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

Georges-Claude Guilbert. Lack of satisfied criteria and risks of self promotion

Lack of academic criteria for the biography https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges-Claude_Guilbert And risks of self promotion regarding creator and editors of the article Paul John Dedalus (talk) 13:33, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AFD request to nominate several C-SPAN interview lists

I would like to nominate the following C-SPAN interview lists for deletion:

All these lists were created by KConWiki, who remains an active editor on this site but has not created pages of this ilk since 2020. I believe these lists all fall foul of WP:NOTDIRECTORY, to say nothing of them not being needed on a site like this - one can simply go to the C-SPAN website and look up the interview they want to watch instead of relying on these lists for such. 100.7.34.111 (talk) 00:59, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening- These articles/lists provide a quick service for users who are interested in the interviews listed. It is true that I have not added to the Q&A or After Words programs recently, perhaps I should put that back towards the top of my to-do list (or others are welcome to do so as well). I do not see how it makes WP weaker to have them, and I do see where users could benefit. Also, I should mention that I have recently reverted some edits on other C-SPAN-related articles such as In Depth, American Writers: A Journey Through History, The Alexis de Tocqueville Tour: Exploring Democracy in America, and others. As noted in my comments on those reverts, I am concerned that this is a misreading of WP:NOTDIRECTORY, which says in part "although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable." Let's discuss further as appropriate. Thanks KConWiki (talk) 06:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Something is weird...

There is something really odd with the close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S. B. Deorah College. It was apparently closed at delete on the same day it was nominated but without a clear consensus... And then it was never deleted and the article is still live but with an AFD tag that leads to a closed discussion. I'm confused...4meter4 (talk) 01:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind... just realised there was a Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S. B. Deorah College (2nd nomination).4meter4 (talk) 01:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kaoli Isshiki

Can I please get some more commenters here. All opinions welcome. We are having a hard time reaching a clear consensus as not enough people are participating.4meter4 (talk) 19:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation § Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects/Reviewing instructions#Other types of submissions

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation § Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects/Reviewing instructions#Other types of submissions. 76.71.3.150 (talk) 07:00, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 30 log formatting being weird

Not sure how much of a priority this is, but I've noticed that every nomination below Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Hit Music Network on the November 30 log is indented. I see what the cause is, but I don't want to mess around with it though (since I'd have to go to the actual nomination page for it, therefore being unable to preview properly), so leaving it here in the hopes that someone notices. Procyon117 (talk) 15:06, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I fixed it. There was an unclosed ordered list (<ol></ol>). Skynxnex (talk) 20:16, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yup that fixed it. Sweet. Procyon117 (talk) 12:59, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

'and has not participated'

I'm not exactly certain this is the correct place. But recently there has been a conflict about the line

'An admin who is uninvolved and has not participated in the deletion discussion will assess the discussion for consensus. For how to perform this, see WP:AFD/AI.'

I won't mention names or places because I am not posting to extend that conflict but rather to make the same conflict less likely in future. I interpreted the line 'has not participated' to mean that any admin/user who has taken part in the conversation in any form should refrain from closing. I assumed that the line was there to stop any uneasily resolved conflict around what constitutes 'involvement' so that we had a clear point of fact that someone taking part in a conversation should not close it. However, it appears that the passage can also be interpreted along the same lines as 'involvement', as meaning that posting in the conversation previously is OK and does not constitute participation itself as long as, I think, they indicated no stake in the result (or something along those lines). It therefore appears that the passage is either redundant or insufficiently clear in expression. So what I think would help is either to remove the line about participation or be more explicit and leave less wriggle room about what participation is. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:03, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]