Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion: Difference between revisions

Line 124: Line 124:

Zero reliable independent sources. See the source assessment table on [[Talk:Phạm Xuân Phương#Source assessment]]. The article was previously deleted so I cannot PROD it. [[Special:Contributions/~2025-33667-75|~2025-33667-75]] ([[User talk:~2025-33667-75|talk]]) 17:48, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

:{{Done}} –[[User:Deacon Vorbis|Deacon Vorbis]] ([[User Talk:Deacon Vorbis|carbon]] • [[Special:Contributions/Deacon Vorbis|videos]]) 17:15, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

== AfD request: [[List of Street Fighter Grand Slam champions]] ==

Hello, I hope you can take a look at the article [[List of Street Fighter Grand Slam champions]]. This article is very strange. It lists several tournaments and provides some sources to cite the tournaments themselves. However, none of the sources in the article mention the concept of a “Grand Slam.” I have also searched online extensively and could not find any reference to a so-called Street Fighter Grand Slam.

All the sources in the article only mention the tournaments listed in the article—they do not mention a Grand Slam at all. The article itself also does not explain how the “Street Fighter Grand Slam” was established or why these particular tournaments are considered part of it.

Most importantly, the prize differences among the four tournaments mentioned are huge: EVO and EVO Japan only have prize pools of around $30,000–$40,000, while Capcom Cup has over $1,000,000 in prize money. It is hard to believe that these tournaments would be grouped together as a “Grand Slam.” Moreover, for EVO alone, there is EVO, EVO Japan, EVO France, and EVO Singapore, making it difficult to understand why only EVO Japan is considered a Grand Slam while EVO France and EVO Singapore are not. Additionally, EVO is now linked with Capcom Cup and the Esports World Cup, where the champion can qualify for Capcom Cup and Esports World Cup, which makes EVO feel more like a qualifier for Capcom Cup and Esports World Cup rather than a tournament of the same level.

Since the article is clearly misleading, I think it could be considered for deletion or at least for revising its title and content.

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 Wikipedia: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.

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 Wikipedia:Oracle/All and Wikipedia:Wikipedia 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.

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, 79

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.

This page has archives. Sections older than 25 days may be auto-archived by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 4.

About deleted articles

There are three processes under which mainspace articles are deleted: 1) speedy deletion; 2) proposed deletion (prod) and 3) Articles for deletion (AfD). For more information, see WP:Why was my page deleted? To find out why the particular article you posted was deleted, go to the deletion log and type into the search field marked “title,” the exact name of the article, mindful of the original capitalization, spelling and spacing. The deletion log entry will show when the article was deleted, by which administrator, and typically contain a deletion summary listing the reason for deletion. If you wish to contest this deletion, please contact the administrator first on their talk page and, depending on the circumstances, politely explain why you think the article should be restored, or why a copy should be provided to you so you can address the reason for deletion before reposting the article. If this is not fruitful, you have the option of listing the article at WP:Deletion review, but it will probably only be restored if the deletion was clearly improper.

The article have not edited for 6 months or 1 year. may not meet WP:GNG because a lack of significant coverage. Requesting an AfD. 112.207.170.235 (talk) 03:49, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done Cornerstone1949 (talk) 01:11, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Cornerstone1949! 112.207.170.235 (talk) 01:32, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You’ll have to excuse my lack of fluency in wiki-law citation, but this biography of a living person (Dan Cohn-Sherbok) is an example of WP:PROMOTION, NPOV, WP:N, WP:AUTO, COI, and it should be deleted. Most importantly, the article is largely a resume and bibliography, largely written by the subject himself according to the page history. This is self-promotion and autobiography for a subject who is not notable within his field, and the article does not make any credible claims that he is. 67.168.18.133 (talk) 03:48, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Although the subject has edited his own article over the years, his edits appear minor. Essentially, adding his own publications to a list of his publications. While this is frowned upon and discouraged, it is not the case that the subject wrote the article or did anything non-neutral to his article. I left him a {{welcome-coi}} last year. He has authorship of no more than 15% of the article. The bulk of the article was written at present by Kevinalewis [1]. Also, your AFD was malformed. You can submit an article to AFD but this one would likely be kept as he is arguably an WP:NACADEMIC and WP:NAUTHOR and meets WP:GNG. Andre🚐 04:08, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For what it is worth, the article has now been nominated by another editor per this request. I also left a message on his talk page, but I agree that he easily meets the notability guidelines. If you would like to participate, I think your input might be valuable since you are informed on the page, but it may be unnecessary because the article is so likely to be kept. Cornerstone1949 (talk) 00:56, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article have not edited for 6 months. Does not meet WP:GNG. Requesting an AfD 112.207.170.235 (talk) 01:39, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Wikipedia:Pfd has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 25 § Wikipedia:Pages for deletion and similar titles until a consensus is reached. Thanks, 1isall (he/him) (talk | contribs) 14:13, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Canadian honours has been open for 20 days without being relisted, and currently doesn’t appear in the list of old AfDs. I can only assume something must have gone wrong here, just wanted to draw some attention to it. Thanks, MediaKyle (talk) 14:11, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I relisted it on a new AFD log page so hopefully it will get closed now. The issue might be that on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 October 10 the two previous AFDs were commented out but not relisted normally. This confused XFDcloser when I did the relist, it might have also caused the AFD not to show up for usual AFD closers. Maybe someone with more technical knowledge than me should look further into this. —Here2rewrite (talk) 16:05, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please complete this AfD request with the below rationale:

Twice deleted previously. I doubt the person has become notable in WP:GNG sense even though there is a lot of SEO content online. The article is currently being edited by a few WP:SPAs to add negative information, while some IPs appear to be countering those edits (possibly the subject himself). He is mainly for serving as CEO of small companies such as Neptune Wellness Solutions and Schmidt’s Naturals. After applying the stringent WP:BLP policy, not much would likely remain, and most of the controversies or negative aspects could be better covered in the Neptune Wellness Solutions article per WP:NOPAGE.

Some cited sources like Forbes article ([2]) falls under WP:FORBESCON, and the Money article is merely an WP:INTERVIEW with limited independent content, written by Paul Schrodt, a professional guest contributor. The article clearly lacks the WP:BLP-quality sources required to meet WP:SIGCOV. A simple redirect to Neptune Wellness Solutions should be enough to preserve relevant information. Brodie Dotson (talk) 23:55, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cneoridium dumosum (Nuttall) Hooker F. Collected March 26, 1960, at an Elevation of about 1450 Meters on Cerro Quemazón, 15 Miles South of Bahía de Los Angeles, Baja California, México, Apparently for a Southeastward Range Extension of Some 140 Miles
It seems the tilie is too long. Ghren (talk) 16:38, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing: Can you do me a favor? —Ghren (talk) 16:42, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The page is fine and very well sourced, please think thrice (or more) about trying to delete this topic. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:44, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have thoroughly checked the source of the entry, and I do not believe it has sufficient citations. I believe the entry needs to be reviewed by AFD, but I am experiencing technical issues and cannot submit it. The entry title is too long; it is showing as an “invalidtitle” and I cannot submit it. Ghren (talk) 16:57, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thems the breaks. Ha. It is a classic article, and to be serious, I have no idea how to post the title on AfD. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:00, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ghren, if you abbreviate the name of the AfD subpage, it should work: try adding {{subst:afd|Cneoridium dumosum (Nuttall) Hooker F. Collected March 26, 1960 etc.}} to the top of the article and then following the link from there to create the nomination. Titles this long (250 characters out of the maximum 256) are kind of a mess for AfDs, pagenotices, talk-page archives, etc. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:23, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve gone ahead and nominated this article (as best as I understand under the technical issues). Ghren and Pigsonthewing, please feel free to comment at the AFD discussion. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 05:08, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank for your kindly help. Ghren (talk) 05:57, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for not pinging me? Randy Kryn (talk) 06:04, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given your horribly inappropriate behavior here and at User talk:Ghren#Prods, be thankful I didn’t drag you to ANI instead. A user was asking for technical help with nominating an article for deletion. If you don’t agree with it, fine. If you don’t even want to help, fine. But the mocking tone here was just really uncalled for, and it reeks of WP:GAMING the system in order to achieve your desired outcome. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 06:14, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For a user who is proud of the fact that they club “baby seals for fun and profit” your judgement about horrible behavior may be in question. Get it? Humor, not gaming, nor inappropriate unless Ghren has no sense of humor or has the thinnest skin around (Monobook). And please read the prod discussion again where you claim my behavior was horribly inappropriate – my concern was that this long-term article with many sources was prodded by an inexperienced user and was just trying to explain why a prod wasn’t the way to go in this situation, which is when they brought it here for AfD assistance. Randy Kryn (talk) 06:43, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok but nothing you’ve written here is funny? ~2025-33108-20 (talk) 01:38, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I thought referencing “Thems the breaks” was funny, an old time saying probably not familiar now. Other than that I don’t know what was being talked about above, those three words? The article itself is the kind of rare Wikipedia article that contains encyclopedic humor in an appropriate encyclopedic way, so I’m not going to hide that I enjoy it. The esteemed author of the 1962 paper meant for that to happen. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:56, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,
Could I get a second opinion on List of sports figures considered the greatest? I’m not entirely familiar with Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for lists which are related to this kind of thing, though I tried to dig around to find out. It looks as if the page was created by a split from GOAT (sports culture), but I’m not sure whether the creation of a separate article with a detailed list of (potentially, if not likely) hundreds of athletes solely connected by this designation is necessary given the “general” example list already on the GOAT page.

