Q1: I don't like this page's name. I want to rename it to Articles for discussion or something else.
A1: Please see Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Rename AFD. Note that all of the "for discussion" pages handle not only deletion, but also proposed mergers, proposed moves, and other similar processes. AFD is "for deletion" because the volume of discussion has made it necessary to sub-divide the work by the type of change.
Q2: You mean I'm not supposed to use AFD to propose a merger or a page move?
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 Wikipedia:Oracle/All and Wikipedia:Wikipedia 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 article is within the scope of WikiProject Deletion, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.DeletionWikipedia:WikiProject DeletionTemplate:WikiProject DeletionDeletion articles
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.
As most editors who have been active in AfD discussions for some time have noticed, AfD has seen a decline in participation in recent months. A couple of editors, me included, have also seen a couple of issues with AfD, some of which discourage editors from participating in discussions. Is it time to start thinking of new ways to change the AfD process? This could include new/deleted things, or changed policies. I'm sure that some editors have seen issues with AfD that they'd like to see change, or have ideas on how to gather more participants that would need consensus before they are implemented. If there is sufficient support for such a reform, my idea would be to conduct it as follows:
Phase 1 ---> Open for proposals. Gather new ideas on what could be changed. If there is sufficient support on a proposal, it is moved to phase 2.
Phase 2 ---> Refine each proposal (so that the most people can agree with them) in sub-discussions.
Phase 3 ---> Formally propose each proposal in a sub-RfC.
Phase 4 ---> Implement the proposals that are validated.
Cocobb8, Thank you for bringing up this issue. Yes - I'm a strong advocate for AFD reforms, having observed numerous issues recently. I believe implementing some changes could significantly improve the quality of our articles as well. I'm fully on board with moving this forward. — Saqib (talk) 14:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral What is the problem? As far as I know it is about the quality of the arguments, not about the number of people showing up. The Bannertalk14:35, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of threads don't get any discussion at all after few relists and are closed as no consensus. Other times, many !votes are not very helpul (IP votes that do not reference to policies, etc.). That's why I wanted to open this to see if there could be some kind of "open for proposals" phase. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:39, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Banner, But I was informed just yesterday by @Liz that there has been an overall decline in AFD participation, which highlights the need for reforms. In addition to increasing participation in AfDs, I've some other genuine concerns regarding AFDs that I believe need to be addressed as well. — Saqib (talk) 14:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would be much better IMHO when the rules for notability are set by the Wiki-wide community instead of Wikiprojects. That would make discussions more neutral and argument based than a defensive wall. But that is a totally different discussion and a tough nut to crack. The Bannertalk15:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You did not, I did. Because I think WikiProject-defences are one of the reasons why people do not participate in AfDs. But as said: that is my personal opinion and a totally different discussion than the procedural one started here. The Bannertalk15:39, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am a frequent participant in thrice relisted processes and I do agree there are issues which might deserve a more modern discussion. That's a yes on Phase 1 from me. BusterD (talk) 14:53, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seem to be way too many nominations (not only at AfD but at categories, misc., and wherever else deletions are proposed), dozens a day. Editors who keep up with all of these are few, which makes it easier for deletionists (yes, they exist, and many keep score) to reign. In a perfect WikiWorld, I'd suggest that nominators who prove to have a scatter-gun approach and fail at many nominations (how about a failure rate cap of three a month for each editor?) could be nomination banned for short or long period if they persist. As for relistings, there have been many relisted even after adequate sources have been found to make a Keep an almost-sure possibility. Too many nominations time-sink many editors to the point of not commenting, as do multiple relistings. Not to just complain, praise to Liz, Star Mississippi and the many others who toil in these thankless corners of Wikipedia. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:01, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is the evidence that reform is needed? Not evidence that there's less participation (although numbers would help there, too), but evidence that participation is low because of some flaws with the AfD process itself. Over at RfA, there's a ton of discourse about specific problems with the process that lead to lack of participation (as in candidates). It's toxicity, it's the questions, it's the standards, it's the voting format, it's the crat chats, etc. What are the problems at AfD? If it's just "we need more people to participate and have no idea why people aren't participating" then this skips a key step in determining there's something wrong with the process itself. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 15:19, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See the comments above yours for issues that could need to be addressed. It not only had to do with participation, as there are many other things as well. That's also what phase 1 would be for: what exactly needs to be changed to make AfD better? Phase 1 might very well open and have little to no proposals, as well. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That looks like fundamentally "too many nominations", but I can save you the time for that one: there will not be consensus to limit overall nominations as long as there's no consensus to limit overall article creation. I guess I'm not necessarily against this process, but I don't have much faith it'll lead anywhere. As I see it, there are two fundamental challenges: one is that we need more Wikipedians in general to keep up with millions of articles because it's hard to just recruit new participants to processes like AfD. The second -- and not everyone will agree this is a problem -- is the mismatch between the amount of effort it takes to !vote delete and the amount of effort it takes to !vote keep. Once upon a time the default was keep, requiring a good deletion argument; now the default is delete, requiring a good keep argument. It's a lot easier to nominate articles for deletion than it is to demonstrate notability and/or improve articles. The way this commonly arises in "deletion reform" efforts is to put teeth behind WP:BEFORE, i.e. before nominating you are required to do a thorough search for sources to make sure something isn't notable before nominating. But that's a perennial proposal that never finds consensus (personally, I would support sanctioning people who frequently nominate without a WP:BEFORE, but I don't think there are many who would support codifying that). Anyway, I guess that's a debate for the next phase, but what I'm trying to express here is concern for a big process that many people will feel obliged to participate in given the stakes, but which will sap already scarce volunteer time (cf. AfD participation) for no payoff. I'm a no unless someone can articulate issues that actually could be reformed. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 15:37, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because with just one well composed paragraph, an AfD nominator can permanently dispose of several content creators’ work. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:02, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rhododendrites, Well I feel my other concerns may surprise some or even offend a few, but I've got some reservations about allowing IPs/SPA to participate in AFDs. Because from what I've experienced lately, their involvement make things messy and harder to reach a consensus. I'm all for more participants in AFDs. But based on what I've seen, letting IPs/SPAs join AFDs hasn't worked out well, for me atleast. So, my concerns are kind of pulling in opposite directions, but both have their legit issues. Does anyone else feel the same way? — Saqib (talk) 15:58, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is also a perennial proposal, which tends to fail not because IPs routinely contribute valuable perspectives but because (a) once in a while they do, (b) the Wiki Way means erring on the side of participation. If a reader sees an article they're interested in is up for deletion, why not let them say something?, and (c) closing admins already know to weigh low-quality/low-effort/single-purpose !votes less. Beyond that, for an initiative launching primarily because of lack of participation, I suspect there won't be much support for further limiting participation. :) But sure, these are details which could be resolved in a hypothetical next step. I'm not persuaded of any fixable problems yet, though, personally. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 16:11, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rhododendrites, OK how can you address the situation where IPs, related to UPEs, vote to keep articles using strong policy-based arguments, which then leads to AFDs getting closed in their favour? — Saqib (talk) 16:30, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"IPs, related to UPEs, vote to keep articles using strong policy-based arguments": if the argument are strong and based on policy who cares if they are IPs? — Iadmc♫talk 16:34, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Iadmc, But it is UPE and still a violation of WP:TOU. Right.? Rhododendrites, On a related note, I agree with your suggestion to sanctioning editors who frequently nominate pages for deletion without conducting a WP:BEFORE check. But at the same time, we should also consider sanctioning trusted editors who simply throw votes (keep/delete) based on WP:ATA, don't you think? — Saqib (talk) 16:39, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was a "school" you could attend for New Page Patrol (NPP); I didn't attend, but wondering if something similar here might help. You basically have more senior editors work with a more junior editor and work a page together, to get the idea of the process. Oaktree b (talk) 18:35, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No: I agree with Rhododendrites; I think there should be more direct explanation of what the problems are that need to be solved. A call for proposals on "how to make AfD better" with no specific problems to solve will result in dozens of proposals, all pulling in different directions. Toughpigs (talk) 15:47, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, great point here, some proposals could definitely end up pulling in different directions. But, maybe some could be merged together at the end of phase 1 (if started)? Also, some editors have already started raising concerns about what AfD needs to be better (see above), and as there are quite a few, it would have taken too much to list them all in my RfC. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:54, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure what the problems are that need to be addressed. Could anyone explain? I find the process fine, personally and have had no problems. Perhaps more emphasis on the BEFORE process though— Iadmc♫talk 16:23, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This could be an idea... Rather than simply nominating the article, could we create a sort of "checklist" with various boxes the nominator would have to check off before it ends up in the AfD queue. Something similar to what's given when you use the Wizard to upload files? Oaktree b (talk) 16:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes The process seems to work well, as is, WHEN we get people participating. I'd be open to talk about how to increase participation, not sure I have any ideas to share at this time. I'm happy to participate. Oaktree b (talk) 16:28, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes It's always a good idea to see if we can incorporate informal learnings into formal guidance and update our P&Gs appropriately if we find a good reason to. Jclemens (talk) 21:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. While I feel the AfD system is inherently problematic at times, I'd say it's down moreso to who participates than it is any inherent flaw in the system. This kind of proposal feels like it will be significantly more drawn out than a normal AfD, creating strain on the few who are even participating to begin with while also being less likely to be consistently checked by members as the discussion grows older. I feel focusing on more heavily advertising discussion or encouraging participation may be beneficial, but at the same time those unfamiliar with guidelines may just clutter the discussion. I feel for now the system isn't so far gone that it needs a drastic overhaul to an extent this large, but encouraging and educating more members about participation may be something to look into going forward. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 03:07, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes It's disheartening to nominate articles and see them kept through minimal participation. Most AfD nominations I made were as a result of work on new page patrol (from which I confess I have wandered away, hence little recent activity at either), a process that necessarily creates a number of AfDs (unless you spend your time at NPP passing on the hairy decisions, which I couldn't condemn anyone for, funnily enough). Equally, I could see it disheartening for editors to see their articles deleted through minimal participation, albeit soft deletion. Phase 1 may well be a creative and interesting exercise, although I do agree minimal participation is at the core of everything here. I like Oaktree's idea of a nomination checklist, but do think that ONE barrier to participation is that whole idea that you're pilloried for lack of WP:BEFORE. I do believe that is the creator's burden - nothing should be created on WP today without passing WP:GNG and slinging the burden on others to provide that is just lazy - solve that, and you've already minimised the workload at AfD. The other barrier I think looms is that of being judged by one's 'hit rate' of successful nominations/votes. That metric punishes the brave and there's no reward for getting it right beyond advancing your numbers ready for the day you get it wrong. Do editors use those numbers to judge people? Yes, they do. My 2p worth. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:55, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While it is explicitly not the time for proposals yet, I think the idea of bifurcating requirements for newly created vs. previously existing articles should be on the table, should we decide to sit down at one. Jclemens (talk) 06:13, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also not convinced there's a problem here. Admittedly it's been some time since I regularly closed AfDs, but I've just looked through recent logs and the level of participation looks roughly the same as it was five years ago. The outcome of most AfDs is obvious and in those cases you really don't need more than 2-3 !voters. No consensus outcomes are a necessary part of consensus-based decision making (if we always reach a consensus, it's not consensus) and there is nothing inherently bad about them. With all due respect, Cocobb8, how could you possibly observe that there has been a decline in participation in recent months when you yourself have only been participating there for a few months?
AfD is historically probably our best-functioning process (what else churns through dozens of articles a day with minimal drama?) and I'd like to see hard evidence of a problem, e.g. statistics on declining participation and a concomitant increase in no consensus closes. Just to throw out an alternative hypothesis: one thing that has changed in the last few years is that AfD admins have become more reluctant to close discussions as no consensus, and instead relist beyond the old soft limit of three weeks – this may give the impression that there are more stalled discussions, without the discussions themselves having changed. – Joe (talk) 07:11, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I'd be in support of changes to the AfD process. My area of editing has very low participation at AfD (quite often it's just myself voting) and while the AfD process seems to work well for topics of high participation, for areas of low to no participation, quite often the results can be skewed some what and very often are inconsistent. For example, sometimes a suitable WP:ATD is used, or sometimes not at all as there have been a couple of deletion votes which they outweigh the closers view and then article history is lost which could be used if coverage is found in the future (quite often the case in sportspeople who's careers were before the internet era and from non-Anglo countries). I don't know what the solution is, but as personally I don't see participation increasing in my area of editing, and with a high number of AfDs daily in my area, I'd be keen to see some form of change to make participation feel like much less of a drag. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:48, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I would be open for discussion with new proposals. An issue I see is that some discussions are controlled by just a few editors and they are often closed (keep or delete) based on weak arguments. And no, that is not a shot at the closers as closing contrary to the discussion would be a SUPERVOTE. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:42, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No it already looks like it will be a deletionist v inclusionist battle with AfD nominators targeting their opponents and nominators themselves targeted. This battle puts off a lot of participants at AfD. Regarding WP:ATA I see just as many examples from delete voters as keep voters such as "per nom" votes from experienced editors including admins. The last change which introduced soft delete has not been a success in my view as it has been used more often than expected resulting in too many unconsidered deletions, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 23:24, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd actually like to see us get past this longstanding divide, and while sure, people are going to come at this from all sorts of perspectives, it's going to be the dialectic between differing viewpoints that produces change and hopefully improvement. A formal "How can we make this better?" process doesn't presume that anyone is right or wrong, but does create a central forum to discuss disappointments and cultivate hope for improvements. Jclemens (talk) 23:45, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. The more I see large-scale multi-RfCs tried out in practice, the less I like them. Most obviously they have a tendency to end up as trainwrecks (e.g., WP:ACAS), but there are other issues: the way the process is laid out can skew the substantive result, and controversial proposals may not get the scrutiny they otherwise would (compare the number of !votes here with the number of !votes here). If there are conversations that need to be had about AfD (and I think there probably are), the standard procedure for individual RfCs, cumbersome though it may be, will do a much better job of divining community consensus than just throwing a few dozen proposals at the wall and seeing what sticks. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:13, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agreed on this. I suspect they also massively skew the participant base, i.e. the density and complexity filters out anyone who isn't already heavily involved with 'backstage' policy discussions and all the conventions that go with it. – Joe (talk) 06:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The structure of AfD is fine. The trouble is poor nominations. A better standard for nominating should be advised.
WP:BEFORE should be mandatory. Most importantly, nominators should be required to make a statement on why the several (Policy) WP:ATDs are not viable solutions. Of these, the most important to exclude is a possible merge. Merge proposals should NOT be brought to AfD without establishing that there is an impass of disagreement on the article talk page.
AfD is not for opening “discussion”s. If the nominator is not making a clear and strong case for an AfD outcome, they should be sent away to told to start a thread on the talk page. Tentative proposals and idle discussion goes on article talk pages.
No. I have often observed that most RfCs receive little participation, and close without any consensus at the end of the 30-day waiting period. I see little evidence of this problem in AfD or any of the other XfD's — even in areas like CfD with few active users. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. The AfD process has worked before. The proposed plan complicates things unnecessarily and is not based on anything proven to work, and I do not see how it would inspire more people to participate. Nominators need guidance on making their cases stronger and clearer up front. Maybe admins need to put poorly formed nominations on pause in order to give nominators the chance to beef things up, rather than simply discouraging them and wasting everybody's time. Nominators and participants can find the whole thing discouraging. DoczillaOhhhhhh, no!06:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another proposal, remember, this section is for proposals which do not then fall by the wayside because of 'no' opinions. There should be a limit of a number of times an article can be nominated once kept. Three even seems high, but seems a good compromise. I've read many deletion nominations where the page has already survived several AfDs but another whack at it is being taken in hopes that "this will be the time it fails". Maybe A page or category, etc., can at most be nominated three times, with at least a year's separation, before a ten-year moratorium on a nomination is placed (I'd make it no more noms, three strikes and you're out, but the rare reason to nom again may appear although after two or three it should have an exceptional reason to delete). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:06, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone can make any proposal at any time. This is a question of whether people are interested in a structured brainstorming/improvement proposals process. Those who say "yes" can always put our heads together, but without the imprimatur of a formal proposals process. Jclemens (talk) 16:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
About the only thing that I would change is to give more guidance to emphasize that input should be detailed and focused on the question at hand which is usually wp:notability. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a big problem at AFD which can't get fixed at AFD which is the variability of how rigorously/strictly GNG is applied. This is due to the nebulousness of wp:notability and not understanding what the practical norm is. North8000 (talk) 20:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC) North8000 (talk) 20:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nah. The lack of participation is a real issue (I myself am part of the problem, having mostly quit AfD to focus on content work). But, unlike with RfA, which has a ton of different problems, low participation is pretty much my only gripe with AfD. In most reasonably attended discussions, the consensus building process leads to the correct outcome, and civility is usually maintained. If there is a specific solution had in mind for fixing low attendance, the proposer should start an RfC for that specifically, but multi phase discussion is inappropriate. Mach6100:26, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a regular AFD closer and there are lots of problems. The easiest to solve is editors who nominate a boatload of AFD nominations (I'm talking 10 to 20 to 50 AFDs) all at the same time. Of course, no participants have the time to do due diligence, looking for sources for this many articles so they just get relisted and maybe Soft Deleted due to a lack of participation. It would be simple to have a limit on the number of AFD nominations an editor could make, say 5 or a dozen. But dozens, all over a few minutes? It's not considerate to our regular participants.
