Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 20:49, 15 May 2024

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.

Deletion (defunct)

This page 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, 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: Hey Everybody

It is an unnecessary disambiguation page per WP:ONEOTHER that could be replaced with hatnotes as there are only two pages with this title and it is already served with the parenthetical identifier. 128.82.18.1 (talk) 19:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hey Everybody (2nd nomination). StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 16:44, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AFD Request: Southern Pacific class GS-3 & Southern Pacific class GS-5

No references on these articles, therefore these articles fail to meet WP:GNG

The notice "This article includes a list of references, related reading, or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations." has been on the GS-5 article since December 2016 and nothing has changed.

The roller bearings on the two GS-5s were so successful that when both No. 4458 and No. 4459 were scrapped, they were examined and showed minimal wear is written in a fan's point of view and not a neutral point of view and therefore to me, does not confer notability.

I would suggest that these would be drafted, but I think deleting them is the only solution. 194.223.33.176 (talk) 06:02, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source formatting or tone are not a reason for AfD, so I 'm going to decline this one. SOmeone else may accept but in the mean time you're welcome to address both of those issues editorially. Star Mississippi 13:31, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. Both articles have references, just not in-line citations. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:19, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done, lack of inline citations and minor tone issues are not reasons for deletion. Lack of inline citations is an issue with some articles only cited to books but is not a reason for deletion in and of itself. See WP:DEL-REASON for information on deletion reasons. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 16:55, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cross Wiki notification of AfDs

When an article is deleted on en-WP but also exists on other Wiki's, should a notification be automatically posted on the article page (or talk page) of those Wikis?

For example, this article by a skilled UPE (i.e. lots of well constructed refs, but mostly unsuitable on close inspection) was deleted today Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akuma Saningong on en-WP, but it still exists-created by the same UPE-on the French and German Wikis.

I have put a note on the talk pages of those wikis about the AfD but I wonder if this should be done automatically? thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 12:46, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Malformed AfD

Hi, can someone please fix the AfD for Honorary Chaplain to the King, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 20:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AFD request

Please file an AFD for Kottankulangara Festival. The rationale is "Not large enough to split. A section already exists in the main article. Besides, article size is 6616 bytes (markup), fails WP:SIZESPLIT & WP:SIZERULE. Title is also somewhat misleading as Chamayavilakku is only one among multiple events held as part of temple festival." 157.46.158.170 (talk) 10:59, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AFD request: Tomax and Xamot and Thunder Machine (G.I. Joe)

Occasional references does not make something notable 2605:B40:13E7:F600:D034:1B79:2140:1EDF (talk) 21:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia:Articles for destruction" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Wikipedia:Articles for destruction 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 May 1 § Wikipedia:Articles for destruction until a consensus is reached. Mondtaler (talk) 17:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AFD Request: Racial hoax

I would like to nominate Racial hoax for deletion with the following rationale:

Non-notable concept. Any references to this term I can find ultimately lead back to a single author, Katheryn Russell-Brown, showing that this concept has not reached the level of notability for an article. There are a handful of notes about her work on it, but the little I can find is fairly surface level and doesn't add the sort of analysis that would be required for building a well developed, neutral article. Moreover, the vast vast majority of the article is WP:OR/WP:SYNTH, attempting to attribute documented cases to this concept, despite no other authors having done so. Strip that out, and also the "Concept" material which doesn't really discuss this as a concept, and this boils down to a single source.

Thanks in advance, 35.139.154.158 (talk) 22:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done UtherSRG (talk) 23:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AFD request: Dinobot (Beast Wars)

All that's here is primary sources, listicles, and toys. 2605:B40:13E7:F600:80D4:D0B3:B66:64D9 (talk) 00:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article was previously up at AfD in August 2023; the discussion ended as Keep. Toughpigs (talk) 17:07, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AFD request: Zordon

Really just says "he exists." 2605:B40:13E7:F600:A0A5:D7A8:85CC:1EBC (talk) 18:01, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been at AfD three times and the discussion ended as Keep. The most recent was in May 2020. Toughpigs (talk) 17:06, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AFD request: Ben Tennyson and Gwen Tennyson

Both have no real impact shown 38.15.33.113 (talk) 21:53, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There was an AfD discussion about these pages in March 2022; the result was keep. Toughpigs (talk) 21:55, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden category: Pages where post-expand include size is exceeded

Once again, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/Today is not displaying a list of today's nominations. Instead, it has a link to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 13. I wish people would leave the mostly harmless articles alone, like England women's cricket team in Ireland in 2024 alone (wait a few months and it will become a obviously notable topic) and concentrate on hoaxes and unverifiable claims. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AFD reguest for Lika O

The article does not meet the notability criteria and merit. The 1 source is not a reliable source that verifies notability. It is a forum like site for local community, which serves as self published blog.http://ruhollywood.com/2018/11/12/miss-russian-united-states/

4 source is a self published interview on an ads website, not reliable secondary source at all. http://www.spektrummagazine.com/fashion/getting-to-know-lika-osipova/

6 source is an article on a gossips site about dating life of a Russian media person, barelly mentioning the figure of the Wikipedia. https://www.eg.ru/showbusiness/66399/

Sources 7 and 8 are different links to the same poster to the city of the city. It is rather a primary sourse not a secondary source to verify notability. https://www.weho.org/home/showdocument?id=26793

Source 9 - a link to the so called LAF.It is not a film festival, it is a monthly paid competition, not recognized in media or the professional community. The link only mentions name of the person, and does not provide any evidence to verify notability. https://www.lafilmawards.net/single-post/june-2021

To summarize- 6 out of 9 sources used for the page do not meet even closely any possible notability verifications. The figure has barely any professional credits, zero recognition in American or Russian media beyond a self proclaimed pop star status. 2 2603:8000:B6F0:8A10:7412:7312:39D6:FAAA (talk) 05:48, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it will be better if you request this from your @User:Demeter39G own account. Grabup (talk) 07:54, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It keeps showing error my IP address is blocked, says it is proxi server. This thread only opens from new browser page.

I have questions regarding this page as the only option to make an article there is submit it via payed partnership, at the bottom of it.

https://patch.com/california/studiocity/miss-russian-la-beauty-pageant-to-be-held-at-romanov-s

I agree that is the only article i find reliable. If there are more, someone can add them. https://www.kp.ru/daily/26016.4/2938494 2603:8000:B6F0:8A10:7412:7312:39D6:FAAA (talk) 08:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are also two sources which you missed and these are looking reliable.

1.https://patch.com/california/studiocity/miss-russian-la-beauty-pageant-to-be-held-at-romanov-s

2.https://www.kp.ru/daily/26016.4/2938494/ Grabup (talk) 08:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a reliable source. It is a bulletin board to submit paid news and advertisement.

https://patch.com/california/studiocity/miss-russian-la-beauty-pageant-to-be-held-at-romanov-s

Demeter39G (talk) 16:51, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AFD request: Gorgeous Geeks

Article was created by a user with same name as article, on 14 September 2009 (their only contribution to Wikipedia). Speedy deletion on creation day; First nomination on 28 January 2010-Keep. This organization article is missing independent, reliable sources to establish notability. The only reference is a dead link. After searching, found only social media, but no comprehensive, in-depth coverage of this specific organization. Please submit for "Second nomination" as I'm not sure how to do this correctly. Thanks. JoeNMLC (talk) 12:27, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let me note that the other article raised at the previous AFD is available in archive, to whatever degree that matters. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:57, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cancelled - A reference was added sufficient to provide notability. Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 12:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AFD request: Unicron

"He is large." That's mostly it. 2605:B40:13E7:F600:E1EB:7896:3BB9:E89F (talk) 02:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article was previously nominated less than a year ago. Have you reviewed that AfD, and if so, why do you feel a re-nomination is needed? DonIago (talk) 03:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Like I just said, the main pseudo-notable thing about him is that he's really big. There's no actual analysis. 2605:B40:13E7:F600:81AF:FB54:24F5:260E (talk) 13:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't actually answer my questions. DonIago (talk) 13:36, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A re-nomination is needed because there's no analysis here. 2605:B40:13E7:F600:81AF:FB54:24F5:260E (talk) 13:37, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please review WP:BEFORE; we don't delete articles based on whether they currently don't contain analysis. If you have a concern about a lack of analysis, the best approach would be to improve the article by adding such analysis. As the prior AfD concluded less than a year ago, Unicron is a notable subject. DonIago (talk) 17:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That was procedurally kept because the nominator was blocked for CIR issues. I want to give it another shot. 2605:B40:13E7:F600:81AF:FB54:24F5:260E (talk) 20:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 152: / Line 152: @@
 ::::A re-nomination is needed ''because'' there's no analysis here. [[Special:Contributions/2605:B40:13E7:F600:81AF:FB54:24F5:260E|2605:B40:13E7:F600:81AF:FB54:24F5:260E]] ([[User talk:2605:B40:13E7:F600:81AF:FB54:24F5:260E|talk]]) 13:37, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 :::::Please review [[WP:BEFORE]]; we don't delete articles based on whether they currently don't contain analysis. If you have a concern about a lack of analysis, the best approach would be to improve the article by adding such analysis. As the prior AfD concluded less than a year ago, Unicron is a notable subject. [[User:Doniago|DonIago]] ([[User talk:Doniago|talk]]) 17:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
+::::::That was procedurally kept because the nominator was blocked for CIR issues. I want to give it another shot. [[Special:Contributions/2605:B40:13E7:F600:81AF:FB54:24F5:260E|2605:B40:13E7:F600:81AF:FB54:24F5:260E]] ([[User talk:2605:B40:13E7:F600:81AF:FB54:24F5:260E|talk]]) 20:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC)