Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion

AFD request

Please file an AFD for Kottankulangara Festival. The rationale is "Not large enough to split. A section already exists in the main article. Besides, article size is 6616 bytes (markup), fails WP:SIZESPLIT & WP:SIZERULE. Title is also somewhat misleading as Chamayavilakku is only one among multiple events held as part of temple festival." 157.46.158.170 (talk) 10:59, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Can anyone tell me why this request has not been fulfilled? Has Wikipedia become 'Wokepedia'?--2409:4073:4E83:FFBC:4041:C01E:BDAF:A437 (talk) 16:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

What does "woke" have anything to do with this? Sadustu Tau (talk) 22:05, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

AFD reguest for Lika O

The article does not meet the notability criteria and merit. The 1 source is not a reliable source that verifies notability. It is a forum like site for local community, which serves as self published blog.http://ruhollywood.com/2018/11/12/miss-russian-united-states/

4 source is a self published interview on an ads website, not reliable secondary source at all. http://www.spektrummagazine.com/fashion/getting-to-know-lika-osipova/

6 source is an article on a gossips site about dating life of a Russian media person, barelly mentioning the figure of the Wikipedia. https://www.eg.ru/showbusiness/66399/

Sources 7 and 8 are different links to the same poster to the city of the city. It is rather a primary sourse not a secondary source to verify notability. https://www.weho.org/home/showdocument?id=26793

Source 9 - a link to the so called LAF.It is not a film festival, it is a monthly paid competition, not recognized in media or the professional community. The link only mentions name of the person, and does not provide any evidence to verify notability. https://www.lafilmawards.net/single-post/june-2021

To summarize- 6 out of 9 sources used for the page do not meet even closely any possible notability verifications. The figure has barely any professional credits, zero recognition in American or Russian media beyond a self proclaimed pop star status. 2 2603:8000:B6F0:8A10:7412:7312:39D6:FAAA (talk) 05:48, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I think it will be better if you request this from your @User:Demeter39G own account. Grabup (talk) 07:54, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

It keeps showing error my IP address is blocked, says it is proxi server. This thread only opens from new browser page.

I have questions regarding this page as the only option to make an article there is submit it via payed partnership, at the bottom of it.

https://patch.com/california/studiocity/miss-russian-la-beauty-pageant-to-be-held-at-romanov-s

I agree that is the only article i find reliable. If there are more, someone can add them. https://www.kp.ru/daily/26016.4/2938494 2603:8000:B6F0:8A10:7412:7312:39D6:FAAA (talk) 08:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

There are also two sources which you missed and these are looking reliable.

1.https://patch.com/california/studiocity/miss-russian-la-beauty-pageant-to-be-held-at-romanov-s

2.https://www.kp.ru/daily/26016.4/2938494/ Grabup (talk) 08:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

This is not a reliable source. It is a bulletin board to submit paid news and advertisement.

https://patch.com/california/studiocity/miss-russian-la-beauty-pageant-to-be-held-at-romanov-s

Demeter39G (talk) 16:51, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Other editor will reply to your request. GrabUp - Talk 18:10, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

What do you think? I added explanations and verified. 2603:8000:B6F0:8A10:A18A:88C9:1AF8:8BD2 (talk) 00:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

@Demeter39G, I think she fail WP:GNG, nominating per your request. GrabUp - Talk 05:29, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done Nominated here. GrabUp - Talk 05:40, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

AFD request: Newshouse

Article was created on 25 February 2009, then was first time nominated for deletion on 17 March 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Newshouse. Article has zero references (one dead link), and unable to find comprehensive, in-depth coverage of this specific Indian weekly newspaper for children. Please submit for "Second nomination". Thanks, JoeNMLC (talk) 09:02, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

You have an autoconfirmed account, why not create the AfD yourself? The instructions are at WP:AFDHOWTO, the only difference is that you have to add "(2nd nomination)" so that a new AfD page is created. Iffy★Chat -- 14:47, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

@Iffy - THanks for clarifying, I will give it a try now. Cheers, JoeNMLC (talk) 15:12, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

@Iffy - I'm confused. I added the AdD (2nd) to article, and now missing the usual "Preloaded debate" wikilink. I added Step 2 to article & it now has in Red (Error: Please do not use this template in articles.); So I now reverted. JoeNMLC (talk) 15:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

@Iffy - Started over, Fumbled my way thru & possibly got it done. Had to click on red link the deletion discussion to begin manual steps. Explained at step II. JoeNMLC (talk) 15:49, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

@JoeNMLC,Why don’t you use Twinkle for that? GrabUp - Talk 15:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

@Grabup - not on Twinkle. Have a simple notepad file with crib-notes on how to do stuff. Mostly working on de-orphan & unref. articles. Not a lot of AfDs & rarely the 2nd nom. ones. JoeNMLC (talk) 15:59, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

@JoeNMLC, It will automate everything and you can nominate any article in just one click. GrabUp - Talk 16:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

@Grabup - I did take a second-look at Twinkle. Is it possible from those 14 modules, to use only the PROD one & skip all the rest? JoeNMLC (talk) 16:09, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

@JoeNMLC, You can nominate for Prod, AfD, Speedy deletion, and Warn users, also can do many things with Twinkle. For now you forgot to notify the author of the page that you nominated his article. You can do it by posting: {{subst:Afd notice|Newshouse|Newshouse (2nd nomination)}} ~~~~ to the author’s talk page with title Deletion discussion about Newshouse. GrabUp - Talk 16:21, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

@Grabup - Article creator only "active" on Wikipedia for two months in 2009. JoeNMLC (talk) 16:31, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

@JoeNMLC, Thanks for nominating this article, I am sure it will be deleted and don’t forget to install Twinkle from Special: Preferences then click to gadgets and go to the 11th number getget and you can turn Twinkle on from there. GrabUp - Talk 16:35, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

@Grabup - Yes, I did activate Twinkle as you suggested. Now have two tabs on articles for "PROD" and "Xfd". So thank you for that. Do not use that often, but still helpful. Cheers, JoeNMLC (talk) 16:47, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done - 2nd Nomination completed. JoeNMLC (talk) 14:16, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

AFD Request: Supersci

I would like to nominate Supersci for deletion with the following rationale:

Non-notable group, going by available sources. Both with its current ("Supersci") and its former ("Superscientifiku") name, the group is mentioned on some Swedish websites, but with very few exceptions (e.g. sv:Sundsvalls Tidning) either these sources are non-reliable, or the subject is mentioned only in passing.

Thanks in advance, --62.166.252.25 (talk) 18:36, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done: GrabUp - Talk 18:56, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I wonder why the internal link "sv:Sundsvalls Tidning" I included does not show up at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Supersci. It's the same namespace... If there's no fix, a suitable workaround might be to simply remove the "sv:" portion. --62.166.252.25 (talk) 19:05, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

There is a english article of Sundsvalls Tidning, and I linked to it. GrabUp - Talk 19:12, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

AFD request: List of the youngest mayors in India

I would like to nominate List of the youngest mayors in India for deletion with the following rationale:

The article appears to be a PR stunt (WP:NOTADVOCACY), created right after Arya won the mayoral election (indirect) and was publicized by the CPIM as the youngest mayor, a claim that is also disputed (see talk page). It does not meet WP:NLIST criteria, as the list has not been widely discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, aside from the heavily publicized political appointment of Arya. Among the entries, only five have sources verifying their age and youth; the others rely on original research, violating WP:LSC and WP:SOURCELIST.

Thanks in advance. 2409:4073:4E9C:576:15E9:42CC:5BF4:C30B (talk) 13:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Mistake?

Why is the French article for Investigate Europe linked to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 29 in the language dropdown? Pretty sure that's not supposed to happen. Sadustu Tau (talk) 21:10, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

That's a new one. This seems to have fixed it (see H:IW for why). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:25, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Sam's Chicken

I would like to nominate Sam's Chicken for deletion with the following rationale:

After attempting to clean up the article (with resistance), it has instead become apparent that it's a pretty clear fail of WP:NCORP. The article currently has 3 sources: First, a primary report from a local government council about a small fine for illegal dumping of trash, shouldn't even be used, let alone establishes any kind of notability. Second, a Standard article about SCs being targeted in attacks for ethnic reasons isn't really about the company. It might belong on some kind of "Sinhalese-Tamil relations in London" article or something, but it doesn't help establish notability of the company itself. Last, a Guardian article about SC along with other fast food chicken joints being investigated for poor worker treatment/conditions. This is certainly the best, but it's not enough on its own, and it doesn't go into any real depth about SC itself. I was able to find no more sourcing beyond the above, either.

TL;DR, this is a small local fast food chain, and there just isn't enough about it to warrant an article.

Thanks! 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:00, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done by someone. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 02:55, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

AFD Request: Korean excrement balloon incident

Can someone complete this request for me? Reasoning on the talk page for the article: Talk:Korean excrement balloon incident 104.232.119.107 (talk) 22:07, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done by someone. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 02:55, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

AFD request: Romantic Revival

This page appears to be a mixture of unsourced information, original research, and potentially self-promotion.

• The primary source for the page, and for the majority of its life the only source, is a Time Magazine article entitled Festivals: Romantic Revival. The article was published in 1969 and is merely a review of a particular event held that year which featured Romantic music (and which was not even called "Romantic Revival"). The Time article contains no claims about broader historical trends of Romantic music experiencing a revival in the cultural consciousness starting in the 1960s, as the Wikipedia page does. In fact, far from suggesting that this is (in 1969) the beginning of a cultural shift, the author is openly derisive of the Romantic music played at the festival.

• The text about Ates Orga's championing of the revival, added much later, is supported only by an accompanying reference to a book written by Orga, and not by any independent source positing the notability of Orga's activities.

• The text about the Romantic Revival Orchestra, also added much later, appears to be entirely self-promotion. No source is provided other than a link to the website of the entity described.

— flamingspinach | (talk) 00:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

CDK Company

I'd like to nominate CDK Company for deletion with the following rationale:

Possible WP:G11, but I figured AFD is better, just to be safe. Even neglecting the promotional tone, the subject of the article pretty clearly isn't notable. Despite the ref-bombing of the lead, none of the sources discuss the dance company (or collective, or whatever-it-is-exactly) in any depth whatsoever. Rather, they all boil down to something like "hey, go watch this neat viral video" fluff, and only of those even spends more than a couple sentences on it. Further searching revealed no sourcing of use.

Thanks! 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:54, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Relevant VPI discussion

Seeing almost nothing but AFD requests here, I thought it might be worthwhile to come up with a better process for this. I started a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Better pipeline for anonymous AFD nomimations. Comments welcome. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:05, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

AFD bundle request

• Bigger, Better Power Ballads II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Even Bigger, Even Better Power Ballads III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• The_Very_Best_of_Power_Ballads (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Sixties Power Ballads (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Contested WP:PRODs. Non-notable series of compilation albums. The first edition of the series, Power_Ballads_(compilation_album), was deleted by PROD in 2020 and is now in draft space. 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:24FE:9C8F:A3EE:6690 (talk) 08:07, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

AFD request: Liaoning Flying Leopards–Sichuan Blue Whales brawl

I would like to make a request for an AFD on Liaoning Flying Leopards–Sichuan Blue Whales brawl. Here is my rationale:

• Zhanghang0704 only ever made 6 edits, all over the course of 3 days in late March 2016: the creation of this article, 4 more edits to it, and an edit to Liaoning Flying Leopards. I believe this article is a blatant violation of WP:NOTNEWS, as the brawl (which happened 5 days before this article's creation) does not appear to have sustained coverage - to say nothing of the article itself being extremely barebones despite a whopping 9 references.

