Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Frequently asked questions (FAQ)
I don't like this page's name. I want to rename it to Articles for discussion or something else.
Please see Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Rename AFD. Note that all of the "for discussion" pages handle not only deletion, but also proposed mergers, proposed moves, and other similar processes. AFD is "for deletion" because the volume of discussion has made it necessary to sub-divide the work by the type of change.
You mean I'm not supposed to use AFD to propose a merger or a page move?
Correct. Please use WP:Proposed mergers or WP:Requested moves for those kinds of proposals.
How many articles get deleted?
About 60% of deletion discussions are closed as delete.


AFD discussion closing[edit]

Since I couldn't figure out what the default result is for AFDs having no discussion for at least seven days, I'm guessing that the default would be "delete". This is similar to RFD, see this sentence at WP:RGUIDE: If a good-faith RfD nomination proposes to delete a redirect and has no discussion after at least 7 days, the default result is delete. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 16:07, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

p.s. hope you don't mind but just switched the cyan text for {{tq}} so its more easily readable. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 16:26, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
That's not how I read the AFD documents. Barring something obvious, like "any reasonable person would say keep" (page became a featured article during the discussion) or "the article qualifies for speedy delete" (e.g. a recently-discovered sockpuppet author or recently-discovered incurable copyright violations) or some other unusual situation, "relist" is the way to go. Not just relist, but make sure that the AFD was properly listed in the appropriate places and transcluded into the right "daily" AFD list. If that didn't happen, that could easily explain the lack of discussion.
After multiple relists, the default for a zero-discussion AFD is "non consensus to delete" or MAYBE "soft-delete/treat as a PROD" if the deletion rationale was very strong. At least that's how I would read it. One possible outcome if a related topic is covered is to "officially" close it as "no consensus" then either start a merge discussion or WP:BOLDLY redirect the page and add enough content to the target page so the redirect makes sense, knowing that any editor could come along and revert that action and start a discussion, per WP:BRD. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:21, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Please complete the deletion process[edit]

This article has no importance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinara_Rakhimbaeva — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.90.82.140 (talk) 15:18, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

What's the deletion reason? --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 17:26, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Request listing Filmhouse Cinemas for discussion[edit]

Hello, Please could someone list the article Filmhouse Cinemas for discussion with the following rationale.

"The article for the distribution side of this company was deleted approximately a year and a half ago, deletion discussion is here. About a month after being deleted an article on the distribution companies cinema chain was created by a user who has since been indefinitely blocked for spamming and advertising. The only users to add content to the article are the blocked account and a single purpose Corporate IP address from Nigeria.

The majority of the sources in the article are either trivial coverage or run of the mill corporate coverage, e.g. mentions of them opening new locations, a mention of them installing Imax equipment and their CEO resigning. The other sources in the article consist of some defunct paid for press releases sites, 2 mentions in a blog and a google drive link that I really didn't feel like clicking. Searching online turns up a lot of press releases, paid for coverage and SEO spam, but I could find no reliable independent coverage of this cinema chain. I can see no evidence that this chain of cinemas is any more notable than when it's distribution company article was deleted. There may of course be sources in other languages or something that I've missed, hence listing it here."

Thank you 192.76.8.72 (talk) 02:07, 11 November 2020 (UTC) edited at 192.76.8.72 (talk) 03:00, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Filmhouse Cinemas --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 03:34, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Please avoid deletion[edit]

Please avoid the deletion of my wikipedia page about Arun (actor) Sudev Vijay (talk) 08:25, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

@Sudev Vijay: Deletion discussions are a consensus-building process which you are welcome to participate in. Please do not continue to try to obstruct the process, i.e. by removing the AfD template from the article or blanking the discussion page. – Joe (talk) 08:36, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Flora and fauna[edit]

Which category do flora and fauna articles go under when listed for deletion? Is it science or do we need to create a new category for these debates? Mjroots (talk) 17:42, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Mjroots, I guess biology? --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:03, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
@Tyw7: - there isn't one that I can see -
cat=M Media and music
cat=O Organisation, corporation, or product
cat=B Biographical
cat=S Society topics
cat=W Web or Internet
cat=G Games or sports
cat=T Science and technology
cat=F Fiction and the arts
cat=P Places and transportation
cat=I Indiscernible or unclassifiable topic
cat=U Debate not yet sorted
but biology is one of the sciences. Mjroots (talk) 18:09, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Mjroots, Oh I thought you meant delsort. But science would be appropriate, I think. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:28, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

AFD request[edit]

Can someone help create an AFD for Adithada? The rationale is "WP:CONTENTFORK, as it is essentially same or a part of Adimurai and is already mentioned in its History section. Also, the parent article is not large enough to justify WP:SPLIT. Redirect". Thank you. 2409:4073:2088:2472:E5B9:1AD7:E16F:CD (talk) 19:47, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Articles for deletion Faysal Aziz Khan request[edit]

Please delete Faysal Aziz Khan as it has invalid content and against Wikipedia notability guideline and policy WP:Notability Faizan Munawar Varya chat contributions 00:14, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

What are the general notability guidelines in a nutshell?[edit]

Howdy. I recently started helping out at Wikipedia:Requested Articles, in the companies section. There are long lists there of self submitted companies with poor quality citations.

To help prune the lists there, and to just wrap my head around this very complicated process in general, what are the WP:GNG in a nutshell? What simplified criteria do you use when voting and nominating to immediately see if a general article is notable or needs to be deleted?

  • Significant mentions in X number of green/yellow/some color combination sources listed at WP:RSP?
  • Significant mentions in X number of any newspaper?
  • Significant coverage in enough newspaper articles for a Wikipedian with no connection to write the article from scratch?
  • WP:3REFS?
  • Other?

I've seen subjects/companies with hundreds of thousands of google hits and thousands of Google news search mentions not survive AFD. So I feel really confused about the process. Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:22, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, "in a nutshell" is a tough nut to crack and in practice it is going to vary a bit from subject to subject. Basically, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes is going to be a good place to start if you want to summarize GNG with respect to a particular subject area. Granted, most if not all of these now have at least a blurb in a more specific notability guideline, but the concept of "what has been the line of notability about other articles on the same topic in the (recent) past?" still applies even if there is no special subject-area notability guideline. I know this "I don't know, but I know it when I see it" answer isn't what you are looking for, but it's probably the most accurate and honest answer available. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:01, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Most of your dot points are off the mark. “Mentions” don’t get you there, not matter how many. “Significant” means? A very low bar suggested is 100 running words of comment. For a nutshell, WP:N and WP:CORP have good nutshells. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:39, 3 December 2020 (UTC)