||Frequently asked questions (FAQ)
- I don't like this page's name. I want to rename it to Articles for discussion or something else.
- 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.
- You mean I'm not supposed to use AFD to propose a merger or a page move?
- Correct. Please use WP:Proposed mergers or WP:Requested moves for those kinds of proposals.
|Threads older than 25 days may be archived by MiszaBot II.
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 his or her 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
AfD a draft?
Apologies if this is a daft Q, but I don't have much time around WP presently to research and maybe get nowhere. Is it possible - or even appropriate - to AfD an article that's twice been submitted and rejected (Sept 2017), but remains as a draft? It seems to be only family cruft where WP was intended to be used as promotion for a 13 year old, non-notable schoolchild and it would be better gone, IMO. Thanks.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 17:52, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
- Use WP:MfD, I think. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:58, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
- Many thanks - I can now read the guidance gradually and prepare it.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 23:07, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
- Try to begin your rationale with something taken from WP:NOT. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:34, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 20:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- Get WP:TWINKLE, this picks the correct nomination type for any xFD. Guy (Help!) 22:27, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Can you request this article for deletion? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 18:14, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
- Rationale?--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 19:19, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
My rationale is listed right here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 20:06, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
I replied on the talk page, the IP hasn't disputed the reply, and another editor has removed the tag on the article page. Unscintillating (talk) 17:55, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
It's a joke meme page that I don't believe to be made in good faith. Does not meet any of the notability guidelines whatsoever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WidowXTracer2Cute (talk • contribs) 03:51, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Administrator note:This is at AFD now. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:51, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- AFD is only for proposing the deletion of articles. If instead you are proposing a rename, you may use the requested moves process for that without needing a registered user’s help. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:49, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
This article deals, apparently, with penal laws in England (though it has a section on the same, later laws in Ireland, and a section on Great Britain).
In that sense then, this should be renamed Penal laws (England). Although all the laws, no matter where the locality, were British. Logically speaking then, the articles referring to the penal laws of this period should be directed to this one.
However, Penal laws should be the article name and the article Penal Laws (Ireland) be merged (and redirected) here. Penal laws and Penal Laws are currently redirects to Penal Laws (Ireland), with no option to investigate the other British penal laws of the period. The caveat is that there is a link at the top of the (Ireland) page which suggests that to investigate English penal laws, you should go to the Penal laws (British) page, which is inconsistent and inaccurate in and of itself.
I'm hoping a more knowledgeable editor can fix up my proposal with regard to syntax and placement etc. Thanks in advance.
On second thoughts, as "penal law/laws" are very generic and can refer to many things, perhaps British penal laws would be the best place. That is currently simply a redirect to the page Penal law (British), which starts with the intro, "In English history, penal law..." This is inconsistent.
In summary then:
Redirects to British penal laws:
Redirects to a disambiguation page:
188.8.131.52 (talk) 03:07, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
- The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Hello all, I read the AfD policy and thought it said that the nominator couldn't make an extra bolded delete comment. I made a strike-though and note on such a comment in a deletion discussion I am involved in, but my edit was undone. My understanding of policies is that I should not redo my edit but I would like to know if I was correct or not. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 14:50, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
- It's not forbidden, however, since it might confuse people, it's highly discouraged, especially when the comment is not signed. Instead of striking it, you can move the comment to the nomination (as NeilN has done now) or add a note for the closing admin that this is the nominator !voting. Regards SoWhy 14:57, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Ilyina Olya Yakovna, you're not wrong. The !vote was confusing as it could appear as an unsigned comment from another editor. I've moved it so it is clearly attributed. --NeilN talk to me 14:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
- I understand, thank you for fixing it. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 15:02, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
AFD: List of Unani Medical Colleges in India
Rationale: WP:INDISCRIMINATE/WP:DIRECTORY - This is just a list of not particularly important information, with barely any context. An article on "Unani Medical Colleges in India" could be an option but the list page is just a directory and needs to go. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 15:58, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- Opened at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Unani Medical Colleges in India --NeilN talk to me 16:05, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
WP:V: No sources whatsoever, borders on OR and even if it isn't, the article's primary subject being Indian political parties would require it cites its sources since WP:NOTBLUE would apply, if such knowledge is obvious to readers in India (and then, WP:PARIS could also be valid). Also, I don't know if I'm abusing the criteria, but this falls remarkably short of WP:DIRECTORY. No context, no additional information about linked articles. This needs to be thoroughly checked, along with other topic articles (ex. Elections in Sikkim) and other articles by the creator who has been warned multiple times about creating unsourced articles. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 14:39, 19 January 2018 (UTC) </end of rationale> Maybe this warrants a visit at ANI, since behaviour seems to be persistent? Also, take care to make sure this confusion doesn't happen. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 14:39, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- I have set up the AfD nomination for you. Reyk YO! 14:43, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Articles is clearly WP:FANCRUFT and fails WP:INHERITED. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 22:43, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
- Nominated for CSD per A7 and G11. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:47, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
- Article speedy deleted. Matter closed. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 00:14, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
I nominated Paula O'Brien for deletion. I posted my reasoning on Talk:Paula O'Brien#Nominating_for_Deletion. My primary concerns are a lack of reliable sources and notability issues. 2601:545:4503:3BCB:2DD6:388:2EE0:6F9 (talk) 00:54, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- Done -- see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paula O'Brien. --Finngall talk 01:26, 23 January 2018 (UTC)