100.7.34.111 (talk) 00:12, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Done, you can find it here IP 100.7 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liaoning Flying Leopards–Sichuan Blue Whales brawl Star Mississippi 00:55, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

AfD Request: List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Lewis Hamilton

List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Lewis Hamilton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Reasoning: Other AfDs including for the multi-list AfD against Damon Hill Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Formula_One_Grand_Prix_wins_by_Damon_Hill have established the precedent that these lists are both WP:CRUFT and fail WP:LISTN as being needless forks of existing lists, they also have no notable group or set presence within discussions as shown by a lack of these such sources in the articles. Discussion also on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Formula_One_Grand_Prix_wins_by_Max_Verstappen centres on the WP:NOTSTATS argument. Consensus exists that such lists are not notable, and on the argument for the Verstappen AfD is clearly made that such lists regardless of win number are not considered notable. This deletion request is to reflect the latest consensus.

When creating this deletion request, articles

List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Michael Schumacher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Sebastian Vettel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Alain Prost (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Ayrton Senna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Should also be included for the same reasons. It is the second AfD request for the Senna article. I would appreciate if someone could create this AfD as it is important for the motorsport category and part of wider ongoing discussions (please if I am unable to can this be added to the motorsport project AfD) 159.242.125.170 (talk) 14:43, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I am also adding List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Ayrton Senna to this but I am bad with formatting so help would be much appreciated to properly signpost each and every list here. 159.242.125.170 (talk) 15:46, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

A fix and a bump

Would someone mind fixing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Lewis Hamilton? It seems to have been botched and is messing up the current AFD log. Also, bumping my deletion request for CDK Company above. Thanks. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Is it time for a reform of the AfD process?

As most editors who are active in AfD discussions have noticed, AfD has seen a decline in participation in recent months. Is it time to start thinking of new ways to change the AfD process? This could include new/deleted things, or changed policies. I'm sure that some editors have seen issues with AfD that they'd like to see change, or have ideas on how to gather more participants that would need consensus before they are implemented. If there is sufficient support for such a reform, my idea would be to conduct it as follows:

• Phase 1 ---> Open for proposals. Gather new ideas on what could be changed.
• Phase 2 ---> Refine those proposals (so that the most people agree with them) in sub-discussions.
• Phase 3 ---> Formally propose each proposal in a sub-RfC.
• Phase 4 ---> Implement the proposals that are validated.

Should this be done, yes or no? Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

P.S. Any user has permission to edit my comment to ping more people.

Please do not suggest ideas (yet) on how to change AfD the goal of this RfC is to know whether we should open for a lot of these ideas.

Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Cocobb8, Thank you for bringing up this issue. Yes - I'm a strong advocate for AFD reforms, having observed numerous issues recently. I believe implementing some changes could significantly improve the quality of our articles as well. I'm fully on board with moving this forward. — Saqib (talk) 14:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Neutral What is the problem? As far as I know it is about the quality of the arguments, not about the number of people showing up. The Banner talk 14:35, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

A lot of threads don't get any discussion at all after few relists and are closed as no consensus. Other times, many !votes are not very helpul (IP votes that do not reference to policies, etc.). That's why I wanted to open this to see if there could be some kind of "open for proposals" phase. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:39, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

The Banner, But I was informed just yesterday by @Liz that there has been an overall decline in AFD participation, which highlights the need for reforms. In addition to increasing participation in AfDs, I've some other genuine concerns regarding AFDs that I believe need to be addressed as well. — Saqib (talk) 14:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

It would be much better IMHO when the rules for notability are set by the Wiki-wide community instead of Wikiprojects. That would make discussions more neutral and argument based than a defensive wall. But that is a totally different discussion and a tough nut to crack. The Banner talk 15:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Wait, when did I even bring up anything about WP:N as my concern? Saqib (talk) 15:35, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

You did not, I did. Because I think WikiProject-defences are one of the reasons why people do not participate in AfDs. But as said: that is my personal opinion and a totally different discussion than the procedural one started here. The Banner talk 15:39, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I am a frequent participant in thrice relisted processes and I do agree there are issues which might deserve a more modern discussion. That's a yes on Phase 1 from me. BusterD (talk) 14:53, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

• Seem to be way too many nominations (not only at AfD but at categories, misc., and wherever else deletions are proposed), dozens a day. Editors who keep up with all of these are few, which makes it easier for deletionists (yes, they exist, and many keep score) to reign. In a perfect WikiWorld, I'd suggest that nominators who prove to have a scatter-gun approach and fail at many nominations (how about a failure rate cap of three a month for each editor?) could be nomination banned for short or long period if they persist. As for relistings, there have been many relisted even after adequate sources have been found to make a Keep an almost-sure possibility. Too many nominations time-sink many editors to the point of not commenting, as do multiple relistings. Not to just complain, praise to Liz, Star Mississippi and the many others who toil in these thankless corners of Wikipedia. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:01, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for your comment @Randy Kryn! Is that a yes to move on with such proposals in phase 1? Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks Cocobb8, a "yes". Randy Kryn (talk) 15:06, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

What is the evidence that reform is needed? Not evidence that there's less participation (although numbers would help there, too), but evidence that participation is low because of some flaws with the AfD process itself. Over at RfA, there's a ton of discourse about specific problems with the process that lead to lack of participation (as in candidates). It's toxicity, it's the questions, it's the standards, it's the voting format, it's the crat chats, etc. What are the problems at AfD? If it's just "we need more people to participate and have no idea why people aren't participating" then this skips a key step in determining there's something wrong with the process itself. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:19, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

See the comments above yours for issues that could need to be addressed. It not only had to do with participation, as there are many other things as well. That's also what phase 1 would be for: what exactly needs to be changed to make AfD better? Phase 1 might very well open and have little to no proposals, as well. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

That looks like fundamentally "too many nominations", but I can save you the time for that one: there will not be consensus to limit overall nominations as long as there's no consensus to limit overall article creation. I guess I'm not necessarily against this process, but I don't have much faith it'll lead anywhere.
As I see it, there are two fundamental challenges: one is that we need more Wikipedians in general to keep up with millions of articles because it's hard to just recruit new participants to processes like AfD. The second -- and not everyone will agree this is a problem -- is the mismatch between the amount of effort it takes to !vote delete and the amount of effort it takes to !vote keep. Once upon a time the default was keep, requiring a good deletion argument; now the default is delete, requiring a good keep argument. It's a lot easier to nominate articles for deletion than it is to demonstrate notability and/or improve articles. The way this commonly arises in "deletion reform" efforts is to put teeth behind WP:BEFORE, i.e. before nominating you are required to do a thorough search for sources to make sure something isn't notable before nominating. But that's a perennial proposal that never finds consensus (personally, I would support sanctioning people who frequently nominate without a WP:BEFORE, but I don't think there are many who would support codifying that).
Anyway, I guess that's a debate for the next phase, but what I'm trying to express here is concern for a big process that many people will feel obliged to participate in given the stakes, but which will sap already scarce volunteer time (cf. AfD participation) for no payoff. I'm a no unless someone can articulate issues that actually could be reformed. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:37, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Why should nominators do the homework for article-writers that failed to do just that? The Banner talk 16:56, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

^^^^ Exhibit A for why efforts to improve AfD don't go anywhere. Assumption of bad faith combined with a disregard for WP:BEFORE and redefinition of WP:N/WP:DEL/WP:E. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:17, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Rhododendrites, As I mentioned above, the lack of participation in AFDs is just one aspect of the problem. There are other issues at play as well, which we can raise them in Phase 1. — Saqib (talk) 15:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

You've said three times that there are other issues without naming any other issue. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:37, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Rhododendrites, Well I feel my other concerns may surprise some or even offend a few, but I've got some reservations about allowing IPs/SPA to participate in AFDs. Because from what I've experienced lately, their involvement make things messy and harder to reach a consensus. I'm all for more participants in AFDs. But based on what I've seen, letting IPs/SPAs join AFDs hasn't worked out well, for me atleast. So, my concerns are kind of pulling in opposite directions, but both have their legit issues. Does anyone else feel the same way? — Saqib (talk) 15:58, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

This is also a perennial proposal, which tends to fail not because IPs routinely contribute valuable perspectives but because (a) once in a while they do, (b) the Wiki Way means erring on the side of participation. If a reader sees an article they're interested in is up for deletion, why not let them say something?, and (c) closing admins already know to weigh low-quality/low-effort/single-purpose !votes less. Beyond that, for an initiative launching primarily because of lack of participation, I suspect there won't be much support for further limiting participation. :) But sure, these are details which could be resolved in a hypothetical next step. I'm not persuaded of any fixable problems yet, though, personally. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:11, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Rhododendrites, OK how can you address the situation where IPs, related to UPEs, vote to keep articles using strong policy-based arguments, which then leads to AFDs getting closed in their favour? — Saqib (talk) 16:30, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

"IPs, related to UPEs, vote to keep articles using strong policy-based arguments": if the argument are strong and based on policy who cares if they are IPs? — Iadmc♫^talk  16:34, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Iadmc, But it is UPE and still a violation of WP:TOU. Right.? Rhododendrites, On a related note, I agree with your suggestion to sanctioning editors who frequently nominate pages for deletion without conducting a WP:BEFORE check. But at the same time, we should also consider sanctioning trusted editors who simply throw votes (keep/delete) based on WP:ATA, don't you think? — Saqib (talk) 16:39, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

UPE? — Iadmc♫^talk  16:43, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I participate in AfDs a lot and I don't remember ever seeing UPEs causing an AfD to be incorrectly closed as a major issue. SportingFlyer T·C 18:22, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

SportingFlyer, But I can share some examples, if asked. Iadmc, UPE means WP:UPE. — Saqib (talk) 21:48, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

There was a "school" you could attend for New Page Patrol (NPP); I didn't attend, but wondering if something similar here might help. You basically have more senior editors work with a more junior editor and work a page together, to get the idea of the process. Oaktree b (talk) 18:35, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Yet another good proposal for phase 1 :) Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 21:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

• No: I agree with Rhododendrites; I think there should be more direct explanation of what the problems are that need to be solved. A call for proposals on "how to make AfD better" with no specific problems to solve will result in dozens of proposals, all pulling in different directions. Toughpigs (talk) 15:47, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, great point here, some proposals could definitely end up pulling in different directions. But, maybe some could be merged together at the end of phase 1 (if started)? Also, some editors have already started raising concerns about what AfD needs to be better (see above), and as there are quite a few, it would have taken too much to list them all in my RfC. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:54, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not sure what the problems are that need to be addressed. Could anyone explain? I find the process fine, personally and have had no problems. Perhaps more emphasis on the BEFORE process though— Iadmc♫^talk  16:23, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  This could be an idea... Rather than simply nominating the article, could we create a sort of "checklist" with various boxes the nominator would have to check off before it ends up in the AfD queue. Something similar to what's given when you use the Wizard to upload files? Oaktree b (talk) 16:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  I'd support that — Iadmc♫^talk  16:34, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  Those are the kind of nice ideas I envision to be proposed in phase 1! :) Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 16:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

• Yes The process seems to work well, as is, WHEN we get people participating. I'd be open to talk about how to increase participation, not sure I have any ideas to share at this time. I'm happy to participate. Oaktree b (talk) 16:28, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
• We simply need more participation, but that is true of everything. I don't see a problem here otherwise. SportingFlyer T·C 18:23, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
• Yes It's always a good idea to see if we can incorporate informal learnings into formal guidance and update our P&Gs appropriately if we find a good reason to. Jclemens (talk) 21:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC)