Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 68

AFD miscategorized - Microsoft v. Internal Revenue Service
The article Microsoft v. Internal Revenue Service is incorrectly listed under Category:AfD debates (Organisation, corporation, or product) even though it is a classified  as a  United States law/tax stub article. How can this be corrected to bring it to the attention of Wikipedians interested in law and taxation? Thanks in advance. Ottawahitech (talk) 05:38, 1 January 2015 (UTC) : Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.--~  Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 06:02, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * When nominating you get to choose from the categories listed at AfD categories. Maybe this didn't quite fit the category chosen, but you would not get to be as specific as you're seeking at that juncture. You can though separately add it to WikiProject Deletion sorting/Law (follow the instructions there) and then add to the deletion debate page:
 * Thanks for responding, Fuhghettaboutit . A few more questions:
 * This AFD has been running for a few days now -- any alerts sent to the list of Law-related deletion discussions may be too late?
 * Is there also a place to alert wikipedians with an interest in taxation?
 * Lastly - who should do all this extra work - the nominator (who did not classify this AFD correctly),  or someone else? Ottawahitech (talk) 07:07, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Typically, third parties do the delsort stuff and the nominator does the categorization, though many times nominators don't categorize correctly or not at all. As far as notifying related wikiprojects or whatever, sometimes it's nominators and sometimes others. There's no real rules in that regard. ansh666 08:17, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If the article's talk page has WikiProject banner templates (or certain other conditions apply, such as certain types of infobox being present in the article), it will be notified to the relevant WikiProjects through the Article Alerts system. Microsoft v. Internal Revenue Service has no talk page, and therefore no WikiProject banners (and the article doesn't have any of the other triggering conditions, as far as I can tell), so the only way that WikiProjects will have been informed is if somebody did it manually. However, if somebody were to add, say, to Talk:Microsoft v. Internal Revenue Service, the AfD would be added to WikiProject Law/Article alerts within 24 hours. Similarly, adding  to the talk page would get it listed at WikiProject Taxation/Article alerts. -- Red rose64 (talk) 00:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * A bit late, because the talk page wasn't until the AfD was almost over, but . -- Red rose64 (talk) 15:46, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your answer user:Fuhghettaboutit. Looks like user:Gene93k already entered ‘’’WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Law”. I checked to see how many individuals see this and discovered only 6 views on Januray 1, 2015 Ottawahitech (talk) 16:04, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Gene93k does a lot of the deletion sorting, but it's always a manual job. -- Red rose64 (talk) 16:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Shouldn't nominators be held to higher standards?
As evidenced in the above discussion some (many?) editors who nominate Articles For Deletion do not categorize AFDs correctly. It can be argued that this is a problem since the deletion discussion is not brought up to the attention of those interested in the topic.

In this particular case the nominator has made this mistake in the past, but it seems there is no mechanism to alert him/her to this mistake? Ottawahitech (talk) 17:37, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Am I making sense? Ottawahitech (talk) 14:27, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If you want to alert someone to a mistake they've made, you could leave a message on their talk page. Although, in this case, it's not even clear that the nominator categorized wrongly. Microsoft is a corporation. Which of the alternatives at AfD categories would you say is more appropriate? Reyk  YO!  15:35, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think that it was obvious that it was a taxation/law article, even though the stub templates indicate that. Some people use WikiProject banners on the talk page to decide the AfD category - but this article had none until just a few hours before the AfD closed. The article title begins "Microsoft", which is a company, and that may have been what the nom was going on.
 * Instead of alerting me to them disagreeing about the categorization of the AFD Ottawahitech decided to try and get people to agree with him then drop this on my talk page. Mrfrobinson (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC) 21:07, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not a complaint about you personally, I posted here in the hope that something will be done to  hold editors to higher standards when nominating articles for deletion. Article creators spend a lot of time researching and writing articles, but some nominators spend no more than a minute or so before launching an official deletion nomination that drives away article creators and takes up valuable time of the community as a whole. It would seem that everyone should be interested in putting a stop to frivolous nominations. No? Ottawahitech (talk) 03:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Frivolous noms are usually met with speedy keeps and speedy closes. Repeated frivolous noms can earn the editor a trip to ANI. What else do you want? --Neil N  talk to me 03:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There is nothing to prevent a user spotting that an AfD is in the wrong category, and fixing it - . The main limitation is that the template recognises only one categorisation letter, and some AfDs may fall within two (or more) of the ten available: for example, Articles for deletion/Arvind Narayanan is under "T" (Science and technology) but could also be placed under "B" (Biographical). -- Red rose64 (talk) 15:38, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know about higher standards but nominators should endeavor to get categorization correct. This is no different from going through the myriad of other Wikipedia processes. If you notice an editor getting something consistently wrong, the easiest thing to do is to drop them a note on their talk page. --Neil N  talk to me 16:46, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, if you see a problem just fix it, whether it's the categorisation, the listing, or anything. If you don't then someone else will, maybe a bot. It's not a final act like deletion or closing a contentious discussion which normally requires an admin. If you are unsure what was intended you can always ask the editor whether they meant to delete or just hit the wrong button/had second thoughts. If you think their behaviour is problematic such as many incomplete nominations you can raise it with them. If they are unresponsive or the problem is too urgent then perhaps raise it at a noticeboard.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 03:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Notifying creators that their article was kept.
We notify creators that their article is up for deletion, in large part so that they have the opportunity to defend their work. However, as many such authors are new to Wikipedia and may not understand the process, I think it would be good to have a standard "your article was kept" notification where there is a SK/Keep/No consensus (keep) decision. This would let them know that they don't have to worry about the article any longer and can get back to editing. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 18:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Request for completion of filing an AfD, article name New America Media
Hi, the instructions say I have to ask for this because I'm editing as an IP. Can someone please do steps II and III for Articles for deletion/New America Media. My rationale is that it does not meet WP:ORG.- 71.128.35.13 (talk) 20:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. Reyk  YO!  20:35, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Having problems listing an article
Not sure how to list No-go_area for deletion as it keeps coming up red-linked. The article is over 8 yrs old and still lacks sufficient context to identify the subject of the article. Other reasons on the article's TP include: Thanks in advance for your help. Atsme &#9775;  Consult  16:50, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and unless a single source can be found to draw the existing content together, it may have to be deleted as synthesis.
 * Wikipedia:No original research.
 * The definition given in the lede ("A no-go area or no-go zone is a region where the ruling authorities have lost control and are unable to enforce their sovereignty") is entirely unsourced.
 * A single reliable source has not been found which gathers the disparate meanings of the phrase to give some sort of clear and unambiguous core definition.
 * Did you try No-go area, without the underscore? Cheers. DonIago (talk) 16:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I tried it with and without. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.1em 0.1em 0.4em,#F2CEF2 -0.4em -0.4em 0.6em,#90EE90 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#E6FFFF">Atsme &#9775;  Consult  17:39, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Huh. Well, here you go . I'd appreciate it if you could fill in your reasoning as soon as possible. :) DonIago (talk) 17:48, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, . I'll look to see how you did it. I'm wondering now if it's a cache issue. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.1em 0.1em 0.4em,#F2CEF2 -0.4em -0.4em 0.6em,#90EE90 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#E6FFFF">Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  19:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * What part was it showing as a redlink? You may have been using the wrong dash, if it was the article title. ansh666 19:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you nailed it, . I used the dash on my (Mac) keyboard (-).  Next time I'll use the dash (—) in the character options at the bottom of my Wiki edit screen.  Thx for point that out.  <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.1em 0.1em 0.4em,#F2CEF2 -0.4em -0.4em 0.6em,#90EE90 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#E6FFFF">Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  20:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * In the name of the article No-go area, the third character isn't a dash, it's an ordinary hyphen-minus. But you shouldn't need to type it out - if you follow step I at WP:AFDHOWTO, i.e. add to the article, you'll (correctly) get a box with a redlink to "this article's entry", but ignore that. Further down that box, there are four numbered steps; step 2 says "Preloaded debate OR ... " - click on "Preloaded debate" and it gives an edit window containing   All you need do is replace the word "Reason" with your actual reasoning. When you save, it'll fill in the article name for you, in place of that  . This is most of WP:AFDHOWTO step II. -- Red rose64 (talk) 21:31, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * - thank you. I copied your instructions to my sticky notes in case the situation ever rises again. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.1em 0.1em 0.4em,#F2CEF2 -0.4em -0.4em 0.6em,#90EE90 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#E6FFFF">Atsme &#9775;  Consult  22:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Or, if you think you're going to be doing this a lot, get Twinkle! ansh666 22:30, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Warren S. Brown
§ Old discussions for 18 January (or 17, 19) does not list Warren S. Brown, maybe that's a mistake/bug? --82.136.210.153 (talk) 06:39, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And Deeplink (company) is also not included for 4 January. The overview is incomplete, I guess. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 06:43, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Warren S. Brown is listed on Articles for deletion/Log/2015 January 26, because it was relisted that day. It's neither a mistake nor a bug. Similarly, Deeplink (company) is listed on Articles for deletion/Log/2015 January 24. -- Red rose64 (talk) 09:34, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah thanks, a relisting moves it, didn't know that. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 09:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Do joke and/or troll AFDs really need to stay on the record?
Debito Arudou was recently nominated by an obvious troll SPA with a speedy keep result, but I'm a bit concerned that some of the SPA's arguments (only notable for one event...) may have actually been valid and still potentially need to be addressed. The problem is that now the article's talk page is essentially permanently engraved with "This article has been nominated for deletion twice, with results ranging from keep to speedy keep." without explaining the context of those results.

This same message appears on the talk page of every article that has ever been graffitoed on April 1.

Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 08:47, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I'd prefer April fools' joke AfDs to be removed/deleted, but I think that sort isn't too bad to have on record. ansh 666 09:16, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heather Bresch M.B.A. controversy
Hi all,

I have closed (WP:NAC) a heated debate over Articles for deletion/Heather Bresch M.B.A. controversy? I think it should be now discussed in WP:RFD as now the page is a redirect. The discussion was done in the article's talk page. Is it done fine? - The Herald (here I am) 16:15, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that you saw a consensus to keep in the AFD, but also a consensus to rename, and that since there's now a redirect with that name, it should be RFDed? Or are you saying that you closed it as keep because the article was moved? -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:44, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I am saying that I closed it as a keep (12 votes) but there is also a consensus of rename (6 votes). Plus, now there is no point for discussing it for AfD as it was moved. This disrupts the consensus as some voted before the move. I think now that it should have been relisted. -- - The Herald (here I am) 17:11, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't have closed it as a NAC, at first glance there isn't a clear consensus so I'd have left it to an admin. Besides, AfD is for the article, not the title, so a mid-AfD rename shouldn't matter at all. ansh 666 18:10, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Please only perform non-admin closings where you fully understand how to decide and implement the closing. Anything even remotely tricky should be left to an admin to handle. This is an odd closure to say the least, generally we don't close in such a way that another debate is immediately needed. <b style="color:DarkSlateBlue">Chillum</b> 18:20, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Alright..Sorry. So reopen and relist it? - The Herald (here I am) 08:14, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I wouldn't do that at this point. You saw a keep and rename consensus, and both have been taken care of at this point. Even if there was a consensus to merge instead of keeping, that would still be handled by editors, and I don't see that. I do see that between keep, rename, and merge, there was no consensus to delete. Just be careful next time not to close it when you think there may be further actions required.-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:40, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

"No quorum" closures
Please see and comment on this discussion. As quite a number of AfDs are finishing up with no or very little input, it seems worthwhile to agree on how these cases are closed <b style="color:seagreen">Noyster</b> (talk),  23:32, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

deleting Greeks in Saudi Arabia
Could somebody please put in my arguments to delete this article? My arguments are: Mainly, my argument is that even if we could find better sources, this community - whether historical or contemporary - just doesn't appear to meet notability standards. Thanks.58.106.224.45 (talk) 02:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) The article describes some non-notable Greek individuals who operated in Saudi Arabia. Their numbers appear very insignificant to be mentioned as an expatriate ethnic group of significance. If there are a handful of Mongols living in Australia, who are themselves of little note, impact, or influence, should they then have their own article on Wiki?
 * 2) The one source that is used is very obscure.
 * 3) Even the modern Greek expatriate population in Saudi seems non-notable, so i highly doubt more notable Greek communities would have been attracted to the region before the oil boom.
 * An incomplete AFD had been created by the IP (due to inability to create the article). The article has been nominated for deletion.  Robert McClenon (User talk:Robert McClenon) 02:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thankyou very much Robert McClenon.--58.106.224.45 (talk) 03:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Why hasn't the deletion discussion closed?
The Articles for deletion/Nam Taehyun (2nd nomination) page has been open for over six weeks. When it first opened people were invited to comment but only one other editor besides myself cared to and the consensus was to delete based on lack of notability. I am not an admin that can delete so I can't close the page and don't know why it is taking so long...is there something else I was supposed to do or are the admins just that backed up? Thank you Peachywink (talk) 04:20, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The discussion was not created per the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO (specifically steps 2 and 3). I'll do that now, but it'll have to be open for one more week so that people can actually see it from the log and comment on it. ansh 666 05:00, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The Castle Inn
I've never proposed an AfD before, and I'm not sure whether The Castle Inn is suitable, or whether an alternative should be pursued. In my view the article subject is not sufficiently notable, and the article also may be spam (the creator of the article has only made one edit that's not connected to the article subject). According to the article's uncited text, The Castle Inn is 16th century, but this source states it is probably 18th century, and this source states late 18th century, and neither state that the inn is especially notable. Yes, it's a listed building, but only Grade II, and there are 53 listed structures in that civil parish alone, and they don't all deserve their own articles. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:40, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

This discussion has been moved to Talk:The Castle Inn. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:02, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Quick question
Apologies that this is probably the wrong place to ask this question, but I wasn't sure what the right place was: is there a way for a user to search and find all the AFD discussion they have participated in in the past? I'm curious to look at my own but don't know how and where such a search could be done... —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  18:09, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Using search-engine-fu to come up with a reasonable approximation. Close enough for government work?  -- Finngall  <font color="#D4A017">talk  18:21, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There is, because it's used at WP:RFA to determine what involvement the candidate has had at XfD. I think that it's http://tools.wmflabs.org/afdstats/afdstats.py -- Red rose64 (talk) 18:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

AFD stats error
When I try to see an AfD's stats, it says "No webservice". This has started happening to me some days ago, and I didn't bother until now because I thought it was a temporary takedown. Is this some sort of error? --<b style="color: red">Toon</b><b style="color: blue">Lucas</b><b style="color: red">22</b> (<i style= "color:green">talk</i>) 19:42, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Old Afd templates - slight language tweak
Transcluding the template here as an example. There is a new-ish user at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion (see just curious AND VERY ANGRY) upset that people want to delete the page Dragon City. However, the two discussions linked in the template are each about different subjects that happen to have the same title, and nobody is currently proposing deletion of the page. I think it would be helpful here if this template (and the other old afd templates) had the option of replacing "This page was nominated" with "A page with this title was nominated". I've seen this elsewhere, but can't find it right now. Thoughts? Ivanvector (talk) 19:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

List of PNAC Members associated with the Administration of George W. Bush
Appears to use as a criterion "did they ever sign anything at all related to PNAC" as defining them as a  "member."

I consider using that criterion or any similar criterion to be, at best, SYNTH. Indeed, using that criterion in the 30s would allow us to list thousands of "Communist Party" members in their Wikipedia articles.

My PROD was instantly excised by a primary writer of the list as "SYNTH argument has been rebutted, with consensus against it, the inaccurate name has been changed, everything else is compliant with policy on stand-alone lists, etc.) "

Sample  is used to label Eliot A. Cohen as a "member.  Problem?  The article does not call him a PNAC member at all.  His BLP links to   which is scarcely helpful at all.   I did find  which makes no such claim.   is the article by Ximena Ortiz,  which also does not support the claim being made.  In short, it looks more like SYNTH-by-wish than even SYNTH-by-source.   The source given does not support the claim at all.   Is the claim found in Wikis?  Yep.. Sourced? Nope.

We find such lists at  '' Who got us into the Iraq war? A List of prominent Jewish Neocons and their role in getting the U.S. into Iraq and Homeland Security'' which I suggest might not meet Wikipedia RS requirements.

