Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 04:46, 22 January 2025

view · edit Frequently asked questions Q1: I don't like this page's name. I want to rename it to Articles for discussion or something else. A1: Please see Misplaced Pages:Perennial proposals#Rename AFD. Note that all of the "for discussion" pages handle not only deletion, but also proposed mergers, proposed moves, and other similar processes. AFD is "for deletion" because the volume of discussion has made it necessary to sub-divide the work by the type of change. Q2: You mean I'm not supposed to use AFD to propose a merger or a page move? A2: Correct. Please use Misplaced Pages:Proposed mergers or Misplaced Pages:Requested moves for those kinds of proposals. Q3: How many articles get nominated at AfD? A3: Per the Oracle of Deletion, there were about 470,000 AfDs between 2005 (when the process was first created) and 2022. This comes out to about 26,000 per year (2,176 per month / 72 per day). In 2022, there were 20,008 AfDs (1,667 per month / 55 per day). Q4: How many articles get deleted? A4: Between 2005 and 2020, around 60% of AfDs were closed as "delete" or "speedy delete". This is about 270,000. More detailed statistics (including year-by-year graphs) can be found at Misplaced Pages:Oracle/All and Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages records#Deletion. Q5: Is the timeline strict, with exactly 168 hours and zero minutes allowed? Should I remove late comments? A5: No. We're trying to get the right outcome, not follow some ceremonial process. If the discussion hasn't been closed, it's okay for people to continue discussing it. Q6: How many people participate in AFD? A6: As of October 2023, of the 13.9 million registered editors who have ever made 1+ edit anywhere, about 162,000 of them (1 in 85 editors) have also made 1+ edit to an AFD page. Most of the participants are experienced editors, but newcomers and unregistered editors also participate. Most individual AFD pages get comments from just a few editors, but the numbers add up over time.

	This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Deletion (defunct) This page is within the scope of WikiProject Deletion, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.DeletionWikipedia:WikiProject DeletionTemplate:WikiProject DeletionDeletion

This project page has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Noam Cohen (8 October 2006). "Misplaced Pages Wars: Giving the Heave-Ho in an Online Who's Who". New York Times. David Segal (3 December 2006). "Look Me Up Under 'Missing Link': On Misplaced Pages, Oblivion Looms for the Non-Notable". Washington Post. Daniel Terdiman (11 January 2007). "To delete Misplaced Pages entry or not to delete?". CNET News. Matthew Moore (1 October 2009). "Misplaced Pages: 20 articles earmarked for deletion". Daily Telegraph.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78

For discussions that have not been well-archived (before 2004), the page history of the Articles for deletion page has to be used as a contingency archive. One can look in the Deletion log to obtain date and time of a deletion, then look in the page history of VfD near that time to see which edit regards the unlisting of the page, then view the previous version. Misplaced Pages utilities/Page titles to be deleted – edit history before 13:45, 19 May 2002 (UTC) – also see its talk page), histories go back to November 2001 Votes for Deletion – edit history (22:22, 15 May 2002 (UTC) to 06:24, 28 May 2004 (UTC)) Votes for Deletion – edit history (04:53, 28 May 2004 (UTC) to 22:58, 20 September 2004 UTC)) Votes/Articles for Deletion – edit history (00:03, 21 September 2004 (UTC) to Current) Old VfD archive index (now AfD archives 1–31) Misplaced Pages talk:Archived deletion discussions (Archive)

This page has archives. Sections older than 25 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Tool XFDcloser

Is there a way or tool to check how many closures an editor has performed, particularly when the XfD closure has resulted in a 'keep' ? Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

https://sowhy.toolforge.org/afdcloses.php? Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Requiring Google Scholar for BEFORE

BEFORE (D)(1) currently states The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects. (links omitted) Given our relatively robust access to academic sourcing through the Misplaced Pages Library, and the number of recent AfDs I've seen that have completely missed obvious Google Scholar sources on fictional literature (e.g., Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Spacing Guild (2nd nomination), Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of James Bond villains), I'd like to make Google Scholar expected, rather than "suggested for academic subjects". We have a lot of pop culture media and literature that are being addressed as "academic subjects" and I believe the current wording doesn't well serve the encyclopedia.

1) Is there a good reason to not add Google Scholar to the expected list for general topics?

1a) Could we wordsmith it so that obviously non-academic topics such as BLPs are excluded?

2) Is going from 4 to 5 expected searches too much effort? If so, would it be appropriate to swap out one of the other four?

