Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Charles Read (historian)

[edit]

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)[reply]

I'm pretty sure you're right, I see no reason to think that Charles Read (historian) is notable. It looks like a vanity page. It fails every test of notability in WP:N (most importantly including WP:ANYBIO and WP:ACADEMIC). I think this is unlikely to be controversial, so you should go ahead and use Wikipedia:Proposed deletion, which is a pretty simple process. nhinchey (talk) 04:52, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I just changed the title of this section to be the name of the article you're asking about nhinchey (talk) 04:55, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't read too well. No disrespect to the guy. But a little boastful spunding versus factual. I don't know if deletion is deserved. But he could clean it up and cote better sources. It reads like a soundcloud bio. Bmm29 (talk) 07:51, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Clean up need -yes - but very notible .....more so then most porn stars , Wikipedia:Notability (academics) Moxy🍁 08:02, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like there is some contention about whether this academic is notable after all, so I'll make an AfD and link it here. (Aside: I'm not sure why porn seemed relevant to this discussion, but notability of performers falls under WP:ENT.) nhinchey (talk) 14:29, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Read (historian) nhinchey (talk) 15:27, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Motorsport articles' nomination process to complete.

[edit]

Can please someone help to complete the afd nomination process for 5 similar articles?

Main issue is WP:GNG/WP:NOTNEWS violation, but there's stand-alone detailed reasons provided for each of it on their talk pages under the "justification for deletion" section.

Here they are:

Thank you in advance. 83.142.111.90 (talk) 23:27, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your main concern here is a lack of secondary sources and... the fact the pages have "mostly not been updated" since the seasons finished? Do you understand these are all past events?
All articles seem complete to me – 2020 and 2021 are well-sourced with independent coverage, WP:GNG certainly not an issue – WP:V not an issue either for 2022, 2023 and 2024 as the results PDFs are linked in the respective results sections ([1], [2], [3]). WP:NOTNEWS doesn't track. Doubts arise on whether you've done the research before mass-pinging these for AfD. MSport1005 (talk) 00:46, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Brother that's not how it works how do you update something that happened in the past? MrVC25 (talk) 05:12, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Dorf (entrepreneur)

[edit]

Ugh. A poor newbie proposed this for deletion and started an AfD, simultaneously. Can an admin please fix this? Bearian (talk) 16:16, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please complete nomination

[edit]

Explosive Pro Wrestling - category is "O" and the reason is "Very limited third party sources to the point of a fail in WP:ORG and WP:GNG as previously mentioned in the previous two AfD's" (see also the talk page of the promotion) 2001:8003:5130:2601:167:D2C7:4D20:837E (talk) 21:51, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Here2rewrite (talk) 23:52, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance please

[edit]

Need Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/P.J.W._Restaurant_Group opened regarding P.J.W._Restaurant_Group and P.J. Whelihan's. Rationale: Contested PROD. Not sure this meets WP:CORP; bulk of references are primary; secondary coverage seems to be establishing it as existing locally, but not establishing it being notable. 50.202.176.117 (talk) 18:39, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Flagging this with help me as I'm not sure if this page is frequently monitored enough to complete the AFD process as an unregistered user as suggested on the main page. My intention was to have a single AFD covering both articles, but User:Moritoriko has opened the restaurant as a standalone AFD. 50.202.176.117 (talk) 17:34, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Both AFDs have been created. Primefac (talk) 18:57, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Someone is messing with afd:s

[edit]

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Various_anon_IPs_closing_AfDs_in_breach_of_WP:NACIP, possibly a long-term thing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:53, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BuickCenturyDriver, probably. Knitsey (talk) 19:55, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Muhammed Shahabaz

[edit]

AFD appropriate for this article given lack of notability. I believe User:Ponyo shares my opinion. 65.88.88.56 (talk) 19:34, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Zindeeq" - please complete nomination process

[edit]

Zindeeq

Talk:Zindeeq

It has been notability tagged since early 2022 with no reactions, and also reads sort of like an advertisement. 80.63.74.10 (talk) 10:00, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You could redirect to to Rahman Abbas instead, if you believe the subject to be not notable. TarnishedPathtalk 10:16, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Premature "List of The Octonauts DVD releases" Wikipedia Article Deletion

[edit]

I am concerned that someone unilaterally deleted the "List of The Octonauts DVD releases" article, and now getting that decision reviewed requires heavy debating the move to try and find consensus to revert a decision already made without such precautions. A discussion for the article's deletion was started, and there were a number of people that commented that it should be retained, albeit outnumbered by those requesting its deletion. It was said that the ultimate decision on its deletion required consensus, but that 'consensus' clearly was not obtained in the original discussion for deletion, i.e. "Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/List of The Octonauts DVD releases". I would like to know how the decision to delete that page could be reviewed and reverted. I have started a discussion thread in that Wikipedia article talk section, i.e. "Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/List of The Octonauts DVD releases", but I feel that that is a futile gesture now. Was that the correct approach to take? Please advise! SMargan (talk)

The AfD discussion took place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Octonauts DVD releases. The decision to delete looks clear cut enough, and I doubt that deletion review (see [4]) would get you far. To justify this type of article, it needs to be demonstrated that the subject matter itself (the DVD releases as a group, not the Octonauts) is notable - which would require evidence of significant discussion of the subject in unconnected reliable sources. Find them- if they exist, which frankly I doubt.
And please note that you must not edit an AfD discussion after it has been closed, [5] and trying to start a discussion in an obscure place where nobody will see it is not only out-of-process, but counterproductive. I've blanked the talk page you just started, and suggest you read up on deletion policy, on subject notability, and on the requirements for independent sourcing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:42, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Adding to what Andy wrote, on Wikipedia consensus does not mean everyone agreeing with each other. Please refer to WP:CONSENSUS and as Andy stated the consensus on that discussion looks pretty clear. TarnishedPathtalk 03:48, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Octonauts#Home releases solely consists of a red link to the deleted list, some three months after deletion. If someone finds DVDs important and wants to write something about the topic they can contact an admin to make the sources of the deleted content available. Actually User:SMargan's post was undated but on April 1st, sorry if I am being cynical but I just got fooled on Pump Tech. Either way, Octonauts#Home releases needs fixing. Commander Keane (talk) 04:43, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Commander Keane (talk) - I realise that some Wikipedia articles may warrant deletion. I cannot comment about those deletions, as they are decided on a 'case-by-case' basis. I am just worried about the bad faith way in which this deletion was achieved. The discussion on the deletion of the "List of The Octonauts DVD releases" Wikipedia article was started on 29 November 2024. Shortly after, on December (13 December 2024), i.e. 2 weeks, the discussion was closed (see "Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/List of The Octonauts DVD releases"). During that short tine a few people had written that it should remain open. Whilst that was 3 months ago, consensus suggests that there should be general agreement. Since the debate was terminated then naturally no further discussion was had, or indeed possible as all subsequent discussion edits have been reverted by one of the editors. However, I would argue that a surface discussion in bad faith falls short of finding consensus. SMargan (talk) 08:20, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SMargan: Wikipedia:Deletion review is what you want then (as linked above). As Wikipedia has evolved, for better or for worse, it has become more legalistic. You can argue about the process if you wish. To me, and I had quick look at the policy, consensus is about finding the strongest argument and running with that. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Octonauts DVD releases the strongest argument is in the last delete, which agrees with the other delete arguments directly above it. The nomination and first delete are a bit silly (and you rightly objected), but there is no indication that the closer considered those. Further discussion about including something, anything, about all of those DVD releases is welcome at Talk:Octonauts. If a travesty of justice has occurred I would expect some action there about including deleted content. As I said above, the content is available to anyone that requests it. At some point we have to stop discussing policies and write for the encylopedia. In this case, someone could have incorporated the list contents into the article. They still can. I am also guilty of delving into policy discussion rather than contributing content, I guess that is why I'm here. Commander Keane (talk) 08:53, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SMargan, 6 people over 2 weeks is not at all unusual number of participants or length of time for AFD. I still don't think your quite getting that Consensus on Wikipedia does not require unanimity per Wikipedia:Consensus (see also WP:NOTUNANIMITY). If we had to satisfy every single person in a discussion before establishing a consensus, very little of substance could get done. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 10:27, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Commander Keane removed the section. TarnishedPathtalk 09:51, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Commander Keane (talk) - If it is based upon the strongest argument and only the last argument was decisive, then I would suggest a bad process has occurred. The last two arguments occurred on 7 December 2024 and 10 December 2024, and the article was deleted after that. That gives only 6 days at the most to render a counter-argument. Given the limited time that elapsed, I doubt whether full consideration of the alternate arguments to deletion could have been received or considered. Indeed, no other comments have been possible since the debate's closure, meaning replies to those final convincing arguments have gone unheard. I do not intend to make a big thing of this, after all Wikipedia is about consensus, but it just looks bad. I am sure you get many requests for deletion, and justifiably cannot wait until unanimity to decide on deletion. However, surely not all deletions are contested, and if they are, sufficient time would likely be given for counter arguments. SMargan (talk) 11:35, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs are usually closed after 7 days. This one was extended ("relisted") once and so ran for 14 days. Seven people participated and the tally was 5-2 in favour of deletion. So as others have said above, this deletion wasn't at all out of the ordinary – if anything it is slightly better attended than usual. We do indeed have to process a lot of deletion requests–about eighty a day—so obviously things have to be kept moving. – Joe (talk) 11:47, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To add to the above, it needs to be noted that, per the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion, "rough consensus, not unanimity" is what is aimed for. And note also that AfD discussions are not a vote. The closer is supposed to weigh arguments according to relevant existing Wikipedia policy - which in AfD discussions almost always comes down to questions over whether the relevant notability guidelines have been met. Notability, as always, being demonstrated through in-depth coverage in independent sources. Something this list appears to have been entirely lacking in. Find these sources, if they exist. If they don't there is no point whatsoever continuing this discussion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:58, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion&oldid=1283419630"