Paula Dobriansky does not even have a single source cited at all. And on and on and on in this SYNTH-by-No-source "list." Is labeling a person as a "member" of an organization based solely on their signing a letter proper? Is a list based on that criterion proper? Collect (talk) 12:32, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * As a BLP, there must be rock solid refs for every assertion about a living person when controversial. If there is not a published list of members or reliably sourced references stating explicitly that these people were "members", we can't create such a list here. It is entirely improper. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:12, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

"Harmful in its current state"
I just reverted these edits which added a few qualifications to the statement "[i]f the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD." That is a very simple instruction and should not need to be qualified. added "exceptions" for copyright violations, spam, patent nonsense, and BLP violations, then removed the first three as being speediable instead (probably correctly). I object to the BLP qualifier as well - harmful statements about living people can be removed by oversighters and/or through revision deletion (and should be without waiting for discussion), so we don't need to nuke pages from orbit just for this reason. I think it's best to leave this guideline as-is. Ivanvector (talk) 16:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree, BLP violations can be pretty easily fixed by removal and revdel/oversight, just like anything else. No need to make exceptions. ansh 666 17:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

D1
D1 should, I propose, also reflect that a (general) google search should be performed. (In addition to a Google Books search, a Google News archive search, and sometimes GScholar). This is especially important as google has changed its search capabilities, and many articles formerly discoverable under gnews are now only discoverable under a (general) google search. --Epeefleche (talk) 05:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Can somebody please complete the deletion process
Hello. Can somebody please complete the deletion process for Hadith of the succession of Abu Bakr. I have given detailed reasoning for why i think the article should be deleted at the articles talk page. Thankyou very much to whoever takes it up.--58.106.235.75 (talk) 09:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I have started the request for you, it is at Articles for deletion/Hadith of the succession of Abu Bakr. I have given the text that you used on the article's talk page as the rationale for deletion. The debate on the matter will now all take place on that deletion entry page. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:09, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Greatly appreciated for the quick reply and positive response. Thanks again.--58.106.235.75 (talk) 10:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Log/2015 April 1
May I make a suggestion that someone with the time/interest undertake the effort of moving the April Fools nominations to the bottom of Articles for deletion/Log/2015 April 1 (and keep them moved down there as new ones come up)? Maybe even put them in a div to color them differently if that wouldn't break the bots? There are some serious nominations interspersed with them and having the joke nominations makes it difficult to pick them out. For example, I thought when I was scrolling through the page that Women for equality and rights was a joke nomination until I clicked on it and saw that it was actually a non-notable organization, not an article about the concept of gender equality. (I'd do it myself, but (1) it's my bedtime and (2) they're trying to delete me.) --B (talk) 04:33, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Have you considered marking them ? -- Red rose64 (talk) 09:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I've started moving them to the bottom and closing the ones that are already open. I figure it worked well last year, so it'd be worth doing again this year. The problem with leaving them up with the others is that it is hard to pick through them, so moving them to the bottom is the best option here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  09:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I made the same mistake with two of the nominations since they seemed like notable ones at first glance, but they're back in the main list. I almost hate to close some of the conversations since they were pretty funny, but I don't want to run the risk of someone thinking that they were real. Plus I get to make jokes that I tell myself are funny. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  10:05, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen any yet and I'm about to be off Wikipedia for at least a few hours, but now that there's a separate section it should be easier to move them down as people see them. I usually tend to close them just as protocol. I'm looking forward to seeing if anyone can top Articles for extermination/Twelfth Doctor. (Looks specifically at Old Naval Rooftops to top last year's joke AfD nom.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  11:06, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not "topping" it per se, just doing something a bit more creative. ONR (talk) 19:31, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Draft-space copy of a deleted article
Do we allow copies of articles deleted at AFD to continue to exist outside of mainspace? Please see Articles for deletion/Disabled Entrepreneurs and Draft:Disabled Entrepreneurs. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:36, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, we do, provided that it doesn't qualify for speedy deletion - see WP:CSD in particular. -- Red rose64 (talk) 14:44, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Normally yes, "userfy" is a common result of AfD discussions where an article is considered not ready for mainspace, but someone wants to work on them. I can see the same applying to Draft: space ("draftify"?) - if they're not being actively worked on, they may qualify for deletion under WP:G13 or you can bring them up at Miscellany for deletion. Ivanvector (talk) 14:48, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Malformed Articles for deletion/2007–08 NJIT Highlanders men's basketball team
Articles for deletion/2007–08 NJIT Highlanders men's basketball team is malformed. It needs to be properly formatted.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I tagged it for WP:G5 instead. There are no users suggesting it be deleted, other than the user violating their ban who created the page. Ivanvector (talk) 02:38, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Completing deletion process
Hi, could someone please complete the deletion process for the lateral spin valve page? The reasons for deletion are:

a) page provides no information not provided on the wikipedia Spin valve article which is already more detailed and complete. The only source in the "lateral spin valve" article can't be retrieved.

b) lateral spin valves are a type of spin valve and do not merit a separate article. At most they merit a subsection in the spin valve article. There is very little difference between a lateral spin valve and a "regular" spin valve. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.40.130 (talk) 02:15, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Articles for deletion/Lateral spin valve. ansh 666 04:14, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

When the conclusion of a DRV is to relist at AfD
If such a deletion discussion is closed an no consensus, would the default option be to keep or delete the article? -- Fauzan <sup style="margin-left:0.5px;color:#BDB76B">✆ talk <sub style="margin-left:-26.5px;color:#BDB76B">✉ mail  11:33, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Generally I'd say it would default to keep, same as a normal AfD. But it would also depend on why the article was relisted. Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  11:59, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * by relisting drv is implicitly setting the previous afd to one side so the outcome would be the article remains undeleted. Spartaz Humbug! 12:15, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia Page: Biochemical Predestination
Hello. I have read the Wikipedia entry for the book by Dean H. Kenyon and Gary Steinman; "Biochemical Predestination", and I'm not sure it actually merits an article. Surely the book has to be noteworthy in some way? Upon seeing the reviews in the "Reception" section of the article I noted that all of the reviews referred to were from other Creationists. Thinking that perhaps this was simply a deliberate omission, I ran a Google search, but could find not a single review from any source other than Creationists. I then looked at Amazon and found one review which did not actually review the book on US Amazon, no reviews on the UK Amazon. As I came to the page in the first instance to check some claims of a Creationist regarding Dean Kenyon's scientific pedigree, it rather looks as though the article is little more than a constructed prop to bolster the credentials of certain controversial "academics". Certainly, if one were to remove the Wiki-mandated spectacles of "assumption of good faith", one might conclude that the entire piece was a carefully crafted piece of Creationist PR. Does it really merit an article? Would it not be more appropriate to simply refer to it in the Publications section of the authors own pages? I must admit that I am not as familiar with the Wiki guidelines as I might be, so perhaps my reasoning here has been errant. But even should the page not be deleted, there are still some entries of concern that need to be addressed IMHO.Tarquin Q. Zanzibar (talk) 19:10, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * May I suggest that you take this to the Fringe Theories Noticeboard. Alternatively you can just nominate the article for deletion if you think the article does not meet our guidelines. I haven't looked at it but based on what you have noted above, the article may be problematic. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:33, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Follow up I note that the article was created by a highly experienced and respected editor, so I seriously doubt it is a deliberate WP:PROMO piece for a Fringe Theory. That said you have raised some legitimate questions that should be addressed. Creationist issues are usually dealt with on the noticeboard I linked above. Thanks for your efforts to improve the project!. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:41, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced AfD?
Looks like this AfD was misplaced in today's AfD log. Could someone more knowledgeable fix this please? I would just break more stuff trying to do it myself :). GermanJoe (talk) 08:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅. ansh 666 09:49, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Please complete article for deletion process
Could someone with a registered account complete steps II and III for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_%C3%93_Ruanaidh (resumé)
 * OK, done. Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  11:40, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Article moves during the discussion
I just came across an article that was moved to Draft: space during the discussion. Ignoring the merits of the article itself, what is our policy on such a move? How, if at all, does it affect the AFD process?

I see this to be very similar to the blanking of an article during discussion, and the idea of a move to Draft: being an outcome of the discussion. It would be useful either to enshrine this in policy or to see what the policy says, please. Fiddle  Faddle  22:18, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * AFAIK any move of an article to any name (including to another namespace) whilst it is at AfD is discouraged, since the templates on the AfD page then point to the wrong location, and bots get confused. -- Red rose64 (talk) 22:24, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Miapolis
, the article Miapolis does not seem to be listed properly at WP:AFD. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:37, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It's because it was done incorrectly - a previous AfD existed, so this should have been left alone and a fresh nom raised. -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:05, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 *  Reply , agreed, now needs to fix the issue since that user started the AfD. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:21, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Very easy to do. ansh 666 03:29, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Request for auto-sorting of closed entries
There may be a better place to pose this, but here goes anyway: Could Wikipedia's boffins put their heads together and come up with an encoding scheme which auto-sorts closed AfDs (the "blue" ones) to the bottom of each day's list so that the remaining unclosed entries bob to the top? Is is annoying to see something like "20 April (Monday) (13 open / 38 closed / 51 total discussions; open: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13)" ...and realize I'm going to have to open up thirteen tabs (sucking up that much more site bandwidth), or go back and forth 26 times, or spend a lot of time down-clicking.<b style="font-family:georgia; font-size:11pt; color:#BFA3A3"> Pax</b> 06:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Orphanage
People looking to clean up marginal articles in the encyclopedia may be interested in joining WikiProject Orphanage. We have over 100,000 article that are not linked to by any other article. Some just need to be linked or merged in but a fair number are orphans because they appear to have WP:NOTABILITY issues. ~Kvng (talk) 14:56, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Question on an AfD procedure...
I saw an AfD where the following things occurred, in this order:


 * 1) Listed by nom.
 * 2) Delete vote.
 * 3) Relisted by User A (not nom).
 * 4) Two more delete votes.
 * 5) Relisted by same User A as previous relist.
 * 6) User A posts a keep vote three minutes after relist.

I'm leaving out links and names unless this is actionable, but I see several issues here. Oftentimes, one delete vote in the absence of voting has been taken as "consensus", and I think three delete votes (in addition to the nom) in the absence of keep votes is definitely consensus. For a user then to relist the AfD in those circumstances and then cast a keep vote seems a bit questionable to me. Thoughts and an appropriate course of action would be appreciated. MSJapan (talk) 20:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah - that's not good. It should have been deleted at the time of the 2nd relist. 3 delete votes (4 if you include the nom) are plenty as long as they're related to deletion policy.  Did the relister give any reason for the 2nd relist? Black Kite (talk) 20:05, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


 * It looks questionable to me - WP:RELIST says that "if at the end of the initial seven-day period, the discussion has only a few participants (including the nominator), and/or it seems to be lacking arguments based on policy, it may be appropriate for the closer to relist it" - which implies that the action is taken as a potential closer. To then switch hats and immediately participate in a discussion by !voting might be seen as gaming the system. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, if the relister wanted to participate, they should have just placed their Keep vote and left it for someone else. I can't really say more than that without seeing the AfD - the "delete" votes may all have been nonsense. Edit: I've found the AfD, and yes, it should have been closed as delete.  It's just expired again with a 5/2 consensus, so this time I have closed it.  Incidentally, whilst looking, I've found a few more the same.  I appreciate that this is probably someone scanning AfD, seeing a discussion and thinking "hang on, this looks notable to me", but IMO if you're voting in a discussion you shouldn't be doing anything else to it. We probably need a guideline on this. Black Kite (talk) 22:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Relisters relist, closers close. I see no conflict. We have no clear policy saying that things can't be relisted at a time when they could instead have been validly closed, it's a judgement call. OTOH, relistings should carry very little weight when judging a closing argument. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The issue isn't relisting when a close might be seen as appropriate - that is, as you say, a judgement call. The relister shouldn't be !voting afterwards though - it can give the impression (particularly when they are !voting against an apparent consensus) that they relisted because they didn't like the way the discussion had gone, and they wanted to extend it to give it a chance to go the other way. That may not have been the intent in this case, but the potential for gaming the system is there. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not the issue here (otherwise you'd be quite correct). What you shouldn't be doing is coming across an AfD leaning 4/0 to delete, relisting it, and then voting keep.  The re-listing itself is wrong (unless the delete votes are quite terrible) because there's clear consensus, but voting the opposite way afterwards then gives the impression that you re-listed it purely because you wanted to vote against current consensus and give others with your view time to join in.  Black Kite (talk) 06:36, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't actually see relisting and then !voting against a consensus at that time to be a problem. You're certainly permitted to !vote the other way, right up to closure. Relisting I still see as too trivial (in the final judgement) to have an influence, thus a conflict. If it's relisted to give time for some CANVASSing to take effect, then that's a different story - but we'd have to judge that because of the canvassing, not because of the relisting. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:00, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the input (and the action). I didn't want to see this boil up into an RFC, which is why I was vague about it. A guideline would be a great idea, and it would just need to be simple, like "if you are performing any administrative action on an AfD, you may not participate in it." Would this need to go to VP? I wouldn't mind taking a shot at writing something up in any case. MSJapan (talk) 06:14, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:RELIST is a guideline, a bold edit would be enough, I think. Is there actually a policy on discussion closure anywhere?  WP:INVOLVED doesn't really cover it. Black Kite (talk) 06:36, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Relists should only be done when there genuinely is no consensus, but there is a prospect of consensus being established with another week of debate. I'm seeing a lot of relists where it's obvious that the relister doesn't like the way the discussion has gone and is hoping that someone will wander by and vote the other way. I found the debate in question and it really does read a lot like "FINE! If no-one else will vote keep, I guess I'll have to do it myself!" Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  07:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I think it genuinely does not matter unless that particular editor is relisting repetitively on multiple discussions in order to make a point. Even then I am ambivalent about it. Poor articles will be improved, kept or deleted in a reasonably consistent manner, and some will slip through as imperfect keeps or imperfect deletes. Since there is no real deadline for anything on Wikipedia with the exception of the removal of true defamation or true copyright violations, despite repetitive relists being frustrating when we just know the 'correct' outcome, it;s interesting, but not important. In the end I trust the consensus to be correct more often than incorrect, and the timing is whatever it is. Fiddle   Faddle  10:09, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't even really object to it if there genuinely was No Consensus on the AfD. If an AfD is showing, say, one keep and one delete after 7 days, relisting it is obviously correct and therefore I don't think anyone would think voting on it afterwards was at all problematic.  However, when an AfD is showing clear consensus - especially after 14 days - it should be closed.  Not relisted.   Or, the user could simply place their vote, and leave it for another admin to close/relist.  It wouldn't be a pointless exercise - I have in the past relisted debates where there's something of a consensus but the side with the numbers doesn't have as convincing an argument as the other. Black Kite (talk) 11:16, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Muneesh Sappel

 * Delete This article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muneesh_Sappel doesn't look genuine. It looks like more of the publicity of himself. He says: I am Indian and International production designer, art director, costume designer, hair and make-up artist, but i dont see much about him on search engines. There is not much about him on given External links and References on his wiki article.David 08:51, 5 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ManishSrivastava1 (talk • contribs)
 * This is the wrong venue. To nominate the article Muneesh Sappel for deletion, please follow all three steps at WP:AFDHOWTO. I notice that yesterday, you, but failed to follow steps II and III, which is why you were reverted. -- Red rose64 (talk) 10:47, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I've examined the article and went ahead and AfD it as a vanity project. <b style="font-family:georgia; font-size:11pt; color:#BFA3A3"> Pax</b> 10:46, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Dirty Water Brass Band
I have nominated the article Dirty Water Brass Band for Speedy Deletion three separate times, on the grounds that it is about a small street band with no real significance, written by an individual with a direct connection to the band, which also constitutes as promotional. The first two times, the tag was removed by someone using a proxy IP address (I'm assuming the article's author) and the third time by someone who asserted the addition of references constituted notability.

References alone are not sufficient to make an article encyclopedic in nature and simply including a bunch of references should not be construed as establishing significance or notability.
 * Update - The tag was again removed and I was instructed to bring it here, so I am doing so. Ormr2014 (talk) 18:34, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * See Articles_for_deletion for instructions on how to nominate an article for deletion. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 18:37, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I am not nominating this article again. I have done so in good faith on three separate occasions, because I believe this article is an attempt to gain notability for a small relatively unknown band, by individuals directly connected to this band and as such, has no place in an encyclopedic work. But each time, my nomination has been removed with no real discussion. This is not my fight and I will not turn it into some sort of campaign or vendetta. You guys can judge whether or not this article is encyclopedic... Ormr2014 (talk) 18:44, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you're misunderstanding the processes. You nominated for speedy deletion. If someone disagrees then the next step is to have a full discussion about deletion. That discussion won't happen on this page. It will only occur on a separate "Article for Deletion" page. You create this by following the instructions I linked to. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 18:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I'm not very familiar with the whole AFD thing. I hope I did everything right. Ormr2014 (talk) 19:08, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Not quite, but other editors fixed what was missing. If you're going to nominate more articles for deletion in the future you may want to use Twinkle which does all the steps for you. If you have questions, just post to my talk page. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 19:13, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Please complete article for deletion process
Could someone with a registered account complete steps II and III for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockette_Morton

this Article does not meet Wikipedia Notability Guidelines ...Samat lib (talk) 09:11, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You have a registered account, so you can do it yourself! I'll fix the page for you this time, though. Cheers, ansh 666 09:43, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Succès de scandale
Succès de scandale has a broken first nomination and an active 2nd nomination on today's Articles_for_deletion/Log/2015_May_10. Could someone knowledgeable fix this please? Thank you in advance. GermanJoe (talk) 21:15, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅. ansh 666 21:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

VFD
What does "VFD" stand for, and why does it redirect here if it isn't even mentioned on the page?

Attys (talk) 22:10, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Votes for deletion - the predecessor to AFD. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 22:13, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Nomination completion request
Please could somebody create the deletion-discussion page for "2015 Reclaim Brixton protest", and add it to the log.