But, as I said, I’m not sure whether the page actually goes against any WP guidelines, or even if AfD isn’t necessary, whether there are any bigger issues I (or page contributors) have failed to notice. Would really appreciate an external & impartial perspective with better knowledge on this. PunkAndromeda (talk) 07:30, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PunkAndromeda: WP:NLIST seems to be the prevailing guideline for whether a list page should exist. A possibly better venue for this discussion might be the sports notability guideline talk page (WT:NSPORT) which will likely attract feedback from editors more interested in this subject. Left guide (talk) 07:58, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll head over there! Thank you so much. PunkAndromeda (talk) 08:08, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Literally just a plot summary of the first three movies; sources are just about how they’re not in the fourth one. ~2025-31969-91 (talk) 19:44, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Partly done. Redirected to the main character list. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:56, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Need some uninvolved editors to please look carefully at the discussion and weigh in on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Happiness Becomes You. One relist has already occurred, and th discussion would benefit from fresh, neutral participation to help reach a clearer consensus. Thanks for any additional eyes or guidance on how best to proceed. Dharmabumstead (talk) 05:09, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Brooks (wrestler). I didn’t nominate it but someone else did and instead of putting a request for completion here they asked the user who removed the previous prod, and I think the user may have ignored it. There is a reason for deletion on the talk page which I think is SOP. Can someone complete it? ~2025-32539-02 (talk) 07:10, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. —Here2rewrite (talk) 13:41, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Temp has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 10 § Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Temp until a consensus is reached. Duckmather (talk) 22:55, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article have not edited for 1 year. Does not meet WP:GNG. Requesting and AfD ~2025-32685-14 (talk) 02:50, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done – UtherSRG (talk) 15:35, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @UtherSRG! ~2025-32685-14 (talk) 00:32, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zero reliable independent sources. See the source assessment table on Talk:Phạm Xuân Phương#Source assessment. The article was previously deleted so I cannot PROD it. ~2025-33667-75 (talk) 17:48, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:15, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I hope you can take a look at the article List of Street Fighter Grand Slam champions. This article is very strange. It lists several tournaments and provides some sources to cite the tournaments themselves. However, none of the sources in the article mention the concept of a “Grand Slam.” I have also searched online extensively and could not find any reference to a so-called Street Fighter Grand Slam.

Must Read

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply