Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion

Semi-protected edit request on 14 January 2025

Please either correct completely or else delete the article on Govinda (actor) Sir immediately as it is libellous and false. Based on communication from Wikipedia Foundation Legal Counsel office we had posted an edit request on article talk page. It is more than 36 hours, actually 72 hours and the libels have not been removed and our communication completely ignored. Hence you are once again requested to completely remove all defamation and libels from article page of Govinda Sir. NB: As per laws of India, Wikipedia is a PUBLISHER irrespective of what other persons may have published elsewhere.

I am unable to post to this page as I am a new user. अधिवक्ता संतोष (talk) 04:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

अधिवक्ता संतोष, there is no chance that an article about a very well known actor and politician such as Govinda (actor) will be deleted. That is simply not going to happen. As for your request at Talk: Govinda (actor), it is far too vague. You need to explain specifically why the content that you want removed violates Wikipedia's Policies and guidelines. Cullen328 (talk) 05:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Kindly note that we are not concerned with Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines as they have no legal force India and are not compliant with requirements of India's internet regulations. As per the advice of your legal Counsel We have approached the editor community to voluntarily correct all self evident libels in Govinda Sir's article which have been inserted by his political opponents using anonymous user IDs and IP addresses. Also note that defamation in India is a criminal offence unlike USA and definition of defamation in India is also quite different from USA's. Since this website is allowing anonymous and unverified persons to defame Govinda Sir by publishing he is a failed actor, you may either correct / delete the article within 36 hours or else surrender intermediary status in India. अधिवक्ता संतोष (talk) 05:33, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I strongly recommend that you look at WP:NOLEGALTHREATS. DonIago (talk) 07:08, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

@अधिवक्ता संतोष - to be clear, the policy on defamation is to delete libel as soon as it is identified. However we need you to tell us what specific statements in the article you believe are libelous and should be removed. The statement about "failed acting career" has already been removed, but what else would you like to see delete? The people you have already engaged with are trying to help, but they cannot to read your heart and mind so we need you to tell us what you think should be removed. If you are not satisfied with the assistance of these volunteers, you're welcome to email info-en-qwikipedia.org who can directly assist you further. TiggerJay (talk) 07:11, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your assistance. What you are proposing is a chicken-egg pretzel logic situation. We have availed the info-en-qwikipedia.org and our email was forwarded to Wikimedia Legal Counsel who suggested we make an edit request on the talk page. Only when this was not acted upon speedily did we post to this forum. The policies of this website, being grounded in USA laws, do not apply in India where defamation is primarily a criminal offence not a civil action. A person from India who is being defamed cannot be compelled to acquiesce in surrendering their legal protections afforded under India's laws to sue/prosecute by polices such as WP:NOLEGALTHREATS. In which case, it would be far better that this website does not publish articles on Indian data subjects, as such policies and also those like WP:VERIFIABILITY and WP:RELIABLESOURCES do not apply under India's new data protection regime which incidentally WIKIPEDIA is unhappy with. In the alternative, Wikimedia can appoint a legally qualified grievance officer so that aggrieved persons or their lawyers do not have to publicly deal with unpaid volunteers who are mostly ill-equipped to handle what they perceive to be legal "threats" conveyed in the form of due legal notice. अधिवक्ता संतोष (talk) 07:59, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

@अधिवक्ता संतोष, do note that we are unpaid volunteers, and that when we see calls to legal action, we usually block people as we are unable to deal with these complaints and any party who would wish to file suit would know to file with the right body, the Wikimedia Foundation. Given the legitimacy of your complaint, nobody has blocked you and the defamatory content has been resolved. If there ever end up being grounds for legal recourse, again I will stipulate that is the business of the Wikimedia Foundation, not for a bunch of unpaid internet users—the internet users can only modify pages, not deal with legal paperwork. However, in most instances, as the people you emailed told you to do, simply asking for removal of the damning, untrue content on a page works perfectly fine. Which it did here. Because unpaid internet users can remove content on pages. It's really the question of invoking the right tool for the job. Thankfully, as you have performed the steps that you have performed, the defamatory content is resolved, which resolves the dispute before any legal action needed to be taken. Have a nice day. BarntToust 13:05, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I would posit that any further push by this user for additional, unspecified actions, while continuing to spout legalese, should be considered in violation of WP:NOLEGALTHREATS. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:36, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

The user is now blocked for legal threats. They absolutely had a legitimate grievance, and may have others, but they are going about it the wrong way. 331dot (talk) 12:03, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Repeating AFDs and prior consensus

When reviewing new articles, I focus on company topics which were previously deleted at AFD as non-notable. Does the new article and/or available references indicate that the topic is now notable? If not, a new AFD is needed.

Because of the low participation at AFD these days, these then rattle round the relist cycle. The soft-delete option is unavailable to reviewing Admins, precisely because of the previous AFD deletion. This seems a somewhat perverse position - that an article can't be deleted because of the previous consensus to delete!

So to my suggestion... If a previous AFD decided on deletion (except on TNT grounds), then any subsequent AFD which has not attracted a "keep" opinion can be closed as deletion after 7 days, in line with prior consensus.

Views? AllyD (talk) 08:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Why should a discussion be closed as delete if everyone !votes "merge"? Thincat (talk) 10:03, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

"an article can't be deleted because of the previous consensus to delete" - Well, soft deletion works by pretending like the AfD is an expired, uncontested PROD; recreating the article is, in effect, contesting the PROD, so it is by design that soft deletion is not allowed a second time. However, I am partially sympathetic to your point, and would like to distinguish between two different situations:

1. The article was soft deleted at AfD the first time. In that case, the article never gained consensus for deletion, so a recreation should not be eligible for soft deletion.
2. The article was hard deleted at AfD the first time. In that case, it might be eligible for speedy deletion under G4, but that could be controversial, and edge cases should be brought to AfD. For this situation, I think soft deletion could make sense, but as a theoretical framework we should not be treating it as an expired PROD, but rather requiring an affirmative consensus to overturn a previous consensus to delete. Currently, there is no consensual process to overturn an AfD that resulted in deletion on substance, as opposed to on procedure (which would be DRV), with the only option being to try recreating an article and see if somebody nominates it for G4 or AfD, making it a very capricious process.

King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:50, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

What if the original soft-delete was of an article that was about a different topic with the same name?

No, personally I cannot see why recreations should not be treated as new articles. PROD/soft delete should not be avoidable on mere technicalities - someone should have to act to avoid them. FOARP (talk) 12:11, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

This proposal makes sense as long as you adjust which has not attracted a "keep" opinion to which has not attracted a "keep" or "merge" opinion. TarnishedPath^talk 23:46, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Or a "redirect" for that matter! Really, this is about the "empty room" discussions: "<AFD rationale>,(Project listings),(silence),<relist>..." where a previous AFD decided on deletion (meaning after actual discussion, not soft-deletion). Perhaps I should have said "...which has not attracted a "keep" opinion substantial response can be closed as deletion after 7 days...". AllyD (talk) 15:20, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

merge proposals

I feel like lately there have been AFDs that are actually merge proposals showing up pretty regularly. Policy would seem to indicate that the administrative reaction to this would be to speedy keep if we catch them before anyone has voted to delete and/or all comments agree with a merge. I just found myself closing one as "merge" as it was the result, but at the same time not what AFD is for. I guess I'm asking if others agree that speedy keep is the correct close, and can be done at any time if there are no conflicting comments to delete or whatever? Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 22:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Unless the notability of the article that's suggested to be merged is so obvious that it shouldn't be at AfD, I don't think we should necessarily be discouraging this. SportingFlyer T·C 23:02, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Should be totally discouraged. Deletion inclined editors will delete needlessly. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:31, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Until and unless WP:PEREN#Rename AFD is implemented, yes, pure merge proposals do not articulate a reason for deletion and should be speedily kept and kicked back to the talk page. Jclemens (talk) 04:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Technical issue with deletion nomination

I nominated the article Astronaut-politician for deletion:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Astronaut-politician

... but messed up the template at one point. Any idea how to best fix this? Cortador (talk) 13:47, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

RfC on contested BLARs

There is an RfC on the proper venue for BLARed articles at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § RfC: Amending ATD-R. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:23, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Agreed Minute

I asked a relevant Project to either source this stub or take it here. The diff is here. A member of that project, Snævar, somehow misinterpreted my innocuous post as an "uncivilized threat" despite WP:AGF. Can we either source this, or discuss it? What would be a better process or "accepted workflow"? Bearian (talk) 21:17, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Checking if Article should be nominated for Deletion

Hello, I hope this is the right place to ask. The page for Articles for Deletion said to write something here if one is unsure about Deletion. The following living biography article I came across some time ago Charles Read (historian), originally included a large number of uncited claims (before my edits resulting in the current version) that I believe did not conform with Wikipedia's best practices. These were claims such as that the subject's thesis received the most academic awards ever from learned bodies of his generation, that he predicted various economic collapses or issues, and other spurious claims mostly referenced from the subject's own bios and statements he has made. The article also listed minor academic (college) prizes in the biography box, and made lots of "best X, first ever X, youngest X" claims that essentially read like a CV/personal statement.

Looking into the original user who created the article, that user only edited articles that were related to organisations that the subject of the article is part of, as well as the very specific academic field of the article's subject. I am fairly convinced (though of course impossible to prove) that the author of the article is the subject themselves.

I made a host of changes, each one annotated both in the history and talk pages, to try and make the article more neutral. I extensively set out reasoning for each edit there and in the "Talk" page. Earlier this month another user has reverted these changes to the original page with the spurious claims - without engaging in dialogue - simply claiming "vandalism". Possibly again the subject themselves.

The subject appears to be a (well-respected I'm sure) young academic with two books, who had a twitter post that received 1400 shares and which was mentioned in the Guardian. A human interest journalist at a local newspaper (20K circulation, which so far has not been seen as notable enough to merit its own wiki page) also wrote a piece in which he said the subject claims to be Cambridge's avatar economist of the 21st century, which was of course also proudly displayed on the original Wiki page as fact, without clearly stating the nature of the source. Next to that, the twitter post seems to be the main argument for relevance and featuring on Wikipedia. I am myself not sure if that merits to have a biography on Wikipedia, but also don't want to biased against the subject simply because he himself appears to have written the article, so wanted to check here if I should schedule the article for deletion. One thing I am certain, however, is that if not monitored this Wikipedia page will be continuously edited to restore the original grandiose claims.

I'm open to any suggestions (and hope this is the right place to post).

Et in Arcadia 1 (talk) 20:08, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Bengals–Chiefs rivalry

Can someone please finish the process and nominate the article for deletion? The reason for the deletion is at Talk:Bengals–Chiefs rivalry#Reason for deletion. 134.204.117.34 (talk) 19:56, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Money Without Me

Hi, I recently put the leaked Kendrick Lamar track "Money Without Me" up for deletion. Can someone please finish the process? My reasoning is in the talk page under Article for Deletion Justification. Thank you. 35.20.154.84 (talk) 21:34, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stacey McClean

I've just come across this malformed AFD which was never closed because presumably no one ever knew about it. I'm unsure how to handle it given that it's from 2006. Thoughts? TarnishedPath^talk 12:52, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I closed it. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 14:33, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Please list Steven B. Haas for deletion

Hello, I nominate Steven B. Haas for deletion and have posted the rationale on the talk page. Per WP:AFDHOWTO I request a registered editor complete the process of listing. Thanks, 109.76.178.90 (talk) 09:47, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

 Done - UtherSRG (talk) 13:10, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Pizza 73

Please list it for deletion according to #4 of WP:DEL-REASON criteria based on that revision (some guy reverting everything including article deletion template I et, so just restore it when processing current request to avoid WP:WAR from my side). here you can see whole set of sources self-published marked by appropriate templates (also 've been hardly reverted). More details are provided here (also 've been heavily reverted). Thank you in advance. 46.211.121.105 (talk) 16:14, 1 February 2025 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.211.98.91 (talk)

Tendentious request. The IP was blocked and the page protected. The main problem here is Competence. There is no problem with the article. Lard Almighty (talk) 17:18, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

it does not look you are neutral to that article and article looks really weird not only by style or translation errors. Looking back to provided sources, starting from 2017 primary sources only warning template you deleted today with no improvement and, in fact, really self-published ones it still looks worth for deletion community discussion. 94.153.4.34 (talk) 17:54, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

LOL. The primary sources tag is still there. (I deleted the advert tag which it clearly is not.) The article has enough third-party sources to pass any deletion. Translation errors? The article is about a company in English-speaking Canada and was originally written in English! The article was made far worse by this editor. Hence the page protection and the block. Lard Almighty (talk) 17:59, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, sorry, just dive deep into history where it was repeatedly deleted. But you still don't look neutral to it. I just wondering what way sources provided are primary if all of it is self published (from 2nd to 4th sources are just official site and 1st & 5th are based on speech from founder - "said Goodwin, who founded the company" - and CEO - "Pizza 73 CEO Paul Goddard said.". What way yo see it as having "enough third-party sources to pass any deletion" if that all sources it have? 94.153.28.165 (talk) 18:29, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

What got repeatedly deleted? This article was created in 2006 and has been on Wikipedia ever since. Yes, poorly written (even nonsensical) content has been repeatedly deleted because it's not improving the article. No better sources were being added. There are two third-party sources which cover most of the statements in the article, and there is nothing contentious or promotional covered by primary sources. This article does not need to be deleted. Lard Almighty (talk) 18:35, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Your excessive commenting and activity shows you are not neutral to it. What I mean here you have not to try to be the only who both edit and/or judge the article, Especially to be honest you have not to block the article nomination for rfd listing you do initially commenting above because you looks not neutral to it. Save your arguments for the time if and when it will be listed there. That will be fair and according to wikipedia community vision. I mean no more. 94.153.28.165 (talk) 18:51, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

talking about the article age - read WP:LONGTIME. but, I repeat, it's too early for such an arguments. 94.153.28.165 (talk) 18:55, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

I am not talking about Wikipedia:LONGTIME. I am simply saying that there is enough there to make a deletion discussion a waste of time. I am arguing here against listing it for deletion, which are different to the arguments I would make if it was, especially since the proposer has been blocked over COMPETENCE issues and tendentious editing. This is just another example. If there were reasons for deletion I would support it, but there aren't, especially as more sources are already being suggested on the TP. Lard Almighty (talk) 19:03, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

1. What rule gives you right to vote vs rfd nomination and not it's deletion?
2. What community discussion reflects your statements about some block you mean? Where's the WP:CONSENSUS (based not only on your own words like as some your request somewhere but with no any discussion) about it?
3. You can not support or deny deletion reasons until it will be listed.

So please just stop, stay calm and let someone else except you to judge the current afd request. It's enough for me looking how you manipulated admins to block your article opponent to understand that you are trolling until opponent won't make a mistake to be banned. I won't follow your manipulations. Just let the request be processed acording to the rules and not according to your only will. That will be great. 94.153.28.165 (talk) 19:29, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

I have the right to discuss this as much as anyone else. This page is about discussing whether or not it is appropriate to list a given article for deletion. THe editor who made this request has been blocked for disruptive editing (this request is part of that pattern).I am giving my reasons why it should not be. BTW I have added a couple of newspaper refs that were discussed on the TP so now it is even better sourced. Lard Almighty (talk) 19:32, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

BTW you sound a lot like my "opponent". Are you block evading? Funny that you are both from the Ukraine, as is the other involved IP. Lard Almighty (talk) 19:45, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

What I see about your clash is the only comment of admin, who made an edit defence to the article where he unblocked your opponent for article discussion continuation between you both you ignored and preliminary deleted and detailed description of what happened from the opposite side, that upside down your statements. So no any your other manipulations lead to actions blocking your "visavi" have no force as being obviously errorous because of lack of full info.

When there's no more arguments it's usual to make an empty claims, you know. Still ask yo tobe wise and stay on topic. "I can do what I want" is not the argument. 94.153.28.165 (talk) 20:12, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

ROFL. He also protected the page so you could not restore your edits and urged you to get consensus before making changes. You know you can't get consensus so you nominate the page for deletion. The block evasion is also not helping your cause at all. Lard Almighty (talk) 20:17, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Pal, stop empty accusations. As of added sources (2nd and 3rd now): one tells: "The vice-president of marketing for Pizza73..." and another: "at least Pizza pizza royalty fund is hoping",which means both are article subject affiliated and therefore is not WP:RS. as a result there's no any WP:RS in the article and never was. Even if to mean that sources as RS, it's obviously about only news, but WP:NOTNEWS 94.153.28.165 (talk) 20:31, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

You really don't have a clue. And you are clearly block evading. Lard Almighty (talk) 20:37, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

ok, continue, if that makes you happy. At least you are no more arguing. At last. Thank you. 94.153.28.165 (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

5th also looks like just a promo, so no way reliable 94.153.28.165 (talk) 18:30, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

I bet it's time to update the request taking in view fresh communication there that is not linked above - Talk:Pizza 73#Delete request. So can anyone process current request?94.153.26.171 (talk) 09:41, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Template "Miscellany for deletion": definition of "blanking"

The template says do not blank [...]] or remove this notice.

WP:BLANK defines blanking as removing its [the blanked page] content to leave it completely blank, or without any substantial content.

Assume there was a page which could be blanked while not at MfD. Would removing everything but the MfD notice be considered leaving "substantial content"? Paradoctor (talk) 11:41, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

2025

How to renominate a page for deletion? XYZ 250706 (talk) 14:56, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

WP:AFDHOWTO includes instructions for what to do if a page has previously been nominated? DonIago (talk) 03:21, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Sam Bloch

This is not a notable person 174.197.65.221 (talk) 21:10, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

If your intention is to nominate Sam Bloch for deletion, please follow the steps outlined at WP:AFDHOWTO. DonIago (talk) 03:29, 8 February 2025 (UTC)