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

AfD request for Health & Help and Vladimir Spivakov International Charity Foundation

There is no lighting in the sources. Only press releases and links to themselves. 95.153.180.247 (talk) 09:07, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given the lack of substantive editing on these articles in recent years, I have used the WP:PROD system to suggest deletion on your behalf. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:44, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure back door deletion of possibly unwatched articles is a good thing. If no one is watching them then AfD will give them proper attention, Atlantic306 (talk) 18:52, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are certainly welcome to deprod them and take them to AfD. The problem with unwatched articles going through AfD is that the lack of people watching often means no one participates in the AfD, and they end up going through several rounds of relisting and sticking around not because anyone objects, but because no one bothers to be involved. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 20:02, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly irrelevant, but I couldn't figure out what "There is no lighting in the sources" meant – is this some obscure jargon I haven't encountered before? — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 23:59, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the IP is Russian-based (and is commenting on Russian-related entries), I am not expecting perfect English. I guess I took it as nothing that shines the light of notability on the subject. The first is only sourced to an annual report, the second has no references (one external link, but it's to the subject's website.) The one below has more sourcing, but I'm not in position to easily evaluate the quality of that sourcing. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:56, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page for AfD - Rebecca Tamás

Would appreciate discussion being opened. Cannot go through process myself as an unregistered user. "Daughter of Someone Famous". This is a vanity page which refers to self-published poems and lists university awards as reason for notability. No substantial or notable press or internet presence. Not something one would expect in a generalist reference. Rebecca_Tamás 80.194.211.108 (talk) 22:50, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your comment about this article. Would you be able to explain about what your concerns are? It is important to make certain that this conversation is grounded in Wikipedia's content policy, and not personal opinion --and without ad hominem reasoning. Rebecca Tamás is an established poet with an emerging body of published work and critical recognition; this seems to meet the notability criteria. If you have any specific elements that you find lacking or problematic in the article itself, please point them out so we can work to constructively improve the page. :PaliGol (talk) 10:29, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"List of Super Heavies"

I just found this suspicious redirection page and marked it for possible deletion, but as IP cannot complete it's deletion subpage. Please have a look and help. My reasoning, given in the edit summary, is: "this is a redirection of a meant-to-be-funny term, created by an editor to redirect to his favourite playground. The term is by no means usual, or ever been used by anyone other than this editor who likes to link to this page. I reccon this misuse of redicection pages" 47.67.225.78 (talk) 10:07, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you want Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion instead. But I don't understand the problem. List of Super Heavies redirects to a list of rockets called "SpaceX Super Heavy". Commander Keane (talk) 11:18, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not where it redirects. The problem is the term of the redirection page itself: "List of Super Heavies" is not a common term someone would look up, but "a meant-to-be-funny term". There is no need at all to have that page, it's a joke - "Heavies". With the same reason one could make a redirection page "starshipies" to redirekt to "starship". 47.67.225.78 (talk) 11:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap has some thoughts on the matter. But by all means open a Redirects for Discussion thread. Commander Keane (talk) 11:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is the sense of putting me down here and telling me to open a Redirects for Discussion, just to oppose there speedily again. Reccon you find it funny to let me do all this effort just to put me down again? 47.67.225.78 (talk) 09:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the RfD discussion again. I changed from keep to delete (before I read this post). It may end up retargeted though. Thanks for opening the RfD. I think we will get a positive outcome. Commander Keane (talk) 09:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. While I still think this redirect page is misleading and superfluous, a redirect to the page listing everything "super heavy" is a compromise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.67.225.78 (talk)

The redirect is fine. The bigger issue here is your personal hounding of Redacted II. Your posting history on this IP and on the other IP you've used shows a pretty extreme personal vendetta. Ergzay (talk) 16:40, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia:Vote for deletion" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Wikipedia:Vote for deletion has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 4 § Wikipedia:Vote for deletion until a consensus is reached. TheWikipede (talk) 21:36, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Lack of academic criteria for the biography https://wiki.riteme.site/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]