Secondly, for over a year now, we've seen fewer and fewer participants in AFD discussions. I started to notice it during the deluge of athlete's article when notability rules changed in 2022. People got burned out. I will carry out consensus, whatever that is but I have a soft spot for editors arguing to Keep an article. Some of them spend hours tracking down sources and then the articles still end up being deleted. Why invest all of that time into improving an article and its sourcing when more people show up to argue for deletion? It's demoralizing. So, I've noticed more of our editors who are arguing to Keep an article getting burned out and leaving to work on other areas like article creation which makes the discussions tend towards Deletion. That's just my observation, not a critique on the results. I just know that editors I use to see pop up in lots of AFD discussions have just moved on to less frustrating areas of the project. Those are my first two points, I have more but I'll leave it at this. LizRead!Talk!03:56, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I'm somewhat who used to spend more time in AFD but lately have drifted away. I'm not sure there's anything really that's caused it other than for easy cases, it's pretty time consuming to meaningfully contribute to the majority of AFDs. I'm neutral because while I am sure there are ways to improve the process I'm not sure a big multi-proned discussion will turn out and somewhat fear having to wade through and provide opinions on 20+ proposals within a 30-day window (no idea how many will actually be proposed). Skynxnex (talk) 19:22, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I am very supportive of this. Maybe it won't go anywhere, but we should at least try. If Liz says AfD has issues, then AfD has issues. More seriously, I've been checking repeatedly-relisted entries over the past few weeks, and the lack of participation is alarming. I agree that we should investigate limits on how many nominations an editor can make, especially for serially unsuccessful nominators or nominators who consistently perform poor BEFOREs. Other ideas: Expand the criteria for soft deletion (FWIW, these seem poorly documented in the first place and need codifying); encourage bold BLARs instead of preemptive AfDs "because the BLAR would probably have been opposed"; make mass-nominations easier (these are supposed to save time, but most instead get bogged down in complications); reduce relisting, perhaps by encouraging closers to be more proactive in determining consensus, or perhaps by limiting discussions to two or even one relist(s). Anyhow, all these ideas can be discussed later, but I think they should be discussed. Toadspike[Talk]10:15, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cocobb8 I didn't get your ping at the top. I'm not sure why; maybe because it's in a collapsed box? Anyhow, thanks for starting this discussion, and I'm honored that you listed me as an "active AfD user". Toadspike[Talk]10:19, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing out the part on relists – I didn't know that the limit was two, since AfD obviously uses a limit of three relists nowadays. WP:NOQUORUM (aka WP:SOFTDELETE) does not actually capture current practice, where there are a variety of factors that prevent soft deletion, such as a previous AfD. I think the only thing that should prevent soft deletion is a previous AfD closed as keep, and maybe we should deprecate that precedent as well. Toadspike[Talk]07:41, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that's covered by the first sentence of WP:NOQUORUM (If a nomination has received few or no comments from any editor, and no one has opposed deletion) as well as the closing administrator should treat the XfD nomination as an expired PROD, which links the process to the well-defined one at WP:PRODNOM. – Joe (talk) 09:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I am very supportive of this for a number of reasons. Nobody keeps a process for this length of time and expect it to work in the modern age. Everybody knows it and everybody who wants to abuse it, does. The process is not fit for purpose and that is the primary reason that participation continues to fall and will fall further. Even compared to 5 years ago, many of regulars have long gone. The major problems are as follows. Canvassing: Off-site and on-site canvassing is common and heavily used. Its wasteful of time and energy to such an extent that the admin corps has washed their hands of it. It has been allowed to flourish and has a chilling effect on the ability to delete articles. The Group Effect: Similar to canvassing but no interaction takes place, where friends or people from similar backgrounds, or in a similar group clump together and by weight of numbers, bias the result. The Process: The process itself only works well on the simplest types of articles, sports people, singers, actors that kind of thing. It doesn't seem, even to begin to work on the most complex articles, the large articles by established editors whose veracity is in doubt. They don't get a look-in, due to editor weight and the weight of expectation. There are several other things I could mention, e.g. wilful ignorance of policy. Its long past to remove this old process and update it with something fit for the modern age. scope_creepTalk18:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The biggest problem at AfD is not the procedure itself but the increasing unpleasantness of "debate", with editors throwing accusations around about the integrity and Wikipedia knowledge of other contributors with whom they disagree. This needs to stop. Anyone should be allowed to state whatever opinion they choose on the notability of an article without being bullied (often on a "tag team" basis) by other editors. I believe that is a big reason why editors are being put off contributing to discussions. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:30, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. But not just that. The atmosphere at AfD is getting ridiculously unpleasant. There's no need for it. This is an encyclopaedia, not a battleground. Everyone is entitled to their view. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:24, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just using a circular reasoning is making AfD-discussions also highly unpleasant, as it is not a serious content related argument. The Bannertalk15:15, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've definitely noticed this a lot in discussions. It oftentimes feels like the nominator or various contributors to the discussion have to be personally judged during these debates, and it's really very unpleasant. While I disagree with the nom's proposal here, I definitely feel this should be looked at, because I definitely feel this is a large part of why editors have strayed away from AfDs. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:36, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral with a question, although sympathetic for a need to improve. Like others I have seen "less than polite" behavior, the worst being the "how dare you". I have also seen cliques defending a view on specialist pages (often notability issues) which would be laughed away if the topic was of wider interest. Which brings me to my key Question -- are these issues everywhere or in certain specific areas? I mainly do AfD's in physics & chemistry with a little in engineering and other science. I rarely stray too far from my comfort zone, although I do every now and then. In the areas I monitor there do not seem to be massive problems, there is a strong cadre of experienced editors. Maybe it is not simply the process, but what goes on in certain areas. Is there training for AfD that might be advertised in ways to improve involvement in certain areas? I would be interested in more info and specifics -- I might have missed numbers as this discussion is loooong. Ldm1954 (talk) 10:58, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes: While the process has its benefits, it does appear that participation has been decreasing recently, and a discussion for how to reverse the trend is warranted. Let'srun (talk) 20:12, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware the previous AFD ended as keep, but A. it was procedurally kept because of the nominator's bad faith actions, and B. I would like to challenge it again because all that's here is primary sources, listicles, and toys. 2605:B40:13E7:F600:5C3E:C3DA:FDE9:A738 (talk) 01:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There has been a lot of Edit-warring between this unknown "Australian Railroad IP" and a lot of people who go up against this IP.
This article also contains some false information. There is no DF-123 class when checking on the history of the SD9E, plus this article has been REFBOMBED on some of its sections and needs to be fleshed out with proper sourcing and real citations.
This article should either be moved to Draftspace or simply deleted because in its current state, it fails WP:GNG.
This article was fleshed out with proper sourcing by a user but was somehow reverted. Which also backs up the claim that there has been a lot of Edit-warring against this article. 59.102.3.140 (talk) 05:20, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion Request of the recently formed page Tiyyar
There is a major issue with the page very recently formed page Tiyyar. Its main page is Ezhava and all the info regarding these groups are clearly mentioned there with properly sourced from valid book sources.
how ever a new page is being formed in the name Tiyyar
This page clearly violates :
WP:VWP:GNG
The new page Tiyyar which came into the view 2 weeks ago by removing the old redirect have got multiple issues and is violating almost all policies of wikipedia .
First of all 90 percent of the sources in this page is recently published news articles and this is about a historic community. The main page Ezhava recognices thiyya/theeya/tiyyar as a synonym of the same and include all major info within the main page, if we are creating a separate copy of the variations in the name thiyya,theeya,tiyyar,chegos, etc this would end up as a copy of like 10+ pages. however the new page claims that it is a separate ethnicity .The page even claims that there is dialect called thiyya that too in the lead. In addition to that the info about population , number etc are unsourced or clear misinformation. 95 Percent of the content of the page is either an unwanted low quality copy of the main page claiming that is separate and contradicting the things or complete misinformation from news articles.
From the talk archieves from the main page ezhava its very clear that both are considered as same and in multiple articles they are being used synonymously used . The article even mentions that very clearly . However the new page is against all those policies .
As it fails it fails WP:GNG. This article should either be moved to Draftspace or simply deleted because , In the current state it is problematic as 95 percent of the information is misleading , while correct information is provided and included in the main page Ezhava. Lisa121996 (talk) 08:06, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Owing to my newness to editing Wikipedia, I thought it perhaps best to err on the side of caution and receive a more informed opinion. I have been attempting to improve articles about author-historians on Wikipedia as of late and I stumbled upon the article of Anthony J. Bryant. While he has published a handful of books, he does not seem to meet the criteria of notability. There is a noticeable deficit of reliable secondary sources that are independent of him which makes it extraordinarily difficult to source information for the article. As it stands, much of the article is presently sourced from his obituary and much of the wording of the article seems to just be re-worded from said obituary. Prior to his passing, there was only One source even listed on the page, with everything else being unsourced claims, and the archive of his author page from his publisher doesn't list much information at all. Even worse, however, is per this edit, it seems to imply that the obituary copied from the Wikipedia article. While the bulk of the article content was created uncited by a @Sengoku Warrior who has not contributed on Wikipedia since 2006 and whose first action was to originate the article (whose activity after creating the article seemstohavebeeninserting Anthony J. Bryant's "Sengoku Daimyo" website as a source on various articles before moving on to Carl Steenstrup). It seems the original article had just taken most, if not all, of the biographical information from the authors personal website that the editor who originated the article was pushing as a source elsewhere, and that most of that information has simply substained the article unverified and unsourced until Bryant passed away, at which point his obituary has been circularly used to verify the claims of the article. The degree to which @Sengoku Warrior was pushing Anthony J. Bryant's website after creating the Anthony J. Bryant article carries the appearance of a conflict of interest at best, and an attempt to advertise at worst. Moreover, the article claims "he completed his graduate studies in Japanese studies (history, language, and armor) at Takushoku University in Tokyo, graduating in 1986", while his own personal website makes no mention of this study at Takushoku University and only mentions that he was seeking a job in history with a MA in Japanese and described himself as "gainlessly unemployed" from at least 2005 until his passing in 2013. Likewise, none of the other secondary biographies obtainable for him outside of his obituary note any study at Takushoku University. To my understanding, these facts and the lack of verifiability to the bulk of the page means that he fails to rise to the standards of being a notable academic or a notable author. As I am relatively new to the whole editing process, however, I do not want to just offer up an article for deletion without consulting people who might be more knowledgeable. I have spent the better part of today trying to find sources, and I have located very little and almost nothing that substantiates the bulk of the claims made by his obituary and the Wikipedia page. Even the latest good faith attempt by another editor to clarify the contents of his article has resulted in numerous references being added which point to his obituary, and only his obituary. The only source outside of his obituary that I have found is a small mention in Dragon Magazine #222, announcing his position as an editor for the magainze and stating that he previously worked as an editor for other magazines (Such as Mainichi and Tokyo Journal), which does not do very much for the rest of the content of his current page, but does at the very least provide a source outside of his obituary that says he worked for Mainichi and Tokyo Journal. Due to the sparseness of information available about him, I am simply not sure he meets, or will ever meet, the criteria of notability.
Editing because I have also just discovered that information which Anthony J. Bryant published about himself may also be inaccurate. It would seem that Bryant engaged in self-aggrandization, in that in this interview he engaged in, Bryant represented himself as a consultant on the BBC Documentary "Shogun: Heroes and Villains". However, there is no evidence of a documentary called "Shogun: Heroes and Villains" existing, rather, there is an episode of the television program Heroes and Villains (TV series) which IMDB had listed him as the consultant for. However, upon watching the episode "Shogun" which IMDB credited him for, the credits of the episode do not mention Anthony J. Bryant at all as historical consultant but as a researcher, but rather list Dr. Stephen Turnbull as the consultant. This casts further doubt on the information in his article, and obituary, which seem derived from his own statements without any verifiable outside sources to confirm them. Chrhns (talk) 22:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chrhns: Please feel free to nominate the article for deletion. The purpose of doing so is to start a discussion with other editors and you will get more opinions there than here. It also sounds like you've already done way more research into the subject than the average AfD nominator. Just as an FYI, though, deletion nominations are usually a lot more concise than what you've written here – a few lines at most. – Joe (talk) 15:45, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we should delete this page because it's a page dedicated to Governor of West Virginia, Jim Justice's, really cute bulldog, Babydog. Sorry for being biased, but that's part of the reason why I think it shouldn't be deleted, and also because it's important information imo. Maybe not compared to other stuff but in my opinion (imo) it is. Argentinadiego93 (talk) 15:30, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Banner talk 10:48, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
