Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion

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.

Deletion (defunct)

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Deletion, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.DeletionWikipedia:WikiProject DeletionTemplate:WikiProject DeletionDeletion articles

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

AFD request: WordLift

Can someone please complete the requested AFD I put in for WordLift? 213.55.221.7 (talk) 18:08, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WordLift with a mostly blank template. Please fill in your argument for deletion there. If you don't within a reasonable period of time then the discussion will be speedy closed. Thanks. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:23, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Malformed Afd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phyllis Mary Nicol

Hi Folks!! Can somebody have a look at this. It malformed, looks as though its been manually created and I'm not sure how to fix it. scope_creep^Talk 09:23, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed Queen of Hearts (talk • stalk • she/they) 16:09, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable activity at an AfD

The AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024 Valencia residential building fire has seen a swelling of !votes that express editors' personal feelings about the significance of the topic without commenting on its notability. Many of these !votes are by inexperienced users (and sadly some by experienced users) and exclusively make comments listed under WP:ATA. These include:

11 editors saying it should be kept because a few people died (WP:BIGNUMBER)
Four editors saying it should be kept because it's not in an English speaking country and suggesting that the nominator was engaging in WP:NATIONALIST editing when nominating for deletion (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, WP:CITINGGREATERPROBLEMS)
Three editors saying it should be kept because it made the front page on BBC (WP:ITSINTHENEWS)
One editor saying that it's notable because the fire had "unusually rapid spread" (????)

There are a few keep !votes that provide valid arguments in this discussion that allow for reasonable discussion, but the majority don't even recognize the notability guidelines. What is AfD supposed to do in a situation like this to make it clear to editors that they are actually expected to engage with notability requirements when casting a !vote? I'm not so much worried about this specific AfD as much as it's an example for what happens frequently at these sorts of AfDs, often by the same editors. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:42, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Calling admins

Hello, I tried closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Delhi–Kalka Shatabdi Express as a procedural Keep but I keep getting error messages due to the size of the nomination. Can anyone help me here?

Also, something bizarre happened on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 February 23 with discussions not being transcluded, primarily at the bottom of the page. Was this a relisting problem? Is XFDcloser acting up? Thanks for any help you can offer. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:55, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. I've closed it by hand—XFDcloser can't handle discussions that big. I rollbacked most of the deletion tags, but many need to be removed manually. Here's the list—I can finish them later, but any help would be much appreciated. I have fixed the second problem (basically, this same AfD was so big that the log page couldn't handle transcluding any more AfDs). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:19, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like we double-fixed the problem, because I hid the long list of nominated pages on the AfD itself. --RL0919 (talk) 01:22, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even better, thanks. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:56, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The tags have now all been removed. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 02:15, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extraordinary Writ and RL0919, bless you both. I actually wasn't expecting such a quick response given the low activity on this talk page. We have to start discouraging editors from doing bundled nominations with HUNDREDS of articles. They almost always get a procedural close.

If either of you has some spare time (hah!), we could use more AFD discussion closers. Admins tend to cycle through AFDLand, closing discussions for a few weeks, then moving on to do other things and sometimes returning. But since the summer, there has been a decline of both closers and participants. If you know of any way to galvanize some of our more experienced editors to participate in deletion discussions, I'd be open to doing anything from wearing a sandwich board to skywriting. We've got some great regulars but we could use two or three times more thoughtful participants. If you do start helping out with AFDs you might notice how many discussions are relisted because there is such low participation in them. I'm wondering if instead of nominating bad articles, marginal articles are getting nominated and the consensus is just much less clear on what to do with them. Any way, it's been a long day and I appreciate your responsiveness. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:30, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AFD request: Webaroo

This web browser article has zero references to establish notability. After searching, found a few social media and Wikipedia-copied websites, but no independent, comprehensive, in-depth coverage. Article was created on 23 February 2009. PROD on March 21, 2009, then de-prod on March 22, 2009. First AfD was March 24, 2009, then removed the same day. Asking for help here to do the second Afd. Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 03:29, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JoeNMLC:

Done. Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Webaroo (2nd nomination). CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:14, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AFD request: Shock (troupe)

This article needs to be nominated for deletion. It cites no sources (despite being tagged for a decade now), and the subject doesn't meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Shock were a short-lived British dance troupe from the early 80s, but were never famous in their own right. They were known only by association. They released two singles, neither of which charted. Their former members are not prominent or widely known beyond this troupe.2A0A:EF40:1267:7101:1C9B:C983:95B0:AF56 (talk) 18:09, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shock (troupe). CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AFD request: Rainbow Minute

Jedwardchapman made exactly two edits: the creation of this article in 2009, and a minor edit to it the following year. Outside of being a relatively short article with very few sources, the subject is not very well known outside of Richmond, Virginia. Not to mention, the article comes off more as a promotion for Diversity Richmond rather than an informative piece on the radio show. 100.7.34.111 (talk) 18:56, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rainbow Minute. CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:30, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AFD Request: List of preserved Southern Pacific Railroad rolling stock

This article had sources for citations, but only 60% of the article has citations, which means that 40% of the article has no citations. This article also fails WP:GNG for a stand-alone list. 14.203.182.49 (talk) 09:33, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The notice "The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for stand-alone lists." on that article has been there since May 2017. And nothing has changed for it to meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for stand-alone lists. 14.203.182.49 (talk) 09:35, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of preserved Southern Pacific Railroad rolling stock. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:23, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AFD Request: Living Daylights

Stub article that fails Wikipedia:Notability, and has 0 references whatsoever, a Google search doesn't return any independent and reliable sources, but only a couple Amazon links and Facebook pages 108.49.72.125 (talk) 16:30, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AFD Requests: Jessica Lurie, Darshan (band), Breslov Bar Band, The Tiptons Sax Quartet, Jon Madof, Rashanim

All of these articles fail WP:N for people and music, and most of the sources are not independent or reliable, with most of them being catalogues, personal websites, social media posts, or Amazon/E-commence links. Not to mention these articles have had multiple issues for years, and some might be even edited and written by people who might be paid or have a close relationship to the subject. Even simple Google searches don't yield promising results with the only websites that come up being personal websites, social media pages, or links to purchase their albums. 108.49.72.125 (talk) 16:40, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]