 6 (and well argued points on both sides). And we don't currently have much in the way of helping people make that jump Best, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:37, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Honestly I think closing AfDs is easier than closing almost any other sort of discussion on the project. There's a standard format, a limited number of outcomes, and a clear procedure for dealing with contested closes. I think the ones that hang around at WP:OLD aren't difficult or contentious, they're tedious. Usually because someone has derailed the discussion with a wall of text or an extended back-on-forth debate (which, in my experience, also put people off making additional comments and clarifying the consensus). And often it's the same characters – if you look at the oldest open AfDs now, for example, there are two usernames that appear in almost all of them. Maybe we should bump WP:BLUDGEON up to a guideline and start taking it more seriously as disruptive behaviour? – Joe (talk) 17:08, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • We could extend the principal to XfD processes in general (and move requests), and have a single place to bring lingering discussions that any given closer is having trouble assessing. I find some AfD's to be very, very close calls, particularly where both sides are making horrible arguments. BD2412 T 17:16, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    BD2412, Isn't that what WP:ANRFC is for? -- RoySmith (talk) 17:20, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Not explicitly, I don't think. It has been more of a place to ask for an admin to come close a discussion, but I have rarely seen a prospective closer go there to say, e.g., "this is what I think is the right close for this discussion, am I missing something?" I suppose we could have discussions of that sort there, or at the little-used Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. BD2412 T 17:23, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not that experienced with the AFD process, but I have a half baked idea that may be of some worth. Perhaps, if a discussion comes to include a certain minimum of editors, the discussion will require two closers instead of one. On the surface, this may seem worse, since it will now be even harder to close contentious discussions, but hear me out. This system may result in sysops being more inclined to close contentious discussions since if they close first, they don't have to accept responsibility for ending the discussion (it will still go on until a second closer comes along), and if they are the second closer, they know that another sysop agrees with them and that they're not way off base in their decision. Also, the comments left by the first closer would be valuable feedback for some of the noisier participants that were under the impression they would "win" thanks to their sheer numerical superiority consisting mostly of WP:NOTARGs. Again, this is just a pitch. I haven't worked out the specifics, like what happens if the two closers themselves disagree, and I'm not looking to overcomplicated the process. If the response to this is that it's a terrible idea, then just forget about it. --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 17:33, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Puzzledvegetable: Would you object to a single closer in cases that were clearly non-controversial, especially those that come close to or actually do meet the criteria for a WP:SNOW-close? For example, if an XfD had a weak argument to begin with and had 50 who "oppose deletion" with a variety of strong arguments and 20 who supported deletion with nothing more than "per nom" I don't see the need for a "second pair of eyes," it's clearly a "keep" or at best "no consensus to delete." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:17, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

​Fair enough. I haven't really fleshed out this idea. I have only a very rough draft in my mind about what it would look like. Your point seems valid. Perhaps, there would be a bot that could distinguish between types of !votes, and would only trigger the dual closer requirement if there was a certain minimum number of participants, and a certain minimum of !votes that disagreed with the majority. --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 20:17, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd just relist things even longer. There is no harm in waiting for consensus for weeks or months. Of course, reading all of the accumulated discussion is a challenge the longer it gets... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:33, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I think this idea has a great deal of merit for improving AfD closes and reinforcing the !vote principle. I believe it should be a transparent process and one that participation is limited to those that meet the criteria to perform a close in terms of both experience and not being involved in the AfD (this will be useless if it turns into a rehash from involved editors). If a consensus appears for clarifying certain notability guidelines and essays, it could form the basis for an RfC on the subject.   // Timothy :: talk  13:42, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an example of a discussion that I find difficult to assess: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Third degree medal of the Republic of Azerbaijan for "impeccable service in migration bodies". Clearly there is a consensus by raw headcount to keep the article, but there appears to be no basis in policy for that result. There is only the example of previous similarly situated articles which were kept despite a comparable lack of a basis in policy. I would close this as "no consensus" and suggest that the participants seek an appropriate amendment to the GNG encompassing this subject. BD2412 T 00:19, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• That example was a farce from beginning to end. The nomination was a classic NPP drive-by. The nominator identifies a sensible alternative to deletion right at the outset but getting that done would involve some actual work and understanding of the topic, so he just punches a button to make it someone else's problem. It should have been speedily closed at that point but that never happens because admins only look at the old AfD noms. The participants are then a mix of AfD regulars who don't know Azerbajani and so have to fall back on airy generalities; while the rest are Azerbajanis who insist that the topic is fine, as well they might. Nobody really cares because the topic is so unimportant. But the closer is a deletionist who can't bear to endorse a topic that he doesn't like. He would really like to supervote delete but knows he can't get away with that and so settles for a grudging and grumpy no-consensus. The entire thing was a big waste of everyone's time and the article would normally disappear into oblivion as few people are going to read it and so it would mainly become the plaything of gnomes eager to add to their edit count.

But now that it has been highlighted as an example, others are sucked into the vortex, and the matter may escalate per WP:LIGHTBULB. BD2412 thinks that the answer to form a committee and that would certainly be an excellent way of occupying more people's time per Parkinson's Law. Be sure to tell potential committee members that they are going to be considering topics like the Third degree medal of the Republic of Azerbaijan for "impeccable service in migration bodies". This will be a good test of whether they have the right stuff for such important work! Andrew🐉(talk) 14:21, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I idly drilled down on the history of this important example to find that there's more to it than first appeared. The AfD was first closed as Keep after 8 days. The closer stated that consensus was clear was the score was then 5 Keeps, 1 Merge and 1 Delete. But the nominator wasn't having that and so rushed off to DRV where he managed to get the close overturned as the closer was a presumptious non-admin and Nigerian, who needed to be put in their place. Sandstein speedily relisted it but the Keeps kept coming so the deletionists had to grind their teeth and give in. The nominator then tag-bombed the article to display his displeasure and frustration, and here we are.

So, this is indeed a classic example of WP:LIGHTBULB and I'm going to put it on my watchlist to await the next twist. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:54, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone create AFD pages for nominating We (TV channel) and Kairali News for deletion? Please copy-paste my rationale for both: "Verifying this channel's existence itself was a hard task. No reliable coverage. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG". Thank you. 157.46.169.137 (talk) 13:20, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Y- I set those up for you. Enjoy. Reyk _YO! 13:26, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]