Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 02:29, 15 December 2016

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Articles for deletion page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Shortcut

WT:AFD

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 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.

Q2: You mean I'm not supposed to use AFD to propose a merger or a page move?

A2: Correct. Please use Wikipedia:Proposed mergers or Wikipedia: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 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.

This project page has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

Noam Cohen (8 October 2006). "Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, Oblivion Looms for the Non-Notable". Washington Post.
Daniel Terdiman (11 January 2007). "To delete Wikipedia entry or not to delete?". CNET News.
Matthew Moore (1 October 2009). "Wikipedia: 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.

Wikipedia 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)
Wikipedia talk:Archived deletion discussions (Archive)

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

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.

List discussions

WP:Articles for deletion
WP:Categories for discussion
WP:Copyright problems
WP:Deletion review
WP:Miscellany for deletion
WP:Redirects for discussion
WP:Stub types for deletion
WP:Templates for discussion
WP:WikiProject Deletion sorting
WT:Articles for deletion
WT:Categories for discussion
WT:Copyright problems
WT:Deletion review
WT:Miscellany for deletion
WT:Redirects for discussion
WT:Stub types for deletion
WT:Templates for discussion
WT:WikiProject Deletion sorting

Rfc on upgrading the NAC essay to a guideline

Interested editors can comment on the Deletion process talk page. Thanks. Lourdes 05:52, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yamie Chess

Hi, can someone please fix the AFD for Yamie Chess, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 17:11, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done Hut 8.5 17:15, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 17:28, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Patrolling kept articles

An issue came up at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#When will a wiki page appear in google search? As Wikipedia:New pages patrol says: "pages that are still not patrolled are not indexed and cached by Google or other search engines". Kudpung closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Hillmann as keep but Bill Hillmann was not patrolled so it still had noindex (I checked the html source). The oldest unpatrolled pages at [1] are 30 days. Many new articles are AfD'ed and kept within that time frame. Should we ask closers to check whether kept pages need patrolling? Or just accept that it may take weeks until somebody else does it? Or could a tool flag AfD keeps which haven't been patrolled? PrimeHunter (talk) 20:24, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@PrimeHunter: An interesting question to which there is a simple answer: All noinexed pages whether tagged for anything or not are automatically released for indexing after 90 days.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:28, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in mind that NPP patrollers are supposed to check a number of things besides whether the article should be deleted. The fact that something survived an AfD doesn't necessarily mean it's in a fit state to be patrolled. Hut 8.5 10:35, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

nomination failure

I just tried to Nominate Caffeinated Concert Tickets with Twinkle and received the error: Creating article deletion discussion page: Failed to save edit: The article you tried to create has been created already. In todays Log it placed a prior closed discussion. Can someone straighten this out? MB 20:29, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MB: Twinkle is a pain, I always do it manually. You need to follow the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO, step I, first bullet, small print. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:54, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't asking how to do a nomination, I have done nearly 50 with Twinkle and couldn't imagine doing it manually. I was asking how to clean up after this failure. The article has the banner at the top that says it has been nominated, but there is actually no open discussion. MB 00:23, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Probably just revert your last couple edits that are related to the nomination, since it didn't create a page. Looks to me like Twinkle is confused because a prior nomination was moved and a redirect is in its place now. You'll probably have to do this one manually. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:28, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MB: never mind, this was going to be confusing anyway because of the redirected discussion. I went ahead and created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caffeinated Concert Tickets (3rd nomination) and fixed the links to point to that page instead. Should be good to go now but you'll have to edit the AfD page to add your deletion rationale. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:39, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector: Thanks for straightening this out. I've put my deletion rationale in. MB 00:48, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how to

I'm sorry but your explanations aren't understandable, 38,512 bytes. Xx236 (talk) 14:07, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The procedure isn't exactly simple, but the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO seem quite adequate for the task. I've completed the nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Panchayat Cricket Ground‎ on your behalf. --Finngall ^talk 15:34, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted a notice on the page creator's talk page, so that they are aware of the nomination. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:05, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rangoon Point

Could someone please complete this nomination, which I, as a non-logged-in user cannot? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On it. --Finngall ^talk 22:15, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rangoon Point. --Finngall ^talk 22:24, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2016_Aliah_University_Protest

I closed this discussion some time ago, but it keeps popping up on the list of old, unclosed AfDs. I don't know enough about the technical end of things to diagnose the problem. Joyous! | Talk 16:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could it be because it was moved from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Aliah University Protest SAVE ALIAH, which now redirects to it? I changed the entry on the November 15 log which might fix it. There is something else weird on that day's log. There are two delete !votes that don't seem to be part of any AfD and they are signed by a link to the talk dab page. I can't figure out where they are coming from. Sarahj2107 (talk) 16:27, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to have done the trick. Thank you. Joyous! | Talk 20:12, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Complete deletion proposal for unregistered user

I have submitted a deletion proposal at 100 Women (BBC) and the associated talk page. Please may a registered user finish it off: I am unable to do so? 2A00:23C4:A683:6A00:C414:D65C:FA3:A059 (talk) 16:01, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done TimothyJosephWood 16:07, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! 2A00:23C4:A683:6A00:C414:D65C:FA3:A059 (talk) 16:25, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Afd process proposal submitted to Village pump

I submitted a proposal for use of a checklist, like the {{DYK checklist}} for the Afd process at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Afd process. It would be great to get your input on this idea!--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Query regarding WP:ATD

WP:DISCUSSAFD states that alternatives to deletion should be considered, which in turn states: "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." WP:DISCUSSAFD also gives the option to !vote as "Disambiguation". I tried the earlier option at the Magsi AfD, by suggesting to keep it as a surname list article, as it satisfied all the relevant criteria. But my advice was rejected & the article was deleted. When I asked for clarification from the closing admin, their response was dismissive. Recently, I tried the latter option at the Joon Afd. But again the article was deleted. And again I got dismissive response from the closing admin. It's noteworthy that both the admins had no problem with my suggested alternatives.

So, it seems to me that the closing admins consider redirect & merge as the only valid alternatives to deletion. And if that's the case, then the WP:DISCUSSAFD should clearly mention the same. It will be helpful for comparatively inexperienced AfD participants like me, who make fool out of themselves by !voting as "Disambiguation". - NitinMlk (talk) 20:05, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave it to others to respond to your main question, but if you are going to discuss other editors, you should let them know. Doug Weller talk 20:16, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you did mention it to one of them. I only looked at Sandstein's page. I notified him. Doug Weller talk 20:19, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! - NitinMlk (talk) 20:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I don't see how this concerns me. Sandstein 20:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I just wanted clarification for the personal sake. And that's why I didn't notify you. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:24, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be slightly misunderstanding the role of closing administrators. They don't go through all the opinions and pick what they think is the best one to act on. Rather, they judge the discussion as a whole and determine the consensus of the participants. Though it isn't just a vote count, several well-argued delete opinions pointing to lack of reliable sources are not going to be overruled by one editor who wants a disambig instead. So it's not right to say that "closing admins consider redirect & merge as the only valid alternatives to deletion", rather, that the AfD participants did not go for other options. Reyk _YO! 20:34, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The proper venue for this complaint is WP:DRV, but don't expect an outpouring of sympathy there. Opinions like Reyk's are as common as they are wrong and harmful. You are reading ATD correctly, but most closing administrators do not. Jclemens (talk) 20:37, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jclemens, thanks. At least you understood my point. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:42, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jclemens, this page has nearly 1600 watchers. And one of them should be easily able to clarify my simple query. So, I won't post it anywhere else, as it's a general query. In fact, if I won't get any reasonable response here, I will take your comment's last sentence at face value. BTW, thanks for the clarification! - NitinMlk (talk) 21:10, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A disambiguation page already existed, the logical thing is to move that here, not copy paste that over this article. Claiming that admins/editors who disagree with one's opinion are wrong and dangerous doesn't make that so. —SpacemanSpiff 07:06, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are amazing in other areas but your this comment shows that you don't understand WP:ATD. If X satisfies the disambiguation criteria & a primary topic doesn't exists, then X (disambiguation) is needed to be created & redirected to X, as per WP:DABNAME. In the case of Joon, Joon (disambiguation) already existed & there was no primary topic. So, you just needed to redirect Joon (disambiguation) to Joon instead of deleting the Joon. In fact, I've explained all that already at the Joon AfD. BTW, your comment simply means that you don't consider disambiguation as a valid alternative to deletion.

PS: I guess user Jclemens clearly & boldly explained the AfD scenario. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:23, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, if you are confident you understand things perfectly while others don't then go for WP:DRV and see what the community has to say, just claiming that you are right isn't going anywhere, and claiming that any opinion to the contrary is harmful is disingenuous and absurd at best. Like I've said before, I did consider disambiguation but your method is wrong, simple as that.—SpacemanSpiff 05:03, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree. It is annoying when someone claims to be asking a question, then insults and criticises people for giving an answer they don't like. It would have been more accurate to title this section ==Expostulation regarding WP:ATD==. Reyk _YO! 08:56, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SpacemanSpiff, please read my opening query. I want overall clarification regarding the application/scope of WP:ATD during the AfDs. I mentioned Magsi/Joon Afd just to give the context of my query. DRV will turn it into an individual case & therefore won't serve the main purpose of my query. BTW, I neither claimed that any contrary opinion is "harmful" nor did I claim that disagreeing "admins/editors" are "dangerous".

Reyk, you have summed up your understanding of the WP:ATD in your following comment: "Though it isn't just a vote count, several well-argued delete opinions pointing to lack of reliable sources are not going to be overruled by one editor who wants a disambig instead". So, now please let the others express their views. - NitinMlk (talk) 18:52, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's precisely because I want others to be able to express their views that I am asking you not to shout at them for disagreeing with you. Reyk _YO! 19:40, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what the hell is going on...

With the edit war over this section, but please stop it. It clearly does not belong here. ANI is this way. Further disruptive edting will result in an invitation from me to that forum. Thanks... -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:28, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It would be great if we could figure out a way to get them to leave and not come back. I don't think that is going to happen. - GB fan 17:38, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vote {X} for change has an inexhaustible supply of IP addresses. Just delete. Doug Weller talk 18:01, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Diesel fuel tanks in trucks

Someone...figure this out. I have a strong suspicion it should probably be deleted, but I'm not entire sure how to put it. AfC creation by globally banned User:Ktr101. It's such an incredibly vague topic so as to be practically meaningless, and I'm not entirely sure its even definable beyond the scope of the Fuel tank article, given that Truck is such a stunningly broad term. TimothyJosephWood 21:12, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's an article about the design and manufacture of fuel tanks. Diesel or trucks are scarcely mentioned at all (that's not entirely the creator's fault, Ktr101 moved it to this title from "Truck Fuel Tanks"). This is a pretty solid argument for it to be deleted or merged somewhere else. Hut 8.5 21:41, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Send it to AfD and let "consensus" see to it.

I'd delete it. The content is either self-evident (quality of welding is obviously necessary) or unsourced and dubious. Most what's in here is so narrowly specific that it implies (unsourced) that there is only one single way to make a fuel tank, which is a US-centric view and far from universal. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:58, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One place to start is with all of the unsourced OR material. Take that out and you basically have a stub. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:46, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned chunk of discussion

On Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 December 6, there is a decapitated chunk of discussion just below Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knowledge tree training. I'm not sure what article it belongs with. It's just....hanging there.... Joyous! | Talk 01:39, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Venture capital firms and venture capitalists

Hi,

I've been voting on several articles about venture capital firms and venture capitalists and it seems that there is a school of thought that if an article is created about them it is SPAM.

I just want to make sure I'm not missing something - which is entirely possible. Is there a special way that I should be viewing these subjects that I may be missing? A guideline, perhaps, that I am missing - or school of thought about these type of articles?--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:11, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, there seems to be a similar issue with people in advertising and the media - which is understandable based upon the nature of their business - but I am wondering if there is a much higher threshold beyond notability, GNG, etc. that I need to understand.--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:14, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No there is no "higher standard." Articles are not presumptively SPAM because of their subject. But they do need to meet GNG and/or one of the related guidelines correlated to WP:N. Sadly, we do get a lot of corporate and self promotional SPAM so some subjects tend to attract closer scrutiny because of this. But as long as the article rings the WP:N bell and doesn't appear to have a lot of WP:UNDUE or WP:PROMO material it should be fine. People doing a lot of articles on corporate and business related subjects should also be aware of WP:COI. I hope that helps. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:29, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That absolutely helps, thanks so much!--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:29, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 128: / Line 128: @@
 On [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 December 6]], there is a decapitated chunk of discussion just below [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knowledge tree training]]. I'm not sure what article it belongs with. It's just....hanging there.... [[User:Joyous!|Joyous!]] | [[User_talk:Joyous%21|Talk]] 01:39, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
+== Venture capital firms and venture capitalists ==
+Hi,
+I've been voting on several articles about venture capital firms and venture capitalists and it seems that there is a school of thought that if an article is created about them it is SPAM.
+I just want to make sure I'm not missing something - which is entirely possible. Is there a special way that I should be viewing these subjects that I may be missing? A guideline, perhaps, that I am missing - or school of thought about these type of articles?--<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:#CC4E5C; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">[[User:CaroleHenson|CaroleHenson]] [[User talk:CaroleHenson|''(talk)'']]</span> 22:11, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
+:Oh, there seems to be a similar issue with people in advertising and the media - which is understandable based upon the nature of their business - but I am wondering if there is a much higher threshold beyond notability, GNG, etc. that I need to understand.--<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:#CC4E5C; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">[[User:CaroleHenson|CaroleHenson]] [[User talk:CaroleHenson|''(talk)'']]</span> 22:14, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
+::No there is no "higher standard." Articles are not presumptively SPAM because of their subject. But they do need to meet GNG and/or one of the related guidelines correlated to [[WP:N]]. Sadly, we do get a lot of corporate and self promotional SPAM so some subjects tend to attract closer scrutiny because of this. But as long as the article rings the WP:N bell and doesn't appear to have a lot of [[WP:UNDUE]] or [[WP:PROMO]] material it should be fine. People doing a lot of articles on corporate and business related subjects should also be aware of [[WP:COI]]. I hope that helps. -[[User:Ad Orientem|Ad Orientem]] ([[User talk:Ad Orientem|talk]]) 01:29, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
+:::That absolutely helps, thanks so much!--<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:#CC4E5C; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">[[User:CaroleHenson|CaroleHenson]] [[User talk:CaroleHenson|''(talk)'']]</span> 02:29, 15 December 2016 (UTC)