Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion
Latest comment: 1 hour ago by Asilvering in topic 'and has not participated'
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Articles for deletion page. |
|
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?
A2: Correct. Please use Wikipedia:Proposed mergers or Wikipedia: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 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 project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
 | This project page has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
|
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 |
|
|
|
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 discussions WP: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 |
Georges-Claude Guilbert. Lack of satisfied criteria and risks of self promotion
editLack of academic criteria for the biography https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges-Claude_Guilbert And risks of self promotion regarding creator and editors of the article Paul John Dedalus (talk) 13:33, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
AFD request to nominate several C-SPAN interview lists
editI would like to nominate the following C-SPAN interview lists for deletion:
- List of After Words interviews first aired in 2005
- List of After Words interviews first aired in 2006
- List of After Words interviews first aired in 2007
- List of After Words interviews first aired in 2008
- List of After Words interviews first aired in 2009
- List of After Words interviews first aired in 2010
- List of After Words interviews first aired in 2011
- List of After Words interviews first aired in 2012
- List of After Words interviews first aired in 2013
- List of After Words interviews first aired in 2014
- List of After Words interviews first aired in 2015
- List of After Words interviews first aired in 2016
- List of After Words interviews first aired in 2017
- List of After Words interviews first aired in 2018
- List of After Words interviews first aired in 2019
- List of After Words interviews first aired in 2020
- List of C-SPAN Q&A interviews first aired in 2004 and 2005
- List of C-SPAN Q&A interviews first aired in 2006
- List of C-SPAN Q&A interviews first aired in 2007
- List of C-SPAN Q&A interviews first aired in 2008
- List of C-SPAN Q&A interviews first aired in 2009
- List of C-SPAN Q&A interviews first aired in 2010
- List of C-SPAN Q&A interviews first aired in 2011
- List of C-SPAN Q&A interviews first aired in 2012
- List of C-SPAN Q&A interviews first aired in 2013
- List of C-SPAN Q&A interviews first aired in 2014
- List of C-SPAN Q&A interviews first aired in 2015
- List of C-SPAN Q&A interviews first aired in 2016
- List of C-SPAN Q&A interviews first aired in 2017
- List of C-SPAN Q&A interviews first aired in 2018
- List of C-SPAN Q&A interviews first aired in 2019
- List of C-SPAN Q&A interviews first aired in 2020
- List of Washington Journal programs aired in January 1995
- List of Washington Journal programs aired in February 1995
- List of Washington Journal programs aired in March 1995
- List of Washington Journal programs aired in April 1995
- List of Washington Journal programs aired in May 1995
- List of Booknotes interviews first aired in 1989
- List of Booknotes interviews first aired in 1990
- List of Booknotes interviews first aired in 1991
- List of Booknotes interviews first aired in 1992
- List of Booknotes interviews first aired in 1993
- List of Booknotes interviews first aired in 1994
- List of Booknotes interviews first aired in 1995
- List of Booknotes interviews first aired in 1996
- List of Booknotes interviews first aired in 1997
- List of Booknotes interviews first aired in 1998
- List of Booknotes interviews first aired in 1999
- List of Booknotes interviews first aired in 2000
- List of Booknotes interviews first aired in 2001
- List of Booknotes interviews first aired in 2002
- List of Booknotes interviews first aired in 2003
- List of Booknotes interviews first aired in 2004
All these lists were created by KConWiki, 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 WP:NOTDIRECTORY, 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. 100.7.34.111 (talk) 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 In Depth, American Writers: A Journey Through History, The Alexis de Tocqueville Tour: Exploring Democracy in America, and others. As noted in my comments on those reverts, I am concerned that this is a misreading of WP:NOTDIRECTORY, 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 KConWiki (talk) 06:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Something is weird...
editThere is something really odd with the close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S. B. Deorah College. It was apparently closed at delete on the same day it was nominated but without a clear consensus... And then it was never deleted and the article is still live but with an AFD tag that leads to a closed discussion. I'm confused...4meter4 (talk) 01:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
- Never mind... just realised there was a Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S. B. Deorah College (2nd nomination).4meter4 (talk) 01:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Can I please get some more commenters here. All opinions welcome. We are having a hard time reaching a clear consensus as not enough people are participating.4meter4 (talk) 19:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation § Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects/Reviewing instructions#Other types of submissions
edit
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation § Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects/Reviewing instructions#Other types of submissions. 76.71.3.150 (talk) 07:00, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
November 30 log formatting being weird
editNot sure how much of a priority this is, but I've noticed that every nomination below Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Hit Music Network on the November 30 log is indented. I see what the cause is, but I don't want to mess around with it though (since I'd have to go to the actual nomination page for it, therefore being unable to preview properly), so leaving it here in the hopes that someone notices. Procyon117 (talk) 15:06, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- I believe I fixed it. There was an unclosed ordered list (<ol></ol>). Skynxnex (talk) 20:16, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yup that fixed it. Sweet. Procyon117 (talk) 12:59, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
'and has not participated'
editI'm not exactly certain this is the correct place. But recently there has been a conflict about the line
- 'An admin who is uninvolved and has not participated in the deletion discussion will assess the discussion for consensus. For how to perform this, see WP:AFD/AI.'
I won't mention names or places because I am not posting to extend that conflict but rather to make the same conflict less likely in future. I interpreted the line 'has not participated' to mean that any admin/user who has taken part in the conversation in any form should refrain from closing. I assumed that the line was there to stop any uneasily resolved conflict around what constitutes 'involvement' so that we had a clear point of fact that someone taking part in a conversation should not close it. However, it appears that the passage can also be interpreted along the same lines as 'involvement', as meaning that posting in the conversation previously is OK and does not constitute participation itself as long as, I think, they indicated no stake in the result (or something along those lines). It therefore appears that the passage is either redundant or insufficiently clear in expression. So what I think would help is either to remove the line about participation or be more explicit and leave less wriggle room about what participation is. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:03, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- Context: @asilvering closed an AfD as redirect, after making a single post in the AfD:
@Deacon of Pndapetzim, can you give us your WP:THREE best sources that would show that the subject meets the notability guidelines at WP:GNG? That would help bring this discussion back on track.
Deacon then suggested that asilvering wasunduly involved
in the AfD and part of abully squad
because when Deacon was brought to AN over his conduct at the AfD, asilvering stated that Deacon's conduct wasastonishingly poor
.The second paragraph of WP:INVOLVED states that "an administrator ... whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits that do not show bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that ... topic area". That paragraph also provides examples of actions that do not make an administrator involved, including "suggestions on possible wordings and approaches". asilvering's invocation of WP:THREE was quite literally a suggestion of an approach to get a discussion that had deteriorated back on track.I'm going to go ahead and boldly delete the phrase "and has not participated" since the obvious intent of that bullet point is to link readers to WP:INVOLVED. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:57, 5 December 2024 (UTC)- I reverted. "has not participated in the deletion discussion" helps clarify what is considered "involved." SportingFlyer T·C 02:01, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think INVOLVED is pretty clear on what being involved means. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:03, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- INVOLVED says nothing about participating in deletion discussions, whereas what you boldly reverted does. It clarifies that participating in a deletion discussion is something which involves an editor. SportingFlyer T·C 02:08, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- @SportingFlyer, does it? Because it seems to be introducing confusion here. I don't think that asking people for sources in the AfD body text is any different from asking people for sources in the relist note, which closers do pretty frequently without being considered to be involved participants. -- asilvering (talk) 02:06, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- I disagree. Your involvement in that AfD was not a purely administrative function - I'm sure the mileage will vary on that - and I would have voted to overturn if this had gone to DRV and not to a talk page. SportingFlyer T·C 02:09, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- When I relist with the comment "a source review would be helpful here", is it your position that I can't close that AfD? Or, if I remind editors to remain civil, can I no longer close the AfD? voorts (talk/contributions) 02:11, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have asked admins whose relist comments have gone beyond merely relisting to be careful in the past. Just because someone relists a discussion doesn't make someone involved, but sometimes relisting a discussion with a specific comment may make an admin appear involved. It's very frustrating as a participant. As to your examples, though, those would probably be fine. SportingFlyer T·C 02:18, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why my examples are any different from what asilvering did. If I can ask editors to do a source review, why can't a relister (or otherwise uninvolved editor) ask a keep !voter to provide their three best sources? voorts (talk/contributions) 02:23, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- Because you start to blur the lines between an administrative role (relister) and a participant in the discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 02:24, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- How is asking a question blurring a line? voorts (talk/contributions) 13:58, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't see it either. The exercise here would be to try to guess which side of the debate I would agree with, based on what I'd said. My comments were that Deacon's conduct was poor, and that it would be helpful to show sources. Does it follow from that that I am biased against Deacon's "side" of the discussion? I don't really see how, since conduct has nothing to do with the outcome of AfDs, and while asking for sources does imply that I don't presently see sources that would help (which would suggest I was "anti-keep"), it also throws a clear lifeline to the keep proponents (so how "anti-keep" could I be?) -- asilvering (talk) 17:49, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- How is asking a question blurring a line? voorts (talk/contributions) 13:58, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- Because you start to blur the lines between an administrative role (relister) and a participant in the discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 02:24, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why my examples are any different from what asilvering did. If I can ask editors to do a source review, why can't a relister (or otherwise uninvolved editor) ask a keep !voter to provide their three best sources? voorts (talk/contributions) 02:23, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have asked admins whose relist comments have gone beyond merely relisting to be careful in the past. Just because someone relists a discussion doesn't make someone involved, but sometimes relisting a discussion with a specific comment may make an admin appear involved. It's very frustrating as a participant. As to your examples, though, those would probably be fine. SportingFlyer T·C 02:18, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- When I relist with the comment "a source review would be helpful here", is it your position that I can't close that AfD? Or, if I remind editors to remain civil, can I no longer close the AfD? voorts (talk/contributions) 02:11, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- I disagree. Your involvement in that AfD was not a purely administrative function - I'm sure the mileage will vary on that - and I would have voted to overturn if this had gone to DRV and not to a talk page. SportingFlyer T·C 02:09, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think INVOLVED is pretty clear on what being involved means. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:03, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- I reverted. "has not participated in the deletion discussion" helps clarify what is considered "involved." SportingFlyer T·C 02:01, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- Contextually speaking, asilvering trying to help push the discussion in the right direction (away from the bickering to keep it on topic), while voicing no opinion or participating otherwise, does not at all come across as WP:INVOLVED from my perspective. Frankly I'm not sure how the discussion could have been closed any other way. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:57, 5 December 2024 (UTC)