Thanks, 146.199.151.33 (talk) 03:50, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

nominating articles you want to keep
We have a situation I've never seen - someone nominating their own articles for deletion, yet insisting they do not them to be deleted: Fail AfD is fail. Apparently this was done by nominator/article creator to make a WP:POINT because his feelings were hurt over edits to the article, and something about he was doing it because the other person failed to do it first (?). I explained the WP:G7 situation that nominating your own articles brings up. The discussion reached new levels of WP:LAME with nominator and his sidekick (with a shiny new account) arguing that nowhere does it say that if you nominate an article, you have to want to delete it, and that AfD was a perfectly suitable venue for discussing the article and if it should be nominated for deletion. For the life of me I can't understand why someone would not understand the whole point of nominating an article for deletion. Do we need something on the page that 1) explains that by nominating a page, you are supporting it being deleted and 2) you should not create AfDs for pages you really want to keep just to generate discussion/get feedback - that's what talk pages are for. It seems to me a waste of time to have an AfD discussion when nobody has actually proposed the article be deleted. —Мандичка YO 😜 14:17, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If the article creator does not want the article to be deleted, then you do not have the right to place a G7 on their behalf. That's the exact opposite of what they said they want, and you don't get to put words in other peoples' mouths just because they might have started a discussion in the wrong place. There's already a longish thread about this at ANI, where literally everyone disagrees with you. Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  00:13, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. Anyone should be able to nominate for AfD, whatever their opinion, whether they were involved in the article or not, simply because they think that raising the article for wider debate at AfD will achieve a useful consensus. Sometimes this can be as simple as to silence a disruptive editor on a talk: page sniping "this ought to be deleted", when consensus then produces an obvious consensus to keep it. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think that nominating an article for deletion with a rationale that supports keeping it is questionable - if someone is genuinely arguing that an article should be deleted, they should do it themselves, giving their own rationale, in their own words. And if they aren't prepared to do that after a reasonable discussion, they have no legitimate grounds to continue to argue that the article in question merits deletion. As for the suggestion that self-nominating is somehow equivalent to WP:G7, this is not only unsupported by policy, but Wikilawyering nonsense of the worst kind. AfD discussions are discussions, and not some sort of automated vote where mere participation somehow overrules ones explicitly stated opinion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:22, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * AfDs where the nominator has expressed a desire to keep should theoretically be closed as speedy keep if nobody else has commented, though since they'd realistically only do that if someone else said it should be deleted (in essence, completing a nomination for someone else, which I do all the time), it's probably better to let it stay open. ansh 666  01:41, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Nothing should be closed as "speedy" anything, if no-one else has yet commented. Speedy closure is there for when consensus has become obvious by its volume. If there is no outside comment yet, let it run its course to the expected time. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Using AfD to establish a consensus without a nominators rationale that the article should be deleted, is an interesting topic. AfC creates an article but doesn't really create a consensus that it should exist. It seems unfair to only allow those who wish to delete an article a path to establish a consensus, though creating an AfD discussion while supporting its existence could be viewed as a waste of time (if no one is advocating for it to be deleted). If someone is advocating for an articles deletion on the articles talk page, it seems reasonable to want to get ahead of the horse and establish a consensus. The AfD page doesn't explicitly prohibit starting a deletion discussion while advocating for the article to be kept, but the process is called Articles for Deletion. A theoretical "Article for Retention (AfR)" process would fix this issue, but would lead to unnecessary discussion and more oversight. Many would want to gain consensus for articles that are not contentious, simply for the sake of consensus (as consensus is generally what Wikipedia "runs" on). So we could add the caveat that there had to be advocation for its deletion first, such as discussion on the articles talk page or a proposed deletion. Then again why not add/allow that within the current AfD system, and avoid the theoretical hassle of creating and integrating a new system? Can anyone clarify if nominating an article for deletion (to establish consensus) is allowed if you don't think/advocate that it should be deleted? I read the project page, but it wasn't necessarily clear to me one way or the other. — Godsy (TALK<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;"> CONT ) 04:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't find anything in policy that prohibits the creator of an article from starting a deletion discussion when they themselves don't think it should be deleted. And I see nothing wrong with starting such a discussion in cases where, for example, other people have suggested the article should be deleted and the creator would like to get a consensus - they might be planning to do more work on it, but want to find out first whether that might be wasted, for example. Mr Potto (talk) 08:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * CREEP. ––146.199.151.33 (talk) 13:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This is an unusual process, although there are other situations where an editor starts an AfD discussion without suggesting that the article be deleted. For example, a procedural nomination after a previous result has been overturned at WP:DRV. Or as a courtesy to an IP editor who cannot complete the process. So there is no policy which states that nominating an article at AfD necessarily implies a desire to see it deleted. In this case, i gather, that some other editors indicated in talk messages that they felt the article should not exist, and the creator wished to get a clear consensus decision one way or the other. I see nothing wrong with that, although it may not turn out as the creator had hoped. But the idea that doing this amounts to requesting a G7 speedy deletion is nonsense, a kind of formalist letter over spirit concept foreign to Wikipedia. And even if we were to look only at formal policies, a G7 is only available where there are no substantial contributions by any editor other than the creator, which is not the case here, so any G7 speedy would have been clearly out of process, and subject to prompt overturn at WP:DRV -- which would probably have started an Afd discussion anyway. I htink should drop this procedural argument and simply concentrate on the merits -- or lack of them -- of the article in question. DES (talk) 17:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

AfDs and blocking...
I recently nominated an article for deletion here. It was a second nom, because I stumbled upon the article somehow, and in the interest of trying to copyedit it, I found there was no substantive coverage to back up anything in the article. However, the previous nom had been closed keep because one person voted keep and claimed substantive coverage via Google. Myself and two others clearly found that to be untrue in the followup. The user who voted in the previous nom not only explicitly stated an inclusionist bias, but has since been CU blocked indefinitely.

It leads me to wonder if there is a way (or a strong enough reason) to go back and look at recent AfD votes of indeffed users. In this case, the voter gave no actual proof of his coverage claim other than to cite Google, and was indeffed 2 weeks later. OTOH, nobody pressed the user to offer proof of the vote, and we are supposed to substantiate all votes. To be fair, there was no other input whatsoever on the AfD. Nevertheless, it seems to me like it was a bad-faith vote from the get-go, reinforced by the user's own page. However, I'm saying that in hindsight, and having looked at it. Is it too time-consuming and unwieldy to not take votes at face value or to discount votes with no substantiation as a matter of course? MSJapan (talk) 07:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually, the AfD discussion referenced above as the previous nom was closed as no consensus (by another admin), rather than as keep, likely due to a lack of adequate participation in the discussion. North America1000 07:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes. "Keepers", if their argument turns on the existence of acceptable sources, should explicitly specify some sources in their contribution, or see their vote discounted. Cases similar to this one should be examined, and if sources cannot be found, the article should be renominated drawing attention to the inadequate discussion the time before <b style="color:seagreen">Noyster</b> (talk),  09:40, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree. There is no similar burden of proof on delete votes, which often simply state "fails GNG" when there is clearly sufficient coverage. I don't support putting up obstacles for one side. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If there is clearly sufficient coverage, it should be easy to prove it. You can't demand a similar burden of proof for delete voters claiming there are no sources, because it is inherently much harder to prove a negative, and it is quite sufficient for someone to say "I looked, and couldn't find anything I consider suitable". Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  04:09, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The burden for delete votes is the "I looked" part. Though it is of course impossible to prove that without browser history or something. ansh 666 21:50, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Category:AfD debates relisted 3 or more times - listed for deletion
Category:AfD debates relisted 3 or more times has been nominated for possible deletion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Steel1943 (talk) 04:28, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Scrapy
Complete steps II and III with regards to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrapy Article does not meet notability guidelines — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.68.7.120 (talk) 18:19, 2 June 2015
 * ✅, see Articles for deletion/Scrapy.  Hut 8.5  20:20, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Please help
I've nominated Merovingian (The Matrix) for deletion, but I need someone to help me complete the process. I've posted my deletion rationale on the article's talk page. --110.20.234.69 (talk) 22:51, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Articles for deletion/Merovingian (The Matrix). ansh 666 23:56, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --110.20.234.69 (talk) 00:25, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

This page needs to be looked at.
There are no Anti-Blank pages for any other nation in the Balkans yet other faced persecution. This article should be deleted. Nothing but propaganda aimed and distabalizing factual views and justify war crime and behavior. Anti-Serb Sentiment — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackiechan321 (talk • contribs)


 * There's nothing necessarily illegitimate about such an article, take a look at those in Category:Anti-national sentiment. "We don't have an article on X" won't go down well at AfD, at best that's an argument to write that other article.  Hut 8.5  19:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

The Ultimate Matrix Collection
Please help me complete the deletion discussion for The Ultimate Matrix Collection. I have posted my rationale for deletion on the talk page.--110.20.234.69 (talk) 22:19, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done. Articles for deletion/The Ultimate Matrix Collection created and added to the daily log.-- Finngall  <font color="#D4A017">talk  22:44, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Tachikawa-ryu
Could someone please complete the second and third step for me? Thank you. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 01:38, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅: Articles for deletion/Tachikawa-ryu (2nd nomination). ansh 666 02:21, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 02:24, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Laurie Patton entry, and Twinkle
I attempted to nominate Laurie Patton for deletion, and Twinkle failed to create the appropriate pages, with an "Invalid Token" error. The log shows a link in a different section, but has not properly sectioned it. The appropriate page was not created. Could someone please assist me with manual creation and correction of the malformed content? Thanks in advance!  Scr ★ pIron IV 18:34, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of "***This Is Not a Test***"
I need some help here. This page for an album was created when the album didn't have much information out other than tracklisting, release date, and title. The "***" before "This" and after "Test" turned out to be stylization, but was included in the article's name. So how would I go about asking for this page to be deleted? Much thanks. Ilovechristianmusic (talk) 02:06, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you mean This Is Not a Test!. I can't find an article that has asterisks in its Wikipedia title.  What article do you mean?  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:21, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I found a redirect at ***This Is Not a Test***, it may be what they are talking about. As we don't require much for a redirect, I don't think its a problem. Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  02:52, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Apparent double standards
I see a problem with the AfD policy being enforced apparently haphazardly (or else an attempt to forcefully silence someone's view point that certain people do not agree with.) On https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Frank_R._Wallace there is a tag that this page was nominated for deletion, and that the decision was to keep it, apparently still able to be viewed and read by people. However, the article's talk page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Neo-Tech says the decision was to keep, more specifically, the discussion archived at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Neo-Tech shows a different page than what is there now, and yet, somehow, that version of the page WAS deleted. There is no way in hell that the discussion being hashed out was all over a disambiguation page. Not cool WP. 32.212.104.223 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:54, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * There were two discussions about a decade apart. The template was just pointing to the wrong, older one from 2004. I've fixed it to point towards the more recent one that is relevant to the content currently there. Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  03:00, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * An independent review:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Neo-Tech was an AFD that ran from 29 Nov 2004 to 6 Dec 2004 (actually it was a VFD, votes for deletion, then later retitled), on an article then named "Neo-Tech"
 * That Neo-Tech article indeed was not the disambiguation page currently located at Neo-Tech which dates from 4 November 2005
 * History of current "Neo-Tech" (disambig page)] shows that the former page that was there was moved to Neo-Tech (philosophy) on 4 November 2005.
 * Neo-Tech (philosophy) is now a redirect, but after it redirects you, you can scroll to top of page then you can click to go back to the redirect page.
 * History of that Neo-Tech (philosophy) article] shows it was started in 23 December 2004, was redirected to Frank R. Wallace on 9 September 2006 with edit summary saying that was a result of Articles for deletion/Neo-Tech (philosophy) (3rd nomination). Note the 23 December 2004 date is after the VFD/AFD;  the current history of "Neo-Tech (philosophy)" does not contain the original Neo-Tech article that existed before 30 November 2004 when the VFD/AFD started.
 * I deduce there must have been an AFD named something like Articles_for_deletion/Neo-Tech_(philosophy)_(2nd nomination) which I can't find. It could have concluded "Delete" and then the original Neo-Tech article would have been really deleted, gone.  Presumably the 2nd AFD started soon after the first AFD closed on 6 December 2004, and was closed before 23 December 2004 and the article was deleted.  Because a new Neo-Tech article was created on 23 December 2004.
 * 19 March 2014 the Neo-Tech (philosophy) redirect was revised to go to Frank R. Wallace instead of to Frank R. Wallace.
 * I don't know what practices were in the past, but if you close an AFD now you are supposed to put a report at the Talk page of the latest AFD you are closing, using template:old afd multi and also linking to all previous AFDs. I don't see how to find the 2nd AFD.  When the 3rd AFD was closed with redirect outcome, and the report/link was given at Talk:Neo-Tech (philosophy)that was the time that the 1st and 2nd AFDs should have been reported/linked
 * As the I.P. editor points out there is a notice at Talk:Frank R. Wallace about an AFD (Articles for deletion/Frank R. Wallace) being closed keep...that was a different AFD about the Frank R. Wallace article itself (not about the Neo-Tech article) in 2007
 * The I.P. editor is right about some facts, but then suggests there was some page that was suppressed / has disappeared. I don't understand what, if anything, is not available to be seen in history at "Neo-Tech", "Neo-Tech (philosophy)", besides the original Neo-Tech article (from before 30 November 2004 that would have been deleted after the 2nd AFD closed "Delete" sometime between 6 December 2004 and 23 December 2004.  To the I.P., if you want that old deleted article, you can ask for a copy of it and an administrator would provide it.  (Maybe you have to be logged in for your request to be honored, so the admin can email it to your email account.)
 * I didn't know what editor Monty845 is speaking of, about 2 AFDs being a decade apart. If somewhere there is a "template... just pointing to the wrong, older one from 2004", perhaps that should be kept and another template should be added pointing to the "right, newer one"?  Oh, it is Talk:Neo-Tech, the dab page, which was up for deletion in 2014, with Articles for deletion/Neo-Tech (2nd nomination) closing Keep.  Hmm, the 2014 AFD does provide links to related AFDs: Articles for deletion/Neo-Tech, Articles for deletion/Neo-Tech (2nd nomination), Articles for deletion/Neo-Tech (philosophy), Articles for deletion/Neo-Tech (philosophy) (3rd nomination).  As I deduced above, there must have been an "Articles for deletion/Neo-Tech (philosophy) (2nd nomination)" that is missing.
 * To the I.P. editor, the 2014 AFD was clearly about just a dab page and closed keep. You are right that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Neo-Tech, back in 2004, was about an article not a dab page.  But nothing has been suppressed.  Monty485's edit just now corrected the notice at Talk:Neo Tech about the page being nominated for deletion (in 2014) so that it now points to the correct, 2014 AFD discussion.  There is no "double standards" problem.
 * Perhaps an issue contributing to confusion in this system is that the Old AfD multi notices assert "This page" without identifying what "This page" was named at the time. There's just a message like "This page was nominated for deletion on July 29, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep but cleanup."  What should be given is a message like "This page (named Neo-Tech (philosophy) at nomination date) was nominated for deletion on July 29, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep but cleanup."
 * Hope this helps. Too long to read?  Tough.  Was the I.P. serious or just trolling?  I don't know. -- do  ncr  am  04:26, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I am being serious here, and the issue was the appearance of double standards. If it is resolved, I am happy, however, from further reading, it seems that certain people were attacking the original page by what was called revert wars. But to me, it seems that if the issue is that there are problems with a page (admitted, I have no idea what was on the original), then the first instinct should be to fix what is on the page, not delete it. Judging by the fact that there was apparently 3 different requests to delete the page, not so sure that enough effort was made to try to fix the problem, just sweep it under the proverbial rug. I read on some of the pages that a user named Bi was apparently the latest requester, and apparently had made a joke page disparaging Neo-Tech (or Neo Tech or however), and to me, it looks like the only reason for the request was apparently some sort of personal issue they had with it. Some of the comments about the personal attack on this wiki was made by me, but that was based on what I have seen here and elsewhere. 32.212.104.223 (talk) 04:36, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

(addition to above) I also checked the history at the page I first listed as the talk page, and following that page's listed history doesn't clear up the previous confusion any. Just an observation, no good or bad either way to me as the issue was already resolved. 32.212.104.223 (talk) 05:30, 20 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you to the I.P. editor for following up. I think you are considering matters of some conflict back in 2007 only, about the Frank R. Wallace article and/or the Neo-Tech (philosophy) article.  I see no issue going on now, so I could just say so what it is old and dismiss it.  But in fact I don't dismiss the possibility that an 2007 conflict is worth reviewing in 2015, eight years later...I do think some reviews of big past disagreements should be done.  One reason is that now, much later, it could be determined that any "resolution" back then was effectively "wrong", and perhaps some editors were driven away from the area or from Wikipedia altogether due to the conflict, when they were "right".  Much later, after Wikipedia's policies and practices have developed a lot, it could be relatively easy to come to a consensus judgment that what happened was "bad", and some effort to make amends could still be made, e.g.
 * . compose an apology statement, get several current editors to sign, try to deliver that to the old editors; and advertise it by links from relevant Talk pages
 * . jointly edit the article(s) now to try to implement any part of what should have been done back then).
 * . add a note about the conflict and the current consensus judgment onto some running list of important past conflicts, for purpose of Wikipedia editors learning from them (is there such a list?)
 * Anyhow, back in 2007 what looks to me like the center of the conflict was disagreement between an editor "Bi" and an editor "Bridge & Tunnel" about validity of certain sources. history of the Neo-Tech (philosophy) article shows some back-and-forth editing...some big deletions and corresponding additions. One attempted to have the article deleted by an AfD which closed keep.  Then that one opened an RFC to discuss the sources, which was never really concluded...there was no formal closure.  Both those editors seemed to have a decent case and were very determined.  Whoever created a joke page outside of Wikipedia to influence this was out of line, IMHO.  Personal attacks, if there were any, should not have been tolerated.  There was at least one wp:ANI proceeding.  Who won in the end?  I am not that interested to really consider the content and sources being discussed, to figure out where I myself would make the judgement.  And I haven't tried to figure out what the outcome really was...did the sources get in and stay in, were they pushed out, what happened to the editors involved.  The current Frank R. Wallace article looks "okay" to me--and maybe like editor Bi "won"--though I don't know what good info was suppressed and should be there.  Neo-Tech (philosophy) is a redirect to a very short section in the Frank R. Wallace area;  it looks like that is given short shrift in Wikipedia today.  Offhand it seems to me that perhaps it should be revisited, and perhaps Neo-Tech should be explained more, at least in that section within the FRWallace article.
 * To the I.P. editor, yes, it looks like there was conflict. Today, there is conflict going on in many other topic areas.  It happens.  Sometimes one or two good editors coming anew to an area can make a difference and help really settle something;  sometimes disagreement will exist forever.  Just because there were 3 AfDs on one topic doesn't mean injustice was done;  it means there was disagreement that continues.  Bad behavior during disagreement should not be accepted.  There are some processes in Wikipedia that address bad behavior, although very imperfectly.  There are processes that support good review of sources (hopefully better now than then). Your reading of the past conflict seems probably reasonable.  You should open an account and get involved.  It's better to start editing in a non-controversial area, to learn for a while, before entering into an area of deep conflict. -- do  ncr  am  17:42, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Articles with Arabic titles
I would like to see a policy to the effect that articles with foreign-language titles that have english translations can be deleted.

My beef is this: I keep coming across articles about aspects of Islam that rely heavily on arabic terminology. These articles are typically written in ungrammatical english, and are peppered with arabic technical terms that are not defined in the article. Frequently these technical terms link to a page with an arabic title, which in turn relies on a slew of arabic technical terms.

I hasten to point out that I am not proposing the mass-deletion of articles about Islam; on the contrary, these are articles that I have tried to read out of interest. Rather, I am suggesting that articles in the english Wikipedia should be written in english, and should not require a knowledge of arabic (or any other foreign language) in order to be understandable.

MrDemeanour (talk) 09:07, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not the correct page to start a discussion about terminology. Try WP:MOS or WP:VPP. --Hegvald (talk) 10:23, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think that is asking about terminology. If the article is in Arabic, and an English-language page also exists, mark it ; if the article is in Arabic but an English-language page doesn't exist, mark it  and send it to WP:PNT. -- Red rose64 (talk) 15:19, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm not referring to articles that are written in a foreign language, but to articles that make extensive use of unexplained foreign terms or have foreign-language titles, where those terms or titles could have been rendered in english. MrDemeanour (talk) 07:57, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If it's got an Arabic title, but is otherwise in English, WP:MOVE it to the English title. If that already exists, propose a WP:MERGE. -- Red rose64 (talk) 11:39, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * could you give a few examples? It's not that I don't believe you, but it would be useful to see some of these firsthand. Thanks, ansh 666 22:42, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * OK. I picked a random term related to Islam: 'dhimmi'. In the first para of the lede, two arabic terms are used but not explained (but they are wikilinks): 'jizya tax' and 'zakat tax'. These words evidently mean something like 'dhimmi capitation tax' and 'alms tax'. But why do I have to follow wikilinks to find that out? In other words, why can the article not be written in english, with (optional) references to the corresponding arabic terminology?
 * My point is that an english-language encyclopaedia should enable me to investigate a subject without having to acquire a translation of some foreign term for every other sentence I read. The terms should be translated *in the article*, perhaps with the foreign term made available parenthetically.
 * This is a general problem with Wikipedia, IMO. Articles tend to use obscure jargon, and rely on wikilinks to enable the reader figure out what is being referred to. But this is a particular problem in articles on Islam, perhaps because (some?) Moslems consider that the Quran *must* be read in arabic if it is to be correctly understood. Whatever the reason, many articles on Islam cannot be understood by a non-arabic speaker without following numerous wikilinks simply in order to obtain a translation. And note that the article on 'jizya' is quite a bit longer than the article on 'dhimmi', which is the term I was notionally researching in the first place.
 * In summary, I simply think that an article in an english encyclopaedia should not require me to obtain *any* translations of terms from non-english languages in order to parse the language of the article. Of course, I may not as a result understand the article; but at least I know what it says, without using a dictionary.
 * MrDemeanour (talk) 09:25, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This is the sort of thing that MOS:INTRO should cover. -- Red rose64 (talk) 12:29, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Helping in posting AfD request
Could somebody please complete the AfD request for Isa dreams? I have added my reasons for seeking deletion on the article's talk page here. Much appreciated.--58.106.251.124 (talk) 02:18, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Done Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  13:49, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

The Peace and Freedom Band, proposed deletion.
Proposed deletion of:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Peace_%26_Freedom_Band

No references for the last 2 years, the only ones I could find in a search were obscure blogs.

87.112.176.188 (talk) 14:32, 9 July 2015 (UTC)G. MacKenzie87.112.176.188 (talk) 14:32, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Please see Articles for deletion/The Peace & Freedom Band. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:44, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Eastern Rainbow
I'd like to propose the following article for deletion:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Rainbow

No references in the last 10 years & I could only find one obscure mention on a search.

Thank you,

87.114.21.213 (talk) 07:19, 10 July 2015 (UTC) G. MacKenzie.
 * This is the wrong page to propose an article for deletion. See WP:PROD for full instructions. -- Red rose64 (talk) 12:28, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Peace and Freedom Press
No references in the last 10 years. This seems to be mostly a self-publishing venture with little to find on a search apart from small pamphlets on Amazon.

Too obscure for an encyclopedia.

87.114.21.213 (talk) 07:29, 10 July 2015 (UTC) G. MacKenzie.
 * There is no article named "Peace and Freedom Press", nor has one ever existed. In any case, this is the wrong page: see WP:DELETE for advice on how to get a page deleted. -- Red rose64 (talk) 12:28, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Peace and Freedom Magazine
Strangely the only references to the 'Peace and Freedom magazine' I could find online deals with a completely different magazine which isn't on Wikipedia.

The magazine listed here on Wikipedia is an obscure fanzine. Too obscure for an encyclopedia?

Again, no references listed in the last 10 years.

87.114.21.213 (talk) 07:36, 10 July 2015 (UTC) G. MacKenzie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.21.213 (talk)
 * As noted in the two sections above, this is the wrong page. Presumably you mean either or ; both of those are redirects, so unless one of the speedy deletion criteria applies, you need to take it to WP:RFD. -- Red rose64 (talk) 12:28, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

The full documentary is available for watching
Before this article is deleted(?) here is some info I gleaned from one of the  references. It is the url of a website where one can watch the full documentary and form their own opinion of its value; : http://planet.infowars.com/health/seeds-of-death-full-movie-march-against-monsanto-special-gary-null-releases-his-movie-seeds-of-death Ottawahitech (talk) 19:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Goldbach (Tollense)
Could somebody please fix the AfD for Goldbach (Tollense). Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 23:06, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorted, I think. Header added to the discussion page and nomination added to the log. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:38, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you JMHamo (talk) 23:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Article prefix/namespace bug
A MediaWiki bug (T87645) resulted in a number of articles intended for other namespaces being created within namespace 0 on January 27th 2015. A number of these (listed below) were related to the AfD discussions. All have now been superseded by entries in the correct namespace.

I intend to delete the misplaced articles of the next few days. It may appear from the deletion logs that I am deleting archived discussions that are intended to be retained - please don't be alarmed, I am only removing duplicate articles that are not normally accessible. The 'normal' versions of the archived discussions will remain accessible to all.

Cheers. - TB (talk) 09:36, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * All of the above have been deleted now. - TB (talk) 11:06, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Joombas Music Group discography
per this dif, honoring newbie editor's intention to withdraw their comment here by striking per REDACT Jytdog (talk) 22:53, 22 July 2015 (UTC) I do not understand the reason why this page has to be deleted.. We've only listed all the works that our company/CEO Hyuk Shin took part in. Joombas Music Group discography page was made in order to list all the works we've done for people to know what kind of songs we produce and write. Although our company does not OWN the song anymore, all we have listed are the songs we took in part of (producing and writing). Joombas Music Group is a well-known production company in South Korea producing EXO - Growl (Multi Platinum). We not only produce and write songs but we have released our very own singer Dean (South Korean singer). As of right now, we only have listed the works we've took part in (WE DO NOT OWN THE ARTISTS LISTED. WE ONLY HAVE LOYALTY FOR ALL THE SONGS LISTED). But according to @C.Fred, we are NOT allowed to even list any of our work unless our label owns the singer.. Instead of deleting our page.. I wish you guys could just help us fix our problem with references and citations. Instead of deleting our page without specific reasoning. Josephyangjoombas (talk) 21:58, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * You seem to be under a gross misapprehension regarding the purpose of Wikipedia. This is an online encyclopaedia, not a webhosting service. It isn't your page, it is ours, and we will decide what content is appropriate. If you wish to argue against deletion, you must do so at Articles for deletion/Joombas Music Group discography - but before doing so, I suggest that you familiarise yourself with Wikipedia policies on neutral point of view, conflict of interest, notability and reliable sourcing. We really aren't interested in what your label wishes to include on the page - what matters is whether the article is appropriate for an encyclopaedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm okay with people editing onto the page. but someone's gotta start the page right? instead of deleting without any reasoning.Josephyangjoombas (talk) 22:53, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: I copied the comment above (now struck) to the AfD page, but forgot to come back to leave a note. Please keep discussion in one place. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Pornogrind
I think Pornogrind might be a good candidate for a merge with Grindcore. CombatMarshmallow (talk) 06:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Please see my reply at above. -- Red rose64 (talk) 08:47, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Bandana thrash
Bandana_thrash should be merged with Thrashcore. Hope these are helpful. CombatMarshmallow (talk) 06:49, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Please see my reply at above. -- Red rose64 (talk) 08:47, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Raicore
I have never went through this process. I hope this is ok the way I present this. Raicore needs to be deleted or merged with: Taqwacore CombatMarshmallow (talk) 06:34, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not the page to make these requests. If you want two articles merged, the instructions are at WP:MERGE. If you want a article deleted, the instructions are at WP:DELETE. For more general advice on the suitability of your proposals, ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Music genres task force. -- Red rose64 (talk) 08:47, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Great Thank you. I thought this was the one. Ill read more. CombatMarshmallow (talk) 14:44, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Mass AFD of pageant articles
,, and are off to the races nominating beauty pageant articles for deletion. I'm not a fan of these pageant articles myself but this AFD campaign is getting out of control. If you can't find sources for Reinado Internacional del Café or Míster España then something is wrong. I practically tripped over them on my way to Google. I get it with things like Miss Cotopaxi, but let's not throw the baby out with the bath water. I would really rather be doing something else with my time than looking up beauty pageants. Please make a good faith effort at WP:BEFORE, with the cut-and-paste rationales and the obvious sources on some of these things the effort is looking a tad weak. Cheers, Vrac (talk) 02:34, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * 1 - I haven't nominated any pageant articles at all this year (or even last year for that matter), 2 - Most if not all of these never have any brilliant sources either so sorry but no I'm not !voting Keep on pageants that have no articles on News sites, Ofcouse if you can find sources then add them to the AFDs!. – Davey 2010 Talk 02:42, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Not every tiny pageant is notable, sources or no sources. By now even a Bonny Baby Pageant can get press coverage but that makes the pageant or the winners not notable. The same with preliminary rounds like the series of provincial Ecuadorian pageants. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 09:24, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem with you two is that you always and indiscriminately vote "delete" at beauty pageant AfDs without checking the article or the sources or the web. (Davey cast at one time 8 !votes in less than 2 minutes, using the same copy/pasted "rationale".) Several of these pageant articles were kept, some of them unanimously against the nominator. I think a topic ban from pageant AfDs should be considered for Davey2010 and The Banner, because their biased, pre-conceived "votes" do not add anything to the discussion, and mislead admins who are not familiar with some of the AfD regulars. Kraxler (talk) 19:17, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Most if not all of the pageants here are not notable, I do look for sources and half the time it's either Facebook or other crappy stuff, With all respect tho I have also !voted Keep in a few, As for "My !votes" not adding anything to the discussion" - Sorry but that's just bollocks! - If I can't find anything notability-wise then the obvious !vote is Delete! .... – Davey 2010 Talk 19:47, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Give me a link to any beauty pageant AfD where you voted keep. I checked your AfD stats and didn't find any. But I may be mistaken. Kraxler (talk) 00:40, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately it was months ago and since then I've voted in millions, I remember there were some I !voted Keep and some I originally !voted Delete but changed to Keep...., Also I forgot to say but with any AFD if sources are found I do 9 times out of 10 change my !vote - Only reason I haven't done so this week is because I've barely been on and haven't bothered checking any AFD I voted in(bar 2 pageant ones) since Monday but by the time I looked they were closed so couldn't do much. – Davey 2010 Talk 01:26, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * And yet after responding to this conversation saying you wouldn't vote keep on pageants that have no news sources, you went directly to the two AFD's in question and voted delete with your same copy-and-paste rationale, even though news sources were clearly posted there and I had notified you in this opening paragraph that there were plenty of sources. Vrac (talk) 01:35, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I'm just too tired but you've lost me there ? .... I haven't voted keep yet and I haven't got any pings either ?, Well I've looked through my contribs and the AFDs I've commented on there's no pings for me so I dunno! – Davey 2010 Talk 15:27, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Lame. Vrac (talk) 21:20, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Twat. – Davey 2010 Talk 21:39, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hahahaha I suspected you would eventually show us your true character. There it is! Vrac (talk) 10:25, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not a fan of baiting people until you succeed in provoking them, then gloating about it. We've now seen your true character as well, and you do not compare favourably with Davey2010. Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  13:50, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * What are you 5 ? .... If you're going to call me Lame you're going to get called a Twat simple as!, There was absolutely no need to call me Lame at all!, But whatever!, If anything does happen here could someone kindly leave a message as I'm Unwatching this page before I end up telling Vrac what I really think of him. – Davey 2010 Talk 15:17, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Davey, I just found Articles for deletion/Miss Earth 2015 which you closed as "keep" (the !vote being unanimous) instead of adding a drive-by-copy/paste "delete" vote. I wish you would return to a more mature approach to AfD: even if the article looks like trash, just take a few minutes to check out whether it really is trash, and try to write a unique rationale for every AfD !vote. AfD is not a 100 metres run where fractions of seconds are decisive. Take your time, or don't opine. Kraxler (talk) 17:22, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope you're right I should be careful and I will be from hereon in. – Davey 2010 Talk 19:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I would endorse a topic ban proposal. There is strong evidence of an unhealthy vendetta against pageant articles, irrespective of the events' coverage, even when evidence of such coverage has been provided for them. Vrac (talk) 22:06, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it's just housekeeping. 99% of beauty pageants and 99.9% of contestants are simply not notable. Guy (Help!) 22:25, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I only looked at two of them and they were both no-brainer keeps. I must either be really unlucky or 99% is a bit of an exaggeration.  At any rate pageant articles don't interest me at all so I'm not going looking at any others.  It is disappointing, however, when you provide obvious evidence of notability and get people voting delete with the same cut-and-paste rationale regardless.  It begs the obvious questions about good faith and why WP:BEFORE is being ignored. Vrac (talk) 22:37, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose topic ban for both. Disagreeing about notability and sourcing standards is not grounds for expulsion from AfD. I also do not understand why people are OK with producing a multitude of virtually identical articles, are OK with copy and paste keep votes, yet freak out if someone uses the same delete rationale for two cookie-cutter identical articles suffering from exactly the same faults. Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  13:55, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not unsympathetic to the sentiment that copy and paste articles might deserve copy and paste delete votes. But what happened here is more than that, the problem here is the blatant disregard of WP:BEFORE.  Take a look at these three edits, and the times and sequence in which they happened:
 * 22:42, 23 July 2015 Edit summary = "No"
 * 22:57, 23 July 2015 Mister Espana AFD vote
 * 23:00, 23 July 2015 Reinado AFD vote
 * In the middle of these edits are other delete votes at other pageant AFD's with the same copy and paste rationale. So I notify them that there are plenty of sources for these two articles, I post the sources in the AFDs, they respond saying they won't vote keep unless there are news sources, then they go straight to the AFD's in question to vote Delete.  I can't imagine a more cut and dried case of deliberate disregard of WP:BEFORE.  They actually said "No" in the edit summary, presumably as a response to the request to make an effort at WP:BEFORE.  Perhaps you can understand how I would get frustrated when they say they are "too tired" or "I dunno" when confronted.  Ok, I'll take the trout for using the word "lame".  Let's call it "extremely thin".  I get it that people don't like these articles, I don't like them either, but it is indisputable that these two articles pass GNG.  If people so desperately want to get rid of these things that they ignore overwhelming evidence, even when it's presented to them, even when they are confronted and reminded of WP:BEFORE, then there is a problem. As for calling someone a t**t, well that pretty much speaks for itself. Vrac (talk) 18:21, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope I admit I failed to spot those somehow - (In my defense It was an extremely long week and in hindsight I damn well shouldn't have !voted in those and I'm sorry that for that), Anyway if it'd make everyone happy I'll stop with the quick !voting & will pay more attention but Could I point something out a minute - It's only "The Banner" that nominates these - If he doesn't nominate them there isn't any problems ? – Davey 2010 Talk 19:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose topic ban but suggest formal admonishment, however that works. Automatically blanket-nominating articles of a certain topic area is a fairly egregious violation of WP:AGF, WP:NOTCLEANUP, and WP:BEFORE, and pretty disruptive if they're obvious keeps, but also fairly minor in the grand scheme of things. Closing admins can see through hollow, baseless rationale, so mass nominations and cut-and-paste !votes are just a waste of their time is all. It's not like they're going around blanking the articles against consensus - they think the articles should be deleted so they bring them to the deletion venue, which is the proper procedure. at least is sort of known for being overzealous with deletion (I'm not familiar with the other editors) but that's not inherently bad unless good articles are being deleted, and I don't observe that that's the case. Since this is going off the rails quickly, can I suggest closing this thread? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:22, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Nice one, anybody has seen this: User:Alberto flood? <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 14:37, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No need to use straw man arguments here, The Banner. There's nothing wrong with nominating trash to be dumped in the garbage bin. The discussion here was about nominating articles for deletion (see for example Articles for deletion/Miss Globe International (2nd nomination), Articles for deletion/Miss Suriname and Articles for deletion/Miss Earth 2015), or !voting "delete", in clear cases of established notability. Feel yourself formally admonished by Ivanvector, for the abovementioned reasons. Kraxler (talk) 17:22, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Note This is not the appropriate forum for discussion of sanctions against editors for perceived misconduct. If you want a topic ban or any other action against an editor, you need to take this to WP:ANI. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:24, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * A topic ban was not formally proposed, I only mentioned it as a possiblity. Certainly it would have been to be debated at ANI, but I don't think that it's necessary to go there. Attention has been called to the problem, and we'll see how things develop. Kraxler (talk) 17:22, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Incase no one wants to read it all I've said above I'll stop with the copy/paste !votes & will stop !voting as soon as the AFD's on the log. – Davey 2010 Talk 19:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Current discussions: indexing by date
The first line under the "Current discussions" subheading reads: Articles being considered for possible deletion are indexed by the day on which they were first listed.

They aren't. Take a look - many of the discussions shown under a given date were relisted on that date, and first listed several weeks earlier.

Would be appreciated if this could be fixed, as it would make it very much easier to find older discussions in most need of further input, now that the very useful bot that used to list these is out of action <b style="color:seagreen">Noyster</b> (talk),  09:40, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Worse, at least two still-open discussions are not currently shown at all under "Current discussions": Planio (opened 9 July, relisted 16 July) and Proportional approval voting (opened 19 June, relisted 26 June). There may be more <b style="color:seagreen">Noyster</b> (talk),  19:34, 2 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I was just asking about this.  Planio isn't listed anywhere. Vrac (talk) 01:01, 3 August 2015 (UTC)  Ooops, I meant, sorry Kraxler got my K's mixed up... Vrac (talk) 01:04, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The what links here for the AFD: Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Planio doesn't show any logs linking to it. It was in the July 16th log but I think something happened during relist, there was an edit conflict and the entry got commented out. Come to think of it I came to the AFD via deletion sorting, and the meat puppets found it because, well, they're meat puppets :) Vrac (talk) 01:14, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I added them to Monday's (July 27) log, if necessary, they can be relisted. Kraxler (talk) 01:19, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Jeff Friedl
(and any others):

The article Jeff Friedl has been re-created. It has been deleted twice before: [ once in 2009] and [ once earlier this year] after an AfD. The AfD notes that there was no prejudice, so a better article on the topic would be acceptable. I have no knowledge of the topic, nor was I involved in the previous discussion, so I have no idea if the current article is any better than the previous one. Is this article a good candidate for G4 Speedy Delete and/or is it any better than the previous incarnation (possibly worth keeping this time to see if it gets better)? --Unready (talk) 02:14, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I've moved it to Draft:Jeff_Friedl and will attempt to engage with the creator. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:54, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It fails any notability guidelines. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I think moving to draft was exceedingly kind, but they should have a short rope. This article has been repeatedly recreated on two different pages Jeff Friedl and Jeff friedl. --Dweller (talk) 08:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I had no clue the first deletion happened, and was involved in trying to punch up the content to stave off the second deletion. There was no mention of a prior deletion in the second one. The content here is a smidge dated (eg, uses future-tense for a release in 2010) but seems to be better-written. I'm only here because I got the direct notification; I'm swamped at work and can only likely help it out a bit. I'm confused with the comments by Dweller. There is no shadowy "they" who is resubmitting. The fact that he's getting added by different folks over time is a signal that folks think him missing is an error. :-) Can you be more specific WRT "It fails any notability guidelines"? Mentioning his awards, fan base, and notable contributions would help I expect. What's truly lacking in your perspective? --jzp (talk) 12:52, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * All it needs to do is pass WP:V. Several in-depth references to him in reliable sources. That's it. --Dweller (talk) 07:48, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/Jeff Friedl will give you some ideas. Read the delete comments. --Dweller (talk) 07:56, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/MV Nimpkish
Can someone please close this Afd? It's been open long enough now. Mjroots (talk) 16:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Tarek El Moussa
This AfD has been open for nearly three months. What's the best course here for closure/cleanup? Thanks. -- Finngall <font color="#D4A017">talk  15:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd say that it falls under "No consensus to delete". Although three months is strictly correct, it's been properly listed for a month now. Will close shortly. Mjroots (talk) 16:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I relisted it, because even though it was "properly listed", it was under a >2 week old log which few people would have looked at. I don't think there's any harm in getting some more eyes on it. ansh 666 17:00, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * So I noticed. Oh well, another week can't do any harm. Mjroots (talk) 17:02, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Quick question
If I had the same concern over a large group of articles (namely quite a few of these), how would I go about that? I don't think I can bundle them, per the instructions on the page, but it would be a real pain for everybody to make a ton of AfDs. Should I start a RfC? Any advice is appreciated. Kharkiv07 ( T ) 01:21, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Out of curiosity I searched for area code AFDs, it appears that there is a long-standing consensus that they are notable: Articles for deletion/Area code 704, Articles for deletion/Area code 856. Vrac (talk) 03:09, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Considering that the last AFD was over 8 years ago I don't think that there would be any harm is trying another one to see if the consensus has changed in that timeframe though there is no guarantee that anything has changed. If the AFD rule is chosen I would recommend only staring with one article as a test case before considering nominating on mass.--174.91.187.234 (talk) 23:59, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I will oppose deletion of Area code articles. According to Wikipedia's Five pillars, Wikipedia incorporates aspects of a Gazetteer. This is precisely the type of article that should be included in a 21st century encyclopedia with nearly 5 million articles. By the way, I use these articles regularly in my business. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  01:30, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I would suggest an RFC on whether to consider Area Codes notable, if you want to asses current consensus, rather than an AfD which may not make it clear to people that you are looking for a new consensus. DES (talk) 17:14, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Bubble point
An IP has tried to nominate one of the articles I have created for deletion and done a poor job of it. I think this may be retaliation for one of my AFD noms and don't think it has any merit. Would someone either create and transclude the AFD or delete it and remove the tag from the article? shoy (reactions) 15:27, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Taken care of. Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  21:52, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

AfD withdrawn
I have withdrawn the AfD here, though one responder (partially) agrees with me, so I'm not closing it myself. If someone wants to close it, would be fine. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 10:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  10:40, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Journey to the Source: Decoding Matrix Trilogy
Could someone please complete my nomination of Journey to the Source: Decoding Matrix Trilogy for deletion? --110.20.234.69 (talk) 02:54, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ by User:Drmies. GermanJoe (talk) 11:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Deleting articles on non-english wikipedia.
How would one propose deletion on the German Wikipedia? Anmccaff (talk) 14:51, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * See de:Wikipedia:Löschkandidaten. For other languages, interlanguage links are available in the left-side menu from our WP:AFD page. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:22, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Is there no requirement, official or otherwise, to contact original authors?
A bot post on my talk page led me eventually to this AfD. In spite of making recent edits to the page, exactly zero effort was expended to contact the authors of the article to see what might be done. Is it not the case that there is supposed to be at least some effort to contact the involved parties? Or does AfD work entirely as judge, jury and executioner? Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:56, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe the expectation is that the person who created the article will be notified (unfortuantely sometimes they are the person who originally created it as a redirect rather than adding content...). I see there's a notification at User talk:Benthegazebo (found by looking at Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rescue!), so presumaby they were that creating editor. Beyond that it's useful to add an article to your watch list if it's important to you. Pam  D  18:27, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree with PamD, the convention is to notify the creator and any major or active contributors as a courtesy, but it is not strictly required. If you use a tool like Twinkle, it defaults to notifying the page creator but that behaviour can be disabled. The only times that I know of where we require notifying users is if their conduct is being discussed at one of the dramah boards administrative noticeboards. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:29, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Active major contributors like me? The guy that added 50% of the article content about a month before listing? Something that is obvious from the History, one that doesn't even take up one whole page? Come on, it's not like this would be unreasonable to ask for!
 * And please don't try to put this back on the authors. There is simply no way that a contributor can keep up with other people's edits. I have ~7500 new articles and perhaps 50k edits, there is no mechanism by which I can track edits to the content I'm interested in (if you wish to see my watchlist, I'm happy to post a screen shot to demonstrate how useless that is).
 * If this isn't a rule it should be. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:50, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually your contributions were made over 3 months before the article was deleted. You took the article from 889 bytes to 1212 bytes with 3 edits on 2 May 2015, it was nominated 2 August 2015 and deleted 8 August 2015.  Your edits added an infobox and with no aditional content to the prose.  The only new information you added was the stable release version and date.  The rest of the information in the infobox was already in the article. You also added an image to the infobox that was not originally in the article.   -- GB fan 19:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * To answer your original question, there is no requirement to notify any contributor to an article before or when nominating an article for deletion. This section of WP:AFD says "While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion."  I take that as recommended to notify contributors.  I rarely see contributors other than creator notified, which was done in this case.  -- GB fan 19:16, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Although I haven't been active nominating articles for deletion in quite a while, when I do I usually try to identify anyone who's made a significant contribution and notify them as well. For articles where deletion is a possibility, it's often not difficult. If an article you contributed to got deleted while you weren't looking and you feel bad about it, talk to the deleting administrator and you can probably work something out, or deletion review is available if you think that the deletion was in error. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:46, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You are the exception. I was curious how often editors are notified of AFDs.  I looked at the top 15 AFDs on the list for today.  In 9 of them the original creator was notified.  In 6 of them no one was notified of the deletion.  3 of those didn't make any difference as 2 of them were originally created by IPs and notification would not mean anything, the third was created by a now vanished user.  I know this is a small sample size but it is an indication that other editors are not notified of AFDs.  -- GB fan 20:08, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Well then, I think it's time we opened discussion on whether that language needs to change - can anyone offer a cogent argument why there should not be a requirement to notify major contributors, especially recent and active ones? Before you worry about workload, there are a variety of tech solutions to that. But personally, I feel the single-click-to-kill of Twinkle is precisely the problem, not the solution. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:57, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I suspect it wouldn't be too hard for the tech folks to automatically ping recent contributors when an AfD notice is added to a page. That would be a better solution than making yet another rule. Zerotalk 13:18, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm open to any and all suggestions that improves the ratio from the rather dismal numbers reported above. But I suspect that some sort of language will be needed, otherwise people that fail to do so will simply do what you see here "It's not a rule, and I'm a lazy button-pusher, so..." Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:38, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I suspect that there will stil be people not happy with the outcomes: Editor A creates a redirect from topic "Whatsit" in 2010. Editor B writes a whole article on that topic in 2011, references and all. Editors C,D,E, edit it variously in 2015, tweaking categories, adding infobox, perhaps a little petty vandalism undone by editor F, etc. If it's nominated for deletion today, using Twinkle, Editor A gets notified. Under a "recent contributors" rule, Editors C,D,E,F get notified. Difficult to see an algorithmic way to notify major contributor B. Even more difficult if A2 had turned the redirect into a short stub in 2011, then B expanded that in 2012 into a substantial article. Perhaps an algorithm could pick up (a) any editor who turned a redirect into an article, (b) any editor who expanded it by more than "n" characters (not reverted?) to notify as well as the creating editor (the one who Twinkle today notifies, if used). Good luck in trying to work something out.  Pam  D  14:46, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems you just made an excellent start. I invite you to continue this line of thinking. Time bracketing might also be useful. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:38, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps by number of edits? ansh 666 17:51, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * As a first step, let's require the original contributor for XFD, which is the main problem.. Surely there should be agreement on that, and it would be very easy to program. And Twinkle could easily be modified to not give the option of not notifying.  DGG ( talk ) 17:58, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Twinkle does this already. The default is to notify the page creator, but the option can be unchecked. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:39, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm opposed to requiring this. It's instruction creep, and creates a loophole in the process where a user can dispute a "delete" result solely on the basis of having not been notified of the discussion (or on the basis of anyone not being notified). However, I fully support figuring out a way by which to determine who are the significant contributors to an article for the purposes of optionally notifying them using an automated tool. It's already possible using external tools to see which pages a given user has edited most often; in theory, it should be possible to do this in reverse (determine which users have edited a given page most often) but I don't have the expertise. We could ask at WP:VPT. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:06, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand the problems with feature creep more than you might imagine, just look at the mess that passes for DYK these days. But we need to do something. I'm also perfectly happy with language to the effect of "we strongly recommend this, and don't be surprised if you get nasty messages if you fail to take the 15 seconds..." kind of thing.
 * As to the technicality, I did a bit of poking about and a number of users suggested this would be pretty trivial. C678, who has a script that does something similar, was able to suggest an algo pretty much off the top of his head. Of course that only fixes the problem for TW users... but that's worth exploring, of all the AfDs, how many are posted here by Twinkle or similar tools? Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * There were 52 additions via Twinkle yesterday, out of 79 total (by my count). Some of the 79 may have been manual relists. So, a fairly significant percentage. There don't appear to be any other tools in use. I'm absolutely ok with making the recommendation stronger, so long as it remains a recommendation and not a requirement. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:24, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe WP:Page Curation and the associated new pages feed also has a script for AfD, but it's not as widely used as Twinkle for that purpose (more for speedy deletion tagging). ansh 666 20:55, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes that's right, I forgot about that one. I think you're right, most new pages wouldn't go straight to Afd, they would be speedy or WP:PROD candidates first. I don't recall if Page Curation notifies interested users. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:24, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Sounds great Ivan. In the meantime I'm in the midst of tracking down a tool that might be just what we're looking for. I do find it a bit worrying that so much is done through TW - we have made huge strides on making it easier to delete things, yet actually creating them in the first place continues to get harder and harder. Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:23, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Question about split and AfDs
Susya is an article about 3 entities, all called Susya (or closely related variants). It is an archaelogical site, a Palestinian village, and an Israeli settlement. A week or so ago, an editor was WP:BOLD and split the article into 3 articles, dealing with them separately. It was objected to, the article was reverted, and the split articles nominated for deletion (I voted "delete" there). The AfDs resulted in "no consensus".

What is the relevant policy now? I am aware that "no consensus" on AfDs usually results in articles being kept. However, here the articles only contain material from the original article, and there is no consensus (or indeed discussion) to split the article up. What should be the scope of the original article now? With the original article existing, there is no point, and indeed, the new articles would be duplicates of the original one. I asked the closer here, and they said to determine it through consensus. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 09:00, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * converting them to redirects through normal editing seems reasonable. Anyone who objects can go through WP:BRD. DES (talk) 16:46, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You mean converting the new articles to a redir to the original one? Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 16:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, since there was no consensus for the split. Or since the separate articles were not deleted, an RFC could seek consensus to do the split after all, but that is considerably more work. But one way or another, we should generally avoid articles that duplicate other articles, in my view. DES (talk) 18:56, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The editor who performed the split has now opened an RfC. Perhaps it is best to just wait till it finishes. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 19:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Missing instruction
I don't think this project page says how to make all that stuff that's always supposed to appear at the top of a deletion discussion page appear there. Is that something that's supposed to happen automatically with twinkle? Blackbombchu (talk) 16:28, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * whaile many, perhaps even most, editors do use Twinkle for creating AfD noms these days, and it does more or less automate the process, the detailed instructions can be found at Articles for deletion, follow steps I, II, and III as described in that section, and you will have created a valid nom. (some of the details are in the templates one is directed to use in those instructions, but they will do the job.) Don't forget WP:BEFORE and the steps listed in the previous section, which should be done for any nom, automated or not. DES (talk) 16:47, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 August 2015
(Cross-posted from the template page.) On the first line of step 3, “Open the page,” please change “Open” to “Edit,” because that’s where the link leads (also see WP:EASTEREGG).

67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * See crossposted. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 12:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Health Service Culture
The article Health Service Culture: and, most important,
 * Consists mostly of direct quotations from different sources that simply define the relevant sense of "culture"
 * Contains only a few sentences that relate to health services
 * Has been edited less than 20 times altogether, the last time in 2012
 * Does not meet Wikipedia's style guidelines
 * Does not contain anything saying why culture in a health-service organization needs to be treated separately from culture of other kinds of organization.

I suggest that the subject is non-notable and therefore the article should be deleted; but as I am not a registered Wikipedia user (and am not going to become one), it will need someone else to agree with me and start the process. If, on the other hand, there is a consensus to keep it, then it needs a lot of improvement.

Consider this a "drive-by" nomination; if someone wants to start the official process, please do, but I myself am not interested in discussing it further, so please don't respond on my IP talk page. (And no, I'm not going to register with WIkipedia, so you needn't suggest that either.)

Thanks for your attention, --65.94.50.17 (talk) 04:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I'll take care of this one. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 20:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I've completed the nomination and placed it at Articles for deletion/Health Service Culture. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 20:39, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

The article Anand Sen (business person) must not be deleted.
Please don't delete the article Anand Sen (business person) must not be deleted. If there is any problem in this article please resolve that or let me know regarding this on my user talk page: Padmalochanwiki:Talk. Padmalochan Jena 08:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I suggest you go to the AfD. The article's fate is being discussed there. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Sink and Stove Records
This discussion has been sitting, but I'm bringing it up because the article's copyvio. The link is in the AfD ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FSink_and_Stove_Records&type=revision&diff=678528188&oldid=677878826 diff]) (click on "About Us"), but I don't want to follow copyvio procedure and blank the article page because of the ongoing AfD. MSJapan (talk) 23:18, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Nazoo Dharejo not to be deleted
I have provided the newspaper references more than one newspaper for Nazo Dharejo, go through those references find news about Nazo Dharejo, so the article must not be deleted. thanksJogi 007 (talk) 08:20, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The best place to post this would be at the AFD - Articles for deletion/Nazo Dharejo - and I see that you've done that. This board is more for discussing the process of Articles for Deletion, and asking for help sorting out issues with the process. Debating the articles themselves and discussing their merits is done on the debate pages. Best, UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 14:37, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

International Space Elevator Consortium
Can someone please have a look at this. It was closed, undone by an admin an an inappropriate NAC, then re-closed as the administrator was a contributor to the discussion so involved. The advice at WP:NACD seems to support both reopening it and reclosing it, and could perhaps be clarified.-- JohnBlackburne words<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">deeds 16:36, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/International Space Elevator Consortium
 * Nevermind, it's now at deletion review. Probably should have thought of that myself.-- JohnBlackburne words<sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">deeds 16:37, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Something Positive
I'm thinking this article Something Positive probably should go. I look at 'improving' it & come to the conclusion that every single part of it, judged alone, should be deleted. It doesn't seem notable, there are a few very minor possible RSs about the author, but none about the comic. Other than it having been nominated for the barely-existing WCCA, the only sources are comic pages themselves. Apparently IPs aren't allowed to nominate for deletion anymore...92.25.131.125 (talk) 14:04, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * See Articles for deletion/Something Positive. I'm not aware of any restrictions on IPs suggesting articles for deletion. Were you trying to use an automated tool? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:43, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Making a complete AfD nomination involves creating the discussion page, which IP edito5rs are not technically able to do. It is common for autoconfirmed editors to assist with this step, indicating that the nom is on behalf of the IP editor. DES (talk) 16:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Aye, not metaphorically able to do it either. Looking around a few other places, I reckon these Matt Boyd Ian McConville don't come close to existing either. BLP1E, IIRC, except even that E isn't notable. 92.25.131.125 (talk) 01:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Requested AFD nomination completion
I nominated Unsealed: Conspiracy Files for deletion as it was a conspiracy documentary series with little to no chance of notability. Can someone complete it for me? --189.25.205.234 (talk) 01:35, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done. -- Finngall <font color="#D4A017">talk  03:41, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Template:recap
recap is nominated for deletion. This is an ancillary deletion template for processing long deletion discussions -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 04:48, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Andrew Novell
I've put up Andrew Novell for deletion after WP:PROD was contested, could someone please complete the process? Rationale is noted on the talk page TIA, 85.178.217.32 (talk) 03:39, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

✅ Thanks to for doing the deed. 85.178.217.32 (talk) 14:18, 13 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I must admit I didn't see your comments on the talk page and nominated it independently. I obviously agree with your rationale. Huon (talk) 17:36, 13 September 2015 (UTC)


 * 85.178.217.32 (talk) 18:44, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

The acorn paradox
I've put up The acorn paradox for deletion after discovering that a previous WP:PROD was contested. Could someone please complete the process? Rationale is noted on the talk page. TIA 85.178.217.32 (talk) 18:47, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

✅ Kindly completed by. 85.178.217.32 (talk) 18:53, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Florent Bezara
I have put a tag on Florent Bezara and noted the justification for deletion on Talk:Florent Bezara. Could someone please complete the process for me? Thanks. 153.203.39.216 (talk) 03:27, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ DES (talk) 04:26, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Help in afd process
Could someone please complete the afd of Ali in the Quran and The verse of Mawadda. I have clearly stated my reasons for the nominations on the talk pages of both articles. Thankyou.--58.106.251.114 (talk) 10:23, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ See Articles for deletion/Ali in the Quran and Articles for deletion/The verse of Mawadda. Procedural only, I have no opinion on notability as per usual. shoy (reactions) 15:16, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thankyou again.--58.106.225.96 (talk) 02:08, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Am I done?
I followed the steps for deleting a page and people are putting in their two cents. I'm not sure what else I have to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Punstress (talk • contribs) 09:30, 18 September 2015 (UTC)


 * You have started a lively debate! There is nothing more you "have to do", only keep track of the debate over its seven-day life if you wish. You are however free to put in a comment on anything that other editors write - I advise to prefix any such comment with Comment, not Delete, as your nomination is already understood as a "delete" !vote. Oh, and please sign your entries to talk pages and discussions (but never articles) by putting the code  at the end <b style="color:seagreen">Noyster</b>  (talk),  11:42, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Neutral Comments Needed
An editor recently got a bit upset about an article nomination. I've tried to cool the fires by taking it the talk page. I would appreciate any neutral comments at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Stephanie Powell Watts in an effort to defuse this. Thank you! -O.R.Comms 00:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Barron Trump
Whatever one's opinions of Donald Trump, his nine-year-old son, who has appeared occasionally on The Apprentice but never, to my knowledge, in a featured capacity, doesn't deserve a Wikipedia entry in his own right. I'd nominate for AfD but am not sure just what WP:BLP policy this violates, just that it crosses into "creep factor" territory. ( wouldn't you agree?) Help and insight here would be appreciated. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 23:30, 23 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The name is a searchable term, but I would agree that just as a son of a wealthy person without any merits on their own, we should not have a separate page. It would likely be best to suggest a merge to Donald Trump. (Perhaps even "Family of Donald Trump" as similar to Family of Barack Obama) --M ASEM (t) 23:41, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Vesuvius Dogg and M ASEM -- clearly a candidate for AfD. And, generally speaking, underage children of prominent figures and celebrities should be considered off limits. This, for a number of reasons, including privacy concerns -- which is why, as M<font size="-3">ASEM points out, there are not separate articles on Malia and Sasha Obama, but they are included in the Family of Barack Obama article. (For my part, I'm not even sure Wikipedia should include the 'Family of' articles, but just should list underage children in the article on the principal person). --- Professor JR (talk) 09:14, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with AfDing Barron Trump. Although I think the Obama girls may be deserving of an article at this point, considering the high media attention compared to Trumps son. ~<font color="#F900">EDDY  (<font color="Green">talk /<font color="Green">contribs ) ~ 13:09, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Media attention does not always mean a topic is notable on its own, particularly considering BLP (even moreso considering Barron's "minor" status) and the concept of inherited notability (which is what is happening for both of the Barack daughters and for Barron here). Part of the media loves to cover the family of anyone famous, just because of the spectacle, but that doesn't equate to encyclopedic coverage. --M ASEM (t) 14:01, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * This should be AfD'd, and right quick. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:21, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * AFD is the wrong process however - unless there is something grossly wrong in light of BLP with the current page (I'm not seeing anything), the contributions are still reasonable, and as "Barron Trump" is a search term, the right solution is to WP:BOLDly redirect the page to Donald Trump, and if that is reverted by an editor, start a discussion on the talk page to get consensus. --M ASEM (t) 20:26, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Re the original question ("what policy does this violate"), the relevant guideline is WP:BIOFAMILY (WP:BLP1E is the closest policy I could find). --ais523 18:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Hayden Black
I have posted my justification on Talk:Hayden Black. Thank you. 67.86.185.252 (talk) 02:54, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ by Samtar, see Articles_for_deletion/Hayden_Black. shoy (reactions) 12:10, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Malee (elephant)
I have nominated the page Malee (elephant) for deletion and put the nomination here: Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Malee (elephant). Can someone please move the nomination page to regular wikipedia space? --177.142.118.61 (talk) 22:43, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ by User:DN-boards1. --189.25.205.82 (talk) 16:20, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Twilight (CD-ROM)
Can someone move this rationale to the regular Wikipedia (not talk) namespace, remove the tag and add to the log? Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Twilight (CD-ROM) --189.25.224.254 (talk) 19:45, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅. The debate is now at Articles for deletion/Twilight (CD-ROM), and the debate logged. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 19:52, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

AfD nomination of AJ Suede
I have nominated AJ Suede for deletion, and noted the justification for deletion on Talk:AJ Suede. Can someone please complete the process? Thanks. 153.228.98.244 (talk) 06:36, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Done.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Evette Borromeo
Can someone please move Draft:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evette Borromeo to Articles for deletion/Evette Borromeo without leaving a redirect? Please don't forget to tag the article and list the discussion in today's log. Thanks. 121.54.54.170 (talk) 23:17, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ See Articles for deletion/Evette Borromeo. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:27, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Trans-Radio Broadcasting Corporation
Admin action needed. Please move Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Trans-Radio Broadcasting Corporation to Wikipedia namespace without leaving a redirect and transclude it in today's log. Thanks, 121.54.54.238 (talk) 03:09, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ This didn't take an admin to do this.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  05:39, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Fundable
The article seems a promotion of the company, their controllers and investors(!!). It survived an AFD so it may have relevance. A lot of references, but almost all not related. I think that if is not case for deletion, at least many content may be withdrawn. Caiaffa (talk) 16:54, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Melissa Gira Grant
I have nominated this page for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.83.206.167 (talk) 22:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Please give a reason for deletion, as stated on the AFD template. shoy (reactions) 12:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I've removed the redlinked AFD template - but as Shoy said, feel free to let us know why the article should be deleted and we'll have a look. The article was last reviewed in January 2014, where it was kept. See also Articles for deletion/Melissa Gira Grant. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 13:14, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Redirects
Hello all. Frank Jackson (Basketball Player) has been nominated for deletion, though he is probably notable. I was thinking the article should be redirected to Frank Jackson (basketball), but am not sure if this is acceptable while the article is at AfD. ~<font color="#F900">EDDY  (<font color="Green">talk /<font color="Green">contribs ) ~ 17:14, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Did you mean moved to vice redirected to? Clearly there is no article to serve as the target for a redirect. Assuming that is the case there is nothing that prevents editing an article while it is being discussed at AfD as long as it is not obviously disruptive. But in this case I might suggest holding off until the AfD is resolved just avoid any potential confusion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:25, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you mean moved rather than redirected? If so that's probably fine. People might object if you try to move a page to a title that implies a different scope of the article, but an uncontroversial one like this shouldn't be a problem.  Hut 8.5  17:26, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I meant to say moved. I don't know why I said redirected. ~<font color="#F900">EDDY  (<font color="Green">talk /<font color="Green">contribs ) ~ 17:30, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Anthony Conway
I'm new to Wikipedia editing, but I found an autobiographical article for Anthony Conway. He is an artist but the problem with his page, is he links himself as a founding artist in the new realist movement, and has his name listed in a list of artists who have contributed greatly to Classical Realism, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_Realism

He links his page on Wikipedia to every great artist you can think of, and his sources are a repetition of one or two of the same articles where he was interviewed in his hometown.

It's an autobiography, and should be deleted. Seeker1111 (talk) 16:09, 14 October 2015 (UTC) Seeker1111

i nominate Occidental–Whittier football rivalry
i nominate Occidental–Whittier football rivalry because it is non notable. theres no evidence that it is a important topic. it is a small rivalry that no one cares about it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.236.126.106 (talk) 22:35, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not the place to nominate an article for deletion. Please see WP:AFD. Having looked at the article and done a cursory search I find little to support a claim to encyclopedic notability. Sports rivalries require the same level of in depth coverage from multiple reliable sources as any other topic per WP:NRIVALRY. I have tagged the article for questionable notability and ref improve. If someone wants to send this to AfD we can have a more detailed discussion of its merits or lack thereof. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:14, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a discussion for AfD or for the article's talk page, not for here, User:Ad Orientem p  b  p  11:19, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Poor instructions on closed discussion text
"The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review)"

So, here's the thing. These instructions for further comment are rather poor. If the page was deleted, the article's talk page will just be re-deleted, so that's not a good place. And there are a large amount of new editors at articles for deletion, and creating a deletion review is technically tricky, so that's also a poor choice. We need to point our new editors to a better place and not lead them astray. Maybe to the deletion discussions associated talk page? Maybe to the administrator's talk page? I'm not sure. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Unless one is prepared to open a Deletion Review, there mostly is no good reason to have any further discussion. We could advise people to consult the closer, but that will usually be an excersize in frustration, though it should be done before going to WP:DRV. Opening a deletion review is not that hard, and clear instructions are provided. No one is likely to look at the talk page of a closed Afd. I suppose we could point people at the Teahouse also. DES (talk) 14:19, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Update the example?
I think Articles for deletion/Example should be updated to use a more current look for how an AfD page is properly formatted, but I don't want to touch it since I would neither know just what to do nor want to break anything. —&#8288;烏&#8288;Γ (kaw), 07:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Automated alert system?
Is there any system for alerting users of and attracting them to deletion discussions, like how WP:FRS operates for RfCs? —烏Γ (kaw), 08:23, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Bumping this, both to attract an answer and to prevent archiving yet. —&#8288;烏&#8288;Γ (kaw), 07:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:WikiProject Deletion sorting organizes a number of lists onto which relevant AfD debates are transcluded, by their authors or by other volunteers, so that (for example) WP:Articles for deletion/How to Host a Murder appears in WP:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Video games and in WP:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Virginia. People interested in particular subjects can watchlist the relevant Delsort lists so that they are aware of new AfDs in their field. JohnCD (talk) 14:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Archived addressed threads
I've archived a few addressed threads that were marked as "done". &mdash; Cirt (talk) 11:50, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Deletion to Quality Award
I've created the WP:Deletion to Quality Award.

This recognizes editors who've taken a page previously considered for deletion &mdash; to Featured Article or Good Article quality.

The award is inspired by the Million Award, the Article Rescue Squadron, and the WikiProject Quality Article Improvement.

Please see Deletion to Quality Award.

Thank you,

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 11:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

The recent music genre AFDs
I have decided to revert each of the music genre AFDs I have made. I went through each of those articles one by one before deciding to AFD them. If not for the concept in general, then for the article's current sourcing which left much to be desired. Thankfully some deep Google searching has revealed suitable sourcing in enough to make me reconsider this. I would have liked to have a sincere discussion about the state of these articles, and I know for a fact that various ones should undeniably be deleted, but it seems the focus is on the few I got wrong, so I will back down. Perhaps a discussion can be done somewhere about how we as a community can actually imporve all these articles. I apologise for offending anybody, and please refrain from the insults. Thanks. :D--Coin945 (talk) 14:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Mareco Broadcasting Network
Can someone please nominate Mareco Broadcasting Network for deletion? I've provided the reason on the article's talk page. Thanks, 121.54.54.170 (talk) 15:33, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- GB fan 15:43, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Frederico Morais
I'm not experienced on editing here and am not sure if I'll be able to properly nominate an article for deletion, so if someone wants to do it for me I'd like to nominate the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederico_Morais

I was searching google for Frederico Morais, a well known surfer, but instead bumped into the above page. As a Portuguese football fan I'm pretty sure that individual isn't in any way notable. There is not a single mention of him on online press records and all the sources of the article are just the organizations where he's worked. The article looks like a professional resumé, was all written by the same editor and looks suspiciously autobiographical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arruda81 (talk • contribs) 02:31, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ see Articles for deletion/Frederico Morais.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  04:28, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pages in Category:Lists of airline destinations
This AFD was closed (correctly) as a SNOW keep - but that leaves dozens of articles still tagged for AFD. WP:BADAFD has asploded. If anyone wants to take a few minutes and process a few of these (Un-tag, add the afd-multi to the talk page), it'd be appreciated. (If you have a script that would do the same thing, have at - that's even better.) Thanks! UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 16:42, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * FWIW, you use the same afd-multi for each page, since it's one debate. No need to copy and paste every one. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 16:47, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Blackstar (David Bowie album)
Can someone please nominate Blackstar (David Bowie album). I believe the article fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE as it is simply a single-line article which gives a future relase date. I attempted a redirect, which was undone by the article's author User:Lugnuts with the comment "there is info". Lugnuts then failed to WP:AGF and added a user warning to my talk page. I then attempted a WP:PROD citing WP:INDISCRIMINATE, which Lugnuts again reverted claiming I was disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Lugnuts then left a message on my talk page calling be a troll.

I believe that Blackstar (David Bowie album) will at some point in the future will become notable, but until such time it doesn't need an article. -- 46.254.186.36 (talk) 11:10, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Wrong. Read WP:GNG. And WP:BEFORE. Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 12:22, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The more notable the artist, generally, the further in advance their album gets an article. Here we have multiple sources and clear notability. It's no violation of WP:CRYSTAL, because the subject is being noted in reliable sources now. And it's actually got a name so WP:HAMMER doesn't apply either. Indiscriminate doesn't apply, as such, because the artist is unquestionably notable. So, while you can insist on an AFD if you like, the reality is that the article appears to comply with all of the relevant policies and guidelines, and a debate on that subject would be closed rapidly as Keep. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 13:31, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Need help finding old AFD discussion
It was for an "electronic sports" team called 4Kings. I'm not entirely sure what the article was titled, either 4Kings or Four Kings or some variant there of. I believe the AFD occured around Nov/Dec 2005.--Prisencolin (talk) 17:00, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/Four Kings -- Finngall <font color="#D4A017">talk  17:08, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Awesome, thanks.--Prisencolin (talk) 02:08, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Undoing improper close
closed Articles for deletion/Antonia Gerena Rivera (2nd nomination) as keep less than four hours after making his/her first edit. Could somebody reopen this so someone else can decide what to do with this? Rainbow unicorn (talk) 20:52, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Undone, I'm working on a close now. DES (talk) 21:32, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

AfD participants may be good administrators
When deciding if a potential admin is fit for the tools, the candidate's AfD stats are a significant consideration.

So, I'm posting here. You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and maybe even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.

So, please consider watchlisting and taking a look at this page:


 * Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll

Many thanks and best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:54, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Mareco Broadcasting Network
Can someone please re-open the discussion? The user who closed it (Wikienglish123) was blocked and it looks like he/she didn't know what he/she's doing. And please undo what he/she has done on Mareco Broadcasting Network. Thanks, 121.54.54.170 (talk) 06:50, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * IMO a neutral admin closing that debate would have closed it as Keep as well, so there's nothing to be done. Wikienglish123's only edit to the article was to remove the AfD nomination, which the closing admin would also have done. Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  07:43, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

AFD nomination needs completing
Would a registered user please complete this AFD nomination? Substed afd2 template follows. Thank you.

Retroscripting
AfDs for this article: </ul>
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Judging by a Google News archive search, the term has only been used by the creators of Home Movies in reference to that show. None of the sources cited in the article use any form of the word except for one, and that one links the word back to our article, which at the time was a completely unsourced stub. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Done - I restarted the nomination from scratch (with a copy of your rationale) just to play it safe and avoid errors. GermanJoe (talk) 12:30, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! —67.14.236.50 (talk) 15:29, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2015
Please remove the third (colon-indented) paragraph of. It is wholly redundant with, and less informative than, the immediately preceding sentence.

—67.14.236.50 (talk) 03:58, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not entirely redundant, as it warns users that "you will get stuck part way through the nomination procedure." I will open a discussion on your behalf asking if this line and the preceding line should be changed. Furthermore, the text itself is spread over two different templates, Afd footer and AfD in 3 steps.  Redoing either template requires checking all usages so that pages in which only one of these two templates is used aren't "broken" by the change.  In other words, keeping the redundancy may be easier than proving that it's never not redundant.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  04:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2015
support deletion because the person is not notable

65.175.243.206 (talk) 12:51, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: You're editing the talk page for WP:AFD, not the specific page for a deletion discussion Cannolis (talk) 18:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

AfD from the grave
This open AfD was relisted last on 10 October 2015, but has remained unnoticed since by closing admins. Apparently it was relisted twice on the same day in a short period of time, which may have led to this problem. I have removed the html comment-hiding elements on the 2015/10/10 log page and then tried to refresh Mathbot's Old discussion page, but that seems to go only back up to a limited amount of days. Could someone look into this? - HyperGaruda (talk) 07:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I relisted it again so that people can actually see the discussion, as it seems to have gotten lost in the dust. ansh 666 10:13, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I've see this before in my trolling of Article alerts/Problem entries/Old for old AfDs. It appears that when a discussion is relisted for the second time in the same day by a Twinkle user by mistake, or by different users in an edit conflict situation, the discussion is commented out from the current day's log page without a new transclusion being created.  -- Finngall  <font color="#D4A017">talk  18:06, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Template loop detected?
Could someone knowledgeable about AfD templates have a look at Articles for deletion/LeMel Humes please? Looks like the nomination's transclusion is bugged somehow, or maybe simply duplicated in itself. GermanJoe (talk) 11:38, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * . JohnCD (talk) 15:40, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Renato Abella
I think they are not notable. Does not meet the criteria for WP:MUSICIAN and google search does not turn about a lot of results. I don't know how to nominate an article and I am not sure if I am correct about this or not. Therefore, I am not nominating it. Susana Hodge (talk) 05:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Abiola Abrams also seems non-notable to me. The article is filled with promotional stuff and beneath all the fluff, Abrams does not qualify.Susana Hodge (talk) 05:46, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * are you requesting that someone nominate these articles on your behalf? I would list them for you but I'm not sure that's what you're asking. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:46, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, please nominate them.Susana Hodge (talk) 10:58, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

AfD Culture
FYI discussion ongoing at Village_pump_(policy) since October 2015. Ottawahitech (talk) 22:42, 22 November 2015 (UTC)please ping me

Question and proposal
AFDFORMAT presently claims that there exist tools (plural) and bots that parse AfDs which will only recognise bolded words. To date, I have only been able to identify one tool (AfD Statistics) that does this. I am aware of no bots whatsoever of which that statement is true. I suspect that the alleged other tools and bots do not exist. I have not, however, had time to carefully examine every single tool and bot. Can anyone either confirm that my suspicion is true, or identify the other individual tools and bots? I think it is important that essays in the Wikipedia space do not contain factual claims that are unverified or demonstrably false. Accordingly, unless the other alleged other tools and bots are identified in a reasonable amount of time, the words "some bots and tools" should, in my view, be changed to "at least one tool", with no mention of bots, or something to that effect. James500 (talk) 00:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The AfD closure stats page also uses it; that's all I can think of off the top of my head for now. ansh 666 22:54, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Having given the matter further consideration, I'm going to go ahead and amend the essay AFDFORMAT with a rationale of "attempted verification failed". I will include a list of the tools already identified. If anyone discovers any other tools, or any bots whatsoever, they can add them to the list. James500 (talk) 07:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Don't bold your !votes
Interested in what do editors think of essay as it was created by an editor who really does not like to bold !votes. LibStar (talk) 10:45, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it is completely daft, like most of this editor's offerings. Bold or don't bold, who cares? But the author habitually produces gigantically long badgering rants that waffle on for thousands of bytes and expects us to believe that six keystrokes is too much effort. I mean, really! Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  13:30, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It isn't six key strokes. In my case each individual AfD requires twelve. And multiplied over a large number of AfDs, it is very large number. Over the course of 4,000 AfDs (a number LibStar has already exceeded), the number of keystrokes would be 48,000 not six. That is a lot of keystrokes. All of this is explained in the essay. And I don't do any such thing. In fact, I have not edited any AfD since 28th July, partly because of the behaviour of certain other participants. And if you are worried about my alleged verbosity, you should be pleased that I have written this essay, as it means that I won't have to rehash these arguments on talk pages if someone badgers me about bolding again. It will allow me to use a much greater economy of words. I can now answer them with a single shortcut. James500 (talk) 02:47, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * +1 - Completely stupid essay that quite honestly deserves deleting! - The norm is to bold !votes and I will continue to do so! - If anyone think it's rude or obnoxious than they need to get out more!. – Davey 2010 Talk 14:13, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * (1) The essay doesn't say that bolding !votes is obnoxious. It says that pestering other editors to bold their !votes is obnoxious. And some people are in the habit of so pestering other editors, sometimes, seemingly, as a proxy for another issue, namely, prosecuting The Holy War to make editing so unpleasant for non-deletionists that they will not want to edit anymore (WP:HARASS). And stopping that kind of behaviour is one of the reasons why this essay absolutely must stay. (2) While bolding could be the norm, there is not adequate statistical evidence to say with certainty that it is. James500 (talk) 19:33, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If a !vote isn't bolded it more or less gets ignored by the closer, WP:DISCUSSAFD does state and I quote "When editors recommend a course of action, they usually do so in bold text, e. g., "Keep", "Delete", "Merge", "Redirect", "Transclude" or other view. Some bots and tools which parse AfDs will only recognize bolded words."... so bolding is necessary, I 100% agree that editors shouldn't be harassed over it (I've never told anyone to bold their !votes & would never do so - If they don't wanna bold it then it's up to them), I believe bolding is helpful but meh we're all different here and see things differently I guess... – Davey 2010 Talk 20:01, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * DISCUSSAFD is an essay. WP:DONTBOLD explains, at some length, why it is only an essay. The last time bolding !votes was discussed, Spartaz, who is definitely an admin, said, and I quote, "To be very clear - bearing in mind I have closed thousands of drvs and afds, the bolding or non bolding of a comment has absolutely no impact in the way that the closing admin calls the close". So I don't see any evidence that admins ignore unbolded !votes. They are certainly not supposed to. James500 (talk) 22:12, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * And? .... It's still a page that 98% of !voters follow so why confuse everyone just because you dislike it? - Bolding is more helpful and useful than not, Some admins/editors ignore the unbolded and some don't . – Davey 2010 Talk 23:31, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If editors think that the content at the top of WP:AFD is a policy or guideline that they are obliged to follow (and some of them do, and I was once one of them) they are already confused. DONTBOLD decreases their ignorance by letting them know that WP:AFD is basically an essay. Where have you got 98% from? Just relying on your memory of the AfDs you have participated in is not a valid method of statistical analysis, because it is unlikely those AfDs are a random sample if you use things like deletion sorting lists, and a human being's memory isn't good enough for that kind of task. Which admins ignore the unbolded? James500 (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Might I suggest you go and do something constructive like I don't know .... Improving the encycloepdia?, Constantly arguing with everyone who dislikes your essay (which by the looks of it is everyone so far!) doesn't do you or this place any favours, Stop creating moronic essays and go do something that's actually beneficial to the project, I'm done replying. – Davey 2010 Talk 04:58, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That is extremely rude. James500 (talk) 05:14, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Not rude at all. Extremely valid. LibStar (talk) 05:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Calling someone a moron is rude. Condescending to someone in that way is rude. Telling me to go and improve the encyclopedia when I have created hundreds of articles and expanded many more is rude. I don't want to say more for fear of inflaming this. James500 (talk) 05:30, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

"The burden of bolding !votes is not merely an additional burden on the time, finances[6] and physical and mental stamina of individual editors" Why not add the ~ sign off. Those extra keystrokes over a lifetime could cause mental and physical exhaustion. As Reyk points out, this is from an editor who has extreme difficulty writing concisely. The irony. LibStar (talk) 14:24, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Because signing one's post serves an important purpose: identifying the author. Bolding serves no useful purpose that I can see. James500 (talk) 19:17, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * why not campaign for one ~ to be used for sign off. the extra 3 ~ is as wasteful as the arguments you present for not bolding. LibStar (talk) 23:05, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * A single tilda probably could not be used for that purpose as it would be ambiguous. It is a very common mathematical symbol that means "approximately equal to", and I assume that we would want to use it for that purpose. That said, reducing the number of tildas to three or two might be a good idea, assuming that is not also ambiguous or otherwise objectionable for practical technical reasons that I have not thought of yet. Even so, that is not a change that could be affected by the community (unlike the bolding issue), as it is part of the mediawiki software, so I doubt there would be much point in me writing an essay for the community rather than a letter to the software developer. I suspect that even the WMF could not change that as I am under the impression they get that software at least partly from someone else. I would have to find out precisely why the software writer had chosen that set of symbols first. James500 (talk) 23:40, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * it is incredibly lame to suggest a few extra keystrokes somehow equates to arduous mental, physical and financial burden. Wikipedia is totally voluntary, if the keystrokes are getting too much best you stop. LibStar (talk) 22:09, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You are quoting out of context. The essay talks about the overall burden of everyone doing this from a time and motion perspective. And it advances other arguments. James500 (talk) 23:14, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * perhaps you need to consult a medical practitioner regarding the mental and physical burden of extra keystrokes. you notice you are not getting any consensus for your lame essay. LibStar (talk) 23:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Consensus is WP:NOTAVOTE. James500 (talk) 01:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

you're once again failing to even realise that the essay has close to zero support. perhaps the mental and physical anguish of all those keystrokes are affecting you. LibStar (talk) 03:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No, what I am said is: since consensus depends on the quality of arguments, the number of people who support or oppose the thing is irrelevant. If you want to show the essay doesn't reflect consensus, it isn't enough to produce lots of people who say they don't like it. You have to produce convincing counter-arguments to the arguments that it makes. James500 (talk) 04:07, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * This is a serious thing, not a joke? Ridiculous.  If you don't want to type in the ' marks, you just click on the vote and click the bold capital letter B at the top of the edit screen to bold it that way.  Easier to read things that way.  I agree it should be deleted.   D r e a m Focus  18:09, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't often agree with Dream Focus, but here I do! LibStar (talk) 23:05, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * My edit screen on the mobile site (for I use a phone to edit) does not have a capital B at the top. It is not significantly easier to read. James500 (talk) 19:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * What seems dubious is when the nominator uses bolding to get counted as a !vote too. For a fresh example, see Articles for deletion/National composer. Andrew D. (talk) 18:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * (1) I think that making comments about the length of my !votes is a pretty clear violation of the policy WP:AVOIDYOU. (2) We do not delete essays because we do not agree with what they say. Essays are allowed to reflect minority positions. (3) This has been discussed before. The people in favour of bolding !votes were out-!voted four to three. (4) We do not delete essays because we intend to WP:WIKIHOUND an editor, as we have been doing for some time, and because the presence of the essay will make it harder to obfuscate about that editor's motives, about the status of AFDFORMAT (it is only an essay) and so forth. That would be a pretty clear case of gamesmanship.James500 (talk) 18:58, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If you have something specific to accuse me of, let's hear it. Otherwise, keep your vague insinuations to yourself.  Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  20:01, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I have struck the comment for the time being as I am in no mood to conduct a detailed post mortem on our past interactions at this moment. And I can't provide diffs for things I imagine might happen in the future. It is clear to me that LibStar primarily started this thread because, a very short time before, I asked him to remove what I thought was a violation of the second and third bullet points of the guideline WP:POLEMIC, where he says quite negative things about me, relating to one of our many, many, many previous encounters, from his user page. And this thread is 'tit for tat'. He must have found the essay DONTBOLD by looking over my contributions, as it had been up for too much time before I asked him about his user page. James500 (talk) 20:54, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Reyk, I think this edit, in particular, suggests, once one looks past the spin, and reads between the lines, that you think it would be acceptable for other editors to follow me, and actually follow me, around AfD, because you think I am too inclusionist, and I interpret subjective guidelines like GNG in a way that is too inclusionist for your taste (but still perfectly legitimate), since I clearly did not do the other things you accused me of, and what else does that leave as a reason for following me? Am I wrong in thinking that? James500 (talk) 21:35, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Why don't you report me to ANI, or any other venue of your choosing, if you think there's something wrong with anything I have said or done? You're still just making vague, baseless insinuations. Your "reading between the lines" is just finding things in my words that I did not put there. Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  23:01, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment This is an essay and like most essays, will probably languish in obscurity. No need to delete. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 19:04, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree The odd essay is likely destined for obscurity and it is not necessary to delete. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:18, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Bold - if this is meant to be a deletion discussion, please list at WP:MFD. Personally I don't see the need for it, but I also don't see the need to waste much of the community's time on an obviously out-of-consensus essay. Move it to userspace and be done with it. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:22, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I would prefer it to be outside of my user space. I don't like having essays in my user space per se. I don't think any essay should be in the user space unless it directly and unambiguously contradicts the clear words of a policy or guideline. I don't think this essay conflicts with consensus. I don't think there is any consensus that !votes must be bolded, only that they can be. James500 (talk) 22:52, 18 November 2015 (UTC) I would have thought the correct approach would be to leave it where it is, and if other people disagree with it, let them create WP:DOBOLD. James500 (talk) 22:58, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm of the opinion that essays should not be in project space unless it's demonstrated that they clearly document accepted practice, or are considered humorous. Yours is neither - it's your opinion that users should not bold !votes, and you appear to be in the minority because everybody bolds their comments in these discussions. Your opinions are fine, but they should be relegated to your user space. One might say that advising editors to reverse a clearly standard practice in this way is disruptive. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 00:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not everybody. In addition to me, S Marshall and Spartaz told me they regularly do not bold their !votes. I recall seeing plenty of unbolded !votes from many editors at various AfDs. You might find, if you look, that the majority of less active editors don't bold their !votes. I see no valid proof that these claims are true. All I see is a perception that they are true, and that kind of perception can be totally wrong. I see no valid statistical study that proves that statistic. If you have done such a study: How large was your sample? How did you obtain it? How did you ensure it was random? What precisely were your findings? (I want actual numbers). Show me that your result was statistically significant in a way that a professional statistician would accept. Otherwise it is just another unproven assertion, like many others round here. I see no "standard practice". I do not agree that "lots of people do it" automatically creates consensus. In all cases that would create a self fulfilling prophecy where consensus could never change (because people think they have to follow the guidelines, so they do, and the guidelines have to follow what people do). And we know that consensus can change. So that must be wrong. This case is particularly bad because of the unclear way in which AFDFORMAT is marked. People may wrongly follow that essay because they wrongly imagine it is policy, and that is no consensus at all. A 'Catch-22' is not a consensus. I doubt that humorous essays should be allowed anywhere. The only way to demonstrate that an essay documents accepted practice would be to put it through the proposal process and promote it to a guideline. And since consensus is not a vote, and depends on the merits of arguments, a minority position can, in theory, be consensus. James500 (talk) 01:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * As a closer I like the bolding, it makes it easier to get a general idea of each person's opinion. Each person may comment many times but generally only does a bold summary once. Naturally one must still read the debate and be careful to include people who did not bold. <b style="color:DarkSlateBlue">HighInBC</b> 22:23, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Disagree I think this essay is way over the top, and I doubt it will gain much traction, but, who knows, people might start following its suggestions. There is nothing sacred about bolding suggested actions. As an occasional (and once upon a time regular) closer, I find it helpful in quickly scanning a discussion to see the general trend before doing more detailed analysis. I hope I would never overlook a view simply because the editor had failed to use bold, but it is possible. I see no reason to delete this essay, but it shouldn't be linked from policy/guideline pages unless/until it has more support than it now seems to. Individual editors can choose whether to link to it and how. I agree that badgering someone over whether a view has a bolded action included is silly and counter-productive, and at least arguably violates WP:HARRASS. I don;t know what bots may react to this, and for what purposes. DES (talk) 23:35, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Close?' Why are we discussing this further? Just let it fade into the Wikipedia bottomless pit, this essay looks like it was made by someone with way too much time on their hands that could have been used for article improvement. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:54, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Undecided until it is determined which comments are satirical. VQuakr (talk) 04:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I will continue to bold because I like to, and because it aids the skimming of a lengthy debate. I will ignore this crank essay, which is a complete waste of everyone's time. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  04:37, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This essay doesn't seek to force people to refrain from bolding !votes. It is merely advice. Skimming a debate is probably not a good thing. This discussion is a waste of time. An essay cannot waste anyone's time because no one is forcing anyone to read it. James500 (talk) 04:56, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * To put it as Patton would:'Bold-ass, bold-ass, toujours bold-ass! Anmccaff (talk) 04:53, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Close this pointless thread now This entire thread should be closed immediately as it is out of process and serves no purpose. The contents of this thread should probably be moved to the talk page of the essay. If people want to discuss that essay, they should do so on the talk page of that essay. If people want it deleted, the only place that can be done is MfD. If people want a guideline on bolding !votes, that can only be done through RfC. No one here (including myself and the essay itself) seems to be proposing any changes to AfD itself. The point is that this thread should simply not be happening. James500 (talk) 06:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * ironically you took the effort to bold here. Those extra keystrokes weren't too hard were they? LibStar (talk) 08:06, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I am re-opening this thread to announce that I have nominated the page for deletion at MfD: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Don't bold your !votes. -- Softlavender (talk) 00:51, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Incoherent guideline
Step II says:


 * Add a deletion sorting template to the nomination, if appropriate.

However, there are no "deletion sorting templates", or indeed templates of any kind, at that link or anything it links to. Can someone therefore either fix this instruction or remove it? Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 10:55, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I've made a change to to link to the sorting template and explain what it's for <b style="color:seagreen">Noyster</b>  (talk),  12:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


 * OK thanks, at least there's a template now. What does "if appropriate" mean? And what does adding a template (with a category) actually do? Softlavender (talk) 12:41, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The template simply adds a line of text to the AfD discussion, e.g. Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. It's appropriate only when you or someone else has added the entry to the list itself, in this example to WikiProject Deletion sorting/Aviation <b style="color:seagreen">Noyster</b>  (talk),  13:32, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Then again the guideline is inaccurate. It states that This notifies members of the most relevant Wikiproject. Could someone please just remove all mention of deletion sorting templates from the guide to nominating an article? Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 21:19, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Template further edited to make explicit that the entry needs to have been added to the deletion sorting list itself, before putting the delsort template on the AfD discussion.
 * With the frequent complaints about insufficient participation at many AfDs, I don't agree with removing any encouragement to use deletion sorting - note that the Twinkle process for nominating an AfD doesn't point you in that direction. For those interested, I looked at the 76 AfDs in the log for 11 November. Only 11 of these had been put on deletion sorting lists by the nominator. The majority of the rest were picked up by other editors - notably, , Shawn, - mostly within 24 hours; but a quarter of all nominations fell through the net and weren't put into sorting at all or not until relisting after 7 days. So we would do well to get more nominators to use deletion sorting for themselves <b style="color:seagreen">Noyster</b>  (talk),  11:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 * It still doesn't make any sense. Right now it says:


 * If appropriate, inform members of the most relevant Wikiproject(s) through one or more "deletion sorting lists". Then add a template to the nomination, to insert a note that this has been done.


 * What does "inform members of the most relevant Wikiproject(s) through one or more 'deletion sorting lists'" mean? How does one do that? There is no information on the deletion sorting lists page of how to do that. If no one can make it clear what action is being requested, this needs to be deleted, as it only adds confusion to an already long and confusing set of instructions. Softlavender (talk) 00:32, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The deletion sorting list page tells one how to do that.
 * However, it seems to me that this should be a separate Step IV. It wouldn't make sense to list the AfD in the deletion sorting lists before the AfD itself has been created. - Kautilya3 (talk) 00:45, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The deletion sorting list page does not tell one how to do that. It doesn't do anything of the kind. Softlavender (talk) 00:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Each category (e.g. BC) listed at WP:DS/C has instructions on adding a discussion to the list and placing a notice on the discussion. See the scripts and tools that are available to assist with deletion sorting. I use a modified version of User:APerson/delsort. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 03:26, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Each category page has instructions, but not deletion sorting lists, which was all the guideline linked to. This has been somewhat remedied now by removing this from the nomination instructions entirely, and placing the material down below under after-care, with some re-worded instructions that are clearer. Softlavender (talk) 03:32, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

CENT
May I ask why CENT is transcluded onto all AfD logs? I realize that AfDs are discussions, but that seems to be the only connection between the two, and CENT seems a tad irrelevant... it's not a major issue or anything, but I'm just curious. Kharkiv07 ( T ) 20:09, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

AfD withdrawn
I have withdrawn the AfD here. Someone might want to close it, or let me know if I can close it myself. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 23:54, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If it meets the criteria for a "close/withdrawn" (I think the criteria are either "no replies suggesting any close other than keep" or "no replies suggesting any form of deletion or other action that requires an administrator", I forget which) then you can close it. See WP:AFD, WP:Speedy keep, and WP:Non-admin closure and they pages they link to, the exact criteria for a non-admin speedy-close and the procedures to do the close correction should be in there somewhere.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  00:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done. ansh 666 22:02, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy
There is an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy that asks: "Should our default practice be to delete article histories and contributions when a small article is converted into a redirect to a larger article?" Cunard (talk) 05:52, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

AfD requires completion
Could someone help me with the creation of an AFD nomination, since it seems only registered users can create an AFD page?

I wish to nominate all of following pages for deletion (bundled nomination), the rationale is provided below.



These Indian secondary school articles part of a school system (Kendriya Vidyalaya) are not independently notable. All the articles contain no secondary sources at all and carry large amounts of unrefernced fluff with promotional tone, some of which I recently tried to clean up. There is also a lot of duplication of information with the main article, since all the KV schools share the same features – affiliation, syllabus, fee structure, admission policies, etc are all the same.

I don't think there's anything worth merging into the main article. The only things that can be merged are perhaps the year of establishment and locational settings into List of Kendriya Vidyalayas. Everything else is unsourced or sourced with primary sources, and duplicative, or unencyclopedic WP:NOTDIR stuff.

As an alternative to deletion, we may also consider redirecting the pages to List of Kendriya Vidyalayas, or stubifying each article to 2-3 sentences, covering the non-duplicative details, that is, the year of establishment and locational settings. If/when one of the schools gets coverage in reliable source, its article could be expanded.

103.6.159.81 (talk) 13:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Now at Draft:Articles for deletion/Kendriya Vidyalya school articles. 103.6.159.89 (talk) 18:37, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * And now live at Articles for deletion/Kendriya Vidyalaya school articles. Could someone add the AFD tags to articles? 103.6.159.83 (talk) 13:46, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Proposals for consideration
A number of campaigns are launched by WP such as recently ended one WP:WAMP for equalizing global representation of communitites and subjects related to them or to their region and culture. Simultaneously page deletion process is also applied by some biased users who fire the gun of rules, without knowing the true intention of the foundation for framing rules. This situation causes an anti-campaing tool and needs attention of Admin/managers/well wisher of WP. In order to maintain the true spirit of WP:NPOV page deletion proposer should have familiarity with the subject or community before his/her tag for page deletion is considered for action. I therefore propose:
 * (1)	Where contents are harmful to WP no compromise on speedy deletion.
 * (2)	In all other cases familiarity with subject/community should be basis for page deletion
 * (3)	In case of conflict between communities ruling of third party should prevail
 * (4)	Except Admins, no user be allowed to tag the page for deletion within a week more than one time
 * (5)	Any person/community claims for discrimination action (e.g. tag for page deletion) should be placed for mediation to users who are serving as mediators in our WP

Thanks for consideration. Nannadeem (talk) 11:42, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The decision to delete is already reserved to administrators. As to the degree of familiarity with the topic needed to participate in a discussion, this varies greatly with the topic and the rationale for deletion: in some cases little or no familiarity with the topic is needed to make a judgement, but what is always needed is familiarity with Wikipedia policies. It's true that editors can be too quick to nominate for deletion an article related to an unfamiliar topic or field on the basis of "notability", when they don't know where to look for sources. Many discussions are closed "no consensus - NPASR (no prejudice against speedy renomination)", but where an AfD is clsoed as "Keep" there may be grounds for discouraging a prompt renomination <b style="color:seagreen">Noyster</b> (talk),  13:54, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * @ <b style="color:seagreen">Noyster</b> thanks. I further point out that even a user who fails to create a worthy page becomes a page deletion proposer.  Does this make sense?  We should develop an environment of positiveness by grabbing misuse of rules. Nannadeem (talk) 14:18, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Nannadeem, since editing on Wikipedia is, for the most part, completely anonymous, how would anyone know who or who is not an editor who has familiarity with subject/community? It would be based on the honor system which is not a solid foundation for a change in policy and practice. You will also get protests based on Avoid instruction creep objections. I agree that it's better if an editor familiar with a subject evaluates its merits but I think that is most important in the AfD process and that requires more editors to get involved in those discussions.
 * More than 800 articles get created every day and it is unlikely that Wikipedia would be able to match up editors familiar with the subject of each article and not soon suffer tremendous backlogs. I think the best we could do is to train New Page Patrollers to be cautious in their tagging of articles if they are not familiar with a topic. That's a matter of education, not creating new procedures and policy. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 16:07, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Without commenting on the other items, I will note that item 4, "Except Admins, no user be allowed to tag the page for deletion within a week more than one time", is problematic. Presumably, you're not talking just about AFD (which in standard circumstances can't be tagged more than once in a week, as tagging it will put it into discussion for a week - unless the result is a snowball keep, in which case there are already guidelines against retagging it), but to the range of deletion tags (speedy, blprod, prod, and afd). Making this rule would discourage use of the gentler forms of deletion, such as PROD, and encouraging going directly to AFD, which requires more involvement of the community and thus uses up time and attention that could be of value elsewhere. Often, the proper response to a PROD is to go right to AFD, as PRODding is a way of asking "does anyone object to this deletion" and, upon finding out someone does, AFD is "okay, then let's discuss it." BLPROD is less a tag to get the article deleted and more one to get it sourced, is mechanical in nature (i.e., based on rules, not judgment), and should not be discouraged by saying "if you mark this, as you're supposed to do, then you're not allowed to find other deletion-oriented objection for a week." In general, it discourages general appropriate maintenance, telling folks that they cannot deal with problems as they see them, but rather have to remind themselves a week later to readdress them. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:35, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * @Liz Thanks. My proposals relate to page deletion by a non-concerned nominator and users who take part in discussion with vote for "Keep, Delete etc" (No question on their comments).  Familiarity with subject/community can be evaluated through contribution history which a user/editor has at his credit.  If I contribute on a topic it is my learning and self education as well.


 * @Nat Gertler Thanks. Clarification to item-4, if I place a tag for page deletion to Page-A, and on same day or second day I place another tag to Page-B, and so on.  This is not only a Tag bombing but also minimize the attention and care on part of AFD nominator to satisfy the discussion with particular reference to familiarity with page being proposed for AFD process.  Whereas the core issue is: why the page is proposed for deletion e.g. clean-up, notability, verify-ability etc.  Here (save science topics) subject/community issue arises because, accordingly to my knowledge, WP represents the globe and there is no foreign language in WP, WP covers all (at best) languages, communities, regions of the world.  So in these circumstances familiarity is essential to grab the misuse of policy/rules on part of some biased users/editors. Nannadeem (talk) 15:30, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * @Nannadeem: It's only Tag bombing if the tags are unjustified... and this description makes it sound as though you're saying that if you tag any page for deletion, you cannot also tag any other page for deletion for a week, which would be a major impediment to Wikipedia maintenance. Even if you're saying that you cannot tag any kinda-related page for a week, this would interfere with various appropriate maintenance efforts (for example, if someone were to create new pages for every member of their high school math team, a non-admin could not go clean that up.) Perhaps this discussion would be clearer if you can point to some specific example where you feel things went wrong; that way, we would have a clearer understanding of your concerns, and could be looking at your proposal in terms of its goals, and also consider if those goals can be achieved in other ways. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:20, 7 December 2015 (UTC)


 * @Nat Gertler Thanks. Please be clear my proposals do not relate to page creations, review or approval of drafts and actions from Admins. My proposals relate to already created pages.  I do not know Chinese language. Suppose: by chance or with biased approach I tag a page of Chinese poet for deletion and some-one without familiarity to subject takes part in deletion voting.  Does this make sense? In my opinion this is misuse of rule, because it is not the intent of statute it is the expressed interpretation with implied vested interests.   If I claim that someone is committing discrimination then there should be role of mediators.  Needless to say that one cannot claim such a tool repeatedly.  We should encourage positive contribution rather than negative.  Further I am not talking about admins. Matters/jobs.  Nannadeem (talk) 18:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that goes to why we don't consider deletion discussions to be "votes". But even if someone is not a Chinese language speaker, they can point out "hey, this guy won the Nobel Prize, of course he's notable", or "the suggestion that he's notable rests in the claim that he took third place in his school's poetry contest, which does not meet our guidelines as a notable award." And when it comes to language, excluding the large base of English speakers from being involved in discussion of foreign topics will cut way down on the number of possible editors who can understand the subtleties of the Wikipedia guidelines, as they are written in English. That doesn't mean that anyone should be putting forth "I cannot read the reference, and thus this should be deleted", and of course any such argument from ignorance should be given little consideration by the admin closing the AFD. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:43, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Others have already pointed out problems with #3 and #4, so I won't repeat those. Regarding #2 / familiarity with the subject matter:
 * On questions of notability, familiarity with the subject matter is a big help, but even more important is knowing where to look for references from reliable sources and being able to say with some degree of credibility
 * "I know where sources SHOULD be available for an article about this kind of subject, I've looked there, and there weren't enough to support a claim of notability"
 * or alternatively,
 * "I know where sources SHOULD be available for an article about this kind of subject, but I don't have access to those sources. The topic seems like it is probably not notable but further research is required.  I opened a discussion on the article's talk page a few weeks ago and have contacted the relevant WikiProjects but so far nobody has stepped forward with any references from reliable sources.  Therefore, I am proposing deletion [or:  I am opening an AfD with a recommendation that it be deleted with a WP:REFUND available to anyone who provides a single reliable source relating to the topic]."
 * davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  02:02, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * On that note, another option is having the article sandboxed so that it can be improved and moved back to mainspace when whatever concerns have been expressed at the AfD discussion have been addressed. DonIago (talk) 15:09, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

One may see misuse here Articles for deletion/Rehan Azmi with reference to Pakistan's oldest English Daily DAWN. Nannadeem (talk) 22:36, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see misuse there; someone is casting doubt on the quality of a source, but that can be responded to through discussion. And that same editor that you are complaining about dwas the one who could point out to you that the Books LLC source that you were using to support notability was not a usable source. Barring him from the discussion may have barred that appropriate contribution. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:24, 12 December 2015 (UTC)


 * @Nat Gertler I have referred DAWN and not Books LLC. Nannadeem (talk) 10:38, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Computers In Personnel
Can someone please complete the deletion process for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computers_In_Personnel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.88.103.119 (talk) 14:44, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Has been initiated by another new account at Articles_for_deletion/Computers_In_Personnel. (uninvolved myself) GermanJoe (talk) 15:10, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Request to delay deletion of SOME speedy-deletion candidates if they are at AFD
See Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  16:37, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Treasure_Jones
I'm a newbie so please don't bite. Come across the headline page and I can't really see anything notable about him. Do you think I should list it at possibly contentious articles for deletion?Lyndaship (talk) 16:08, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello and welcome! You are always at liberty to nominate an article for deletion - if you have Twinkle installed it completes the procedure with delightful ease - but in this case I think the verdict would likely be "Keep", as there does seem to be the necessary "significant coverage" in various newspapers and books to establish "notability", over and above the references already in the article. If interested it may be more worth while to improve the article and deal with the problems it has been tagged for <b style="color:seagreen">Noyster</b> (talk),  09:47, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Issues with Deletion sorting?
Anyone else having issues with the Deletion sorting template not automatically listing deletion discussions at the various WP:DELSORT listings? I think Deletion sorting has failed to automatically add to the listings for me the last 2–3 times that I've tried to use it. So I'm wondering if anyone else is seeing this issue?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:46, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * As I understand it the Deletion sorting template makes no claim to automatically add an entry to any deletion sorting list. It merely adds a line of formatted text to the AfD page stating that that has been done. You also have to separately go to the relevant deletion sorting page and transclude the AfD discussion by inserting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName. Some tools that claim to assist with this process are listed here, but I haven't tested them <b style="color:seagreen">Noyster</b> (talk),  09:29, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I have recently added User:APerson/delsort to my .js settings, and it seems to work quite well (Windows XP, FF, vector skin). It does both, tagging and adding the nomination to the relevant delsort pages, and it also has a convenient list of common sort tags to select from. GermanJoe (talk) 11:21, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Ooo, that's a good suggestion – I'll try that. User:APerson/delsort should probably be added to a 'See also' section in the Deletion sorting template's documentation... It should also be made clear in the template's documentation that entries will still need to be manually added to the various Delsort listings, 'cos that isn't clear currently. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:50, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a good suggestion too :) - done (the "link script" part). GermanJoe (talk) 12:46, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Contested deletion
(Re: Articles for deletion/Francis Chanda)

This article should not be articles for deletion the article contains useful information about the person in it Raysum2020 (talk) 23:26, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I've fixed your comment on the deletion page and removed code here that was causing problems. Please go here to participate in the deletion discussion. You can ask there if you need help. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:52, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

XfD: Delayed raising of a second reason to delete or keep
I'm seeking a clarification and discussion of Wikipedia policy that I am in disagreement over with another editor. I have posted it for discussion at the Village Pump (policy) XfD: Delayed raising of a second reason to delete or keep. Thisisnotatest (talk) 07:10, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Inside politics (TV program) and Talk:Inside politics (TV program)
Because spelling is wrong. -- Koam1998 (talk) 01:58, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That's a redirect - it belongs at WP:RfD. ansh 666 04:54, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Cnntonightlogo.jpg
Because two File, so File:Cnntonight.jpg deleted. -- Koam1998 (talk) 01:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That's a file, it belongs at WP:FfD. ansh 666 04:54, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

January 2016 - Old discussions bug
There appears to be some trouble with Mathbot: Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Old. Is that also maybe why 14 January does not show up in the list of old AfDs? - HyperGaruda (talk) 07:31, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Problem solved. According to the revision history, Mathbot skipped 1 day for some reason. After having manually added 14 January to Articles for deletion/Old and refreshing the search, Mathbot included that day again. Everything is ok now :) - HyperGaruda (talk) 15:41, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Andrew Lowe
The page "Andrew Lowe", which I created, has been set for deletion for lack of references. I have added references, but the "set for deletion" notification persists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kcmartenslol (talk • contribs) 04:36, 23 January 2016‎


 * the discussion typically lasts for seven days after when a determination is made of the consensus. I'll add a comment to the discussion page that you have added references for you. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:19, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You are confusing the earlier marking of the article for deletion for lack of references (what we call a BLPROD) with the current deletion discussion, where an editor has opined that the article should be deleted because the references that exist do not indicate that Lowe is notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia (an understandable confusion for a relatively new Wikipedia editor.) Click here to go to that discussion and take part in it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:34, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Help completing an AFD nom
I have put up the article Neil Cohn for deletion; since I'm not registered, I only did step one (adding to the page). Can someone help me create the actual deletion page? I have posted the deletion rationale to Talk:Neil Cohn; I just need someone to create the deletion page and paste that rationale in. Thanks! 80.4.164.166 (talk) 04:47, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Done GermanJoe (talk) 05:25, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Closures
Hi, Just a query - For well over a year I've been closing AFDs a day early which I'm now banned from ... So this new way's a tad confusing at the moment!,

So say basically instead of closing at 12pm (midnight) on the new day I should be closing at 12pm (midnight) on the 8th day if that makes sense?

I've done a picture which should hopefully do a better job at explaining than me! ,

Thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 15:48, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I always thought it was seven days from the creation timestamp of the discussion, so if I were to start a discussion right now, you could close it at 15:53, 3 February 2016 (UTC). So if you're going by midnights, then you would need to wait for midnight on the 8th day, yes. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh right, But closing them at the timestamp would be even more confusing surely ? .... To be absolutely honest I don't think anyone knows really when to close them....,
 * Ah well I'll close them at midnight on the 8th that way I won't end up blocked .... Hopefully!, Anyway thanks for clearing that up for me - Much appreciated, Thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 15:59, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Midnights have nothing to do with it, the rule is quite clear, see WP:CLOSEAFD: "A deletion discussion should normally be allowed to run for seven full days (168 hours)". Go by the timestamp in the nominator's signature, and don't close before the same clock time seven days later. Nothing is gained by closing early, it only give people an excuse to go to DRV and complain that the decision was rushed. JohnCD (talk) 16:06, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I tend to close around midnight to make life easier atleast for me anyway, So I was doing it on the 7th day but not leaving as a full day ... riiiiight!, Well I had my reasons & all that but anyway was just querying it so thanks for your help, – Davey 2010 Talk 16:15, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I edit-conflicted again, coming back to say: of course they don't have to be closed at once after 7 x 24 hours. If midnight is a convenient time for you to work that's fine, but wait for the next midnight after 168 hours have passed. JohnCD (talk) 16:17, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Okie dokie will do, Thanks again for both your helps, – Davey 2010 Talk 16:22, 27 January 2016 (UTC)