Misplaced Pages

talk:Articles for deletion: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:51, 14 October 2022 editQwaiiplayer (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,116 edits →Verdis and Liberland: ReplyTag: Reply← Previous edit Latest revision as of 13:57, 3 January 2025 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,298,161 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 78) (bot 
Line 2: Line 2:
{{Talk header|noarchive=yes|WT:AFD}} {{Talk header|noarchive=yes|WT:AFD}}
{{FAQ|collapsed=no}} {{FAQ|collapsed=no}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|
{{WikiProject Deletion}}
}}
{{Press {{Press
| subject = project page | subject = project page
Line 18: Line 21:
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 250K |maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 76 |counter = 78
|minthreadsleft = 4 |minthreadsleft = 4
|algo = old(25d) |algo = old(25d)
Line 28: Line 31:
|indexhere=yes |indexhere=yes
}} }}
==Discussion at ]==
]&nbsp;You are invited to join the discussion at ]. <span class="nowrap">&#8212;''']'''</span> <sup class="nowrap">(] • {]•]})</sup> 13:47, 10 December 2024 (UTC)<!-- ] -->


== AFD request: ] ==
==Formatting an AFD==
Hello,

A new editor tagged an article for an AFD discussion but didn't format the discussion page correctly. I'm more experienced at closing discussions that setting them up, can anyone format ] properly for them? The page was tagged as vandalism but since the article was properly tagged and the editor is putting forth an argument, I think the discussion should proceed. What do you think? <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 05:47, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

:No comment on the merits of the nomination, but I've fixed the discussion page. ''''']''''' 07:51, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

== Please complete AFD process for ] ==

Someone please complete the article deletion process for this page.

AfD: Nominated for deletion; see ] ] (]) 22:09, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
:I would have thought that someone would do this sooner, but be that as it may, it is now <span class="nowrap">]&nbsp;'''Done'''</span><!--template:done-->. --] ] 02:12, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

== Kate Spade AfD ==
Can someone else please check out ]? It's an AfD for a page on an individual who easily passes ], started by an IP editor w/o an account and all of the delete votes are also IPs. Something seems odd with this one. And is there a reason that AfDs can be created without an account? ]<sup>]</sup><small>]</small> 18:31, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
:: This has since been taken care of. ]<sup>]</sup><small>]</small> 02:49, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

== Britannia Pub ==

Can a confirmed user please complete steps 2 and 3. This article is trivia. The references only contain brief trivial mentions or incidental coverage. There is no depth of coverage in the cited references. I doubt the bar even merits a mention in another article such as one about the geographic area. A Google search for additional information only returns the pubs own web site and sites such as tripadvisor, the bar's facebook page, other promotional sites and business directories. The bar fails WP:ORG in terms of significant coverage. ] (]) 22:39, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

:I've the article further and would actually ask another editor to remove the tag, which has just sat there for a few days now... ---] <sub>(])</sub> 23:34, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

== Emdrup Church ==

Can a confirmed user please complete steps 2 and 3. This is non-notable building. A Google search (in English) for additional information only returns the church's own web site and Misplaced Pages. The church fails WP:NGEO in terms of significant coverage. ] (]) 23:20, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

:{{done}} Discussion can be found ]. ] (]) 03:34, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

== Ernst & Young Entrepreneur of the Year Award ==

Can a confirmed user please complete steps 2 and 3. Rationale: This is a non-notable award sourced mostly to EY themselves and an advertorial. A ] search yields plenty of results, just no GNG-qualifying coverage. ] (]) 19:31, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
:{{done}} Discussion can be found ]. ] (]) 19:52, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

== RfC which may be of interest ==

] ] (]) 13:57, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

== ] ==
Can someone complete the AfD process for ] please? The article claims it is a system for ]s but it's merely the German word for them. --] (]) 20:40, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

:{{done}} Discussion can be found ]. ] (]) 03:56, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

== NovelAI for AfD ==

Could someone nominate the article ] for deletion due to lack of notability (severe lack of citations and non-reliable sources throughout) and possible advertising? Thanks. ] (]) 19:58, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

:I don't know if I can endorse this AfD. There seems to be some coverage for it at least in Japanese sources to meet the threshhold of ]. ] (]) 03:52, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
::It appears that the primary contributor of the article seems to have some sort of connection with the subject, and has already been under fire in the talk page of the ] article for excessive original research. At the very least, there seems to be quite a bit of ] and likely ] going on here. ] (]) 14:38, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
::There indeed seems to be something strange going on the with the article: less than 24 hours after the AfD notice was posted (and the appropriate post made in the talk page of the article, as detailed in ]), the primary contributor of the article has already deleted both Advert and AfD notices. If someone could make note of this (if they choose to create the nomination on my behalf), it would be much appreciated. ] (]) 15:49, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

== Deletion of the article ] ==

The page doesn't meet the notability guide lines of Misplaced Pages ] (]) 11:50, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
:AfD nomination was malformed--I have fixed it. See ]. --] ] 17:05, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

== ] ==

This AfD seems to have been over-run with ]s and I am quite unsure what the best procedure is to deal with this, especially as the auto-confirmed protection is quite easily being bypassed by these accounts making >10 meaningless edits prior to participation. Would it be best to raise a ] on all of them that show as newly registered? ''']''' <sup>(] • ])</sup> 21:17, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

:fyi ] may be relevant. ] (]) 21:30, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
:Yes, starting an SPI would be a good place to start. ] (]) 22:51, 12 October 2022 (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, ], ever made. ] (]) 18:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
== ] ==
:: Passes ] criteria 1 with large numbers of citations for her works as shown on Google Scholar, so it is very likely to be kept at AfD, imv ] (]) 21:54, 12 December 2024 (UTC)


== Making sure I understand this right ==
I would like help starting an RfD discussion for ], if anybody has a moment. ] (]) 23:21, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
{{closed-top|Closing to avoid duplication. The parallel discussion at ] remains open for anyone who wants to contribute. ] (]) 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? ] (]) 04:06, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
== ] and ] ==


:Yep. ] (] • ]) 10:18, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Can someone please review and complete the process for the AfD nomations for these two requests (or bump for better consensus?)? Both requests are by one nominator. ] has a lot of chit-chat and some requests to Speedy keep and Liberland has a lot of keep and strong keep with very few saying delete. There has been almost no progress in discussing these AfD's in the past few days and they have been extremely quiet. ] (]) 18:51, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
:Don't post things at multiple places. There's no reason to have two separate discusssions on this at VPP and here. ] (]/]) 13:07, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
{{closed-bottom}}


== Request ==
:Neither of these qualify as a ], which has very limited applications and isn't ]. Regardless, there's been enough discussion on both AfDs that an early close isn't warranted. Let the process play out. ] (]) 19:51, 14 October 2022 (UTC)


I am the subject of this article: ]. I don't think it meets the notability criteria for an article on Misplaced Pages. The article is semi-protected. I'd like to request that an editor nominate it for deletion please? ] (]) 01:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
...and while you are at it, review the activities of a few single-purpose accounts active on the AfDs... ] (]) 18:55, 14 October 2022 (UTC)


== Closes before 7 days ==
:would like to note that this user has had a go at numerous people on numerous pages regarding the existence of micronations overall and saying that micronations should be deleted for violating ] when everyone already knows they are either ambitious or fantasy states. just because i only really edit micronations, occupied territories, royals and occasional gnome edits doesnt mean my account is 'single-purpose' btw. ] (]) 19:18, 14 October 2022 (UTC)


I have started a discussion at ] about AfDs that are closing before 7 days/168 hours that watchers of this page may be interested in. Best, ] (]) 04:09, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::The above claim is false. Sadly, MicroSupporter seems incapable of understanding the difference between notability and neutrality, and given this lack of understanding has taken to following me around responding to things I haven't said. ] (]) 19:46, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 13:57, 3 January 2025

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Articles for deletion page.
Shortcut
? view · edit Frequently asked questions Q1: I don't like this page's name. I want to rename it to Articles for discussion or something else. A1: Please see Misplaced Pages:Perennial proposals#Rename AFD. Note that all of the "for discussion" pages handle not only deletion, but also proposed mergers, proposed moves, and other similar processes. AFD is "for deletion" because the volume of discussion has made it necessary to sub-divide the work by the type of change. Q2: You mean I'm not supposed to use AFD to propose a merger or a page move? A2: Correct. Please use Misplaced Pages:Proposed mergers or Misplaced Pages:Requested moves for those kinds of proposals. Q3: How many articles get nominated at AfD? A3: Per the Oracle of Deletion, there were about 470,000 AfDs between 2005 (when the process was first created) and 2022. This comes out to about 26,000 per year (2,176 per month / 72 per day). In 2022, there were 20,008 AfDs (1,667 per month / 55 per day). Q4: How many articles get deleted? A4: Between 2005 and 2020, around 60% of AfDs were closed as "delete" or "speedy delete". This is about 270,000. More detailed statistics (including year-by-year graphs) can be found at Misplaced Pages:Oracle/All and Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages records#Deletion. Q5: Is the timeline strict, with exactly 168 hours and zero minutes allowed? Should I remove late comments? A5: No. We're trying to get the right outcome, not follow some ceremonial process. If the discussion hasn't been closed, it's okay for people to continue discussing it. Q6: How many people participate in AFD? A6: As of October 2023, of the 13.9 million registered editors who have ever made 1+ edit anywhere, about 162,000 of them (1 in 85 editors) have also made 1+ edit to an AFD page. Most of the participants are experienced editors, but newcomers and unregistered editors also participate. Most individual AFD pages get comments from just a few editors, but the numbers add up over time.
This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconDeletion (defunct)
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Deletion, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.DeletionWikipedia:WikiProject DeletionTemplate:WikiProject DeletionDeletion
Media mentionThis project page has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
Archiving icon
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, 78


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.


This page has archives. Sections older than 25 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.
About deleted articles There are three processes under which mainspace articles are deleted: 1) speedy deletion; 2) proposed deletion (prod) and 3) Articles for deletion (AfD). For more information, see WP:Why was my page deleted? To find out why the particular article you posted was deleted, go to the deletion log and type into the search field marked "title," the exact name of the article, mindful of the original capitalization, spelling and spacing. The deletion log entry will show when the article was deleted, by which administrator, and typically contain a deletion summary listing the reason for deletion. If you wish to contest this deletion, please contact the administrator first on their talk page and, depending on the circumstances, politely explain why you think the article should be restored, or why a copy should be provided to you so you can address the reason for deletion before reposting the article. If this is not fruitful, you have the option of listing the article at WP:Deletion review, but it will probably only be restored if the deletion was clearly improper.

List discussionsWP:Articles for deletion
WP:Categories for discussion
WP:Copyright problems
WP:Deletion review
WP:Miscellany for deletion
WP:Redirects for discussion
WP:Stub types for deletion
WP:Templates for discussion
WP:WikiProject Deletion sorting
WT:Articles for deletion
WT:Categories for discussion
WT:Copyright problems
WT:Deletion review
WT:Miscellany for deletion
WT:Redirects for discussion
WT:Stub types for deletion
WT:Templates for discussion
WT:WikiProject Deletion sorting

Discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Redirects for discussion § Is RFD a valid forum to discuss cases of PTOPIC disambiguation pages?

 You are invited to join the discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Redirects for discussion § Is RFD a valid forum to discuss cases of PTOPIC disambiguation pages?. —CX Zoom 13:47, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

AFD request: Brenda Dervin

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 here on Google Scholar, so it is very likely to be kept at AfD, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:54, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Making sure I understand this right

Closing to avoid duplication. The parallel discussion at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)#AFD clarification remains open for anyone who wants to contribute. Thryduulf (talk) 13:26, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The article states that: 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)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request

I am the subject of this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/Terry_Blade. I don't think it meets the notability criteria for an article on Misplaced Pages. 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)

Closes before 7 days

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)

Category: