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.

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

Please help

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_major_beauty_pageants This page is candidate for deletion. I would like to ask some help here how can this be improved and be retained on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markimatix (talk • contribs) 02:27, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're going to have to start by demonstrating that the grouping of the five major beauty pageants isn't just something that you made up, or something that's promotional by Miss Supramax and that it's a notable grouping used by reliable sources. Neonchameleon (talk) 03:03, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How to handle an AFD closed as "merge" where the merge is not appropriate for the target article?

The Rake (cryptid) had a low-participation AFD that was closed as a merge to List of Internet phenomena. ([1]). The problem is, that there's all of one legit source, and for the Internet phenomena list (which was not consulted for the merge) that source fails inclusion for the list (to avoid making the list spammy). How would one go about resolving this situation? Talking with the closer? DevReview? --MASEM (t) 19:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We just got another one that was an AFD that closed as merge to the same list, but by our list metrics, the best sourcing fails the list's inclusion metric (that being the Daily Dot, which is not a mainstream source). I'm inclined to remove the material but want to check to see how to proceed here. --MASEM (t) 04:29, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at those AfDs, the only possible alternative closure is no consensus. Redirect is another compromise, but there is no point in a redirect to a page where the subject isn't mentioned. WP:Deletion review will not be interested. There are also WP:Copying within Wikipedia considerations since the merges have already been done. I would try to engage the merging editor, either directly or at Talk:List of Internet phenomena. If you expect future AfDs, it may be helpful to keep an eye on Changes related to "List of Internet phenomena", as notifying proposed merge targets has not caught on. You might be interested in discussion of what a valid "merge" is at User talk:Flatscan/RfC draft: Merge versus redirect. Flatscan (talk) 05:09, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention WP:Non-deleting deletion discussions. Flatscan (talk) 05:43, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's put it this way, if I were aware of those AFDs and participated in them and the idea of a merge came up, I would be all against it pointing out "no, we would not be able to include this in that last due to our sourcing requirements for that list", which might have altered the discussion. (I don't know if I'd have !voted "keep" as well, but that's not an issue here).

This might point to advice that if a during an AFD that a possibility of a merge comes up , the talk page of the merge talk should be altered since the sudden injection of the material may be inappropriate for that target. --MASEM (t)

I found this a few years ago in an AfD on the Christianity and Judaism article, which was closed with a recommendation that it be merged to Judeo-Christian, without editors on that article ever having been informed, and something that would generally not have been appropriate. After some discussion on the talk page, I raised it with the closing admin, who recommended starting a renewed discussion on the talk page, and should a new consensus be reached, then to follow the new consensus, per WP:CCC. Which all happened. I don't know if any of that is helpful here, but it is one way the question could be progressed. Jheald (talk) 18:02, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request for someone to complete AFD process

As I am an unconfirmed user of Wikipedia, could someone please kindly complete Step II and Step III of the AFD process, started here? Thank you in advance. - 2001:558:1400:10:D4BF:9258:EE2F:4F9A (talk) 19:35, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

appears to be done Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WikiMaps. Thanks. Protonk (talk) 21:03, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Completion request for AfD

Can someone please complete the nomination for deletion of The Mighty Don't Kneel? Nomination reasons are on the talk page. 101.172.213.65 (talk) 05:22, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just found Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norma Stitz open

Shouldn't this discussion be closed after more than half a decade? --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did they even close those back then? It was VfD, and very early, huh. Dunno. Ansh6 6 6 05:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Went ahead and threw a close on that one, just to keep things clean. Near as I can tell, the article was kept - and has been there ever since. Interesting, the things you find... UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:31, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please contribute to the Redwood Software AfD discussion

Only three people have contributed to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Redwood Software (2nd nomination), and the discussion has been open for more than 2.5 weeks now. Dear all: Please contribute to the discussion. Thank you! —Unforgettableid (talk) 08:05, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Early closure request

Could an admin consider closing the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antonia Gerstacker discussion? It is obviously causing a great deal of distress to the subject/author of the article (she has also been blocked for repeatedly trying to delete the article herself). Sionk (talk) 19:07, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I second that, the craziness continues (new account set up after two sockpuppet accounts were blocked) and more people have added their votes for "Delete" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antonia Gerstacker.--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:27, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AfD marked as 3rd AfD when it is the first

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alpha Phi Epsilon (3rd nomination) is about a fraternity at Ursinus College in Pennsylvania. The earlier 2 AfDs were about "Alpha Phi Epsilon Inter-University Collegiate Service Fraternity and Sorority" in the Philippines. This is confusing people who assume the article existed before - how do we fix this? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 21:54, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment looks good. Hopefully people will read it. A general note at the top might be useful too, if the comment doesn't seem to be working. Ansh6 6 6 02:37, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 17:15, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kelsey Smith-Briggs Child Protection Reform Act

Can someone complete the nomination process for me? Here is my reason why the article is not needed:

Article just duplicates or refers to content that already exists in Kelsey Smith-Briggs. It has been a stub tagged with "Unreferenced" and "Expert needed" tags for over four years and I cannot find anything substantial beyond what is already in this short article. This is one of the cases where separate articles for the murder victim and a law named after him/her is completely unnecessary like Kendra Webdale, Nixzmary Brown, Leandra's Law, or even Amber Hagerman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.118.139.6 (talk) 15:02, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Please put your reason for wanting this article deleted on its talk page next time as per the rules. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 14:15, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Complete AFD Process for Article William Sledd

I am an unconfirmed user. I am requesting someone to please create the AfD page for the Wikipedia article William Sledd. Please note that this is the fifth nomination (the last was in 2008), so sufficient time has passed. I have posted my reasons on the article's talk page in this entry.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.255.102.180 (talk) 08:37, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:48, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with the logs

Using the javascript relisting tool, there seem to be issues. AfDs on the 13th-15th logs show a blank "old log" entry, while one AfD on the the 16th shows as the 18th's...while another has the "old log" entry reading "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Two days ago"...! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am getting the same with blank old-logs showing, so it won't relist... is there a new version of/new tool which I can use? PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Problems deleting a page

I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mobile Suit Gundam 00 mobile weapons, but it won't let me delete :

You do not have permission to delete this page, for the following reason:

This page has a large edit history, over 5,000 revisions. Deletion of such pages has been restricted to prevent accidental disruption of Wikipedia.

So, how do I get the page deleted (I have deleted the 26 redirects, and the talk page)... PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You need a steward; the restriction was introduced in order to avoid WP:DDMP violations. I'll lodge a request at meta. Stifle (talk) 12:51, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly sorted by User:QuiteUnusual. Stifle (talk) 14:21, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sujit Meher

--Fashionburnstar (talk) 11:15, 26 January 2014 (UTC)Sujit_Meher this page has poorly sourced write up . May be deleted as it is low impotence and copy write infringement[reply]