text:
Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 68

AFD miscategorized - Microsoft v. Internal Revenue Service
The article Microsoft v. Internal Revenue Service is incorrectly listed under Category:AfD debates (Organisation, corporation, or product) even though it is a classified  as a  United States law/tax stub article. How can this be corrected to bring it to the attention of Wikipedians interested in law and taxation? Thanks in advance. Ottawahitech (talk) 05:38, 1 January 2015 (UTC) : Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.--~  Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 06:02, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * When nominating you get to choose from the categories listed at AfD categories. Maybe this didn't quite fit the category chosen, but you would not get to be as specific as you're seeking at that juncture. You can though separately add it to WikiProject Deletion sorting/Law (follow the instructions there) and then add to the deletion debate page:
 * Thanks for responding, Fuhghettaboutit . A few more questions:
 * This AFD has been running for a few days now -- any alerts sent to the list of Law-related deletion discussions may be too late?
 * Is there also a place to alert wikipedians with an interest in taxation?
 * Lastly - who should do all this extra work - the nominator (who did not classify this AFD correctly),  or someone else? Ottawahitech (talk) 07:07, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Typically, third parties do the delsort stuff and the nominator does the categorization, though many times nominators don't categorize correctly or not at all. As far as notifying related wikiprojects or whatever, sometimes it's nominators and sometimes others. There's no real rules in that regard. ansh666 08:17, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If the article's talk page has WikiProject banner templates (or certain other conditions apply, such as certain types of infobox being present in the article), it will be notified to the relevant WikiProjects through the Article Alerts system. Microsoft v. Internal Revenue Service has no talk page, and therefore no WikiProject banners (and the article doesn't have any of the other triggering conditions, as far as I can tell), so the only way that WikiProjects will have been informed is if somebody did it manually. However, if somebody were to add, say, to Talk:Microsoft v. Internal Revenue Service, the AfD would be added to WikiProject Law/Article alerts within 24 hours. Similarly, adding  to the talk page would get it listed at WikiProject Taxation/Article alerts. -- Red rose64 (talk) 00:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * A bit late, because the talk page wasn't until the AfD was almost over, but . -- Red rose64 (talk) 15:46, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your answer user:Fuhghettaboutit. Looks like user:Gene93k already entered ‘’’WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Law”. I checked to see how many individuals see this and discovered only 6 views on Januray 1, 2015 Ottawahitech (talk) 16:04, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Gene93k does a lot of the deletion sorting, but it's always a manual job. -- Red rose64 (talk) 16:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Shouldn't nominators be held to higher standards?
As evidenced in the above discussion some (many?) editors who nominate Articles For Deletion do not categorize AFDs correctly. It can be argued that this is a problem since the deletion discussion is not brought up to the attention of those interested in the topic.

In this particular case the nominator has made this mistake in the past, but it seems there is no mechanism to alert him/her to this mistake? Ottawahitech (talk) 17:37, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Am I making sense? Ottawahitech (talk) 14:27, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If you want to alert someone to a mistake they've made, you could leave a message on their talk page. Although, in this case, it's not even clear that the nominator categorized wrongly. Microsoft is a corporation. Which of the alternatives at AfD categories would you say is more appropriate? Reyk  YO!  15:35, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think that it was obvious that it was a taxation/law article, even though the stub templates indicate that. Some people use WikiProject banners on the talk page to decide the AfD category - but this article had none until just a few hours before the AfD closed. The article title begins "Microsoft", which is a company, and that may have been what the nom was going on.
 * Instead of alerting me to them disagreeing about the categorization of the AFD Ottawahitech decided to try and get people to agree with him then drop this on my talk page. Mrfrobinson (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC) 21:07, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not a complaint about you personally, I posted here in the hope that something will be done to  hold editors to higher standards when nominating articles for deletion. Article creators spend a lot of time researching and writing articles, but some nominators spend no more than a minute or so before launching an official deletion nomination that drives away article creators and takes up valuable time of the community as a whole. It would seem that everyone should be interested in putting a stop to frivolous nominations. No? Ottawahitech (talk) 03:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Frivolous noms are usually met with speedy keeps and speedy closes. Repeated frivolous noms can earn the editor a trip to ANI. What else do you want? --Neil N  talk to me 03:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There is nothing to prevent a user spotting that an AfD is in the wrong category, and fixing it - . The main limitation is that the template recognises only one categorisation letter, and some AfDs may fall within two (or more) of the ten available: for example, Articles for deletion/Arvind Narayanan is under "T" (Science and technology) but could also be placed under "B" (Biographical). -- Red rose64 (talk) 15:38, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know about higher standards but nominators should endeavor to get categorization correct. This is no different from going through the myriad of other Wikipedia processes. If you notice an editor getting something consistently wrong, the easiest thing to do is to drop them a note on their talk page. --Neil N  talk to me 16:46, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, if you see a problem just fix it, whether it's the categorisation, the listing, or anything. If you don't then someone else will, maybe a bot. It's not a final act like deletion or closing a contentious discussion which normally requires an admin. If you are unsure what was intended you can always ask the editor whether they meant to delete or just hit the wrong button/had second thoughts. If you think their behaviour is problematic such as many incomplete nominations you can raise it with them. If they are unresponsive or the problem is too urgent then perhaps raise it at a noticeboard.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 03:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Notifying creators that their article was kept.
We notify creators that their article is up for deletion, in large part so that they have the opportunity to defend their work. However, as many such authors are new to Wikipedia and may not understand the process, I think it would be good to have a standard "your article was kept" notification where there is a SK/Keep/No consensus (keep) decision. This would let them know that they don't have to worry about the article any longer and can get back to editing. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 18:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Request for completion of filing an AfD, article name New America Media
Hi, the instructions say I have to ask for this because I'm editing as an IP. Can someone please do steps II and III for Articles for deletion/New America Media. My rationale is that it does not meet WP:ORG.- <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 20:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. Reyk  YO!  20:35, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Having problems listing an article
Not sure how to list No-go_area for deletion as it keeps coming up red-linked. The article is over 8 yrs old and still lacks sufficient context to identify the subject of the article. Other reasons on the article's TP include: Thanks in advance for your help. Atsme ☯  Consult  16:50, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and unless a single source can be found to draw the existing content together, it may have to be deleted as synthesis.
 * Wikipedia:No original research.
 * The definition given in the lede ("A no-go area or no-go zone is a region where the ruling authorities have lost control and are unable to enforce their sovereignty") is entirely unsourced.
 * A single reliable source has not been found which gathers the disparate meanings of the phrase to give some sort of clear and unambiguous core definition.
 * Did you try No-go area, without the underscore? Cheers. DonIago (talk) 16:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I tried it with and without. Atsme ☯  Consult  17:39, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Huh. Well, here you go . I'd appreciate it if you could fill in your reasoning as soon as possible. :) DonIago (talk) 17:48, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, . I'll look to see how you did it. I'm wondering now if it's a cache issue. Atsme  ☯  Consult  19:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * What part was it showing as a redlink? You may have been using the wrong dash, if it was the article title. ansh666 19:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you nailed it, . I used the dash on my (Mac) keyboard (-).  Next time I'll use the dash (—) in the character options at the bottom of my Wiki edit screen.  Thx for point that out.  Atsme  ☯  Consult  20:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * In the name of the article No-go area, the third character isn't a dash, it's an ordinary hyphen-minus. But you shouldn't need to type it out - if you follow step I at WP:AFDHOWTO, i.e. add to the article, you'll (correctly) get a box with a redlink to "this article's entry", but ignore that. Further down that box, there are four numbered steps; step 2 says "Preloaded debate OR ... " - click on "Preloaded debate" and it gives an edit window containing   All you need do is replace the word "Reason" with your actual reasoning. When you save, it'll fill in the article name for you, in place of that  . This is most of WP:AFDHOWTO step II. -- Red rose64 (talk) 21:31, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * - thank you. I copied your instructions to my sticky notes in case the situation ever rises again. Atsme ☯  Consult  22:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Or, if you think you're going to be doing this a lot, get Twinkle! ansh666 22:30, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Warren S. Brown
§ Old discussions for 18 January (or 17, 19) does not list Warren S. Brown, maybe that's a mistake/bug? --<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 06:39, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And Deeplink (company) is also not included for 4 January. The overview is incomplete, I guess. --<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 06:43, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Warren S. Brown is listed on Articles for deletion/Log/2015 January 26, because it was relisted that day. It's neither a mistake nor a bug. Similarly, Deeplink (company) is listed on Articles for deletion/Log/2015 January 24. -- Red rose64 (talk) 09:34, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah thanks, a relisting moves it, didn't know that. --<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 09:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Do joke and/or troll AFDs really need to stay on the record?
Debito Arudou was recently nominated by an obvious troll SPA with a speedy keep result, but I'm a bit concerned that some of the SPA's arguments (only notable for one event...) may have actually been valid and still potentially need to be addressed. The problem is that now the article's talk page is essentially permanently engraved with "This article has been nominated for deletion twice, with results ranging from keep to speedy keep." without explaining the context of those results.

This same message appears on the talk page of every article that has ever been graffitoed on April 1.

Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 08:47, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

 * I'd prefer April fools' joke AfDs to be removed/deleted, but I think that sort isn't too bad to have on record. ansh 666 09:16, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heather Bresch M.B.A. controversy
Hi all,

I have closed (WP:NAC) a heated debate over Articles for deletion/Heather Bresch M.B.A. controversy? I think it should be now discussed in WP:RFD as now the page is a redirect. The discussion was done in the article's talk page. Is it done fine? - The Herald (here I am) 16:15, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that you saw a consensus to keep in the AFD, but also a consensus to rename, and that since there's now a redirect with that name, it should be RFDed? Or are you saying that you closed it as keep because the article was moved? -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:44, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I am saying that I closed it as a keep (12 votes) but there is also a consensus of rename (6 votes). Plus, now there is no point for discussing it for AfD as it was moved. This disrupts the consensus as some voted before the move. I think now that it should have been relisted. -- - The Herald (here I am) 17:11, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't have closed it as a NAC, at first glance there isn't a clear consensus so I'd have left it to an admin. Besides, AfD is for the article, not the title, so a mid-AfD rename shouldn't matter at all. ansh 666 18:10, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Please only perform non-admin closings where you fully understand how to decide and implement the closing. Anything even remotely tricky should be left to an admin to handle. This is an odd closure to say the least, generally we don't close in such a way that another debate is immediately needed. Chillum 18:20, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Alright..Sorry. So reopen and relist it? - The Herald (here I am) 08:14, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I wouldn't do that at this point. You saw a keep and rename consensus, and both have been taken care of at this point. Even if there was a consensus to merge instead of keeping, that would still be handled by editors, and I don't see that. I do see that between keep, rename, and merge, there was no consensus to delete. Just be careful next time not to close it when you think there may be further actions required.-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:40, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

"No quorum" closures
Please see and comment on this discussion. As quite a number of AfDs are finishing up with no or very little input, it seems worthwhile to agree on how these cases are closed Noyster (talk),  23:32, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

deleting Greeks in Saudi Arabia
Could somebody please put in my arguments to delete this article? My arguments are: Mainly, my argument is that even if we could find better sources, this community - whether historical or contemporary - just doesn't appear to meet notability standards. Thanks.<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 02:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) The article describes some non-notable Greek individuals who operated in Saudi Arabia. Their numbers appear very insignificant to be mentioned as an expatriate ethnic group of significance. If there are a handful of Mongols living in Australia, who are themselves of little note, impact, or influence, should they then have their own article on Wiki?
 * 2) The one source that is used is very obscure.
 * 3) Even the modern Greek expatriate population in Saudi seems non-notable, so i highly doubt more notable Greek communities would have been attracted to the region before the oil boom.
 * An incomplete AFD had been created by the IP (due to inability to create the article). The article has been nominated for deletion.  Robert McClenon (User talk:Robert McClenon) 02:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thankyou very much Robert McClenon.--<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 03:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Why hasn't the deletion discussion closed?
The Articles for deletion/Nam Taehyun (2nd nomination) page has been open for over six weeks. When it first opened people were invited to comment but only one other editor besides myself cared to and the consensus was to delete based on lack of notability. I am not an admin that can delete so I can't close the page and don't know why it is taking so long...is there something else I was supposed to do or are the admins just that backed up? Thank you Peachywink (talk) 04:20, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The discussion was not created per the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO (specifically steps 2 and 3). I'll do that now, but it'll have to be open for one more week so that people can actually see it from the log and comment on it. ansh 666 05:00, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The Castle Inn
I've never proposed an AfD before, and I'm not sure whether The Castle Inn is suitable, or whether an alternative should be pursued. In my view the article subject is not sufficiently notable, and the article also may be spam (the creator of the article has only made one edit that's not connected to the article subject). According to the article's uncited text, The Castle Inn is 16th century, but this source states it is probably 18th century, and this source states late 18th century, and neither state that the inn is especially notable. Yes, it's a listed building, but only Grade II, and there are 53 listed structures in that civil parish alone, and they don't all deserve their own articles. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:40, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

This discussion has been moved to Talk:The Castle Inn. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:02, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Quick question
Apologies that this is probably the wrong place to ask this question, but I wasn't sure what the right place was: is there a way for a user to search and find all the AFD discussion they have participated in in the past? I'm curious to look at my own but don't know how and where such a search could be done... —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  18:09, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Using search-engine-fu to come up with a reasonable approximation. Close enough for government work?  -- Finngall  talk  18:21, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There is, because it's used at WP:RFA to determine what involvement the candidate has had at XfD. I think that it's http://tools.wmflabs.org/afdstats/afdstats.py -- Red rose64 (talk) 18:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

AFD stats error
When I try to see an AfD's stats, it says "No webservice". This has started happening to me some days ago, and I didn't bother until now because I thought it was a temporary takedown. Is this some sort of error? --ToonLucas22 (talk) 19:42, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Old Afd templates - slight language tweak
Transcluding the template here as an example. There is a new-ish user at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion (see just curious AND VERY ANGRY) upset that people want to delete the page Dragon City. However, the two discussions linked in the template are each about different subjects that happen to have the same title, and nobody is currently proposing deletion of the page. I think it would be helpful here if this template (and the other old afd templates) had the option of replacing "This page was nominated" with "A page with this title was nominated". I've seen this elsewhere, but can't find it right now. Thoughts? Ivanvector (talk) 19:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

List of PNAC Members associated with the Administration of George W. Bush
Appears to use as a criterion "did they ever sign anything at all related to PNAC" as defining them as a  "member."

I consider using that criterion or any similar criterion to be, at best, SYNTH. Indeed, using that criterion in the 30s would allow us to list thousands of "Communist Party" members in their Wikipedia articles.

My PROD was instantly excised by a primary writer of the list as "SYNTH argument has been rebutted, with consensus against it, the inaccurate name has been changed, everything else is compliant with policy on stand-alone lists, etc.) "

Sample  is used to label Eliot A. Cohen as a "member.  Problem?  The article does not call him a PNAC member at all.  His BLP links to   which is scarcely helpful at all.   I did find  which makes no such claim.   is the article by Ximena Ortiz,  which also does not support the claim being made.  In short, it looks more like SYNTH-by-wish than even SYNTH-by-source.   The source given does not support the claim at all.   Is the claim found in Wikis?  Yep.. Sourced? Nope.

We find such lists at  '' Who got us into the Iraq war? A List of prominent Jewish Neocons and their role in getting the U.S. into Iraq and Homeland Security'' which I suggest might not meet Wikipedia RS requirements.

Paula Dobriansky does not even have a single source cited at all. And on and on and on in this SYNTH-by-No-source "list." Is labeling a person as a "member" of an organization based solely on their signing a letter proper? Is a list based on that criterion proper? Collect (talk) 12:32, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

 * As a BLP, there must be rock solid refs for every assertion about a living person when controversial. If there is not a published list of members or reliably sourced references stating explicitly that these people were "members", we can't create such a list here. It is entirely improper. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:12, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

"Harmful in its current state"
I just reverted these edits which added a few qualifications to the statement "[i]f the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD." That is a very simple instruction and should not need to be qualified. added "exceptions" for copyright violations, spam, patent nonsense, and BLP violations, then removed the first three as being speediable instead (probably correctly). I object to the BLP qualifier as well - harmful statements about living people can be removed by oversighters and/or through revision deletion (and should be without waiting for discussion), so we don't need to nuke pages from orbit just for this reason. I think it's best to leave this guideline as-is. Ivanvector (talk) 16:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree, BLP violations can be pretty easily fixed by removal and revdel/oversight, just like anything else. No need to make exceptions. ansh 666 17:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

D1
D1 should, I propose, also reflect that a (general) google search should be performed. (In addition to a Google Books search, a Google News archive search, and sometimes GScholar). This is especially important as google has changed its search capabilities, and many articles formerly discoverable under gnews are now only discoverable under a (general) google search. --Epeefleche (talk) 05:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Can somebody please complete the deletion process
Hello. Can somebody please complete the deletion process for Hadith of the succession of Abu Bakr. I have given detailed reasoning for why i think the article should be deleted at the articles talk page. Thankyou very much to whoever takes it up.--<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 09:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I have started the request for you, it is at Articles for deletion/Hadith of the succession of Abu Bakr. I have given the text that you used on the article's talk page as the rationale for deletion. The debate on the matter will now all take place on that deletion entry page. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 10:09, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Greatly appreciated for the quick reply and positive response. Thanks again.--<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 10:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Log/2015 April 1
May I make a suggestion that someone with the time/interest undertake the effort of moving the April Fools nominations to the bottom of Articles for deletion/Log/2015 April 1 (and keep them moved down there as new ones come up)? Maybe even put them in a div to color them differently if that wouldn't break the bots? There are some serious nominations interspersed with them and having the joke nominations makes it difficult to pick them out. For example, I thought when I was scrolling through the page that Women for equality and rights was a joke nomination until I clicked on it and saw that it was actually a non-notable organization, not an article about the concept of gender equality. (I'd do it myself, but (1) it's my bedtime and (2) they're trying to delete me.) --B (talk) 04:33, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Have you considered marking them ? -- Red rose64 (talk) 09:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

 * I've started moving them to the bottom and closing the ones that are already open. I figure it worked well last year, so it'd be worth doing again this year. The problem with leaving them up with the others is that it is hard to pick through them, so moving them to the bottom is the best option here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  09:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I made the same mistake with two of the nominations since they seemed like notable ones at first glance, but they're back in the main list. I almost hate to close some of the conversations since they were pretty funny, but I don't want to run the risk of someone thinking that they were real. Plus I get to make jokes that I tell myself are funny. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  10:05, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen any yet and I'm about to be off Wikipedia for at least a few hours, but now that there's a separate section it should be easier to move them down as people see them. I usually tend to close them just as protocol. I'm looking forward to seeing if anyone can top Articles for extermination/Twelfth Doctor. (Looks specifically at Old Naval Rooftops to top last year's joke AfD nom.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  11:06, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not "topping" it per se, just doing something a bit more creative. ONR (talk) 19:31, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Draft-space copy of a deleted article
Do we allow copies of articles deleted at AFD to continue to exist outside of mainspace? Please see Articles for deletion/Disabled Entrepreneurs and Draft:Disabled Entrepreneurs. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:36, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, we do, provided that it doesn't qualify for speedy deletion - see WP:CSD in particular. -- Red rose64 (talk) 14:44, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Normally yes, "userfy" is a common result of AfD discussions where an article is considered not ready for mainspace, but someone wants to work on them. I can see the same applying to Draft: space ("draftify"?) - if they're not being actively worked on, they may qualify for deletion under WP:G13 or you can bring them up at Miscellany for deletion. Ivanvector (talk) 14:48, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Malformed Articles for deletion/2007–08 NJIT Highlanders men's basketball team
Articles for deletion/2007–08 NJIT Highlanders men's basketball team is malformed. It needs to be properly formatted.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I tagged it for WP:G5 instead. There are no users suggesting it be deleted, other than the user violating their ban who created the page. Ivanvector (talk) 02:38, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Completing deletion process
Hi, could someone please complete the deletion process for the lateral spin valve page? The reasons for deletion are:

a) page provides no information not provided on the wikipedia Spin valve article which is already more detailed and complete. The only source in the "lateral spin valve" article can't be retrieved.

b) lateral spin valves are a type of spin valve and do not merit a separate article. At most they merit a subsection in the spin valve article. There is very little difference between a lateral spin valve and a "regular" spin valve. — Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 02:15, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Articles for deletion/Lateral spin valve. ansh 666 04:14, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

When the conclusion of a DRV is to relist at AfD
If such a deletion discussion is closed an no consensus, would the default option be to keep or delete the article? -- Fauzan ✆ talk ✉ mail  11:33, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Generally I'd say it would default to keep, same as a normal AfD. But it would also depend on why the article was relisted. Reyk  YO!  11:59, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * by relisting drv is implicitly setting the previous afd to one side so the outcome would be the article remains undeleted. Spartaz Humbug! 12:15, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia Page: Biochemical Predestination
Hello. I have read the Wikipedia entry for the book by Dean H. Kenyon and Gary Steinman; "Biochemical Predestination", and I'm not sure it actually merits an article. Surely the book has to be noteworthy in some way? Upon seeing the reviews in the "Reception" section of the article I noted that all of the reviews referred to were from other Creationists. Thinking that perhaps this was simply a deliberate omission, I ran a Google search, but could find not a single review from any source other than Creationists. I then looked at Amazon and found one review which did not actually review the book on US Amazon, no reviews on the UK Amazon. As I came to the page in the first instance to check some claims of a Creationist regarding Dean Kenyon's scientific pedigree, it rather looks as though the article is little more than a constructed prop to bolster the credentials of certain controversial "academics". Certainly, if one were to remove the Wiki-mandated spectacles of "assumption of good faith", one might conclude that the entire piece was a carefully crafted piece of Creationist PR. Does it really merit an article? Would it not be more appropriate to simply refer to it in the Publications section of the authors own pages? I must admit that I am not as familiar with the Wiki guidelines as I might be, so perhaps my reasoning here has been errant. But even should the page not be deleted, there are still some entries of concern that need to be addressed IMHO.Tarquin Q. Zanzibar (talk) 19:10, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * May I suggest that you take this to the Fringe Theories Noticeboard. Alternatively you can just nominate the article for deletion if you think the article does not meet our guidelines. I haven't looked at it but based on what you have noted above, the article may be problematic. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:33, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Follow up I note that the article was created by a highly experienced and respected editor, so I seriously doubt it is a deliberate WP:PROMO piece for a Fringe Theory. That said you have raised some legitimate questions that should be addressed. Creationist issues are usually dealt with on the noticeboard I linked above. Thanks for your efforts to improve the project!. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:41, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced AfD?
Looks like this AfD was misplaced in today's AfD log. Could someone more knowledgeable fix this please? I would just break more stuff trying to do it myself :). GermanJoe (talk) 08:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅. ansh 666 09:49, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Please complete article for deletion process
Could someone with a registered account complete steps II and III for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_%C3%93_Ruanaidh (resumé)
 * OK, done. Reyk  YO!  11:40, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Article moves during the discussion
I just came across an article that was moved to Draft: space during the discussion. Ignoring the merits of the article itself, what is our policy on such a move? How, if at all, does it affect the AFD process?

I see this to be very similar to the blanking of an article during discussion, and the idea of a move to Draft: being an outcome of the discussion. It would be useful either to enshrine this in policy or to see what the policy says, please. Fiddle  Faddle  22:18, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * AFAIK any move of an article to any name (including to another namespace) whilst it is at AfD is discouraged, since the templates on the AfD page then point to the wrong location, and bots get confused. -- Red rose64 (talk) 22:24, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Miapolis
, the article Miapolis does not seem to be listed properly at WP:AFD. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:37, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It's because it was done incorrectly - a previous AfD existed, so this should have been left alone and a fresh nom raised. -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:05, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 *  Reply , agreed, now needs to fix the issue since that user started the AfD. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:21, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Very easy to do. ansh 666 03:29, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Request for auto-sorting of closed entries
There may be a better place to pose this, but here goes anyway: Could Wikipedia's boffins put their heads together and come up with an encoding scheme which auto-sorts closed AfDs (the "blue" ones) to the bottom of each day's list so that the remaining unclosed entries bob to the top? Is is annoying to see something like "20 April (Monday) (13 open / 38 closed / 51 total discussions; open: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13)" ...and realize I'm going to have to open up thirteen tabs (sucking up that much more site bandwidth), or go back and forth 26 times, or spend a lot of time down-clicking. Pax 06:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Orphanage
People looking to clean up marginal articles in the encyclopedia may be interested in joining WikiProject Orphanage. We have over 100,000 article that are not linked to by any other article. Some just need to be linked or merged in but a fair number are orphans because they appear to have WP:NOTABILITY issues. ~Kvng (talk) 14:56, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Question on an AfD procedure...
I saw an AfD where the following things occurred, in this order:

 * 1) Listed by nom.
 * 2) Delete vote.
 * 3) Relisted by User A (not nom).
 * 4) Two more delete votes.
 * 5) Relisted by same User A as previous relist.
 * 6) User A posts a keep vote three minutes after relist.

I'm leaving out links and names unless this is actionable, but I see several issues here. Oftentimes, one delete vote in the absence of voting has been taken as "consensus", and I think three delete votes (in addition to the nom) in the absence of keep votes is definitely consensus. For a user then to relist the AfD in those circumstances and then cast a keep vote seems a bit questionable to me. Thoughts and an appropriate course of action would be appreciated. MSJapan (talk) 20:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah - that's not good. It should have been deleted at the time of the 2nd relist. 3 delete votes (4 if you include the nom) are plenty as long as they're related to deletion policy.  Did the relister give any reason for the 2nd relist? Black Kite (talk) 20:05, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

 * It looks questionable to me - WP:RELIST says that "if at the end of the initial seven-day period, the discussion has only a few participants (including the nominator), and/or it seems to be lacking arguments based on policy, it may be appropriate for the closer to relist it" - which implies that the action is taken as a potential closer. To then switch hats and immediately participate in a discussion by !voting might be seen as gaming the system. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, if the relister wanted to participate, they should have just placed their Keep vote and left it for someone else. I can't really say more than that without seeing the AfD - the "delete" votes may all have been nonsense. Edit: I've found the AfD, and yes, it should have been closed as delete.  It's just expired again with a 5/2 consensus, so this time I have closed it.  Incidentally, whilst looking, I've found a few more the same.  I appreciate that this is probably someone scanning AfD, seeing a discussion and thinking "hang on, this looks notable to me", but IMO if you're voting in a discussion you shouldn't be doing anything else to it. We probably need a guideline on this. Black Kite (talk) 22:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

 * Relisters relist, closers close. I see no conflict. We have no clear policy saying that things can't be relisted at a time when they could instead have been validly closed, it's a judgement call. OTOH, relistings should carry very little weight when judging a closing argument. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The issue isn't relisting when a close might be seen as appropriate - that is, as you say, a judgement call. The relister shouldn't be !voting afterwards though - it can give the impression (particularly when they are !voting against an apparent consensus) that they relisted because they didn't like the way the discussion had gone, and they wanted to extend it to give it a chance to go the other way. That may not have been the intent in this case, but the potential for gaming the system is there. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not the issue here (otherwise you'd be quite correct). What you shouldn't be doing is coming across an AfD leaning 4/0 to delete, relisting it, and then voting keep.  The re-listing itself is wrong (unless the delete votes are quite terrible) because there's clear consensus, but voting the opposite way afterwards then gives the impression that you re-listed it purely because you wanted to vote against current consensus and give others with your view time to join in.  Black Kite (talk) 06:36, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't actually see relisting and then !voting against a consensus at that time to be a problem. You're certainly permitted to !vote the other way, right up to closure. Relisting I still see as too trivial (in the final judgement) to have an influence, thus a conflict. If it's relisted to give time for some CANVASSing to take effect, then that's a different story - but we'd have to judge that because of the canvassing, not because of the relisting. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:00, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the input (and the action). I didn't want to see this boil up into an RFC, which is why I was vague about it. A guideline would be a great idea, and it would just need to be simple, like "if you are performing any administrative action on an AfD, you may not participate in it." Would this need to go to VP? I wouldn't mind taking a shot at writing something up in any case. MSJapan (talk) 06:14, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:RELIST is a guideline, a bold edit would be enough, I think. Is there actually a policy on discussion closure anywhere?  WP:INVOLVED doesn't really cover it. Black Kite (talk) 06:36, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

 * Relists should only be done when there genuinely is no consensus, but there is a prospect of consensus being established with another week of debate. I'm seeing a lot of relists where it's obvious that the relister doesn't like the way the discussion has gone and is hoping that someone will wander by and vote the other way. I found the debate in question and it really does read a lot like "FINE! If no-one else will vote keep, I guess I'll have to do it myself!" Reyk  YO!  07:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

 * I think it genuinely does not matter unless that particular editor is relisting repetitively on multiple discussions in order to make a point. Even then I am ambivalent about it. Poor articles will be improved, kept or deleted in a reasonably consistent manner, and some will slip through as imperfect keeps or imperfect deletes. Since there is no real deadline for anything on Wikipedia with the exception of the removal of true defamation or true copyright violations, despite repetitive relists being frustrating when we just know the 'correct' outcome, it;s interesting, but not important. In the end I trust the consensus to be correct more often than incorrect, and the timing is whatever it is. Fiddle   Faddle  10:09, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't even really object to it if there genuinely was No Consensus on the AfD. If an AfD is showing, say, one keep and one delete after 7 days, relisting it is obviously correct and therefore I don't think anyone would think voting on it afterwards was at all problematic.  However, when an AfD is showing clear consensus - especially after 14 days - it should be closed.  Not relisted.   Or, the user could simply place their vote, and leave it for another admin to close/relist.  It wouldn't be a pointless exercise - I have in the past relisted debates where there's something of a consensus but the side with the numbers doesn't have as convincing an argument as the other. Black Kite (talk) 11:16, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Muneesh Sappel

 * Delete This article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muneesh_Sappel doesn't look genuine. It looks like more of the publicity of himself. He says: I am Indian and International production designer, art director, costume designer, hair and make-up artist, but i dont see much about him on search engines. There is not much about him on given External links and References on his wiki article.David 08:51, 5 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ManishSrivastava1 (talk • contribs)
 * This is the wrong venue. To nominate the article Muneesh Sappel for deletion, please follow all three steps at WP:AFDHOWTO. I notice that yesterday, you, but failed to follow steps II and III, which is why you were reverted. -- Red rose64 (talk) 10:47, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I've examined the article and went ahead and AfD it as a vanity project.  Pax 10:46, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Dirty Water Brass Band
I have nominated the article Dirty Water Brass Band for Speedy Deletion three separate times, on the grounds that it is about a small street band with no real significance, written by an individual with a direct connection to the band, which also constitutes as promotional. The first two times, the tag was removed by someone using a proxy IP address (I'm assuming the article's author) and the third time by someone who asserted the addition of references constituted notability.

References alone are not sufficient to make an article encyclopedic in nature and simply including a bunch of references should not be construed as establishing significance or notability.
 * Update - The tag was again removed and I was instructed to bring it here, so I am doing so. Ormr2014 (talk) 18:34, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * See Articles_for_deletion for instructions on how to nominate an article for deletion. --Neil N  talk to me 18:37, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I am not nominating this article again. I have done so in good faith on three separate occasions, because I believe this article is an attempt to gain notability for a small relatively unknown band, by individuals directly connected to this band and as such, has no place in an encyclopedic work. But each time, my nomination has been removed with no real discussion. This is not my fight and I will not turn it into some sort of campaign or vendetta. You guys can judge whether or not this article is encyclopedic... Ormr2014 (talk) 18:44, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you're misunderstanding the processes. You nominated for speedy deletion. If someone disagrees then the next step is to have a full discussion about deletion. That discussion won't happen on this page. It will only occur on a separate "Article for Deletion" page. You create this by following the instructions I linked to. --Neil N  talk to me 18:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I'm not very familiar with the whole AFD thing. I hope I did everything right. Ormr2014 (talk) 19:08, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Not quite, but other editors fixed what was missing. If you're going to nominate more articles for deletion in the future you may want to use Twinkle which does all the steps for you. If you have questions, just post to my talk page. --Neil N  talk to me 19:13, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Please complete article for deletion process
Could someone with a registered account complete steps II and III for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockette_Morton

this Article does not meet Wikipedia Notability Guidelines ...Samat lib (talk) 09:11, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You have a registered account, so you can do it yourself! I'll fix the page for you this time, though. Cheers, ansh 666 09:43, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Succès de scandale
Succès de scandale has a broken first nomination and an active 2nd nomination on today's Articles_for_deletion/Log/2015_May_10. Could someone knowledgeable fix this please? Thank you in advance. GermanJoe (talk) 21:15, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅. ansh 666 21:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

VFD
What does "VFD" stand for, and why does it redirect here if it isn't even mentioned on the page?

Attys (talk) 22:10, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Votes for deletion - the predecessor to AFD. --Neil N  talk to me 22:13, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Nomination completion request
Please could somebody create the deletion-discussion page for "2015 Reclaim Brixton protest", and add it to the log.

Thanks, <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 03:50, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

nominating articles you want to keep
We have a situation I've never seen - someone nominating their own articles for deletion, yet insisting they do not them to be deleted: Fail AfD is fail. Apparently this was done by nominator/article creator to make a WP:POINT because his feelings were hurt over edits to the article, and something about he was doing it because the other person failed to do it first (?). I explained the WP:G7 situation that nominating your own articles brings up. The discussion reached new levels of WP:LAME with nominator and his sidekick (with a shiny new account) arguing that nowhere does it say that if you nominate an article, you have to want to delete it, and that AfD was a perfectly suitable venue for discussing the article and if it should be nominated for deletion. For the life of me I can't understand why someone would not understand the whole point of nominating an article for deletion. Do we need something on the page that 1) explains that by nominating a page, you are supporting it being deleted and 2) you should not create AfDs for pages you really want to keep just to generate discussion/get feedback - that's what talk pages are for. It seems to me a waste of time to have an AfD discussion when nobody has actually proposed the article be deleted. —Мандичка YO 😜 14:17, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If the article creator does not want the article to be deleted, then you do not have the right to place a G7 on their behalf. That's the exact opposite of what they said they want, and you don't get to put words in other peoples' mouths just because they might have started a discussion in the wrong place. There's already a longish thread about this at ANI, where literally everyone disagrees with you. Reyk  YO!  00:13, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. Anyone should be able to nominate for AfD, whatever their opinion, whether they were involved in the article or not, simply because they think that raising the article for wider debate at AfD will achieve a useful consensus. Sometimes this can be as simple as to silence a disruptive editor on a talk: page sniping "this ought to be deleted", when consensus then produces an obvious consensus to keep it. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think that nominating an article for deletion with a rationale that supports keeping it is questionable - if someone is genuinely arguing that an article should be deleted, they should do it themselves, giving their own rationale, in their own words. And if they aren't prepared to do that after a reasonable discussion, they have no legitimate grounds to continue to argue that the article in question merits deletion. As for the suggestion that self-nominating is somehow equivalent to WP:G7, this is not only unsupported by policy, but Wikilawyering nonsense of the worst kind. AfD discussions are discussions, and not some sort of automated vote where mere participation somehow overrules ones explicitly stated opinion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:22, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * AfDs where the nominator has expressed a desire to keep should theoretically be closed as speedy keep if nobody else has commented, though since they'd realistically only do that if someone else said it should be deleted (in essence, completing a nomination for someone else, which I do all the time), it's probably better to let it stay open. ansh 666  01:41, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Nothing should be closed as "speedy" anything, if no-one else has yet commented. Speedy closure is there for when consensus has become obvious by its volume. If there is no outside comment yet, let it run its course to the expected time. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

 * Using AfD to establish a consensus without a nominators rationale that the article should be deleted, is an interesting topic. AfC creates an article but doesn't really create a consensus that it should exist. It seems unfair to only allow those who wish to delete an article a path to establish a consensus, though creating an AfD discussion while supporting its existence could be viewed as a waste of time (if no one is advocating for it to be deleted). If someone is advocating for an articles deletion on the articles talk page, it seems reasonable to want to get ahead of the horse and establish a consensus. The AfD page doesn't explicitly prohibit starting a deletion discussion while advocating for the article to be kept, but the process is called Articles for Deletion. A theoretical "Article for Retention (AfR)" process would fix this issue, but would lead to unnecessary discussion and more oversight. Many would want to gain consensus for articles that are not contentious, simply for the sake of consensus (as consensus is generally what Wikipedia "runs" on). So we could add the caveat that there had to be advocation for its deletion first, such as discussion on the articles talk page or a proposed deletion. Then again why not add/allow that within the current AfD system, and avoid the theoretical hassle of creating and integrating a new system? Can anyone clarify if nominating an article for deletion (to establish consensus) is allowed if you don't think/advocate that it should be deleted? I read the project page, but it wasn't necessarily clear to me one way or the other. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 04:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't find anything in policy that prohibits the creator of an article from starting a deletion discussion when they themselves don't think it should be deleted. And I see nothing wrong with starting such a discussion in cases where, for example, other people have suggested the article should be deleted and the creator would like to get a consensus - they might be planning to do more work on it, but want to find out first whether that might be wasted, for example. Mr Potto (talk) 08:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

 * CREEP. ––<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 13:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This is an unusual process, although there are other situations where an editor starts an AfD discussion without suggesting that the article be deleted. For example, a procedural nomination after a previous result has been overturned at WP:DRV. Or as a courtesy to an IP editor who cannot complete the process. So there is no policy which states that nominating an article at AfD necessarily implies a desire to see it deleted. In this case, i gather, that some other editors indicated in talk messages that they felt the article should not exist, and the creator wished to get a clear consensus decision one way or the other. I see nothing wrong with that, although it may not turn out as the creator had hoped. But the idea that doing this amounts to requesting a G7 speedy deletion is nonsense, a kind of formalist letter over spirit concept foreign to Wikipedia. And even if we were to look only at formal policies, a G7 is only available where there are no substantial contributions by any editor other than the creator, which is not the case here, so any G7 speedy would have been clearly out of process, and subject to prompt overturn at WP:DRV -- which would probably have started an Afd discussion anyway. I htink should drop this procedural argument and simply concentrate on the merits -- or lack of them -- of the article in question. DES (talk) 17:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

AfDs and blocking...
I recently nominated an article for deletion here. It was a second nom, because I stumbled upon the article somehow, and in the interest of trying to copyedit it, I found there was no substantive coverage to back up anything in the article. However, the previous nom had been closed keep because one person voted keep and claimed substantive coverage via Google. Myself and two others clearly found that to be untrue in the followup. The user who voted in the previous nom not only explicitly stated an inclusionist bias, but has since been CU blocked indefinitely.

It leads me to wonder if there is a way (or a strong enough reason) to go back and look at recent AfD votes of indeffed users. In this case, the voter gave no actual proof of his coverage claim other than to cite Google, and was indeffed 2 weeks later. OTOH, nobody pressed the user to offer proof of the vote, and we are supposed to substantiate all votes. To be fair, there was no other input whatsoever on the AfD. Nevertheless, it seems to me like it was a bad-faith vote from the get-go, reinforced by the user's own page. However, I'm saying that in hindsight, and having looked at it. Is it too time-consuming and unwieldy to not take votes at face value or to discount votes with no substantiation as a matter of course? MSJapan (talk) 07:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

 * Actually, the AfD discussion referenced above as the previous nom was closed as no consensus (by another admin), rather than as keep, likely due to a lack of adequate participation in the discussion. North America1000 07:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

 * Yes. "Keepers", if their argument turns on the existence of acceptable sources, should explicitly specify some sources in their contribution, or see their vote discounted. Cases similar to this one should be examined, and if sources cannot be found, the article should be renominated drawing attention to the inadequate discussion the time before Noyster (talk),  09:40, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree. There is no similar burden of proof on delete votes, which often simply state "fails GNG" when there is clearly sufficient coverage. I don't support putting up obstacles for one side. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If there is clearly sufficient coverage, it should be easy to prove it. You can't demand a similar burden of proof for delete voters claiming there are no sources, because it is inherently much harder to prove a negative, and it is quite sufficient for someone to say "I looked, and couldn't find anything I consider suitable". Reyk  YO!  04:09, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The burden for delete votes is the "I looked" part. Though it is of course impossible to prove that without browser history or something. ansh 666 21:50, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Category:AfD debates relisted 3 or more times - listed for deletion
Category:AfD debates relisted 3 or more times has been nominated for possible deletion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Steel1943 (talk) 04:28, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Scrapy
Complete steps II and III with regards to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrapy Article does not meet notability guidelines — Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 18:19, 2 June 2015
 * ✅, see Articles for deletion/Scrapy.  Hut 8.5  20:20, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Please help
I've nominated Merovingian (The Matrix) for deletion, but I need someone to help me complete the process. I've posted my deletion rationale on the article's talk page. --<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 22:51, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Articles for deletion/Merovingian (The Matrix). ansh 666 23:56, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 00:25, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

This page needs to be looked at.
There are no Anti-Blank pages for any other nation in the Balkans yet other faced persecution. This article should be deleted. Nothing but propaganda aimed and distabalizing factual views and justify war crime and behavior. Anti-Serb Sentiment — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackiechan321 (talk • contribs)

 * There's nothing necessarily illegitimate about such an article, take a look at those in Category:Anti-national sentiment. "We don't have an article on X" won't go down well at AfD, at best that's an argument to write that other article.  Hut 8.5  19:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

The Ultimate Matrix Collection
Please help me complete the deletion discussion for The Ultimate Matrix Collection. I have posted my rationale for deletion on the talk page.--<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 22:19, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done. Articles for deletion/The Ultimate Matrix Collection created and added to the daily log.-- Finngall  talk  22:44, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Tachikawa-ryu
Could someone please complete the second and third step for me? Thank you. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 01:38, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅: Articles for deletion/Tachikawa-ryu (2nd nomination). ansh 666 02:21, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 02:24, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Laurie Patton entry, and Twinkle
I attempted to nominate Laurie Patton for deletion, and Twinkle failed to create the appropriate pages, with an "Invalid Token" error. The log shows a link in a different section, but has not properly sectioned it. The appropriate page was not created. Could someone please assist me with manual creation and correction of the malformed content? Thanks in advance!  Scr ★ pIron IV 18:34, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of "***This Is Not a Test***"
I need some help here. This page for an album was created when the album didn't have much information out other than tracklisting, release date, and title. The "***" before "This" and after "Test" turned out to be stylization, but was included in the article's name. So how would I go about asking for this page to be deleted? Much thanks. Ilovechristianmusic (talk) 02:06, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you mean This Is Not a Test!. I can't find an article that has asterisks in its Wikipedia title.  What article do you mean?  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:21, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I found a redirect at ***This Is Not a Test***, it may be what they are talking about. As we don't require much for a redirect, I don't think its a problem. Monty  845  02:52, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Apparent double standards
I see a problem with the AfD policy being enforced apparently haphazardly (or else an attempt to forcefully silence someone's view point that certain people do not agree with.) On https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Frank_R._Wallace there is a tag that this page was nominated for deletion, and that the decision was to keep it, apparently still able to be viewed and read by people. However, the article's talk page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Neo-Tech says the decision was to keep, more specifically, the discussion archived at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Neo-Tech shows a different page than what is there now, and yet, somehow, that version of the page WAS deleted. There is no way in hell that the discussion being hashed out was all over a disambiguation page. Not cool WP. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:54, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * There were two discussions about a decade apart. The template was just pointing to the wrong, older one from 2004. I've fixed it to point towards the more recent one that is relevant to the content currently there. Monty  845  03:00, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * An independent review:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Neo-Tech was an AFD that ran from 29 Nov 2004 to 6 Dec 2004 (actually it was a VFD, votes for deletion, then later retitled), on an article then named "Neo-Tech"
 * That Neo-Tech article indeed was not the disambiguation page currently located at Neo-Tech which dates from 4 November 2005
 * History of current "Neo-Tech" (disambig page)] shows that the former page that was there was moved to Neo-Tech (philosophy) on 4 November 2005.
 * Neo-Tech (philosophy) is now a redirect, but after it redirects you, you can scroll to top of page then you can click to go back to the redirect page.
 * History of that Neo-Tech (philosophy) article] shows it was started in 23 December 2004, was redirected to Frank R. Wallace on 9 September 2006 with edit summary saying that was a result of Articles for deletion/Neo-Tech (philosophy) (3rd nomination). Note the 23 December 2004 date is after the VFD/AFD;  the current history of "Neo-Tech (philosophy)" does not contain the original Neo-Tech article that existed before 30 November 2004 when the VFD/AFD started.
 * I deduce there must have been an AFD named something like Articles_for_deletion/Neo-Tech_(philosophy)_(2nd nomination) which I can't find. It could have concluded "Delete" and then the original Neo-Tech article would have been really deleted, gone.  Presumably the 2nd AFD started soon after the first AFD closed on 6 December 2004, and was closed before 23 December 2004 and the article was deleted.  Because a new Neo-Tech article was created on 23 December 2004.
 * 19 March 2014 the Neo-Tech (philosophy) redirect was revised to go to Frank R. Wallace instead of to Frank R. Wallace.
 * I don't know what practices were in the past, but if you close an AFD now you are supposed to put a report at the Talk page of the latest AFD you are closing, using template:old afd multi and also linking to all previous AFDs. I don't see how to find the 2nd AFD.  When the 3rd AFD was closed with redirect outcome, and the report/link was given at Talk:Neo-Tech (philosophy)that was the time that the 1st and 2nd AFDs should have been reported/linked
 * As the I.P. editor points out there is a notice at Talk:Frank R. Wallace about an AFD (Articles for deletion/Frank R. Wallace) being closed keep...that was a different AFD about the Frank R. Wallace article itself (not about the Neo-Tech article) in 2007
 * The I.P. editor is right about some facts, but then suggests there was some page that was suppressed / has disappeared. I don't understand what, if anything, is not available to be seen in history at "Neo-Tech", "Neo-Tech (philosophy)", besides the original Neo-Tech article (from before 30 November 2004 that would have been deleted after the 2nd AFD closed "Delete" sometime between 6 December 2004 and 23 December 2004.  To the I.P., if you want that old deleted article, you can ask for a copy of it and an administrator would provide it.  (Maybe you have to be logged in for your request to be honored, so the admin can email it to your email account.)
 * I didn't know what editor Monty845 is speaking of, about 2 AFDs being a decade apart. If somewhere there is a "template... just pointing to the wrong, older one from 2004", perhaps that should be kept and another template should be added pointing to the "right, newer one"?  Oh, it is Talk:Neo-Tech, the dab page, which was up for deletion in 2014, with Articles for deletion/Neo-Tech (2nd nomination) closing Keep.  Hmm, the 2014 AFD does provide links to related AFDs: Articles for deletion/Neo-Tech, Articles for deletion/Neo-Tech (2nd nomination), Articles for deletion/Neo-Tech (philosophy), Articles for deletion/Neo-Tech (philosophy) (3rd nomination).  As I deduced above, there must have been an "Articles for deletion/Neo-Tech (philosophy) (2nd nomination)" that is missing.
 * To the I.P. editor, the 2014 AFD was clearly about just a dab page and closed keep. You are right that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Neo-Tech, back in 2004, was about an article not a dab page.  But nothing has been suppressed.  Monty485's edit just now corrected the notice at Talk:Neo Tech about the page being nominated for deletion (in 2014) so that it now points to the correct, 2014 AFD discussion.  There is no "double standards" problem.
 * Perhaps an issue contributing to confusion in this system is that the Old AfD multi notices assert "This page" without identifying what "This page" was named at the time. There's just a message like "This page was nominated for deletion on July 29, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep but cleanup."  What should be given is a message like "This page (named Neo-Tech (philosophy) at nomination date) was nominated for deletion on July 29, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep but cleanup."
 * Hope this helps. Too long to read?  Tough.  Was the I.P. serious or just trolling?  I don't know. -- do  ncr  am  04:26, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I am being serious here, and the issue was the appearance of double standards. If it is resolved, I am happy, however, from further reading, it seems that certain people were attacking the original page by what was called revert wars. But to me, it seems that if the issue is that there are problems with a page (admitted, I have no idea what was on the original), then the first instinct should be to fix what is on the page, not delete it. Judging by the fact that there was apparently 3 different requests to delete the page, not so sure that enough effort was made to try to fix the problem, just sweep it under the proverbial rug. I read on some of the pages that a user named Bi was apparently the latest requester, and apparently had made a joke page disparaging Neo-Tech (or Neo Tech or however), and to me, it looks like the only reason for the request was apparently some sort of personal issue they had with it. Some of the comments about the personal attack on this wiki was made by me, but that was based on what I have seen here and elsewhere. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 04:36, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

(addition to above) I also checked the history at the page I first listed as the talk page, and following that page's listed history doesn't clear up the previous confusion any. Just an observation, no good or bad either way to me as the issue was already resolved. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 05:30, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

 * Thank you to the I.P. editor for following up. I think you are considering matters of some conflict back in 2007 only, about the Frank R. Wallace article and/or the Neo-Tech (philosophy) article.  I see no issue going on now, so I could just say so what it is old and dismiss it.  But in fact I don't dismiss the possibility that an 2007 conflict is worth reviewing in 2015, eight years later...I do think some reviews of big past disagreements should be done.  One reason is that now, much later, it could be determined that any "resolution" back then was effectively "wrong", and perhaps some editors were driven away from the area or from Wikipedia altogether due to the conflict, when they were "right".  Much later, after Wikipedia's policies and practices have developed a lot, it could be relatively easy to come to a consensus judgment that what happened was "bad", and some effort to make amends could still be made, e.g.
 * . compose an apology statement, get several current editors to sign, try to deliver that to the old editors; and advertise it by links from relevant Talk pages
 * . jointly edit the article(s) now to try to implement any part of what should have been done back then).
 * . add a note about the conflict and the current consensus judgment onto some running list of important past conflicts, for purpose of Wikipedia editors learning from them (is there such a list?)
 * Anyhow, back in 2007 what looks to me like the center of the conflict was disagreement between an editor "Bi" and an editor "Bridge & Tunnel" about validity of certain sources. history of the Neo-Tech (philosophy) article shows some back-and-forth editing...some big deletions and corresponding additions. One attempted to have the article deleted by an AfD which closed keep.  Then that one opened an RFC to discuss the sources, which was never really concluded...there was no formal closure.  Both those editors seemed to have a decent case and were very determined.  Whoever created a joke page outside of Wikipedia to influence this was out of line, IMHO.  Personal attacks, if there were any, should not have been tolerated.  There was at least one wp:ANI proceeding.  Who won in the end?  I am not that interested to really consider the content and sources being discussed, to figure out where I myself would make the judgement.  And I haven't tried to figure out what the outcome really was...did the sources get in and stay in, were they pushed out, what happened to the editors involved.  The current Frank R. Wallace article looks "okay" to me--and maybe like editor Bi "won"--though I don't know what good info was suppressed and should be there.  Neo-Tech (philosophy) is a redirect to a very short section in the Frank R. Wallace area;  it looks like that is given short shrift in Wikipedia today.  Offhand it seems to me that perhaps it should be revisited, and perhaps Neo-Tech should be explained more, at least in that section within the FRWallace article.
 * To the I.P. editor, yes, it looks like there was conflict. Today, there is conflict going on in many other topic areas.  It happens.  Sometimes one or two good editors coming anew to an area can make a difference and help really settle something;  sometimes disagreement will exist forever.  Just because there were 3 AfDs on one topic doesn't mean injustice was done;  it means there was disagreement that continues.  Bad behavior during disagreement should not be accepted.  There are some processes in Wikipedia that address bad behavior, although very imperfectly.  There are processes that support good review of sources (hopefully better now than then). Your reading of the past conflict seems probably reasonable.  You should open an account and get involved.  It's better to start editing in a non-controversial area, to learn for a while, before entering into an area of deep conflict. -- do  ncr  am  17:42, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Articles with Arabic titles
I would like to see a policy to the effect that articles with foreign-language titles that have english translations can be deleted.

My beef is this: I keep coming across articles about aspects of Islam that rely heavily on arabic terminology. These articles are typically written in ungrammatical english, and are peppered with arabic technical terms that are not defined in the article. Frequently these technical terms link to a page with an arabic title, which in turn relies on a slew of arabic technical terms.

I hasten to point out that I am not proposing the mass-deletion of articles about Islam; on the contrary, these are articles that I have tried to read out of interest. Rather, I am suggesting that articles in the english Wikipedia should be written in english, and should not require a knowledge of arabic (or any other foreign language) in order to be understandable.

MrDemeanour (talk) 09:07, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not the correct page to start a discussion about terminology. Try WP:MOS or WP:VPP. --Hegvald (talk) 10:23, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think that is asking about terminology. If the article is in Arabic, and an English-language page also exists, mark it ; if the article is in Arabic but an English-language page doesn't exist, mark it  and send it to WP:PNT. -- Red rose64 (talk) 15:19, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm not referring to articles that are written in a foreign language, but to articles that make extensive use of unexplained foreign terms or have foreign-language titles, where those terms or titles could have been rendered in english. MrDemeanour (talk) 07:57, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If it's got an Arabic title, but is otherwise in English, WP:MOVE it to the English title. If that already exists, propose a WP:MERGE. -- Red rose64 (talk) 11:39, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * could you give a few examples? It's not that I don't believe you, but it would be useful to see some of these firsthand. Thanks, ansh 666 22:42, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * OK. I picked a random term related to Islam: 'dhimmi'. In the first para of the lede, two arabic terms are used but not explained (but they are wikilinks): 'jizya tax' and 'zakat tax'. These words evidently mean something like 'dhimmi capitation tax' and 'alms tax'. But why do I have to follow wikilinks to find that out? In other words, why can the article not be written in english, with (optional) references to the corresponding arabic terminology?
 * My point is that an english-language encyclopaedia should enable me to investigate a subject without having to acquire a translation of some foreign term for every other sentence I read. The terms should be translated *in the article*, perhaps with the foreign term made available parenthetically.
 * This is a general problem with Wikipedia, IMO. Articles tend to use obscure jargon, and rely on wikilinks to enable the reader figure out what is being referred to. But this is a particular problem in articles on Islam, perhaps because (some?) Moslems consider that the Quran *must* be read in arabic if it is to be correctly understood. Whatever the reason, many articles on Islam cannot be understood by a non-arabic speaker without following numerous wikilinks simply in order to obtain a translation. And note that the article on 'jizya' is quite a bit longer than the article on 'dhimmi', which is the term I was notionally researching in the first place.
 * In summary, I simply think that an article in an english encyclopaedia should not require me to obtain *any* translations of terms from non-english languages in order to parse the language of the article. Of course, I may not as a result understand the article; but at least I know what it says, without using a dictionary.
 * MrDemeanour (talk) 09:25, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This is the sort of thing that MOS:INTRO should cover. -- Red rose64 (talk) 12:29, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Helping in posting AfD request
Could somebody please complete the AfD request for Isa dreams? I have added my reasons for seeking deletion on the article's talk page here. Much appreciated.--<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 02:18, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Done Reyk  YO!  13:49, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

The Peace and Freedom Band, proposed deletion.
Proposed deletion of:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Peace_%26_Freedom_Band

No references for the last 2 years, the only ones I could find in a search were obscure blogs.

<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 14:32, 9 July 2015 (UTC)G. MacKenzie<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 14:32, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Please see Articles for deletion/The Peace & Freedom Band. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:44, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Eastern Rainbow
I'd like to propose the following article for deletion:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Rainbow

No references in the last 10 years & I could only find one obscure mention on a search.

Thank you,

<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 07:19, 10 July 2015 (UTC) G. MacKenzie.
 * This is the wrong page to propose an article for deletion. See WP:PROD for full instructions. -- Red rose64 (talk) 12:28, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Peace and Freedom Press
No references in the last 10 years. This seems to be mostly a self-publishing venture with little to find on a search apart from small pamphlets on Amazon.

Too obscure for an encyclopedia.

<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 07:29, 10 July 2015 (UTC) G. MacKenzie.
 * There is no article named "Peace and Freedom Press", nor has one ever existed. In any case, this is the wrong page: see WP:DELETE for advice on how to get a page deleted. -- Red rose64 (talk) 12:28, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Peace and Freedom Magazine
Strangely the only references to the 'Peace and Freedom magazine' I could find online deals with a completely different magazine which isn't on Wikipedia.

The magazine listed here on Wikipedia is an obscure fanzine. Too obscure for an encyclopedia?

Again, no references listed in the last 10 years.

<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 07:36, 10 July 2015 (UTC) G. MacKenzie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk)
 * As noted in the two sections above, this is the wrong page. Presumably you mean either or ; both of those are redirects, so unless one of the speedy deletion criteria applies, you need to take it to WP:RFD. -- Red rose64 (talk) 12:28, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

The full documentary is available for watching
Before this article is deleted(?) here is some info I gleaned from one of the  references. It is the url of a website where one can watch the full documentary and form their own opinion of its value; : http://planet.infowars.com/health/seeds-of-death-full-movie-march-against-monsanto-special-gary-null-releases-his-movie-seeds-of-death Ottawahitech (talk) 19:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Goldbach (Tollense)
Could somebody please fix the AfD for Goldbach (Tollense). Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 23:06, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorted, I think. Header added to the discussion page and nomination added to the log. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:38, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you JMHamo (talk) 23:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Article prefix/namespace bug
A MediaWiki bug (T87645) resulted in a number of articles intended for other namespaces being created within namespace 0 on January 27th 2015. A number of these (listed below) were related to the AfD discussions. All have now been superseded by entries in the correct namespace.

I intend to delete the misplaced articles of the next few days. It may appear from the deletion logs that I am deleting archived discussions that are intended to be retained - please don't be alarmed, I am only removing duplicate articles that are not normally accessible. The 'normal' versions of the archived discussions will remain accessible to all.

Cheers. - TB (talk) 09:36, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

 * All of the above have been deleted now. - TB (talk) 11:06, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Joombas Music Group discography
per this dif, honoring newbie editor's intention to withdraw their comment here by striking per REDACT Jytdog (talk) 22:53, 22 July 2015 (UTC) I do not understand the reason why this page has to be deleted.. We've only listed all the works that our company/CEO Hyuk Shin took part in. Joombas Music Group discography page was made in order to list all the works we've done for people to know what kind of songs we produce and write. Although our company does not OWN the song anymore, all we have listed are the songs we took in part of (producing and writing). Joombas Music Group is a well-known production company in South Korea producing EXO - Growl (Multi Platinum). We not only produce and write songs but we have released our very own singer Dean (South Korean singer). As of right now, we only have listed the works we've took part in (WE DO NOT OWN THE ARTISTS LISTED. WE ONLY HAVE LOYALTY FOR ALL THE SONGS LISTED). But according to @C.Fred, we are NOT allowed to even list any of our work unless our label owns the singer.. Instead of deleting our page.. I wish you guys could just help us fix our problem with references and citations. Instead of deleting our page without specific reasoning. Josephyangjoombas (talk) 21:58, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

 * You seem to be under a gross misapprehension regarding the purpose of Wikipedia. This is an online encyclopaedia, not a webhosting service. It isn't your page, it is ours, and we will decide what content is appropriate. If you wish to argue against deletion, you must do so at Articles for deletion/Joombas Music Group discography - but before doing so, I suggest that you familiarise yourself with Wikipedia policies on neutral point of view, conflict of interest, notability and reliable sourcing. We really aren't interested in what your label wishes to include on the page - what matters is whether the article is appropriate for an encyclopaedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

 * I'm okay with people editing onto the page. but someone's gotta start the page right? instead of deleting without any reasoning.Josephyangjoombas (talk) 22:53, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

 * Note: I copied the comment above (now struck) to the AfD page, but forgot to come back to leave a note. Please keep discussion in one place. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Pornogrind
I think Pornogrind might be a good candidate for a merge with Grindcore. CombatMarshmallow (talk) 06:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Please see my reply at above. -- Red rose64 (talk) 08:47, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Bandana thrash
Bandana_thrash should be merged with Thrashcore. Hope these are helpful. CombatMarshmallow (talk) 06:49, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Please see my reply at above. -- Red rose64 (talk) 08:47, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Raicore
I have never went through this process. I hope this is ok the way I present this. Raicore needs to be deleted or merged with: Taqwacore CombatMarshmallow (talk) 06:34, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not the page to make these requests. If you want two articles merged, the instructions are at WP:MERGE. If you want a article deleted, the instructions are at WP:DELETE. For more general advice on the suitability of your proposals, ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Music genres task force. -- Red rose64 (talk) 08:47, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

 * Great Thank you. I thought this was the one. Ill read more. CombatMarshmallow (talk) 14:44, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Mass AFD of pageant articles
,, and are off to the races nominating beauty pageant articles for deletion. I'm not a fan of these pageant articles myself but this AFD campaign is getting out of control. If you can't find sources for Reinado Internacional del Café or Míster España then something is wrong. I practically tripped over them on my way to Google. I get it with things like Miss Cotopaxi, but let's not throw the baby out with the bath water. I would really rather be doing something else with my time than looking up beauty pageants. Please make a good faith effort at WP:BEFORE, with the cut-and-paste rationales and the obvious sources on some of these things the effort is looking a tad weak. Cheers, Vrac (talk) 02:34, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

 * 1 - I haven't nominated any pageant articles at all this year (or even last year for that matter), 2 - Most if not all of these never have any brilliant sources either so sorry but no I'm not !voting Keep on pageants that have no articles on News sites, Ofcouse if you can find sources then add them to the AFDs!. – Davey 2010 Talk 02:42, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

 * Not every tiny pageant is notable, sources or no sources. By now even a Bonny Baby Pageant can get press coverage but that makes the pageant or the winners not notable. The same with preliminary rounds like the series of provincial Ecuadorian pageants. The Banner talk 09:24, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem with you two is that you always and indiscriminately vote "delete" at beauty pageant AfDs without checking the article or the sources or the web. (Davey cast at one time 8 !votes in less than 2 minutes, using the same copy/pasted "rationale".) Several of these pageant articles were kept, some of them unanimously against the nominator. I think a topic ban from pageant AfDs should be considered for Davey2010 and The Banner, because their biased, pre-conceived "votes" do not add anything to the discussion, and mislead admins who are not familiar with some of the AfD regulars. Kraxler (talk) 19:17, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Most if not all of the pageants here are not notable, I do look for sources and half the time it's either Facebook or other crappy stuff, With all respect tho I have also !voted Keep in a few, As for "My !votes" not adding anything to the discussion" - Sorry but that's just bollocks! - If I can't find anything notability-wise then the obvious !vote is Delete! .... – Davey 2010 Talk 19:47, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Give me a link to any beauty pageant AfD where you voted keep. I checked your AfD stats and didn't find any. But I may be mistaken. Kraxler (talk) 00:40, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately it was months ago and since then I've voted in millions, I remember there were some I !voted Keep and some I originally !voted Delete but changed to Keep...., Also I forgot to say but with any AFD if sources are found I do 9 times out of 10 change my !vote - Only reason I haven't done so this week is because I've barely been on and haven't bothered checking any AFD I voted in(bar 2 pageant ones) since Monday but by the time I looked they were closed so couldn't do much. – Davey 2010 Talk 01:26, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * And yet after responding to this conversation saying you wouldn't vote keep on pageants that have no news sources, you went directly to the two AFD's in question and voted delete with your same copy-and-paste rationale, even though news sources were clearly posted there and I had notified you in this opening paragraph that there were plenty of sources. Vrac (talk) 01:35, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I'm just too tired but you've lost me there ? .... I haven't voted keep yet and I haven't got any pings either ?, Well I've looked through my contribs and the AFDs I've commented on there's no pings for me so I dunno! – Davey 2010 Talk 15:27, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Lame. Vrac (talk) 21:20, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Twat. – Davey 2010 Talk 21:39, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hahahaha I suspected you would eventually show us your true character. There it is! Vrac (talk) 10:25, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not a fan of baiting people until you succeed in provoking them, then gloating about it. We've now seen your true character as well, and you do not compare favourably with Davey2010. Reyk  YO!  13:50, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * What are you 5 ? .... If you're going to call me Lame you're going to get called a Twat simple as!, There was absolutely no need to call me Lame at all!, But whatever!, If anything does happen here could someone kindly leave a message as I'm Unwatching this page before I end up telling Vrac what I really think of him. – Davey 2010 Talk 15:17, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Davey, I just found Articles for deletion/Miss Earth 2015 which you closed as "keep" (the !vote being unanimous) instead of adding a drive-by-copy/paste "delete" vote. I wish you would return to a more mature approach to AfD: even if the article looks like trash, just take a few minutes to check out whether it really is trash, and try to write a unique rationale for every AfD !vote. AfD is not a 100 metres run where fractions of seconds are decisive. Take your time, or don't opine. Kraxler (talk) 17:22, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope you're right I should be careful and I will be from hereon in. – Davey 2010 Talk 19:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I would endorse a topic ban proposal. There is strong evidence of an unhealthy vendetta against pageant articles, irrespective of the events' coverage, even when evidence of such coverage has been provided for them. Vrac (talk) 22:06, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it's just housekeeping. 99% of beauty pageants and 99.9% of contestants are simply not notable. Guy (Help!) 22:25, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I only looked at two of them and they were both no-brainer keeps. I must either be really unlucky or 99% is a bit of an exaggeration.  At any rate pageant articles don't interest me at all so I'm not going looking at any others.  It is disappointing, however, when you provide obvious evidence of notability and get people voting delete with the same cut-and-paste rationale regardless.  It begs the obvious questions about good faith and why WP:BEFORE is being ignored. Vrac (talk) 22:37, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

 * Oppose topic ban for both. Disagreeing about notability and sourcing standards is not grounds for expulsion from AfD. I also do not understand why people are OK with producing a multitude of virtually identical articles, are OK with copy and paste keep votes, yet freak out if someone uses the same delete rationale for two cookie-cutter identical articles suffering from exactly the same faults. Reyk  YO!  13:55, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not unsympathetic to the sentiment that copy and paste articles might deserve copy and paste delete votes. But what happened here is more than that, the problem here is the blatant disregard of WP:BEFORE.  Take a look at these three edits, and the times and sequence in which they happened:
 * 22:42, 23 July 2015 Edit summary = "No"
 * 22:57, 23 July 2015 Mister Espana AFD vote
 * 23:00, 23 July 2015 Reinado AFD vote
 * In the middle of these edits are other delete votes at other pageant AFD's with the same copy and paste rationale. So I notify them that there are plenty of sources for these two articles, I post the sources in the AFDs, they respond saying they won't vote keep unless there are news sources, then they go straight to the AFD's in question to vote Delete.  I can't imagine a more cut and dried case of deliberate disregard of WP:BEFORE.  They actually said "No" in the edit summary, presumably as a response to the request to make an effort at WP:BEFORE.  Perhaps you can understand how I would get frustrated when they say they are "too tired" or "I dunno" when confronted.  Ok, I'll take the trout for using the word "lame".  Let's call it "extremely thin".  I get it that people don't like these articles, I don't like them either, but it is indisputable that these two articles pass GNG.  If people so desperately want to get rid of these things that they ignore overwhelming evidence, even when it's presented to them, even when they are confronted and reminded of WP:BEFORE, then there is a problem. As for calling someone a t**t, well that pretty much speaks for itself. Vrac (talk) 18:21, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope I admit I failed to spot those somehow - (In my defense It was an extremely long week and in hindsight I damn well shouldn't have !voted in those and I'm sorry that for that), Anyway if it'd make everyone happy I'll stop with the quick !voting & will pay more attention but Could I point something out a minute - It's only "The Banner" that nominates these - If he doesn't nominate them there isn't any problems ? – Davey 2010 Talk 19:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

 * Oppose topic ban but suggest formal admonishment, however that works. Automatically blanket-nominating articles of a certain topic area is a fairly egregious violation of WP:AGF, WP:NOTCLEANUP, and WP:BEFORE, and pretty disruptive if they're obvious keeps, but also fairly minor in the grand scheme of things. Closing admins can see through hollow, baseless rationale, so mass nominations and cut-and-paste !votes are just a waste of their time is all. It's not like they're going around blanking the articles against consensus - they think the articles should be deleted so they bring them to the deletion venue, which is the proper procedure. at least is sort of known for being overzealous with deletion (I'm not familiar with the other editors) but that's not inherently bad unless good articles are being deleted, and I don't observe that that's the case. Since this is going off the rails quickly, can I suggest closing this thread? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:22, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Nice one, anybody has seen this: User:Alberto flood? The Banner talk 14:37, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No need to use straw man arguments here, The Banner. There's nothing wrong with nominating trash to be dumped in the garbage bin. The discussion here was about nominating articles for deletion (see for example Articles for deletion/Miss Globe International (2nd nomination), Articles for deletion/Miss Suriname and Articles for deletion/Miss Earth 2015), or !voting "delete", in clear cases of established notability. Feel yourself formally admonished by Ivanvector, for the abovementioned reasons. Kraxler (talk) 17:22, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

 * Note This is not the appropriate forum for discussion of sanctions against editors for perceived misconduct. If you want a topic ban or any other action against an editor, you need to take this to WP:ANI. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:24, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * A topic ban was not formally proposed, I only mentioned it as a possiblity. Certainly it would have been to be debated at ANI, but I don't think that it's necessary to go there. Attention has been called to the problem, and we'll see how things develop. Kraxler (talk) 17:22, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Incase no one wants to read it all I've said above I'll stop with the copy/paste !votes & will stop !voting as soon as the AFD's on the log. – Davey 2010 Talk 19:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Current discussions: indexing by date
The first line under the "Current discussions" subheading reads: Articles being considered for possible deletion are indexed by the day on which they were first listed.

They aren't. Take a look - many of the discussions shown under a given date were relisted on that date, and first listed several weeks earlier.

Would be appreciated if this could be fixed, as it would make it very much easier to find older discussions in most need of further input, now that the very useful bot that used to list these is out of action Noyster (talk),  09:40, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

 * Worse, at least two still-open discussions are not currently shown at all under "Current discussions": Planio (opened 9 July, relisted 16 July) and Proportional approval voting (opened 19 June, relisted 26 June). There may be more Noyster (talk),  19:34, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

 * I was just asking about this.  Planio isn't listed anywhere. Vrac (talk) 01:01, 3 August 2015 (UTC)  Ooops, I meant, sorry Kraxler got my K's mixed up... Vrac (talk) 01:04, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The what links here for the AFD: Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Planio doesn't show any logs linking to it. It was in the July 16th log but I think something happened during relist, there was an edit conflict and the entry got commented out. Come to think of it I came to the AFD via deletion sorting, and the meat puppets found it because, well, they're meat puppets :) Vrac (talk) 01:14, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I added them to Monday's (July 27) log, if necessary, they can be relisted. Kraxler (talk) 01:19, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Jeff Friedl
(and any others):

The article Jeff Friedl has been re-created. It has been deleted twice before: [ once in 2009] and [ once earlier this year] after an AfD. The AfD notes that there was no prejudice, so a better article on the topic would be acceptable. I have no knowledge of the topic, nor was I involved in the previous discussion, so I have no idea if the current article is any better than the previous one. Is this article a good candidate for G4 Speedy Delete and/or is it any better than the previous incarnation (possibly worth keeping this time to see if it gets better)? --Unready (talk) 02:14, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I've moved it to Draft:Jeff_Friedl and will attempt to engage with the creator. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:54, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It fails any notability guidelines. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I think moving to draft was exceedingly kind, but they should have a short rope. This article has been repeatedly recreated on two different pages Jeff Friedl and Jeff friedl. --Dweller (talk) 08:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I had no clue the first deletion happened, and was involved in trying to punch up the content to stave off the second deletion. There was no mention of a prior deletion in the second one. The content here is a smidge dated (eg, uses future-tense for a release in 2010) but seems to be better-written. I'm only here because I got the direct notification; I'm swamped at work and can only likely help it out a bit. I'm confused with the comments by Dweller. There is no shadowy "they" who is resubmitting. The fact that he's getting added by different folks over time is a signal that folks think him missing is an error. :-) Can you be more specific WRT "It fails any notability guidelines"? Mentioning his awards, fan base, and notable contributions would help I expect. What's truly lacking in your perspective? --jzp (talk) 12:52, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * All it needs to do is pass WP:V. Several in-depth references to him in reliable sources. That's it. --Dweller (talk) 07:48, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/Jeff Friedl will give you some ideas. Read the delete comments. --Dweller (talk) 07:56, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/MV Nimpkish
Can someone please close this Afd? It's been open long enough now. Mjroots (talk) 16:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Tarek El Moussa
This AfD has been open for nearly three months. What's the best course here for closure/cleanup? Thanks. -- Finngall talk  15:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd say that it falls under "No consensus to delete". Although three months is strictly correct, it's been properly listed for a month now. Will close shortly. Mjroots (talk) 16:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I relisted it, because even though it was "properly listed", it was under a >2 week old log which few people would have looked at. I don't think there's any harm in getting some more eyes on it. ansh 666 17:00, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * So I noticed. Oh well, another week can't do any harm. Mjroots (talk) 17:02, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Quick question
If I had the same concern over a large group of articles (namely quite a few of these), how would I go about that? I don't think I can bundle them, per the instructions on the page, but it would be a real pain for everybody to make a ton of AfDs. Should I start a RfC? Any advice is appreciated. Kharkiv07 ( T ) 01:21, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Out of curiosity I searched for area code AFDs, it appears that there is a long-standing consensus that they are notable: Articles for deletion/Area code 704, Articles for deletion/Area code 856. Vrac (talk) 03:09, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Considering that the last AFD was over 8 years ago I don't think that there would be any harm is trying another one to see if the consensus has changed in that timeframe though there is no guarantee that anything has changed. If the AFD rule is chosen I would recommend only staring with one article as a test case before considering nominating on mass.--<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 23:59, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I will oppose deletion of Area code articles. According to Wikipedia's Five pillars, Wikipedia incorporates aspects of a Gazetteer. This is precisely the type of article that should be included in a 21st century encyclopedia with nearly 5 million articles. By the way, I use these articles regularly in my business. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  01:30, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I would suggest an RFC on whether to consider Area Codes notable, if you want to asses current consensus, rather than an AfD which may not make it clear to people that you are looking for a new consensus. DES (talk) 17:14, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Bubble point
An IP has tried to nominate one of the articles I have created for deletion and done a poor job of it. I think this may be retaliation for one of my AFD noms and don't think it has any merit. Would someone either create and transclude the AFD or delete it and remove the tag from the article? shoy (reactions) 15:27, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Taken care of. Reyk  YO!  21:52, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

AfD withdrawn
I have withdrawn the AfD here, though one responder (partially) agrees with me, so I'm not closing it myself. If someone wants to close it, would be fine. Kingsindian ♝♚ 10:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. Reyk  YO!  10:40, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Journey to the Source: Decoding Matrix Trilogy
Could someone please complete my nomination of Journey to the Source: Decoding Matrix Trilogy for deletion? --<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 02:54, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

 * ✅ by User:Drmies. GermanJoe (talk) 11:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Deleting articles on non-english wikipedia.
How would one propose deletion on the German Wikipedia? Anmccaff (talk) 14:51, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * See de:Wikipedia:Löschkandidaten. For other languages, interlanguage links are available in the left-side menu from our WP:AFD page. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:22, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Is there no requirement, official or otherwise, to contact original authors?
A bot post on my talk page led me eventually to this AfD. In spite of making recent edits to the page, exactly zero effort was expended to contact the authors of the article to see what might be done. Is it not the case that there is supposed to be at least some effort to contact the involved parties? Or does AfD work entirely as judge, jury and executioner? Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:56, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe the expectation is that the person who created the article will be notified (unfortuantely sometimes they are the person who originally created it as a redirect rather than adding content...). I see there's a notification at User talk:Benthegazebo (found by looking at Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rescue!), so presumaby they were that creating editor. Beyond that it's useful to add an article to your watch list if it's important to you. Pam  D  18:27, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree with PamD, the convention is to notify the creator and any major or active contributors as a courtesy, but it is not strictly required. If you use a tool like Twinkle, it defaults to notifying the page creator but that behaviour can be disabled. The only times that I know of where we require notifying users is if their conduct is being discussed at one of the dramah boards administrative noticeboards. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:29, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Active major contributors like me? The guy that added 50% of the article content about a month before listing? Something that is obvious from the History, one that doesn't even take up one whole page? Come on, it's not like this would be unreasonable to ask for!
 * And please don't try to put this back on the authors. There is simply no way that a contributor can keep up with other people's edits. I have ~7500 new articles and perhaps 50k edits, there is no mechanism by which I can track edits to the content I'm interested in (if you wish to see my watchlist, I'm happy to post a screen shot to demonstrate how useless that is).
 * If this isn't a rule it should be. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:50, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually your contributions were made over 3 months before the article was deleted. You took the article from 889 bytes to 1212 bytes with 3 edits on 2 May 2015, it was nominated 2 August 2015 and deleted 8 August 2015.  Your edits added an infobox and with no aditional content to the prose.  The only new information you added was the stable release version and date.  The rest of the information in the infobox was already in the article. You also added an image to the infobox that was not originally in the article.   -- GB fan 19:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * To answer your original question, there is no requirement to notify any contributor to an article before or when nominating an article for deletion. This section of WP:AFD says "While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion."  I take that as recommended to notify contributors.  I rarely see contributors other than creator notified, which was done in this case.  -- GB fan 19:16, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Although I haven't been active nominating articles for deletion in quite a while, when I do I usually try to identify anyone who's made a significant contribution and notify them as well. For articles where deletion is a possibility, it's often not difficult. If an article you contributed to got deleted while you weren't looking and you feel bad about it, talk to the deleting administrator and you can probably work something out, or deletion review is available if you think that the deletion was in error. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:46, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You are the exception. I was curious how often editors are notified of AFDs.  I looked at the top 15 AFDs on the list for today.  In 9 of them the original creator was notified.  In 6 of them no one was notified of the deletion.  3 of those didn't make any difference as 2 of them were originally created by IPs and notification would not mean anything, the third was created by a now vanished user.  I know this is a small sample size but it is an indication that other editors are not notified of AFDs.  -- GB fan 20:08, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Well then, I think it's time we opened discussion on whether that language needs to change - can anyone offer a cogent argument why there should not be a requirement to notify major contributors, especially recent and active ones? Before you worry about workload, there are a variety of tech solutions to that. But personally, I feel the single-click-to-kill of Twinkle is precisely the problem, not the solution. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:57, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

