Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion

Making sure I understand this right

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The article states that: If a redirection is controversial, however, AfD may be an appropriate venue for discussing the change in addition to the article's talk page.

Does this mean that an AFD can be started by someone with the intent of redirecting instead of deleting? Plasticwonder (talk) 04:06, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Yep. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:18, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Don't post things at multiple places. There's no reason to have two separate discusssions on this at VPP and here. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:07, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request

I am the subject of this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Blade. I don't think it meets the notability criteria for an article on Wikipedia. The article is semi-protected. I'd like to request that an editor nominate it for deletion please? BladeTerry (talk) 01:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Closes before 7 days

I have started a discussion at the Administators notice board about AfDs that are closing before 7 days/168 hours that watchers of this page may be interested in. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:09, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia Library, and the number of recent AfDs I've seen that have completely missed obvious Google Scholar sources on fictional literature (e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spacing Guild (2nd nomination), Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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, Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia Library is false. 2. Those without a university library access are unlikely to be able to access the majority of materials. 3. The Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia Library account ) 4. Users cannot qualify for the Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia 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)

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)