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.

Deletion (defunct)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Deletion, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.DeletionWikipedia:WikiProject DeletionTemplate:WikiProject DeletionDeletion articles

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

AFD Request: 2023 Zaragoza F-18 crash[edit]

The event does not have long-lasting effects whatsoever and has no notability. It is only covered by local media and there has been no lasting coverage from any international media. It was not a significant event, neither in civilian nor military aviation. As such I would like someone to nominate this page for deletion. Thank you so much. PaPa PaPaRoony (talk) 09:07, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked at Wikipedia:Twinkle? You can easily create it yourself using Twinkle Garuda3 (talk) 11:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PaPa PaPaRoony:

Done. See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2023 Zaragoza F-18 crash. CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:17, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AFP request :[edit]

I think there are 2 issues with this article, but I'm not sure of the procedure to follow so I prefer to post there : {1} It's a new compagny with no effective product or service: testing is expected to begin in 2026, before commercial service in 2028. The use of nearly only the futur tense or verbs with conditionnal or future meaning as ("would", "planned", "is expected"...) shows that. {2} It seems that the subject has no significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent secondary sources. International Railway Journal is a media of limited interest (trade magazine for railway industry) and the content seems more promotional than informative. Quechoisir is a French media with a national audience but the mention is anecdotical. La Tribune is a French economic media but the coverage is not significant. 92.162.76.6 (talk) 21:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have forgotten to include the name of the article in question. Having that would make matters easier to address. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm deeply sorry! The article is called Kevin Speed.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Speed 2A01:CB06:9010:85CA:902D:36F8:BBC6:525B (talk) 18:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Speed. CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:24, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AFD request: Metro Mayor of the Liverpool City Region[edit]

The main article has been moved to a different name, and this article including "Metro" rather than just "Mayor" on its own was the incorrect name for the article. It is necessary to delete the incorrect name article and retain the correct name article. UnicornSherbert (talk) 18:48, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AfD doesn't apply to redirects. See WP:RFD for the correct process to use. Iffy★Chat -- 20:19, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article was previously the main article until the article name was changed. It would not otherwise be a redirect if that was not the case... Surely deletion (or even speedy deletion) would apply? UnicornSherbert (talk) 21:40, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That article has been moved at least twice, if you want it to be moved back you should open an WP:RM discussion on the talk page. Iffy★Chat -- 21:48, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not asking for it to be moved back, I was trying to make the point that the article has been moved to its proper name so the previous article with the incorrect name should be deleted. UnicornSherbert (talk) 21:50, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects left behind after an article is moved are usually kept to avoid breaking links. Iffy★Chat -- 21:52, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, opened redirect for discussion on it. Thank you :) UnicornSherbert (talk) 21:54, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request for nomination[edit]

~~Please finish the requested deletion nomination of 2022 Pembroke–Black Creek tornado. I left a reason for deletion on the talk page. 148.76.84.29 (talk) 14:19, 6 April 2024 (UTC)~~ (Confirmed SOCK) The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:57, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reasoning was challenged as this is a brand-new editor who is currently trying to AfD a current GAN. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:20, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The challenged reasoning is not policy complaint and the user is, as usual, trying to WP:OWN their articles. Even though the tag was removed, I still request an AFD is started. 148.76.84.29 (talk) 14:26, 6 April 2024 (UTC) (Confirmed SOCK) The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:57, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I created a draft for it at Draft:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2022 Pembroke–Black Creek tornado but was unable to submit it. If someone could take care of that that would be appreciated. 148.76.84.29 (talk) 14:31, 6 April 2024 (UTC) (Confirmed SOCK) The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:57, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request was by a now-blocked SOCK. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:57, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AFD: Amy Robinson[edit]

Not really much information about her on the internet and never really did anything noteworthy. 2603:6080:5D00:2562:25F9:8413:5686:472A (talk) 22:38, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added two sources of reasonable significance to the article. As for whether she did anything noteworthy, she co-produced a film that won an Independent Spirit Award for Best Feature and a film that was nominated for the Golden Globe for the Best Motion Picture Drama (a producers award). Let us know if this overcomes your objections. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:26, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the historic record, I have restored this section that was deleted by the original poster. However, given that the original poster chose to delete it, I consider that a reversion of the request. Nothing further need be done here. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:38, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Leitman[edit]

Please AFD the article for the following reason: “Unnotable, not notable outside of one event so fails WP:BLP1E at best.” 100.12.36.99 (talk) 14:16, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Iffy: Able to complete this nomination?--100.12.36.99 (talk) 18:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don;t know why I didn't see this ping until now, but

Done, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth Leitman. Iffy★Chat -- 08:48, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion/Lucy Grantham (2nd nomination)[edit]

I need to bring this to everyone's attention, and ask if it's OK that it happened this way. I have documented this on the AFD template. Originally deleted per AFD on 15 June 2020 due to "lack of in-depth sources". But the original article could not be found, to make a comparison between its original and the version currently up for AFD. The current article seemed to be created as a brand new article. I finally found the answer in Draft:Lucy Grantham, which, as you can see, did not even get reviewed as a Draft. It was redirected to the original article title by User:The Baudelaire Fortune, who does not otherwise seem to have a hand in the article. And, therefor no way to compare to see if improvements had been made. My first time running across this scenario. Seems to me it sidesteps the process a bit. Comments? Suggestions? — Maile (talk) 20:44, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maile66, if you want to see the deleted version from 2020, just go to Special:Undelete/Lucy Grantham. At any rate, experienced editors aren't required to submit drafts for review, and The Baudelaire Fortune is the main author of the new version, so I don't understand what you mean by "does not otherwise seem to have a hand in the article". Is there something I'm missing? Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:02, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're not missing anything. Disregard that comment from me. — Maile (talk) 21:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Principality of Abkhazia[edit]

The article should be checked for authenticity, there is too much false information and so on, I suggest considering this article Alsho093 (talk) 18:35, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should content review processes handle notability?[edit]

I posted about this at WT:GAN,[1] but would like to get broader input. As I explained there, WP:N is not part of the GA criteria but is currently mentioned in the reviewing instructions. Previous discussion never formed a consensus to add notability to the GA crititeria.[2][3][4]

An article was recently nominated for GA and AfD at the same time.[5][6][7] The reviewer had also nominated articles for GA which were of borderline notability. This got brought up during a lengthy discussion at WP:ANI where it was initially framed as disruptive.[8]

My question for those more experienced with AfD, is should content review processes (like GA and FA) attempt to review notability? Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 17:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]