 * I suspect it wouldn't be too hard for the tech folks to automatically ping recent contributors when an AfD notice is added to a page. That would be a better solution than making yet another rule. Zerotalk 13:18, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

 * I'm open to any and all suggestions that improves the ratio from the rather dismal numbers reported above. But I suspect that some sort of language will be needed, otherwise people that fail to do so will simply do what you see here "It's not a rule, and I'm a lazy button-pusher, so..." Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:38, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

 * I suspect that there will stil be people not happy with the outcomes: Editor A creates a redirect from topic "Whatsit" in 2010. Editor B writes a whole article on that topic in 2011, references and all. Editors C,D,E, edit it variously in 2015, tweaking categories, adding infobox, perhaps a little petty vandalism undone by editor F, etc. If it's nominated for deletion today, using Twinkle, Editor A gets notified. Under a "recent contributors" rule, Editors C,D,E,F get notified. Difficult to see an algorithmic way to notify major contributor B. Even more difficult if A2 had turned the redirect into a short stub in 2011, then B expanded that in 2012 into a substantial article. Perhaps an algorithm could pick up (a) any editor who turned a redirect into an article, (b) any editor who expanded it by more than "n" characters (not reverted?) to notify as well as the creating editor (the one who Twinkle today notifies, if used). Good luck in trying to work something out.  Pam  D  14:46, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems you just made an excellent start. I invite you to continue this line of thinking. Time bracketing might also be useful. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:38, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps by number of edits? ansh 666 17:51, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * As a first step, let's require the original contributor for XFD, which is the main problem.. Surely there should be agreement on that, and it would be very easy to program. And Twinkle could easily be modified to not give the option of not notifying.  DGG ( talk ) 17:58, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Twinkle does this already. The default is to notify the page creator, but the option can be unchecked. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:39, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm opposed to requiring this. It's instruction creep, and creates a loophole in the process where a user can dispute a "delete" result solely on the basis of having not been notified of the discussion (or on the basis of anyone not being notified). However, I fully support figuring out a way by which to determine who are the significant contributors to an article for the purposes of optionally notifying them using an automated tool. It's already possible using external tools to see which pages a given user has edited most often; in theory, it should be possible to do this in reverse (determine which users have edited a given page most often) but I don't have the expertise. We could ask at WP:VPT. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:06, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand the problems with feature creep more than you might imagine, just look at the mess that passes for DYK these days. But we need to do something. I'm also perfectly happy with language to the effect of "we strongly recommend this, and don't be surprised if you get nasty messages if you fail to take the 15 seconds..." kind of thing.
 * As to the technicality, I did a bit of poking about and a number of users suggested this would be pretty trivial. C678, who has a script that does something similar, was able to suggest an algo pretty much off the top of his head. Of course that only fixes the problem for TW users... but that's worth exploring, of all the AfDs, how many are posted here by Twinkle or similar tools? Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * There were 52 additions via Twinkle yesterday, out of 79 total (by my count). Some of the 79 may have been manual relists. So, a fairly significant percentage. There don't appear to be any other tools in use. I'm absolutely ok with making the recommendation stronger, so long as it remains a recommendation and not a requirement. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:24, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe WP:Page Curation and the associated new pages feed also has a script for AfD, but it's not as widely used as Twinkle for that purpose (more for speedy deletion tagging). ansh 666 20:55, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes that's right, I forgot about that one. I think you're right, most new pages wouldn't go straight to Afd, they would be speedy or WP:PROD candidates first. I don't recall if Page Curation notifies interested users. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:24, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Sounds great Ivan. In the meantime I'm in the midst of tracking down a tool that might be just what we're looking for. I do find it a bit worrying that so much is done through TW - we have made huge strides on making it easier to delete things, yet actually creating them in the first place continues to get harder and harder. Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:23, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Question about split and AfDs
Susya is an article about 3 entities, all called Susya (or closely related variants). It is an archaelogical site, a Palestinian village, and an Israeli settlement. A week or so ago, an editor was WP:BOLD and split the article into 3 articles, dealing with them separately. It was objected to, the article was reverted, and the split articles nominated for deletion (I voted "delete" there). The AfDs resulted in "no consensus".

What is the relevant policy now? I am aware that "no consensus" on AfDs usually results in articles being kept. However, here the articles only contain material from the original article, and there is no consensus (or indeed discussion) to split the article up. What should be the scope of the original article now? With the original article existing, there is no point, and indeed, the new articles would be duplicates of the original one. I asked the closer here, and they said to determine it through consensus. Kingsindian ♝♚ 09:00, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * converting them to redirects through normal editing seems reasonable. Anyone who objects can go through WP:BRD. DES (talk) 16:46, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You mean converting the new articles to a redir to the original one? Kingsindian ♝♚ 16:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, since there was no consensus for the split. Or since the separate articles were not deleted, an RFC could seek consensus to do the split after all, but that is considerably more work. But one way or another, we should generally avoid articles that duplicate other articles, in my view. DES (talk) 18:56, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The editor who performed the split has now opened an RfC. Perhaps it is best to just wait till it finishes. Kingsindian ♝♚ 19:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Missing instruction
I don't think this project page says how to make all that stuff that's always supposed to appear at the top of a deletion discussion page appear there. Is that something that's supposed to happen automatically with twinkle? Blackbombchu (talk) 16:28, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * whaile many, perhaps even most, editors do use Twinkle for creating AfD noms these days, and it does more or less automate the process, the detailed instructions can be found at Articles for deletion, follow steps I, II, and III as described in that section, and you will have created a valid nom. (some of the details are in the templates one is directed to use in those instructions, but they will do the job.) Don't forget WP:BEFORE and the steps listed in the previous section, which should be done for any nom, automated or not. DES (talk) 16:47, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 August 2015
(Cross-posted from the template page.) On the first line of step 3, “Open the page,” please change “Open” to “Edit,” because that’s where the link leads (also see WP:EASTEREGG).

<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 04:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * See crossposted. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 12:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Health Service Culture
The article Health Service Culture: and, most important,
 * Consists mostly of direct quotations from different sources that simply define the relevant sense of "culture"
 * Contains only a few sentences that relate to health services
 * Has been edited less than 20 times altogether, the last time in 2012
 * Does not meet Wikipedia's style guidelines
 * Does not contain anything saying why culture in a health-service organization needs to be treated separately from culture of other kinds of organization.

I suggest that the subject is non-notable and therefore the article should be deleted; but as I am not a registered Wikipedia user (and am not going to become one), it will need someone else to agree with me and start the process. If, on the other hand, there is a consensus to keep it, then it needs a lot of improvement.

Consider this a "drive-by" nomination; if someone wants to start the official process, please do, but I myself am not interested in discussing it further, so please don't respond on my IP talk page. (And no, I'm not going to register with WIkipedia, so you needn't suggest that either.)

Thanks for your attention, --<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 04:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

 * I'll take care of this one. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 20:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

 * I've completed the nomination and placed it at Articles for deletion/Health Service Culture. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 20:39, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

The article Anand Sen (business person) must not be deleted.
Please don't delete the article Anand Sen (business person) must not be deleted. If there is any problem in this article please resolve that or let me know regarding this on my user talk page: Padmalochanwiki:Talk. Padmalochan Jena 08:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I suggest you go to the AfD. The article's fate is being discussed there. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Sink and Stove Records
This discussion has been sitting, but I'm bringing it up because the article's copyvio. The link is in the AfD ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FSink_and_Stove_Records&type=revision&diff=678528188&oldid=677878826 diff]) (click on "About Us"), but I don't want to follow copyvio procedure and blank the article page because of the ongoing AfD. MSJapan (talk) 23:18, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Nazoo Dharejo not to be deleted
I have provided the newspaper references more than one newspaper for Nazo Dharejo, go through those references find news about Nazo Dharejo, so the article must not be deleted. thanksJogi 007 (talk) 08:20, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

 * The best place to post this would be at the AFD - Articles for deletion/Nazo Dharejo - and I see that you've done that. This board is more for discussing the process of Articles for Deletion, and asking for help sorting out issues with the process. Debating the articles themselves and discussing their merits is done on the debate pages. Best, UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 14:37, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

International Space Elevator Consortium
Can someone please have a look at this. It was closed, undone by an admin an an inappropriate NAC, then re-closed as the administrator was a contributor to the discussion so involved. The advice at WP:NACD seems to support both reopening it and reclosing it, and could perhaps be clarified.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 16:36, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/International Space Elevator Consortium
 * Nevermind, it's now at deletion review. Probably should have thought of that myself.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 16:37, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Something Positive
I'm thinking this article Something Positive probably should go. I look at 'improving' it & come to the conclusion that every single part of it, judged alone, should be deleted. It doesn't seem notable, there are a few very minor possible RSs about the author, but none about the comic. Other than it having been nominated for the barely-existing WCCA, the only sources are comic pages themselves. Apparently IPs aren't allowed to nominate for deletion anymore...<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 14:04, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * See Articles for deletion/Something Positive. I'm not aware of any restrictions on IPs suggesting articles for deletion. Were you trying to use an automated tool? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:43, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Making a complete AfD nomination involves creating the discussion page, which IP edito5rs are not technically able to do. It is common for autoconfirmed editors to assist with this step, indicating that the nom is on behalf of the IP editor. DES (talk) 16:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Aye, not metaphorically able to do it either. Looking around a few other places, I reckon these Matt Boyd Ian McConville don't come close to existing either. BLP1E, IIRC, except even that E isn't notable. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 01:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Requested AFD nomination completion
I nominated Unsealed: Conspiracy Files for deletion as it was a conspiracy documentary series with little to no chance of notability. Can someone complete it for me? --<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 01:35, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done. -- Finngall talk  03:41, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Template:recap
recap is nominated for deletion. This is an ancillary deletion template for processing long deletion discussions -- <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 04:48, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Andrew Novell
I've put up Andrew Novell for deletion after WP:PROD was contested, could someone please complete the process? Rationale is noted on the talk page TIA, <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 03:39, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

✅ Thanks to for doing the deed. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 14:18, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

 * I must admit I didn't see your comments on the talk page and nominated it independently. I obviously agree with your rationale. Huon (talk) 17:36, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

 * <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 18:44, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

The acorn paradox
I've put up The acorn paradox for deletion after discovering that a previous WP:PROD was contested. Could someone please complete the process?