Misplaced Pages

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

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 13:57, 16 November 2024 editLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,299,790 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 78) (bot← Previous edit Latest revision as of 13:57, 3 January 2025 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,299,790 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 78) (bot 
(73 intermediate revisions by 26 users not shown)
Line 31: Line 31:
|indexhere=yes |indexhere=yes
}} }}
==Discussion at ]==
== AfD request for ] and ] ==
]&nbsp;You are invited to join the discussion at ]. <span class="nowrap">&#8212;''']'''</span> <sup class="nowrap">(] • {]•]})</sup> 13:47, 10 December 2024 (UTC)<!-- ] -->


== AFD request: ] ==
There is no lighting in the sources. Only press releases and links to themselves. ] (]) 09:07, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:Given the lack of substantive editing on these articles in recent years, I have used the ] system to suggest deletion on your behalf. -- ] (]) 13:44, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:: I'm not sure back door deletion of possibly unwatched articles is a good thing. If no one is watching them then AfD will give them proper attention, ] (]) 18:52, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:::You are certainly welcome to deprod them and take them to AfD. The problem with unwatched articles going through AfD is that the lack of people watching often means no one participates in the AfD, and they end up going through several rounds of relisting and sticking around not because anyone objects, but because no one bothers to be involved. -- ] (]) 20:02, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
::Possibly irrelevant, but I couldn't figure out what "There is no lighting in the sources" meant – is this some obscure jargon I haven't encountered before?<span id="ClaudineChionh:1729641581237:Wikipedia_talkFTTCLNArticles_for_deletion" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;''']''' <small>(''she/her'' · ] · ] · ])</small> 23:59, 22 October 2024 (UTC)</span>
:::Given that the IP is Russian-based (and is commenting on Russian-related entries), I am not expecting perfect English. I guess I took it as nothing that shines the light of notability on the subject. The first is only sourced to an annual report, the second has no references (one external link, but it's to the subject's website.) The one below has more sourcing, but I'm not in position to easily evaluate the quality of that sourcing. -- ] (]) 00:56, 23 October 2024 (UTC)


Stub page for a random, no-name college professor that has just 6 sources and a "Life" section that consists entirely of 2 paragraphs - the first 4 sentences, the second just one. In addition, the first external link (which directs to an archived page from 1997) admits it has outdated content. Finally, this page's creation was literally the only edit its creator, ], ever made. ] (]) 18:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
== Page for AfD - ] ==
:: Passes ] criteria 1 with large numbers of citations for her works as shown on Google Scholar, so it is very likely to be kept at AfD, imv ] (]) 21:54, 12 December 2024 (UTC)


== Making sure I understand this right ==
Would appreciate discussion being opened. Cannot go through process myself as an unregistered user. "Daughter of Someone Famous". This is a vanity page which refers to self-published poems and lists university awards as reason for notability. No substantial or notable press or internet presence. Not something one would expect in a generalist reference. ] ] (]) 22:50, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
{{closed-top|Closing to avoid duplication. The parallel discussion at ] remains open for anyone who wants to contribute. ] (]) 13:26, 13 December 2024 (UTC)}}
The article states that:
{{TQ|If a redirection is controversial, however, AfD may be an appropriate venue for discussing the change in addition to the article's talk page.}}


Does this mean that an AFD can be started by someone with the intent of redirecting instead of deleting? ] (]) 04:06, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
:I don't understand your comment about this article. Would you be able to explain about what your concerns are? It is important to make certain that this conversation is grounded in Misplaced Pages's content policy, and not personal opinion --and without ''ad hominem'' reasoning. Rebecca Tamás is an established poet with an emerging body of published work and critical recognition; this seems to meet the notability criteria. If you have any specific elements that you find lacking or problematic in the article itself, please point them out so we can work to constructively improve the page. :] (]) 10:29, 25 October 2024 (UTC)


:Yep. ] (] • ]) 10:18, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
== "List of Super Heavies" ==
:Don't post things at multiple places. There's no reason to have two separate discusssions on this at VPP and here. ] (]/]) 13:07, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
{{closed-bottom}}


== Request ==
I just found this suspicious redirection page and marked it for possible deletion, but as IP cannot complete it's ]. Please have a look and help. My reasoning, given in the edit summary, is: "this is a redirection of a meant-to-be-funny term, created by an editor to redirect to his favourite playground. The term is by no means usual, or ever been used by anyone other than this editor who likes to link to this page. I reccon this misuse of redicection pages" ] (]) 10:07, 30 October 2024 (UTC)


:I think you want ] instead. But I don't understand the problem. ] redirects to a list of rockets called "]". ] (]) 11:18, 30 October 2024 (UTC) I am the subject of this article: ]. I don't think it meets the notability criteria for an article on Misplaced Pages. The article is semi-protected. I'd like to request that an editor nominate it for deletion please? ] (]) 01:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
::The problem is not where it redirects. The problem is the term of the redirection page itself: "List of Super Heavies" is not a common term someone would look up, but "a meant-to-be-funny term". There is no need at all to have that page, it's a joke - "Heavies". With the same reason one could make a redirection page "starshipies" to redirekt to "starship". ] (]) 11:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
:::] has some thoughts on the matter. But by all means open a Redirects for Discussion thread. ] (]) 11:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
::::What is the sense of putting me down here and telling me to open a Redirects for Discussion, just to oppose there speedily again. Reccon you find it funny to let me do all this effort just to put me down again? ] (]) 09:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::Check out the RfD discussion again. I changed from keep to delete (before I read this post). It may end up retargeted though. Thanks for opening the RfD. I think we will get a positive outcome. ] (]) 09:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::: Thanks. While I still think this redirect page is misleading and superfluous, a redirect to the page listing everything "super heavy" is a compromise. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) </small>
:The redirect is fine. The bigger issue here is your personal hounding of Redacted II. ] and ] shows a pretty extreme personal vendetta. ] (]) 16:40, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
== "]" listed at ] ==
]
The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 4#Misplaced Pages:Vote for deletion}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 21:36, 4 November 2024 (UTC)


== Closes before 7 days ==
== Georges-Claude Guilbert. Lack of satisfied criteria and risks of self promotion ==


I have started a discussion at ] about AfDs that are closing before 7 days/168 hours that watchers of this page may be interested in. Best, ] (]) 04:09, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Lack of academic criteria for the biography https://en.wikipedia.org/Georges-Claude_Guilbert
And risks of self promotion regarding creator and editors of the article ] (]) 13:33, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

== AFD request to nominate several C-SPAN interview lists ==

I would like to nominate the following C-SPAN interview lists for deletion:

* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]

All these lists were created by ], who remains an active editor on this site but has not created pages of this ilk since 2020. I believe these lists all fall foul of ], to say nothing of them not being needed on a site like this - one can simply go to the C-SPAN website and look up the interview they want to watch instead of relying on these lists for such. ] (]) 00:59, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

:Good evening- These articles/lists provide a quick service for users who are interested in the interviews listed. It is true that I have not added to the Q&A or After Words programs recently, perhaps I should put that back towards the top of my to-do list (or others are welcome to do so as well). I do not see how it makes WP weaker to have them, and I do see where users could benefit. Also, I should mention that I have recently reverted some edits on other C-SPAN-related articles such as ], ], ], and others. As noted in my comments on those reverts, I am concerned that this is a misreading of ], which says in part "although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable." Let's discuss further as appropriate. Thanks ] (]) 06:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 13:57, 3 January 2025

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Articles for deletion page.
Shortcut
? view · edit Frequently asked questions Q1: I don't like this page's name. I want to rename it to Articles for discussion or something else. A1: Please see Misplaced Pages:Perennial proposals#Rename AFD. Note that all of the "for discussion" pages handle not only deletion, but also proposed mergers, proposed moves, and other similar processes. AFD is "for deletion" because the volume of discussion has made it necessary to sub-divide the work by the type of change. Q2: You mean I'm not supposed to use AFD to propose a merger or a page move? A2: Correct. Please use Misplaced Pages:Proposed mergers or Misplaced Pages:Requested moves for those kinds of proposals. Q3: How many articles get nominated at AfD? A3: Per the Oracle of Deletion, there were about 470,000 AfDs between 2005 (when the process was first created) and 2022. This comes out to about 26,000 per year (2,176 per month / 72 per day). In 2022, there were 20,008 AfDs (1,667 per month / 55 per day). Q4: How many articles get deleted? A4: Between 2005 and 2020, around 60% of AfDs were closed as "delete" or "speedy delete". This is about 270,000. More detailed statistics (including year-by-year graphs) can be found at Misplaced Pages:Oracle/All and Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages records#Deletion. Q5: Is the timeline strict, with exactly 168 hours and zero minutes allowed? Should I remove late comments? A5: No. We're trying to get the right outcome, not follow some ceremonial process. If the discussion hasn't been closed, it's okay for people to continue discussing it. Q6: How many people participate in AFD? A6: As of October 2023, of the 13.9 million registered editors who have ever made 1+ edit anywhere, about 162,000 of them (1 in 85 editors) have also made 1+ edit to an AFD page. Most of the participants are experienced editors, but newcomers and unregistered editors also participate. Most individual AFD pages get comments from just a few editors, but the numbers add up over time.
This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconDeletion (defunct)
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Deletion, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.DeletionWikipedia:WikiProject DeletionTemplate:WikiProject DeletionDeletion
Media mentionThis project page has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
Archiving icon
Archives
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78


For discussions that have not been well-archived (before 2004), the page history of the Articles for deletion page has to be used as a contingency archive. One can look in the Deletion log to obtain date and time of a deletion, then look in the page history of VfD near that time to see which edit regards the unlisting of the page, then view the previous version.


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

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

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

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

AFD request: Brenda Dervin

Stub page for a random, no-name college professor that has just 6 sources and a "Life" section that consists entirely of 2 paragraphs - the first 4 sentences, the second just one. In addition, the first external link (which directs to an archived page from 1997) admits it has outdated content. Finally, this page's creation was literally the only edit its creator, Dani4, ever made. 100.7.34.111 (talk) 18:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Passes WP:PROF criteria 1 with large numbers of citations for her works as shown here on Google Scholar, so it is very likely to be kept at AfD, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:54, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Making sure I understand this right

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

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

The article states that: If a redirection is controversial, however, AfD may be an appropriate venue for discussing the change in addition to the article's talk page.

Does this mean that an AFD can be started by someone with the intent of redirecting instead of deleting? Plasticwonder (talk) 04:06, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Yep. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:18, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Don't post things at multiple places. There's no reason to have two separate discusssions on this at VPP and here. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:07, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request

I am the subject of this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/Terry_Blade. I don't think it meets the notability criteria for an article on Misplaced Pages. The article is semi-protected. I'd like to request that an editor nominate it for deletion please? BladeTerry (talk) 01:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Closes before 7 days

I have started a discussion at the Administators notice board about AfDs that are closing before 7 days/168 hours that watchers of this page may be interested in. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:09, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Category: