Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 16:13, 22 February 2022

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

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

Request

Can someone put July 2009 Mid-Atlantic tornadoes for deletion? The prod was contested but it should still be deleted. My reasoning is”because it doesn’t meet the notability guideline. Tornadoes in the mid-Atlantic in July aren’t particularly rare, this was just 5 tornadoes, including two Ef2s, and is covered fine in the section where this tornado article doesn’t really add much. “Thank you. 108.170.68.186 (talk) 20:49, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Spinningspark: Can you set one up maybe? 108.170.68.186 (talk) 20:28, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you asking me in particular? I've had nothing to do with this article and don't have a view on it either way. The procedure to follow for unregistered users is at WP:AFDHOWTO. SpinningSpark 17:00, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion re: !vote

Just a comment from someone new to Wikipedia and AfD. The !vote phrasing appears all over the place in AfD discussions and while I now think it means 'just a comment, no vote' I have not found that described anywhere in the documentation. DaffodilOcean (talk) 21:49, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A description of the jargon can be found at Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion § Not-votes. (In short, most often it means "although this comment is formatted like a vote, the overall discussion is not a vote, and so won't be concluded solely by counting votes.") Hopefully at least one person using the term in a given discussion will link to the description. isaacl (talk) 23:24, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, this is helpful. DaffodilOcean (talk) 11:12, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It comes from one way of symbolically writing a logical negation, which is typable unlike the more common overbar. It's all a bit tounge-in-cheek. SpinningSpark 15:03, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional article that evaded everyone's radar

Please see Wikipedia:Big Man DJ Kim, and check whether the subject is notable or not. If not, please nominate it for deletion. 182.1.126.105 (talk) 00:53, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bump. How few people are watching this page? 182.1.75.79 (talk) 13:24, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1,834, but probably ony 174 actually reading it. SpinningSpark 13:37, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very curious how you got such a specific number! Theknightwho (talk) 13:42, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you not follow the link I provided? SpinningSpark 13:44, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AFD request

Cordwood Pete looks like a single-source advertisement for a roadside attraction. 97.126.8.83 (talk) 10:15, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

THE AFD process is described at WP:Articles for deletion. You appear to have done part of it, but not all 3 steps. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:52, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor has completed the process. The deletion discussion can be found here. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:07, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AFD request

Hi everyone,

I would like to nominate the article Irfan Aziz Botta for deletion; here are some of the reasons.

First, a lot of the references only make passing mentions of him, not covering him in detail.
Secondly, I can't even find his birth year online. Is he so notable if we cannot even find his birth date?

Also, as a side note, the English in this article is not very good IMO. Note also that some of this user's previous articles have been declined due to not being notable enough.

Regards, 98.179.127.59 (talk) 02:06, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems that someone has made the page already; now I have nominated it. Closing. 98.179.127.59 (talk) 15:54, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does this circumvent a deletion outcome?

At Community Consolidated School District 15, an editor appears to have circumvented a deletion outcome by awkwardly recreating "Plum Grove Junior High School"--redirected via this AfD--within the school district article. Not just a line or two about the school; the entire deleted article. I would appreciate if an editor experienced in article deletion could comment at Talk:Community Consolidated School District 15#Plum Grove section. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:17, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does, and I've commented there, FWIW. SN54129 19:46, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AfD request

This article, Rhys Toms would fail to meet notability per WP:NMUSIC, WP:GNG, and some poorly sourced from a lack of unreliable sources. --2001:4452:490:6900:A139:1E38:3608:AEF9 (talk) 01:37, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting article in Input about the AfD process

Rather than put this in The Signpost, I thought AfD page stalkers would appreciate. Article about Wikipedia AfD process TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:28, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is it time to amend BEFORE?

Now that Proquest and a variety of other collections are available to all Wikipedia users, is it time to amend D. Search for additional sources? We could include both The Wikipedia Library (here) and Proquest (which can be quickly searched from the link at the results of the former). Time and time again I'm seeing AFDs, particularly for individuals only active last century or earlier, that come to a quick end, once Proquest is searched. Nfitz (talk) 20:02, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am all in favor of adding all the sourcing/searching tools to make life as easy as possible. I don't see much of a downside. Jclemens (talk) 20:19, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we probably should update the templates, verify that they're working and that people are consistently finding them useful, before we mention the tool in a policy page. Jclemens (talk) 21:12, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which templates? Template:Proquest and Template:Gale work well for me. Nfitz (talk) 23:19, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How to cleanup a second AfD written over a previous one?

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naveen Jain

Given all the automation for AfDs, I thought I should ask. --Hipal (talk) 16:40, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It needs a history split – working on it. SpinningSpark 17:53, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should be sorted now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naveen Jain (2nd nomination). Note this had not been transcluded so it should run for seven days from now despite being nominated on 6th Feb. SpinningSpark 18:35, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Listing a page at AFD

Hello, please could someone list Northern Reflections for discussion for me with the following rationale? Thank you! 192.76.8.77 (talk) 20:09, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This was originally prodded by Bri with the rationale that it failed WP:NCORP, which was contested by an IP due to the blogto source. There was then a bit of an edit war where a newbie tried to get it deleted by repeatedly re-prodding it. I think that there is a legitimate discussion about notability to be had here, because looking at the article I tend to agree that this is an WP:NCORP fail with only one of the sources in the article coming close to being usable (and even then its not great in my opinion).
The first source here is blogto. I'm not convinced this is a reliable source, it seems to be a cross between a blog and a news portal, and its terms and conditions page states that it accepts user generated and sponsored content. In my opinion this source is at best "meh" quality.

The second source is a two paragraph announcement in a local newspaper that the brand is opening a store in a local mall. This is a completely WP:ROUTINE piece of business coverage.

The third source is a trivial mention - it's a detailed article on another clothing retailer shutting down which includes a throwaway remark that the holding company behind the retailer also owns Northern Reflections.

The fourth source is a trivial mention - it's a local newspaper reporting on a charity fashion show that includes a thanks to Northern Reflections for donating the clothes.

The fifth source is a business directory, again routine\trivial coverage

The sixth and seventh source are the same thing, a press release about the company getting a loan.
I think that at best we have one 6 paragraph long "Meh" source here, so I don't see how this company passes WP:NCORP.

Done AfD can be found here. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 20:24, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Can you finish the process for nominating Tornado outbreak of August 24, 2016 for deletion? 173.251.82.226 (talk) 20:55, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AtYourGate

I ran across this company a few months ago and was intrigued, saw it had gotten a fair amount of coverage so I created the article. Since then it has been PRODed, tagged for notability, and unilaterally draftified twice, all with no comment on the Talk page. I continue to believe that it passes WP:NCORP but at this point it's clear that various others don't. Doesn't feel right for me to AfD it myself since my own BEFORE has led me to consider it still notable, but maybe that's best at this point. Anyone care to weigh in? Retswerb (talk) 03:49, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Can someone finish up nominating March 2014 nor'easter for AFD? 209.201.121.4 (talk) 16:13, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 122: / Line 122: @@
 I ran across this company a few months ago and was intrigued, saw it had gotten a fair amount of coverage so I created the article. Since then it has been PRODed, tagged for notability, and unilaterally draftified twice, all with no comment on the Talk page. I continue to believe that it passes [[WP:NCORP]] but at this point it's clear that various others don't. Doesn't feel right for me to AfD it myself since my own BEFORE has led me to consider it still notable, but maybe that's best at this point. Anyone care to weigh in? [[User:Retswerb|Retswerb]] ([[User talk:Retswerb|talk]]) 03:49, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
+== Request ==
+Can someone finish up nominating [[March 2014 nor'easter]] for AFD? [[Special:Contributions/209.201.121.4|209.201.121.4]] ([[User talk:209.201.121.4|talk]]) 16:13, 22 February 2022 (UTC)