Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Articles for deletion page. |
|
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:
|
|
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 |
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 25 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III 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 |
Archived addressed threads
I've archived a few addressed threads that were marked as "done". — Cirt (talk) 11:50, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Deletion to Quality Award
I've created the WP:Deletion to Quality Award.
This recognizes editors who've taken a page previously considered for deletion — to Featured Article or Good Article quality.
The award is inspired by the Wikipedia:Million Award, the Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron, and the Wikipedia:WikiProject Quality Article Improvement.
Please see Wikipedia:Deletion to Quality Award.
Thank you,
— Cirt (talk) 11:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
The recent music genre AFDs
I have decided to revert each of the music genre AFDs I have made. I went through each of those articles one by one before deciding to AFD them. If not for the concept in general, then for the article's current sourcing which left much to be desired. Thankfully some deep Google searching has revealed suitable sourcing in enough to make me reconsider this. I would have liked to have a sincere discussion about the state of these articles, and I know for a fact that various ones should undeniably be deleted, but it seems the focus is on the few I got wrong, so I will back down. Perhaps a discussion can be done somewhere about how we as a community can actually imporve all these articles. I apologise for offending anybody, and please refrain from the insults. Thanks. :D--Coin945 (talk) 14:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Mareco Broadcasting Network
Can someone please nominate Mareco Broadcasting Network for deletion? I've provided the reason on the article's talk page. Thanks, 121.54.54.170 (talk) 15:33, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Done -- GB fan 15:43, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Frederico Morais
I'm not experienced on editing here and am not sure if I'll be able to properly nominate an article for deletion, so if someone wants to do it for me I'd like to nominate the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederico_Morais
I was searching google for Frederico Morais, a well known surfer, but instead bumped into the above page. As a Portuguese football fan I'm pretty sure that individual isn't in any way notable. There is not a single mention of him on online press records and all the sources of the article are just the organizations where he's worked. The article looks like a professional resumé, was all written by the same editor and looks suspiciously autobiographical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arruda81 (talk • contribs) 02:31, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
This AFD was closed (correctly) as a SNOW keep - but that leaves dozens of articles still tagged for AFD. WP:BADAFD has asploded. If anyone wants to take a few minutes and process a few of these (Un-tag, add the afd-multi to the talk page), it'd be appreciated. (If you have a script that would do the same thing, have at - that's even better.) Thanks! UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:42, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- FWIW, you use the same afd-multi for each page, since it's one debate. No need to copy and paste every one. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:47, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Can someone please nominate Blackstar (David Bowie album). I believe the article fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE as it is simply a single-line article which gives a future relase date. I attempted a redirect[1], which was undone by the article's author User:Lugnuts with the comment "there is info"[2]. Lugnuts then failed to WP:AGF and added a user warning to my talk page[3]. I then attempted a WP:PROD citing WP:INDISCRIMINATE[4], which Lugnuts again reverted[5] claiming I was disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Lugnuts then left a message on my talk page calling be a troll[6].
I believe that Blackstar (David Bowie album) will at some point in the future will become notable, but until such time it doesn't need an article. -- 46.254.186.36 (talk) 11:10, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- Wrong. Read WP:GNG. And WP:BEFORE. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:22, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Not done The more notable the artist, generally, the further in advance their album gets an article. Here we have multiple sources and clear notability. It's no violation of WP:CRYSTAL, because the subject is being noted in reliable sources now. And it's actually got a name so WP:HAMMER doesn't apply either. Indiscriminate doesn't apply, as such, because the artist is unquestionably notable. So, while you can insist on an AFD if you like, the reality is that the article appears to comply with all of the relevant policies and guidelines, and a debate on that subject would be closed rapidly as Keep. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:31, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Need help finding old AFD discussion
It was for an "electronic sports" team called 4Kings. I'm not entirely sure what the article was titled, either 4Kings or Four Kings or some variant there of. I believe the AFD occured around Nov/Dec 2005.--Prisencolin (talk) 17:00, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Four Kings --Finngall talk 17:08, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- Awesome, thanks.--Prisencolin (talk) 02:08, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Undoing improper close
HalloweenNight closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antonia Gerena Rivera (2nd nomination) as keep less than four hours after making his/her first edit. Could somebody reopen this so someone else can decide what to do with this? Rainbow unicorn (talk) 20:52, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
- Undone, I'm working on a close now. DES (talk) 21:32, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
AfD participants may be good administrators
When deciding if a potential admin is fit for the tools, the candidate's AfD stats are a significant consideration.
So, I'm posting here. You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and maybe even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.
So, please consider watchlisting and taking a look at this page:
Many thanks and best wishes,
Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:54, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Can someone please re-open the discussion? The user who closed it (Wikienglish123) was blocked and it looks like he/she didn't know what he/she's doing. And please undo what he/she has done on Mareco Broadcasting Network. Thanks, 121.54.54.170 (talk) 06:50, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
- IMO a neutral admin closing that debate would have closed it as Keep as well, so there's nothing to be done. Wikienglish123's only edit to the article was to remove the AfD nomination, which the closing admin would also have done. Reyk YO! 07:43, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2015
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove the third (colon-indented) paragraph of § How to nominate a single page for deletion. It is wholly redundant with, and less informative than, the immediately preceding sentence. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 03:58, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Declined It is not entirely redundant, as it warns users that "you will get stuck part way through the nomination procedure." I will open a discussion on your behalf asking if this line and the preceding line should be changed. Furthermore, the text itself is spread over two different templates, {{Afd footer}} and {{AfD in 3 steps}}. Redoing either template requires checking all usages so that pages in which only one of these two templates is used aren't "broken" by the change. In other words, keeping the redundancy may be easier than proving that it's never not redundant. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
AFD nomination needs completing
Would a registered user please complete this AFD nomination? Substed {{afd2}} template follows. Thank you.
[[Category:AfD debates (Fiction and the arts)|]][[Category:AfD debates|]]
- Retroscripting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Judging by a Google News archive search, the term has only been used by the creators of Home Movies in reference to that show. None of the sources cited in the article use any form of the word except for one, and that one links the word back to our article, which at the time was a completely unsourced stub. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- Done - I restarted the nomination from scratch (with a copy of your rationale) just to play it safe and avoid errors. GermanJoe (talk) 12:30, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks! —67.14.236.50 (talk) 15:29, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2015
 | It is requested that an edit be made to the semi-protected project page at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. (edit · history · last · links · protection log)
This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".
The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user. Remember to change the |
support deletion because the person is not notable 65.175.243.206 (talk) 12:51, 14 November 2015 (UTC)