Just wondering on some of these if simply redirecting and WP:Merge wouldn't make more sense and draw more eyes to the ones that do deserve AfD as they are borderline. It seems like we're abusing AfD when there are hundreds of these articles. Do we really need to clog AfD? -- Banjeboi 08:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
For months I have been trying to redirect/merge or even delete a huge amount of non-notable elementary school articles that rely only on primary or trivial sources. But during this time my efforts have been ignored and I need advice on how to move forward. Figuring these bilateral relations articles are quite similar to the elementary school articles I figured you might have some ideas on how to approach this. For example see School District 35 Langley their are approximately 26 non-notable 1-2 sentence articles on elementary and middle schools. But it gets worse the creator of those articles decided to create articles on every elementary school in British Columbia, Canada. I have it estimated at more than 500 non-notable school articles that this guy created.
I might be a slight inclusionist (as you well know) but these articles are complete utter crap if I may say so myself, so how would you go about dealing with this problem afd, merge or redirect. Thanks -Marcusmax(speak) 00:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello LibStar, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Society for Irish Latin American Studies - a page you tagged - because: clearly has context and having no coverage is not a speedy deletion criterion, use WP:AFD instead. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. SoWhy 11:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Mightnt agree with some stuff - but hey youre doing well - keep up the good work and hope you get rewarded for sheer dogged persistence - wish we had more of your type around! cheers SatuSuro 05:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC) Credit needs to be made where someone can unravel the idiocies of some and to build the more obvious rescuable ones SatuSuro 10:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
If you are going to be renominating pages for deletion that were only discussed and kept a few months ago, it would be civil to notify all the participants of the previous debates. Thanks.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 20:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Libstar. I wanted to thank you for visiting our page today and hope that would revisit and reconsider removing your citation tag on the History section. I had 2 citations already and added a 3rd. Please advise if there was anything else you wanted cited...sincerely, Docbb1 (talk) 22:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC) Section now has 4 citations. If you do not have any additional issues or specific areas you want cited, i will remove the citation tag as i feel things are pretty well cited. We will continue to build upon this article...Docbb1 (talk) 19:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to propose a voluntary moratorium on commenting on others peoples !votes in bilateral relations AfDs. At this point, I don't think there's anything to be gained from such comments--obviously no one is convincing anyone--meanwhile, the acrimony rises and uninvolved editors are discouraged from weighing in. See this masterpiece for a prime example. So how about we just don't comment on each others' votes? This moratorium would not cover general comments, i.e. those which aren't indented under and/or in response to a specific !vote (e.g. [1]), but these should be kept to an absolute minimum. I intend invite all of the "usual suspects" to join this moratorium. I've missed someone, please invite them. Please discuss, and ideally note whether you intend to abide by this here. Thanks. Yilloslime TC 16:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I actually think that these articles should be considered inherently notable. However, we haven't reached that consensus as a matter of policy so I've refrained from making that argument on the Afds where the normal version of notability hasn't been established.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
And I was just thinking about a place to put this image ... :~) Aymatth2 (talk) 01:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
The article Lithuania–Sweden relations has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
{{dated prod}}
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. RadioFan (talk) 12:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
This user is making up fake regions, I have contacted one admin (User:Dougweller) regarding the IP's actions so far. This IP seems to be a mutual annoyance. I am hoping we can work together on getting this IP to stop vandalizing
Sincerely, Thegreyanomaly (talk) 03:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
A belated comment regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carl-Fredrik Algernon. I suppose that my choice of words to comment the AfD may have been unnecessarily harsh. I regularly check out Article alerts listed for WP:SWEDEN, which is how I saw this AfD. From my experience, when the AfD "hits" a well-known name, rather than a non-notable artist or sports personality, the reason is typically that the article is just a short stub. When I checked Algernon's article, this was not the case, so the AfD surprised me. Despite this, please read the words of my comment as "but the article clearly states his relevance!", which would have been a better choice of words on my part in this case. Regards, Tomas e (talk) 23:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
The number of PRODs and AFDs you're making is way too many for proper searches to be performed. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:39, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:Politicians from Kuala Lumpur indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz Read! Talk! 06:10, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
Hello LibStar, I would like to request that the article Vishvaraj Jadeja, which currently refers to the cricketer, be moved to Vishvaraj Jadeja (cricketer), as I have created a separate article titled Vishvaraj Jadeja (speed skater). Since there are now two notable individuals with the same name, I believe a disambiguation page titled Vishvaraj Jadeja would be appropriate to help readers find the correct person. Kindly assist with this move and disambiguation setup, or let me know if I should initiate a move request. Thank you!
creation :
Vishvaraj Jadeja may refer to:
Novaclia 🌀 Novaclia (talk) 04:01, 27 July 2025 (UTC)
Hello, LibStar,
You tag a lot of articles for Proposed deletion but it doesn't look like you are posting notifications of the tagging on the article creator's User talk page. I see that you use Twinkle which should do this automatically so please be sure that the box in Twinkle Preferences that states "Notify page creator" is checked off. I understand you unchecking this box for Lugnuts since they are indefinitely blocked but editors that are not indefinitely blocked should be receiving notices. Please do not rely on bots to do this for you as I've found that bots aren't always very thorough. It's better for the tagger to take care of this step when you tag the article. Thank you very much for your contributions to the project. Liz Read! Talk! 21:03, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Eastern+Suburbs,+NSW/@-33.9170868,151.1826387,13z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m6!3m5!1s0x6b12b18db5d79889:0xa061091923af585a!8m2!3d-33.9508492!4d151.2102442!16zL20vMDM0azk4?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDczMC4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D
I'd like to clarify that suburbs like Mascot, Rosebery, and Alexandria are commonly considered part of Sydney's Eastern Suburbs, as reflected in Google Maps - open maps and search for eastern suburbs - it will show you the boundary which is different from wikipedia. Also property websites like realestate.com.au and domain.com.au all identify these suburbs as a part of eastern suburbs Dpaikeday (talk) 03:42, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
One point is there are currently over 20 articles in the undifferentiated parent. So most editors have not felt a need to create a seperate Category for every case where one person from a country in this field has an article. It seems extremely out of line people are arguing to preserve 1 article categories with small cat reasoning when that guidelines was deprecated precisely because it lead yo lots and lots of small categories as long as they could be argued to be part of a larger pattern. I really wish we had a rule that all categories must have at least 5 articles. Maybe with very, very, very narrow exemptions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:04, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
The argument to keep "Hondruan nutritionists" and Iranina nutritionists as categories because of Smallcat, which was depricated for this very reason, does not even look at the current content of Category:Nutritionists. That category has 36 biographical articles directly in it. There are only 15 sub-categories, which is no where near all countries. So there has been no clear decision to diffuse the entire contents down to by nationality. I would say the 7 other categories under 7 should be upmerged, which would leave us with about 6 categories. This is the very reason that Smallcat was deprecated, because despite it being a guideline in theory meant to discourage small categories, it lead to huge numbers of 1 article categories that hinder instead of helping navigation. This is very clearly its function here in arguing to keep 1 article categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:47, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
I came across your G6 tag on Vishvaraj Jadeja (cricketer), and after some digging, realized that this was the sequence of events:
The fourth step was incorrect, since it would have meant deleting the article's history. But the real problem here was the third step, copy-pasting the article's text. When you want to move an article but cannot, please request a move at WP:RM/TR instead. jlwoodwa (talk) 08:10, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
I have started going through List of Olympic competitors (Aa–Ak) and removing redlinks to non-existent articles. I have had this reverted, even though we have agreed multiple times that Olympic competitors are not notable. We should not be flooding Wikipedia with redlinks to articles that are not notable. The list is amazingly hard to edit because it has no breaks, so you literally have to start from the top of the page to find a link. Do you think splitting it up with headers that can tag sub-sections of the article would be doable?John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:57, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
Your PROD tag for this article states that it was a declined PROD. Was it PROD'd under a different page title? If it was declined, I'm unsure why you PROD'd it again. Thank you for any further information you can provide about the history of this article. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 20:39, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clinical Information Access Portal (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Just a FYI as you were involved in the previous AfD in 2011 and are the one of the two remaining active Wikipedians from that discussion. Tim (Talk) 02:53, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
I saw someone say "not all ambassadors are politicians". This misses the point. The position of an ambassador is not a political position. It is not one of the positions covered under NPOL. Having seen many of the ambassador articles we have, they are often very poorly sourced. There might be better sources out there, but they are not on many of the articles. Ambassadors neither make laws nor do they govern, so they do not fall under the structural reasons of why we have NPOL. NPOL does however feel like it comes from an earlier time of Wikipedia, when people had not considered the worldwide implications of the policies they were making. We have since decided that no sportspeople should be notable for participation, that we do not want to presume notability for everyone who held the rank of general anywhere ever, because some times and places that was fairly trivial. We have realized that presuming every secondary school that people get a diploma from is notable is not a reasonable standard, because there is not good sourcing on all of them. I am thinking that with NPOL we may want to step away from presumed notability. Are all the names of everyone in every national legislature everywhere even known? Some national assemblies have had very, very little power. On the sub-national level this become even more clear. In the US before 2000 it is very hit and miss who in legislatures we have articles on, and often has nothing to do with their impact. It often reflects one editor having a local history obsession, and publishing lots of stuff largely based on primary source work, just look at what we have connected to Category:People from Dedham, Massachusetts. There are a lot of questions that seem to pop up a lot. 1. The New Hampshire house of representatives has more members than the US house of representatives. 2. Are all members of a governors cabinet covered by NPOL. 3. Are members of state wide elected boards over universities and other positions where there is some state board that covers some aspect of government notable. I understand the desire here, but we need to balance it with building articles on sources that are independent, secondary and intellectually reliable. However there has never been a determination that ambassadors are notable (I think even less so for acting ambassadors, who we also have lots of articles on). NPOL is if anything too broad at present, it clearly does not need to be broadened. It clearly does not include ambassadors at present and I do not believe that should change.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:39, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed this edit, while I get that he's in the people from Busselton, category, he is actually the origin of the name as the town took on his name when it was established. For that reason I think that he should be in the Busselton category. Gnangarra 10:43, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
Heads up, your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tang Kam Man is improper, both because it is marked as "keep" instead of "speedy keep" and because someone had expressed a viewpoint other than keeping the article in the discussion. Ike Lek (talk) 04:57, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
