Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Frequently asked questions (FAQ)
I don't like this page's name. I want to rename it to Articles for discussion or something else.
Please see Wikipedia: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.
You mean I'm not supposed to use AFD to propose a merger or a page move?
Correct. Please use WP:Proposed mergers or WP:Requested moves for those kinds of proposals.
How many articles get deleted?
About 60% of deletion discussions are closed as delete.


List of later historians of the Crusades[edit]

How likely would List of later historians of the Crusades be deleted if it was the subject of a deletion discussion? Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:25, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

It would probably depend on the arguments made for deletion. About the only realistic argument I can see against it right now is if someone makes a compelling case that the content is duplicated elsewhere or that the need for a "group" is better served by a category or navigation template. Other than that, I don't see it being vulnerable unless you know something I don't know. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 02:09, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for that, Davidwr. Could I get your opinion on List of women writers? Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:53, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
@Onetwothreeip: Thank you for asking, but I'm going to pass for now. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 13:40, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Chateau Royale (Hamilton, Ontario)[edit]

Can someone please nominate Chateau Royale (Hamilton, Ontario) for deletion. Chateau Royale was AFDed in 2019 and closed as redirect to List of tallest buildings in Hamilton, Ontario. Then this year, Chateau Royale (Hamilton, Ontario) got created and is likely referring to the same location. The previous discussion concluded that this location fails WP:NGEO and nothing major has happened there so it still likely fails WP:NGEO. I cannot nominate a page for AFD because I am an IP. 122.60.65.44 (talk) 03:42, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Not necessary, speedy-deleted as a copyright violation of this. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 03:57, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Well, major update, it looks like this is a case of the original's author being the same person as the Wikipedia editor, subject to confirmation and other procedural necessities. The discussion is ongoing at Talk:Chateau Royale (Hamilton, Ontario). I recommend against opening an AFD for the time being, the issue may resolve itself on the article's talk page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 04:32, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Semantics (psychology)[edit]

Hi, despite a consensus at Semantics to not split the page, another article was created at Semantics (psychology) which was a copy-paste of the relevant section of Semantics. Neither page has since had any real changes to this content (there was a change from curly quote marks to " but thats it). I've mentioned this on the talk page of Semantics (psych), and the creator responded that they thought it had been deleted already due to aforementioned consensus, and suggested that I nominate it for deletion. I don't know how to do this or if it's reasonable (the policies around it are hard to understand in contect given that I'm very very new to editing WP). I personally feel that this was not a reasonable split but like I said, I don't know what I'm doing. Please help, ta. Xurizuri (talk) 12:14, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

That would be a WP:CONTENTFORK. I suggest you file a WP:MERGE request at Talk:Semantics (psychology). 122.60.65.44 (talk) 00:39, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Unused templates?[edit]

Happened upon these templates which appear to be out-of-date duplicates of the official WP:AFD documentation. Do they have some purpose that eludes me or should they be redirected/deleted? (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 05:13, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Where to discuss potential deletion?[edit]

Is there a better place than here to discuss if an article should be nominated for deletion? I would like some views on List of women writers but clearly this page is not quite active. Thanks. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip: The purpose of AfD is exactly that – to discuss whether articles should be deleted. There is an expectation that you do some basic checks to make sure the page meets the deletion policy beforehand, but I hope we haven't reached a level of bureaucratic creep that would mean we need to have a discussion about whether we should have a discussion about whether we should delete something. That said, I'm struggling to see any possible justification for deleting a core article like List of women writers (as opposed to splitting it). – Joe (talk) 13:00, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you Joe Roe. A discussion before AfD isn't necessary but it would be for cases where I am not sure if this should be deleted or not. I can see why the article wouldn't be deleted, but it seems like it can never be close to a complete list and may be superseded by categories. I take it there are no better places to discuss potential nominations? Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:05, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Onetwothreeip, you could try to start a discussion on a relevant Wikiproject talk page. In the case at hand, I would suggest Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists, which may be the best place to discuss any fundamental problems you see with this, and to develop solutions if necessary. —Kusma (t·c) 21:54, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
That talk page looks substantially less active than here. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:50, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Which deletion process to follow?[edit]

I have studied all the materials on grounds for deletion and believe that an article should be deleted because of problems with notability, verifiability, reliable sources, and what Wikipedia is not. My question is about which process to follow. From what I can gather, the article was nominated for speedy deletion a couple years ago, shortly after it was created. The author got upset and deleted the speedy deletion tag. References were added in an attempt to improve the article, but I discovered there are reliability problems with those sources. I don't believe there is hope that the article can be improved. Should I attempt speedy deletion or go through the articles for deletion nomination process? Lagringa (talk) 21:46, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@Lagringa: AFD. There are a set of criteria for speedy deletion of an article, which are listed at the WP:SPEEDY page. Reliability of sources is not one of them. If you believe that the deletion is non-controversial, follow the process at WP:PROD. However speedy deletion is not possible here. 122.60.65.44 (talk) 00:30, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. I went ahead and tagged it as having a notability problem and started a discussion on the talk page. I’ll have to get back to figuring out the AFD process when I have time. Lagringa (talk) 01:03, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Chinese word for "crisis"[edit]

I need someone to nominate Chinese word for "crisis" for deletion. I believe the Chinese word is not notable because as a Chinese speaker, I've never heard anyone ever mention the alleged notability of the word, namely its composition from 危 and 机. So, no one in the Chinese-speaking community cares. Zh.wp does not have a separate article on the word, and the info is contained in the main article for "crisis". (zh:危机) I am the same IP who made the request about Chateau Royale (Hamilton, Ontario) above. 122.60.65.44 (talk) 00:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

 DoneWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chinese word for "crisis". – Joe (talk) 20:32, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Nominations by new user[edit]

Brand new user very familiar with this process. Should look into these edts.... are they genuine or disruptive?--Moxy 🍁 05:57, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

  • I don't know. The AfDs themselves are plausible enough, though unlikely to succeed. I'd be lying if I said I wasn't slightly suspicious about them being a sock, but there is no law against familiarising yourself with WP policies and procedures before creating an account. And if a returning user, there are legitimate and acceptable reasons to chuck away an old account and start again as new. So some AGF is warranted. Finally, the passive-agressive teasing of this user on their talk page and at User_talk:Horse_Eye's_Back#January_2021_2 is revolting. Reyk YO! 17:02, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Stepping away from the specific case, if someone is very familiar with Wiki-processes and has a new account, the most-good-faith explanations are that they used to be an IP editor or that they used to edit heavily but lost access to the previous account, which is certainly possible if they haven't used it in awhile, forgot the password, and either never set up email or lost control of the email address they used on the abandoned account. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 19:21, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
  • It's abundantly obvious they're not a new user. On the other hand, there's no specific evidence that they're doing anytihng in violation of WP:ILLEGIT; if you have some particular reason to believe they are, you should open a WP:SPI report and present your evidence. Other than that, there's nothing that says you can't quitely keep an eye on them. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:46, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
    RoySmith, I second this. Also, casting aspersions at users is not tolerated on Wikipedia. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:43, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
  • The user has been blocked by Sro23 for being WP:NOTHERE. CMD (talk) 00:41, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Sorry for missing this discussion, I didn't know about it until after I had blocked the user. In my opinion, most of you are being far too lenient on someone obviously hiding behind a sockpupppet account. I don't think it's fair to block users for being "suspicious", but it was clear this was a sock made to target a particular user (nominating articles started by the user for deletion within minutes of their creation). I have no patience or good faith for a sock whose sole purpose seems to be wikistalking and accusing a long-term editor of paid editing with absolutely no evidence. And I was shocked to see said long-term user get templated for "casting aspersions". You have a right to defend yourself against accusations made by an obvious sock, that should include calling a spade a spade. Sro23 (talk) 01:21, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
    Sro23, in my eyes repeatedly posting the same message on all the AFD doesn't look good on User:Horse Eye's Back. See this and this and this. I would have probably raised a WP:SPI rather than posting the same question on all the AFD. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 03:13, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
    SPIs are for linking accounts to masters, not for general fishing. Further, there are reasonable reasons to have alternative accounts, and it's reasonable to provide a chance for disclosure. Horse Eye's Back is literally a second account. CMD (talk) 03:23, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
    Chipmunkdavis, well if Horse thinks that Bowler is a sock, SPI can find if they are puppeted by another known abusive user. And why post the same question to all AFDs. They could have just left the message on Bowler's talk page. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 03:25, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
    Even if they’re weren’t a sock what they did was disruptive and harassment, they were getting blocked even without the “knows too much” element. As CMD said SPIs aren’t for fishing, if I was more sure about which of the half dozen sockmasters I have royally pissed off over the last year or so was behind the account I would have taken it to the relevant investigation. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:30, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) SPIs are explicitly not for fishing. The account in question is a clear and obvious harassment sock. It's unbelievably blatant. Horse shouldn't even have to deal with it, let alone be asked to go more out of their way. CMD (talk) 03:36, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Reverse Osmosis (group)[edit]

Please nominate Reverse Osmosis (group) for deletion. I cannot find any reliable sources on Google Search. Most of the article is unsourced WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. 122.61.73.44 (talk) 05:07, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Also, there are a lot of Wikipedia band articles like this one, I just came across this and is now nominating it for deletion. 122.61.73.44 (talk) 05:09, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
While IMDB is not a "reliable source," it does have a page about the film Rock and R.O. This plot description says that it is about the band. The fact that someone bothered to make a documentary about the group will carry some weight in a deletion discussion. I would encourage you to create an account, make 10 edits and wait 4 days, then make a case for deletion that acknowledges that a documentary film was made about the group. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 15:23, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Detecting Business Scam Articles[edit]

I was surprised and initially fooled by the effort of article promoters. Renaming Facebook pages to make the company to look older, fake linkedin employees, link to fake company review sites, google reviews (but all the same date) etc Are there any web search or scraping tools eg apis to linkedin or additional information and links in infoboxes ( eg company numbers) etc or even the date that the wikipedia page was created that would make detection of promoted businesses easier? Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 00:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Archive.org can sometimes be helpful. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:22, 23 January 2021 (UTC)