Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Articles for deletion page. |
|
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:
|
|
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 |
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 25 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III 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 |
Hi, hope this is the right place to mention this, not sure what the procedure is. I found the article Down the Street via a maintenance category. I've cleaned up the text, but I found in the previous text of the article an AfD notification message from 2018, which apparently ended as "Keep" but is now hidden, with no record on the article talk page of any previous AfD nomination. However Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Down the Street appears to indicate that the article *was* deleted, in 2005. Article is still unreferenced, and appears to be no more notable now that it was in 2005, so prime for deletion, but I'm not familiar enough with the deletion process to know what might have happened here. Assuming that someone reading this will be! Jdcooper (talk) 18:27, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
- It was deleted in 2005 and recreated a week later. Reywas92 seems to have tried to nominate it again in 2018 but had trouble with the template and gave up (leaving the comments behind). There was no discussion and no decision to keep. Nowadays we'd record this kind of thing on the talk page but not back in 2005. – Joe (talk) 19:13, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
- Oops, sorry! Still not sure what makes it any more notable than other generic nightclubs I've been to. Reywas92Talk 19:27, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
- I think it is better to delete articles same as this and don't let to be created similar articles, otherwise WP will be same as google map and anyone can register his business. Any article must be notable in creation date and able to be developed by others.Shahram 22:17, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Marked this BLP with the AFD template and was wondering if a registered user could complete the process. Please check that article's talk page for rationale. Thanks 2A00:23C5:1E2F:A201:255C:CAF0:9978:67DC (talk) 17:50, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Done -- see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randal Reeder. --Finngall talk 18:51, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Splitting discussion for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 April 1
An article that been involved with (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 April 1 ) has content that is proposed to be removed and moved to another article (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/April Fools' Day 2021). If you are interested, please visit the discussion. Thank you. Diriector_Doc├─────┤TalkContribs 01:46, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Request that a registered user complete the AfD process, please see the article's talk page for details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.59.16.209 (talk) 03:34, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- Done - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher K. Tucker. --Finngall talk 04:44, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Making a proposed deletion
how do i make a proposed deletion 108.88.82.1 (talk) 03:44, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Requesting to create afd3 for Losliya Mariyanesan
Requesting here to create third Afd discussion for the article Losliya Mariyanesan as, in my opinion, it still fails to satisfy WP:NACTOR. The previous two afds are Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Losliya Mariyanesan (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Losliya Mariyanesan. 2600:6C58:4B7F:6084:5C0:2EF:B11A:C8BA (talk) 22:47, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
- Both Afds agreed that it should be deleted. An admin should delete it. --Bduke (talk) 23:07, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
- Done -- see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Losliya Mariyanesan (3rd nomination). Apparently it was deemed different enough from the previous iterations to necessitate a new discussion. --Finngall talk 23:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
ForeverSpin a candidate for deletion?
Hoping someone can take a minute to see if ForeverSpin really belongs on Wikipedia. The article was tagged for speedy deletion within minutes of it being posted 5 years ago and although it was contested by the author, the (very short) article still seems to accomplish little more than promoting the company's products. Their claim to fame seems to be "we make tops like the one from Inception". 74.194.157.22 (talk) 20:25, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
There's this page Spike Brandt & Tony Cervone filmography which duplicates Spike Brandt and Tony Cervone#Filmography should it be deleted, or is it large and notable enough to be standalone?