Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:47, 7 November 2023

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.

	Deletion (defunct)
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Deletion, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.DeletionWikipedia:WikiProject DeletionTemplate:WikiProject DeletionDeletion

This project page has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Noam Cohen (8 October 2006). "Misplaced Pages Wars: Giving the Heave-Ho in an Online Who's Who". New York Times. David Segal (3 December 2006). "Look Me Up Under 'Missing Link': On Misplaced Pages, Oblivion Looms for the Non-Notable". Washington Post. Daniel Terdiman (11 January 2007). "To delete Misplaced Pages entry or not to delete?". CNET News. Matthew Moore (1 October 2009). "Misplaced Pages: 20 articles earmarked for deletion". Daily Telegraph.

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. Misplaced Pages 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) Misplaced Pages 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.

Suggested addition to these instructions

I suggest adding the following text at the end of the section "How an AfD discussion is closed" Editors should verify that the discussion was closed by a bona fide editor and not by a vandal impersonating an editor's account. I'm suggesting that language because of this vandalism at an AfD discussion I'm following. The IP in question did that with other AfDs. Have never encountered that form of vandalism before but I imagine anything is possible. Coretheapple (talk) 22:59, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I've WP:BOLDly added the language suggested above. If anyone objects, of course, feel free to revert. Coretheapple (talk) 21:57, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I've reverted; while I agree with the sentiment I don't think it is something we need to say (the IP Vandal you linked was reverted uncontroversially within minutes) and I am conscious of WP:INSTRUCTIONCREEP. BilledMammal (talk) 22:20, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

May eventually be worth developing a bot that can accomplish this. —siroχo 00:08, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes a bot or other mechanism would be optimal. This is a particularly damaging form of vandalism and hard to catch if one is unaware of it being a possibility, and I think most editors are not. I see the vandal was at it again in the "Cohen crime family" AfD but was swiftly reverted because editors are alert to it. I get the point re instruction creep, and I imagine that would not be an effective way of countering such vandalism as most editors don't read the instructions, especially if they use an automated process to close an AfD. But clearly something needs to be done. Coretheapple (talk) 15:01, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

An AbuseFilter (probably set to tag) might be the right approach. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:39, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Inconsistent guidance?

The WP:AFD#How to contribute section currently says (near the bottom): "If the reasons given in the deletion nomination are later addressed by editing, the nomination should be withdrawn by the nominator"

The WP:AFD#Withdrawing a nomination section says: "If no one else has supported the deletion proposal and you change your mind about the nomination, you can withdraw it."

The guidance would be clearer and more consistent if the "no one else" clause appeared in both sections or in neither. Thanks for your consideration. —173.56.111.206 (talk) 06:09, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

@Alpha3031: Thanks for your quick fix to WP:WDAFD. —173.56.111.206 (talk) 04:19, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Kfar Aza massacre

The White House announced that neither Biden nor any American official had seen pictures of beheaded Israeli children. The Israeli media also denied this news and no official statement was issued by the Israeli army regarding this incident. Therefore, I ask you, based on that, to delete the article from your site because it’s fake, false and unreal news. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Kfar_Aza_massacre 82.166.104.118 (talk) 12:36, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

It's a well documented and substantiated event. Quite what happened is the subject of ongoing debate and consensus by editors. While I, personally, would be minded to rename it as 'attack' rather than 'massacre', that's a matter for discussion on the article talk page. It's not going to be deleted, however. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:43, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Afd request for Atsuko Natsume

Found no SIGCOV from a Google search; does not seem to be a notable character 2605:B40:1303:900:6888:4C67:7744:1DC3 (talk) 22:37, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done - UtherSRG (talk) 10:55, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

AfD request for Wizboy

Nothing from my WP:BEFORE; only pseudo-notable thing about it is that it was Nickelodeon's most viewed premiere in a while 2605:B40:1303:900:A0E1:7DCB:3582:9C6F (talk) 01:00, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done - UtherSRG (talk) 12:26, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

AfD request for Meowth's Party (2nd nomination)

Found nothing from my WP:BEFORE; article relies on mentions 2605:B40:1303:900:A0E1:7DCB:3582:9C6F (talk) 14:01, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done - UtherSRG (talk) 17:09, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

AFD participation

I asked a question about participation, and I thought the regulars here might be interested in the results.

• Since the creation of AFD (and its predecessor, VFD), 161,875 registered editors have edited an AFD page, as well as 85,392 unique IP addresses (which probably do not represent quite that many unique people/devices). (per Cryptic's quarry:query/77485)
  • For comparison, 13.9 million registered editors have made at least one edit to at least one page, so 1 in 85 successful registered editors has ever edited an AFD discussion page.
• During the current calendar year, BilledMammal found that 7,910 registered editors this year have edited one or more AFD pages.
• 93% of this year's AFD editors (7,377) were at least autoconfirmed. 78% of them (6,142) have made at least 100 edits. 63% of them (5,061) are extended confirmed. This indicates that while a significant fraction of newcomers do participate at least once, AFD is dominated by experienced editors. (Experienced editors are also more likely to participate in multiple AFDs.)
  • Although the drop-off looks linear here (15 percentage points between 10 and 100 edits = 15 percentage points between 100 and 500 edits) I doubt that it is. According to an analysis I saw earlier this year, across all the WMF-hosted wikis, there is an inflection point around 200–300 edits at which continued participation stabilizes, so if someone makes it to 300 edits, they will probably make it to 500+ in due course.
  • I'm wondering whether the group of editors with 10 to 99 edits might be the ideal time to recruit new editors to AFD. Perhaps promising newcomers could get a little welcome-to-AFD note, to help them understand how to find AFD discussions?
• All the Village pump pages (including subpages) this year have a total participation of 1,953 registered editors (including 1,848 who are at least autoconfirmed, 1,738 who have made 100+ edits, and 1,605 who have reached extended confirmed). A registered editor is 4x as likely to edit an AFD page than a Village pump page, and extended confirmed editors are 3x as likely to be found at AFD than at a Village pump page.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:21, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

That's interesting data, and thank you for presenting it. It does open up some more nuanced curiosities, perhaps peppered by my own experience in AfDs. The primary one is of that "significant fraction of newcomers " who "do participate at least once", what portion are either a) editors whose sole experience in AfD is defending an article they created (a common experience for new editors in my experience, as many first pages don't meet sourcing or notability requirements); or b) editors whose first edits are on AfDs, suggesting that they may have come due to off-Wiki canvassing? And do those who fall into those categories go onto to participate in further AfDs? Because if such is our main source of the less experienced editors among AfD participants, it does raise questions about the viability of encouraging participation amongst the inexperienced editors.

(Participation of inexperienced editors in AfDs would be of mixed benefit. On one hand, an inexperienced editor is likely to decrease the quality of discussion, as they are less familiar with the sorts of policies and guidelines that the discussion should be built around. On the other hand, it seems like a way to improve their editing, as discussions will expose them to discussions of notability, reliable sourcing, etc.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:06, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

The AFD query involves more than half a million pages, and that query sounds complicated (AFD page + article page + editor's contributions), so even if it's possible, I don't think that running the full set would necessarily be a friendly thing for us to do. But maybe it could be done for a smaller subset (e.g., this year, or a single month)? Or a more limited query, like the number of accounts that have made only one edit, and that one edit is to an AFD page?

If we considered this as a type of funnel analysis, if you don't get the first AFD activity, then you'll never get the second. An AFD-specific dataset that would let us figure out something similar to how many newbies we have to put up with to replace one experienced editor (@NatGertler, we have to put up with 5,000 first edits to replace someone like you) could be useful for answering that question. This would probably be easier than figuring out the combination of AFD+article+nothing else. A similar dataset would let you say things like "If someone makes a first edit to an AFD page, then they are ___% likely to make a second one". It is probably possible change from "edits" to "pages", so you could differentiate between two edits to the same discussion and edits to two different AFDs.

I'm not sure that we can optimize the recruitment very much in practice. For example, if you hold the overall number of edits constant, you could have a few people make a lot of edits or a lot of people make a few edits. One scenario could look like a high initial drop-off rate paired with a few extremely active participants. This would mean less 'training time' for the existing regulars. This would also look like most people trying it, failing, and leaving, but a few would explode into highly experienced AFD regulars. A more limited initial drop-off rate could get the regulars more everyday irritation (from AFD-newbies who don't really know what they're doing in terms of policies and procedures) but broader participation, and perhaps therefore a better likelihood of finding the right conclusion for each article (because they may not know what WP:UPPERCASE to invoke, but they do know something about the subject matter or are willing to spend time searching for sources, because they aren't trying to rush through a dozen AFDs today). But I'm not sure how you would identify those people from the beginning. I suspect that the first goal should simply be encouraging more people to take that first (or second) step. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:41, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate that I'm asking questions that aren't easily answered; it was less to get answers than to make clear that the information, while valuable, might be easy to build false assumptions about.

I'm wondering if there's some sort of metric that we could use to trigger a "hey, have you thought about helping us at AfD" invitation message on people's talk pages, something like detecting that someone has done more than 70 edits, on more than 10 pages, and created an article that has survived a month (just as an example; I'm not sure what metrics are easily trackable.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 19:06, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, getting a list of usernames for arbitrary actions (but they have to be actions, not content) is pretty easy. You could ask at Misplaced Pages:Request a query for a list of editors who have (e.g.,) made between x and y edits, aren't currently blocked, account is less (or more) than n days old, who have created at least one page in the mainspace (I think you can specify an undeleted article, but I'm not sure about that), and who have made at least one edit to a non-content namespace. I don't think I've seen one that says they've edited more than 10 pages, but if you get a fairly short list, you could always check that by hand, or in a subsequent query. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

It is less a matter of statistics and more one of root causes—why do people not continue participating in AfD? Why do people not continue editing Misplaced Pages? I am thinking that a major factor in failing to continue participating in AfD is the experience of participating with others contributing to AfD; it can be poisonous or welcoming or ignoring or nuances on these. Likewise with editing in general. It would be useful to do a sentiment analysis on AfD discussions and correlate that with termination of AfD participation or editing in general. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:43, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I've read that the #1 predictor of not continuing to edit is having your first attempts removed/reverted. I doubt that applies to AFD, but perhaps something similar would be a factor. Perhaps a feeling that your contributions were not welcome/wanted/valued is the underlying sentiment?

For AFD, I'm always wary of a desire to have "more" participation. The diminishing returns likely kick in pretty quickly. It always reminds me of the grueling approach that Google once took to interviewing prospective employees. You might spend two full days in interviews for a normal (e.g., not senior management) job. Eventually they ran the numbers and determined that, for most jobs, they needed four interviews to get the right answer. I don't know what AFD's version of "four interviews" is, but I'm pretty certain that there is such a number, and that it's a single digit. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:52, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

It depends on the topic, I think. For instance, there is a move discussion going on at Talk:Black_company where there were two support !votes. I then added an alert to Wikiproject Japan and (though they are not listed participants) two oppose !votes showed up in short order. I'm not 100% sure that my notice led to participation in the discussion, but let's assume it did and the move was going to go on but has been now opposed by two people who are more knowledgeable of the context and language. I think this is true of most discussions (deletion, move, etc), that it can be difficult to get people involved who have the background and context to thoroughly consider the case at hand; this is made MUCH more difficult when you have a discussion that runs to scores of posts. However, the whole point of community editing is an assumption that people are generally intelligent and will act diligently through their subject knowledge and research, despite that not being true all of the time. Many people forget that time is not our enemy, urgency is not necessarily a virtue (with pointed exceptions) and being verbose can be counterproductive (looking at myself in the mirror at the moment - ahem). User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:20, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Possible solution

I'm going to toss out a solution that I've mentioned for years now. - De-centralise AfD.

Instead of creating a sub-page of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion, create the discussion on the talk page of the page in question.

The bot(s) can still do their job as normal. And this needn't interfere with/prevent "AFD today", or whatever else. We know this due to RMs and RFCs.

And an additional benefit is that - in cases of deletion - the reasons reside on the talk page (rather than deleting the talk page as "housekeeping") so before re-creating, previous issues could be easily seen and (hopefully) addressed.

There's a lot more to this (needless to say, I've thought about this a very long time). But anyway, it's a simple change, which should resolve a host of issues. - jc37 16:54, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

So... confession time... that's the process I suggested at ht.wikipedia.org, and only later did I realize that this means you either can't delete the talk page, or non-admins can't read the reasons that the talk page was deleted afterwards.

Your comment about bots makes me wonder: Could we set a bot to invite people to AFDs that are in danger of being relisted? Perhaps if there are no responses after ~5 days, then the bot looks through the article history to find a few still-active editors, or maybe does something like User:SuggestBot in reverse, to find active editors who might know something about the nominated subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:48, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, I don't think it's an issue to not delete an article talkpage. That was just a housekeeping choice made back in the day.

Technically a bot could notify everyone who ever edited a page, if that was what was wanted. Or add a selection filter - x-number of edits to the page; x-number of "recent" edits, however we want to define that, etc.

But I think we're a step in the right direction, even just that multiple edits to the talk page are going to light up watchlists, in a way that a single edit, adding a deletion notice template, will not. - jc37 04:45, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I am not a fan of decentralizing the deletion boards to that extent, but wonder if we might take some intermediate step such as separating out deletion discussions for biographical topics, corporate topics, popular culture topics, and the like. For corporations in particular, we need editors who understand WP:NCORP, and for bios we need editors who understand WP:BLP sourcing. BD2412 T 23:28, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

That's already where Deletion Sorting exists, using transclusion to include all active AFDs within a given topic area on one page. Masem (t) 23:47, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

• I can't really see this flying - most Afds are newish articles with nothing but projects on the talk page, and only one real editor, plus some tidying, and nobody watching them. Johnbod (talk) 00:26, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Admin help

Embarrassing but need assistance. I tried to use page curation to create a deletion discussion for Strictly Ballroom (band). I received two failure notices and then used Twinkle to create the discussion. I now see that it actually created all three. Not sure how to delete the 2nd and 3rd nomination as this is obviously only one. CNMall41 (talk) 18:12, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

• I've fixed it by deleting the two duplicate nominations and pointing everything to the first one. Hut 8.5 18:24, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I knew I could request on the actual pages but wasn't sure how much back-end cleanup was needed. Appreciate you stepping in. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Requesting Deletion - Alexandra Schimmer

This article should be deleted. She is not a judge so doesn’t qualify. She is listed as an attorney online but doesn’t have the media references need for Misplaced Pages. BangBangFunk (talk) 20:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. The sources are not workable. I'll go ahead and put in the nomination. BD2412 T 20:42, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Freezing AfD articles?

Election denial movement was nominated for AfD on October 14. Since then, and particularly in the past day, it has been significantly edited such that it is now a substantively different article. Now editors will view the current version rather than the original version, and might vote to delete the former rather than the latter which was the AfD nominee. I created the article, but given these changes, I might even be inclined to support deleting the current version.

Might it make sense to freeze articles pending AfD resolution so as to avoid such confusion about what editors are being asked to consider? Alternatively, should AfDs require the use of a permalink version of the article as of the time of the AfD? soibangla (talk) 21:35, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Although AFD is "not clean up" it is not unusual (indeed, quite common) for an article to be so substantially improved during an AFD that it the reasons for deletion are fixed and the article is kept. See, for example, the Heymann Standard. Freezing articles at AFD would prevent any efforts to clean them up and make them acceptible, thereby preserving the content. ~ ONUnicornproblem solving 22:12, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Well OK, but in this specific scenario the article appears to have been so significantly altered since the AfD inception that deletion could be initially opposed but subsequently supported while the AfD is in motion. This contrasts with a BRD challenge and discussion of a static edit; this is a challenge and discussion of an entire article that remains fluid during discussion. That's all I got on this. soibangla (talk) 02:52, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

When an article is at AFD, people really should be looking at the article history as well as the state of the article as they find it. AFD is about 2 questions, 1. "Should Misplaced Pages have a stand-alone article about this topic at all?" and, 2. in some rare cases, "If we should have an article about this topic, is this so bad that there is absolutely nothing in the article or its history that is worth saving, and it's better to blow it up and start over?" ~ ONUnicornproblem solving 13:07, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

FYI: the scenario I describe just happened. An editor who opened an AfD is citing edits that did not exist at that time to argue for deletion. soibangla (talk) 18:24, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

The current AfD technology refers to an article and not a specific revision. I've from time to time added a comment to an ongoing AfD about the version that was nominated versus that which I'm commenting on. I think that revising the technology underlying AfD to support nomination of the VERSION at the time of nomination and have the discussion refer to this Version and provided a DIFF between current and nominated. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:35, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

No, this suggestion does not align with Misplaced Pages's values, nor does the motivation. Here's some explanations from various PAGs and other documentation.

• WP:5P3: any contributions can and may be mercilessly edited
• WP:IAR: If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Misplaced Pages, ignore it.
• WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM: Rather than remove imperfect content outright, fix problems if you can, tag or excise them if you can't.
• WP:ATD-E: If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page.
• WP:HEY, It's worth reading the entire short essay.

—siroχo 02:58, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

AFD's are generally about wp:notability of the subject. Adding sources would be the main change that affecting AFD result, and I think that that's a good thing and one which helps clarify what the result should be. North8000 (talk) 03:45, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

• Comment. Generally, articles improve by editing during AFDs. For that reason, a freeze is a bad idea. I suggest giving page history differences in a comment at the AFD discussion page to make editors aware of the differences, and expressing why the current version is not ideal. Best.4meter4 (talk) 17:42, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

  4meter4 the editor who opened this AfD is now citing three edits that did not exist at that time as examples of synth. I oppose the three edits that were added after the AfD was opened and I would have challenged them per standard BRD, had I not paused editing the article while the AfD was in process, mindfully to avoid the very scenario that has now unfolded. soibangla (talk) 18:33, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

  It should make more than one editor making claims that can be addressed in discussion for us to change the policy. And in this case, it sounds like matters may have been worsened by your own choice to avoid edits during the discussion period. AfD is actually a great opportunity for improvement to the article, as it tends to throw new eyes on it and people doing research to see if the topic meets notability standards will often come across new sources to be cited. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 18:47, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

  Well, I just really disagree with matters may have been worsened by your own choice to avoid edits during the discussion period, given that after much discussion and my requests for concrete examples that justify the AfD, the only examples the opening editor presents did not exist at the time the AfD was opened. soibangla (talk) 19:02, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

  So the material they are using to complain is material that wouldn't be in the article had you reverted it, and you didn't revert it simply because the article was at AfD? Or have I misunderstood your post of 18:33, 28 October? -- Nat Gertler (talk) 19:22, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

  I paused on the article to avert the possibility that editors might be confused by which version is under discussion, and that possibility has in fact materialized because subsequent edits so substantively altered the article that's it's effectively a new article from which the opening editor is now citing. This AfD process has thus been corrupted, and after being relisted seven days ago, it should now be closed. I reject any suggestion that this is somehow my fault. soibangla (talk) 19:45, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

  I've done that a couple of times (add a diff to the discussion). One I could find quickly --> Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Accel-KKR. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:57, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I do find it problematic when editors nominate an article for deletion and then aggressively strip content from the article, particularly when this involved controversial takes on the utility of sources being removed from the article. BD2412 T 23:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I tend to agree. But—and I know you know this—there's also times when there's either major BLP violations that need to be addressed (often requiring stripping content, sometimes even removing sources), or such egregious promotion that removing such content truly does improve the article substantially. —siroχo 03:10, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

AfD request for Megadeus

Found nothing substantial from my WP:BEFORE 2605:B40:1303:900:145C:451B:EBB7:E467 (talk) 23:10, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I fixed your nomination as you did not create the actual discussion after marking the page for deletion. Discussion is now here --CNMall41 (talk) 19:07, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

IP users don't have the ability to create the AfD pages themselves, that's why they are told to come here to request someone here to make the page for them. Usually they put their deletion rationale on the talk page of the article or here as part of their request. Iffy★Chat -- 18:41, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Wasn't aware of that. They added the AfD tag to the page but a discussion wasn't created. Thought they didn't complete the process but this clarifies they "can't" complete the process. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:48, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

AfD request for Smokescreen (Transformers) (2nd nomination)

Found only toys from my WP:BEFORE; has toys =/= notable 2605:B40:1303:900:DD62:A1B6:17A:9D75 (talk) 13:35, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done, see wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smokescreen (Transformers) (2nd nomination)Mach61 (talk) 03:44, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

• @Mach61 or any admin watching the page. This should be closed ASAP as speedy keep. The nominator (Grandmaster Huon) at the first AFD, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Smokescreen (Transformers), is indefinitely blocked for WP:SOCKPUPPETRY. It is likely the request here by the WP:SPA anon IP is Grandmaster Huon attempting to evade their block.4meter4 (talk) 21:33, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

  Hi there. CU and blocking admin of Grandmaster Huon. They are not blocked for sockpuppetry, but for CIR issues. I do not see a connection between the IPv6 range and Grandmaster Huon at this time. @4meter4: Remember that IPv6 allocations change rapidly at no fault by or action by the user. If you do a /64 range on this IP, you'll see they have been active for several months with a clear behavior pattern that is unlike Grandmaster Huon's. -- ferret (talk) 21:58, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying the issue.4meter4 (talk) 22:09, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

How To Delete - Help

I am trying to figure out how to recommend an article for deletion. The subject isn’t notable and doesn’t deserve a Misplaced Pages presence. He is only talked about in the news because of his company. The article is linked here and I hope someone can assist in helping me figure this out. Alan Dixon (Australian investor) Coilinging (talk) 23:32, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Have you followed WP:BEFORE to see if there are better sources available? I'll have a look. BD2412 T 23:35, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I didn't have to dig deep to see that there is nothing of substance. Nominated at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Alan Dixon (Australian investor). BD2412 T 23:45, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

2023 Kerala bombing

I would like someone to WP:IAR and WP:SNOWCLOSE the AfD discussion for the 2023 Kerala bombing article, as it is holding back its ITN nomination. Thanks. | Pirate of the High Seas (talk) 03:20, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

AFD request: Optare Bonito

Non notable bus, only a small number were built. Contested PROD. 154.47.116.190 (talk) 14:20, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Optare Bonito NotAGenious (talk) 05:53, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Please delete the page for David Luchins

He wants it gone RogerSni (talk) 17:09, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Deletion policy, and WP:BIODELETE in particular. While we may take into consideration the views of the subject of a biography if their 'notability' (as defined by Misplaced Pages guidelines) is marginal, in Luchen's case this seems unlikely to apply, given the amount of media interest etc he has attracted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:23, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I think the media attention should be ignored if the person does not want a page RogerSni (talk) 20:33, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

The people monitoring this talk page do not have the power to delete such a page for such reasons. You can request deletion via the process described at WP:AFD, at which point the community will be able to discuss whether it should be deleted. Your request is best phrased in terms of existing Misplaced Pages policy, which in this case is likely to be a challenge. If you wish to change the policy itself, which would facilitate then calling for deletion of the page, you can raise that at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy) (although again I suspect you may have an uphill battle with that one.)

And having weighed in at all here, I should now note that I have a slight conflict of interest in regard to the article subject, as I am in occasional friendly communication with a couple members of his family. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 20:59, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, I will forward my request RogerSni (talk) 21:22, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

AFD request: Hurricane Calvin (2023)

Please finish the AFD for the page per request. Pinging JayTee32 and Drdpw, who publically supported a merge on the talk page. 98.116.45.220 (talk) 15:25, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Discussing a potential merger does not at all necessitate an AFD. In WPTC it is common practice to discuss a potential merging of articles, then carry out if there is consensus. We also should not delete the page but rather restore it as a redirect if a consensus for merging emerges. JayTee⛈️ 15:57, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Recently, it has been precedent to nominate these articles at AFD to get a faster and guaranteed outcome. See Tropical Storm Colin (2022) and Tropical Storm Javier (2022). If we leave it on the talk page, a consensus might not be met due to minimal participation - we can’t ping either as that is a massive violation of WP:CANVASS, something our project was warned about multiple times, causing many to be sanctioned. And an argument for deleting the history does exist - it was completely copied without attribution, thus failing WP:CWW and WP:COPYRIGHT.69.118.232.58 (talk) 16:43, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

AfD request for Vicious Circle (Return of the Saint)

Clearly not notable 2605:B40:1303:900:DD62:A1B6:17A:9D75 (talk) 03:32, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

• I redirected it to the mains how page. Doesn't appear notable. If someone objects, will file a procedural AfD. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:47, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Blatant advertising for an authoritarian organisation

I have made some minimal improvements to the blatant advertising for a would-be totalitarian (though fortunately only authoritarian) organisation that was given a monopoly in the practical advice section for using search engines. The whole idea of Misplaced Pages and the WMF wikis is open knowledge using transparent, rational, evidence-based discussion. This is the opposite of running an organisation with non-participatory, non-transparent decision-making and then trying to impose that as a unique choice - a totalitarian choice - on the world. We are Misplaced Pages, not GAFAM. Boud (talk) 22:11, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

This edit by Objective3000 restored the material that is blatant advertising. To avoid an edit war, please either justify why we should continue with blatant advertising for a single would-be totalitarian organisation, or restore my edit. The restored text presents a totalitarian point of view - "Thou shalt worship no other search engine than Google!". Boud (talk) 06:48, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

In my view, your objection is absurd, Boud. Do not engage in any more disruption. You are obligated to provude irrefutable evidence from reliable sources that Google is authoritarian and totalitarian. Good luck with that venture. If you hate Google, don't use it. Do not impose your personal preference without gaining broad consensus in a forum where the broader community knows about the discussion, and can either agree with or refute your assertions. Cullen328 (talk) 07:03, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

You should have stuck with "monopolistic". Throwing contentious political terms in likely makes editors' eyes glaze over. You can try to make a case for a change to improve the page. But we are not here to right great wrongs. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:20, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

If one ignores the great-wrong-righting aspects of this, as we probably should, there may still be a legitimate issue here, in that we probably shouldn't be instructing people to use one specific search engine where other options are available and just as valid. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:28, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Yep. We need community agreement on validity for use of engines like Semantic Scholar, possibly added to RSP for easy reference. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:13, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. Boud isn't doing himself any favours with the rhetoric, but we should definitely avoid endorsing one particular commercial product over another. And where there are mission-aligned alternatives (for example Internet Archive Scholar over Google Scholar), I'd go further and say we should actually be actively promoting that. – Joe (talk) 15:08, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I am less sanguine over anything from the Internet Archive than you are. It's a site that is vastly dismissive over copyright concerns (and is facing lawsuits for that), and they have stated that their involvement with Misplaced Pages is very much integrated with their used-book sales arm ("We now have over 120,000 Misplaced Pages citations pointing to over 40,000 books, but we want to get to millions of links going to millions of books. The way we’re going to get there is by working really closely with Better World Books.”) So no, we shouldn't be particularly promoting them. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:04, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

When I say mission-aligned, I mean the movement's mission to promote free knowledge, not enforce corporate copyrights. I can't imagine why anybody would give a shit about the latter, but if they did, Google's hardly any better about it. – Joe (talk) 16:17, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi there. I'm an author and holder of copyrights whose work has been posted by IA without permission. Am I allowed to care about that? -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:04, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Me too. I'm sure we're both free to form our own opinions on that, but it doesn't seem particularly relevant to which search engines are recommended for the AfD process. – Joe (talk) 17:48, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

From WP:COPYOTHERS: Never use materials that infringe the copyrights of others. This could create legal liabilities and seriously hurt Misplaced Pages. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:25, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

If that meant we couldn't use any resource that has ever been accused of copyright infringement, we'd be in deep trouble. – Joe (talk) 17:41, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

"Authoritarian" and "would-be totalitarian" are accurate adjectives in this case. The evidence is overwhelming, and I expect that most people here do not need that evidence listed. would-be totalitarian: The fact that the text advertising a single search engine survived here for so long is circumstantial evidence of Google's would-be totalitarian nature: it convinced an open community that "there is no alternative", despite the huge range of search engines for which we have a good comparison table. authoritarian: There is no publicly listed constitution established based on a constituent assembly nor a transparent, participatory, bottom-up, one-person-one-voice decision-making procedure and electoral system, nor anything equivalent in Google: it is objectively authoritarian, as opposed to the Misplaced Pages community, where we have transparent, community-based procedures for selecting people to positions of power. The nature of our community and the communities with which we interact and support is important; this is not a question of my personal preference, so please do not pretend that this is about me. It is about us.This is not a case of righting great wrongs, it is a case of us as a community acting consistently with our values and aims of an open knowledge community. There is no obligation to use euphemisms to describe authoritarian organisations.To get back to the main question: what specific objections are there to this edit? If there are no objections, then I propose that someone restore it, and then further iterations can be discussed here. The two main lists to work from are: list of search engines and comparison of web search engines. Boud (talk) 16:19, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I think your edit was broadly an improvement but deciding which of the many alternatives to name could quickly turn into a quagmire. I think it would be simpler, and more readable, to simply link to list of search engines. Like this. – Joe (talk) 16:24, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

This minimalist proposal (oldid 1183974271 16:24, 7 November 2023 by Joe Roe) looks good to me. Does anyone object? Boud (talk) 16:38, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I can't agree with your or Joe's suggestion. Google Scholar is a tool used extensively by editors and should be specifically mentioned. If there is another source this useful, it should also be mentioned. OTOH, a bare list of engines will include some that possibly should not be used: Ask.com, probably Baidu, some metasearch engines, AI generated search answers (which will become more prevalent and added to that list), the People also ask section of Google, which includes nonsense and often Quora input. I don't think providing a noncurated list is as useful as we can produce for this specific usage. This is not a general article about searches. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:59, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Nobody's stopping people from using Google Scholar, it's on the list too. – Joe (talk) 17:38, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

It's buried in a page with something like 300 links. A page used by Misplaced Pages readers about search engines needs to list them all. This is a page about editor advice on researching AfDs for WP purposes and should be more helpful then a massive dump including sites that likely should not be used for such. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:58, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that any change to this page is going to significantly affect the use of Google Scholar. I've added specific section links to help findability, how's that? If the list is still too uncurated, we could consider creating Misplaced Pages:Search engines to with a more editor-focused listing. – Joe (talk) 18:17, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Look, there is no love lost between Google and myself as I spent months arguing with their legal office over Google violating my trademark. But this is not a forum and you are now disrupting a discussion that appears to be leaning your way. Why shoot yourself in the foot? O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:33, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Joe that for example Internet Archive scholar is a preferable search engine, because it's opensource and transparent, so you know what you get. As for Google Search, it is proven to interpret search queries in inscrutable ways. Suggesting that editors use Google is ok if our objective is to increase the usage of links which correlate with better profits for Google LLC, but not ok if our objective is something else (say, finding reliable sources or increasing free knowledge). Therefore, Joe's edit is an improvement. Nemo 17:43, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

• I've reverted the latest set of edits. Most importantly, clarity needs to be a top priority on this page, and vague suggestions just make it harder for new users to understand how to conduct a BEFORE search. Also, while there's certainly no love lost between me and Google either, it's just much more effective at finding sources than the alternatives. I'd hate for an article to be deleted because people checked the Internet Archive rather than Google Scholar/Google Books and thought that was sufficient. The best way to fulfill our mission is to find the best sources, and while I don't like it, Google is an essential part of doing that. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:41, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

  That's a disappointing revert, Extraordinary Writ – what about all the discussion above? I don't think there's actually any evidence that Google is the most effective way to find sources. It's just the market leader with the largest indexes, very much not the same thing. – Joe (talk) 18:50, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

  I would guess the major arguments in AfDs are over WP:GNG at which Google is very good. AfDs begin with a Find Sources template that includes Google books/news/scholar; presumably as they have been found most helpful over time. Personally, I’d love to see the EU sue the hell out of Google for monopolistic practices. For now, they are the most accepted here. We aren’t preventing other sources -– just providing a guideline for those who haven’t participated here before and want their !votes counted. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:46, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

  There's clearly no consensus thus far, so a well-explained revert is hardly unreasonable. But let's try to work this out. I think we should definitely stop mentioning Google News Archive, which (as our article explains) hasn't worked adequately in a decade. Including the Internet Archive would also be a good idea. I do think Google Books and Google Scholar should stay since both find results that are very hard to find elsewhere (IA Scholar, for instance, has only a small subset of what GScholar has). As for Google Search itself, maybe some sort of a compromise, e.g. "a normal search using Google or another search engine", would do the trick? Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:46, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press