I believe the encyclopedia suffers when things that are clearly notable are nominated for deletion, and I'd like to make sure our efforts here are the best balance of making the nominator do appropriate work to find and evaluate the most obvious sources before creating work for the community and administrators. Jclemens (talk) 00:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I'd support that. I think common-sense exceptions already apply (you don't need to check Google Books for a breaking-news story), but if that's a concern we could just stick an "in general" on the front. To compensate (or either way, honestly), we should get rid of the Google News Archive search, which has never worked properly and isn't really supported anymore. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:20, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I would oppose this, but only because access to the Misplaced Pages Library is contingent on time (one has to be active for six months if I am remembering correctly), and one has to apply for access (which may not have been done by all participants at AFD). There are enough access barriers in place that I don’t think this can be required.4meter4 (talk) 00:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

One need not have access to the Misplaced Pages Library to use Google Scholar; it's just a great tool to get access if you want to see "does this scholarly article really cover this topic in depth?" for those who don't have access to a University library's online collections. So to clarify, the Google Scholar search would be expected, Misplaced Pages Library use would be recommended as it already is per (D)(2). Jclemens (talk) 00:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Oh, and to clarify: BEFORE is only about the nominator's pre-deletion expected work. Nothing about BEFORE creates any obligation on anyone other than an AfD nominator. Jclemens (talk) 00:46, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I think you are splitting hairs here. Simple facts: 1. Google scholar's materials are in most cases behind paywalls and are not viewable to most people. The assumption that people can still use it without the Misplaced Pages Library is false. 2. Those without a university library access are unlikely to be able to access the majority of materials. 3. The Misplaced Pages Library has spotty access to the works in google scholar with roughly a 1/3 of all materials remaining unavailable even with an account (more or less depending on the content area; many law and science journals for example tend to be not viewable even with a Misplaced Pages Library account ) 4. Users cannot qualify for the Misplaced Pages Library until 6 months after their user account creation and if they have meet the minimum editing participation requirements as required by that application. 5. AFD participation is open to all and those with a user account can make a nomination not long after account creation. 6. Imposing this rule would stop new people from having access to making AFD noms due to Misplaced Pages Library access rules and it make enrollment compulsory.

Fundamentally, we can't put a rule in place that creates a barrier to free and open access to AFD nominations. Making Misplaced Pages Library enrollment compulsory (which is the effect of what you are proposing) to participate in the AFD process is morally wrong. It doesn't fly. We are an encyclopedia anyone can edit. That includes AFD. The spirit of that policy is an ethical core must for the project, and per that reason this is a hard no we can't do this from my point of view.4meter4 (talk) 08:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

First, no one has suggested that actual access to materials must be gained. That's not what the current document says, and no proposal to change it has been advanced. Second, your objection would also be an objection to BEFORE as currently written--I'd really rather you provided a critique in the context of the change from current practice; you're treating this as if it's a new proposal rather than a tweaking of existing expectations. Third, your ethical argument fails as deletion is asymmetric--it's far easier to destroy content through a misapplication of deletion policy than it is to create new content--which is why 'deletion' and 'editing' are different concepts. Misplaced Pages never promises to be the encyclopedia from which anyone can delete articles. In fact, the majority of our editing tools, including content removal within an article, are arbitrarily reversible, which is why anyone can do them. Deletion, of course, is outside the scope, only being doable or reversible by administrators. Jclemens (talk) 09:04, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I have no issue deprecating or outright deleting the Google News Archive search. It's not linked on {{find sources}} and I haven't used it in so long I wasn't even aware it didn't work. Jclemens (talk) 00:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I've just gone ahead and removed Google News Archive; it didn't seem to have any defenders the last time I mentioned it either. Happy to discuss if anyone disagrees. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I would have preferred this been dealt with as one change, as folks seem to be disagreeing about things that area already part of the expectations. That is, I don't think people perceive that upgrading scholar and removing Google News Archive together make a net zero change in effort required of nominators. Jclemens (talk) 17:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

The two examples you put forth call into question the necessity of doing so. For the Spacing Guild example, the first example appears to be a single paragraph, not the sort of in-depth coverage we expect; the Guild is not mentioned in either the abstract of the article or the first page of the article shown on the store page. The second doesn't look deeper. Meanwhile, in both deletion discussions you cite, there look to be enough non-Google Scholar-ly sources to render a Keep. WP:BEFORE is already a burden; before we increase its weight, I'd want to see not just that Scholar can point to sources on such topics, but that it can point to sources on such topics that would not have had enough sources through other means already required by BEFORE. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:10, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

There are more examples; I picked two. Whether you agree that those are sufficient to demonstrate GNG being met by themselves misses the point--it is the nominator's job to find such obvious issues and either make a compelling case for non-retention (merging, etc.) despite the presence of that coverage or to abandon the idea of a nomination. As far as scholar vs. other choices, I'd actually argue that Scholar is probably more useful than a "vanilla" Google search, in that if we can identify multiple truly relevant hits in Google Scholar, the value of those hits is sufficiently higher than a random plain Google search hit that it is more efficient to evaluate Scholar sources first, rather than basic Google hits. Jclemens (talk) 02:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

No, I don't think it misses the point if this added effort is just going to identify as keepable things that would be identified as keepable anyway. WP:CREEP is a problem here, and is my concern with this proposal. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 02:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

The entire point of BEFORE is to identify as keepable things that would ideally be identified as keepable in an AfD discussion, but to put the workload on the nominator so AfD discussions aren't either 1) a waste of time, or 2) risking deleting something notable because no one is paying attention. This changes nothing about that, merely seeks to optimize the work that's already expected of nominators. Jclemens (talk) 05:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but if the only things doing this step is going to identify as keepable are things that should've been detected by the other existing steps of BEFORE, then it's just putting an unneeded additional step on the process. So that's the question I see before us. And if you say "I found it in these articles, so it was something that the nominator should've checked", that's an argument that can be made for checking everything that gets discovered during AfD. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 06:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Ah, I see--you're saying that if the nom had done the rest of BEFORE correctly, this wouldn't be an issue. I can't disagree with that, but I am very much trying to make sure processes are optimized before considering approaching this as a user conduct issue. I will take issue with the additional characterization: It's already listed as a suggested step, I'm just proposing we change it to be clear when we can reasonably expect it to be beneficial. I completely agree that we shouldn't be doing box checking, but rather intelligently searching out the most relevant couple of web search methodologies likely to generate usable sources. And, as noted above, I'm also suggesting we consider if this should be prioritized, should another expected search step (or more?) be deprecated to avoid making the pre-nomination burden unwieldy? How can we get the best outcome with the least required work on the nominator's part.

Just as a side note, this whole section feels like teaching EMT class. We give students about 20 things to check in order in patient assessment, and once they've demonstrated they can do them in a regimented fashion, we turn them loose to parallelize those tasks (e.g. checking skin warmth and a radial pulse simultaneously). BEFORE should ideally be that sort of thing that transforms from a formal checklist into a natural methodology that skilled nominators can breeze through. Jclemens (talk) 08:00, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose I am the sort of elderly nerd that read Dune well over a half a century ago back when SciFi seemed "very important" to me, and I will not bother to mention all the other portentious novels I read back then because there were just too many. But the notion that we need to force AfD nominators to use Google Scholar in their BEFORE search for sources about pop culture topics comes off like a Saturday Night Live skit to me. If another nerd wants to use Google Scholar to find sources to save an article, then bravo! But let's not force other editors to be nerds against their will. Cullen328 (talk) 08:57, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  To clarify: You're fine with Google, Google News, Google Books, and Google News Archive being required as it stands now? Jclemens (talk) 09:05, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  No, I am not fine with that, Jclemons. Sadly, Google News Archive has been worthless for years, so getting around to removing it makes sense. If someone wants to use Microsoft Bing instead of Google, why should we object? I am fine with suggesting tools to editors but not fine with forcing them to use tools. Cullen328 (talk) 19:00, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  So, the status quo requires specific tool use. How would you prefer we improve it? I think you make a great point about general purpose search engines--we should not be requiring a specific for-profit company's tools be used for a free as in freedom project. Is there a Bing equivalent to Google Books, Google News, and/or Google Scholar? Jclemens (talk) 20:19, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  Well, then there is something wrong with the status quo. I am not a regular Bing user so cannot comment on their range of offerings. I use many Google products including several for running my small business unrelated to Misplaced Pages. I use them because I freely choose to, not because someone forces me to. Cullen328 (talk) 03:26, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  Again, how do you propose we improve on the status quo? Would it be appropriate to change normal Google search to a robust general-purpose search engine search, such as Google or Bing? Jclemens (talk) 06:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Not against adding Scholar but a caution that it's listing's often include thesises and other non peer reviewed grad school output, more commonly seen for non traditional academic topics, which themselves aren't reliable. Editors should be checking for sources in non predatory journals with Scholar searches. — Masem (t) 17:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

This is absolutely a balancing act. Scholar, just like the other search engines, is a great way of identifying things to be further investigated. The main use in a BEFORE search is the negative result: If a topic isn't covered at all, no further work is needed and the AfD proceeds. If there are results, then things get a bit more nuanced about what should happen next, as you can see from the rest of the discussion above. Jclemens (talk) 20:21, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Process

I have marked Mr. Beat for deletion and kindly request that someone complete the process for me. Thank you very much. 2A02:C7C:2DCE:1F00:4D29:6661:1D4E:6058 (talk) 19:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Meyer Schleifer

I would appreciate some regular AFD reviewers commenting on this page. There's been lots of activity from potential WP:SPA accounts, and it would be good to have some clearly non-partisan people participating. All opinions are welcome.4meter4 (talk) 01:30, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 January 2025

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Repeating AFDs and prior consensus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

merge proposals

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

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

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

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

• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press