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 keep 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

Closures

Hi, Just a query - For well over a year I've been closing AFDs a day early which I'm now banned from ... So this new way's a tad confusing at the moment!,
So say basically instead of closing at 12pm (midnight) on the new day I should be closing at 12pm (midnight) on the 8th day if that makes sense?
I've done a picture which should hopefully do a better job at explaining than me! ,
Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 15:48, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I always thought it was seven days from the creation timestamp of the discussion, so if I were to start a discussion right now, you could close it at 15:53, 3 February 2016 (UTC). So if you're going by midnights, then you would need to wait for midnight on the 8th day, yes. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh right, But closing them at the timestamp would be even more confusing surely ? .... To be absolutely honest I don't think anyone knows really when to close them....,

Ah well I'll close them at midnight on the 8th that way I won't end up blocked .... Hopefully!

, Anyway thanks for clearing that up for me - Much appreciated, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 15:59, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)::Midnights have nothing to do with it, the rule is quite clear, see WP:CLOSEAFD: "A deletion discussion should normally be allowed to run for seven full days (168 hours)". Go by the timestamp in the nominator's signature, and don't close before the same clock time seven days later. Nothing is gained by closing early, it only give people an excuse to go to DRV and complain that the decision was rushed. JohnCD (talk) 16:06, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to close around midnight to make life easier atleast for me anyway, So I was doing it on the 7th day but not leaving as a full day ... riiiiight!, Well I had my reasons & all that but anyway was just querying it so thanks for your help, –Davey2010^Talk 16:15, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I edit-conflicted again, coming back to say: of course they don't have to be closed at once after 7 x 24 hours. If midnight is a convenient time for you to work that's fine, but wait for the next midnight after 168 hours have passed. JohnCD (talk) 16:17, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okie dokie will do, Thanks again for both your helps, –Davey2010^Talk 16:22, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Help completing an AFD nom

I have put up the article Neil Cohn for deletion; since I'm not registered, I only did step one (adding {{afd1}} to the page). Can someone help me create the actual deletion page? I have posted the deletion rationale to Talk:Neil Cohn#AfD nomination; I just need someone to create the deletion page and paste that rationale in. Thanks! 80.4.164.166 (talk) 04:47, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done GermanJoe (talk) 05:25, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Outcomes discussion

There's a discussion here: Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Interchanges which might be of interest to you. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are delete decisions set in stone?

There is a page that was recently deleted even though there were some strong requests to keep it. I strongly disagree with the decision and believe that it should be reconsidered. I know that absolutely nobody will read the talk page although it is still accessible. I already reverted the deletion once and was told off. Apparently the decision has been settled and can never be undone under any circumstances. I am afraid of reverting again for fear of being banned or having the page locked. I do not believe this is a reasonable way to manage pages.

The page is https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fallacy_of_relative_privation&redirect=no

74.109.213.249 (talk) 04:19, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You'll want to look at WP:DRV. Cheers! DonIago (talk) 05:04, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, 74.109.213.249 please remember that zillions of people have edited WP since it was founded 15 years ago. There is nothing new under the sun here, and the community has processes to deal with pretty much any problem you can imagine. Reverting the deletion decision was a bad move; coming here to ask what to do, was a great move. Please read what it says at WP:DRV carefully and if you file for review, please listen to the discussion that ensues. You may want to re-review the deletion discussion (following the links people provide to policy and etc) before you file. Good luck. Jytdog (talk) 06:22, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Carrier Enterprise Canada

Hi folks. Appreciate it if someone could nominate this article for the deletion it deserves.

All text on the talk page of this article acknowledges that this was created by Carrier Canada shills for PR purposes. No reliable sources are cited. The company in question is just some marketing arm of the multinational Carrier Corporation. 121.75.210.240 (talk) 06:12, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Should AFD relists be allowed or disallowed?

Please consider joining the feedback request service.

An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following lists:

When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should AfD relists be allowed or disallowed? Relevant guideline Wikipedia:Deletion process#Relisting discussions and related RFCs at WT:MFD.

Allow

Disallow

Disallow. Deletionists have enough tools and no one is convinced after a week, then close as no consensus. We need less at AFD not more. 166.170.46.102 (talk) 10:02, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion