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.

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 Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

The AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Walpole, 8th Earl of Orford was incorrectly filed as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Walpole, 8th Earl of Orford (2nd nomination). I have already corrected the title of the AfD page; should I also change the log and AfD tag and tag the redirect for deletion? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:20, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please assist with the listing of this article at AfD? Pre-filled discussion page template with rationale given below. Deletion discussion page link for your convenience.

((subst:afd2|pg=Capcom Super League Online|cat=G|text=A cancelled mobile game, planned to be launched only in South Korea, that had only a 4-day closed beta test (CBT) of ~2,000 players. Does not meet GNG as most sourcing is routine reporting and not SIGCOV. Out of 12 sources in the reflist: 8 regarding announcement or start of CBT; one about the game being silently cancelled. One (inclusion in top-10 list) reinforces obscurity of the title. Two are reviews from Korean gaming reporters after CBT ended: one is quite superficial, the other has more substantial critique.)) — [[Special:Contributions/2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730|2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730]] ([[User talk:2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730|talk]]) 10:41, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks in advance! — 2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 (talk) 10:41, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The page has been listed here. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 18:31, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can someone please fix Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James L. Bentley. From a quick look he's probably notable, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 22:07, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the discussion in question has been fixed, and closed, since this comment. jp×g 03:33, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please Delete My Sandbox's Talk Page YearAccount 213234 (talk) 23:25, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged it for deletion, YearAccount 213234. In the future, if you want to delete a page that you've created, then you can add the following code to the page: ((db-g7)). Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:02, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's a strange situation at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big! (Betty Who album) where zero justification to delete has been given, the first comment was someone agreeing with the nomination, despite there being no explanation by the nominator, and while there may be valid reasons to delete, it all seems a bit unfair on the person who created the article, to not even have a reason to delete to argue against. If admins or experienced AfD closers would like to find a solution to this, I think it would be helpful. Maybe a speedy procedural close, letting someone renominate with a justification if they wish? CT55555 (talk) 20:37, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CT55555, I have closed the AfD as speedy keep, and left a note for the nominator. – bradv^🍁 21:57, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've had that happen to me several times where the curation tool created a blank one and I had to manually re-enter the rationale. North8000 (talk) 22:14, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Judging from the comments on the nominator's talk page, I doubt that's the situation here. – bradv^🍁 22:18, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think there is a competence issue behind this, several editors gave the nominator nudges. Thanks for your actions @Bradv CT55555 (talk) 23:00, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello AfD gurus! I'm looking for some clarity on the AfD process. I weighed in on the AfD for the University of Oregon School of Journalism and Communication. I hadn't contributed to the article (that I can remember) before the AfD, which I came across the day after it was nominated. I voted to delete the article. The second vote was also for deletion. On 7/12 the article was relisted for discussion by @Star Mississippi. The conversation continued, and a third editor voted for delete, and then the fourth voted for a redirect. Not including the nomination, as that is already implied they think the article should be deleted, there is a unanimous consensus among the four voting editors there should not be an article, with three wanting deletion and one wanting a redirect. There have been no votes for keeping the article, and each question seems to have come to a satisfactory conclusion. The discussion was not heated in my view, and I don't see any unanswered questions. Can an admin help me understand why the article would therefore be relisted (again) when a general consensus has been reached with input from varied editors (this time by @TigerShark)? Any thoughts welcome! --Kbabej (talk) 21:49, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Just speaking to my relist it was because it was a procedural nom contesting an earlier decision (courtesy @Tamzin) rather than your typical AfD nom. Because of that, I didn't think a soft delete was appropriate. That's just speaking to personal opinion, not policy. Had I stumbled on it in yesterday's relist and not taken earlier admin action in relisting, I probably would have closed it as delete and let editors handle the merit of a redirect editorially. IS that helpful at all @Kbabej? Star Mississippi 23:20, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Star Mississippi! Thanks, yes, that's helpful. I understand the first relist, but I guess I'm confused by the second. Is it more of an opinion on needing a supermajority vote, or more editors weighing in at this point? I think I was just confused by the second relist when the four voting editors were in agreement the article isn't notable. While I've been voting in AfDs a long time, I'd like to know more about the "background", as it were. --Kbabej (talk) 23:23, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kbabej. Although I agree that it could have been closed as a delete, I felt that it might be a good idea to give it a bit more time to discuss the recent redirect comment and just more generally. This is partly because there seems to have been a bit of history with the article, and that it had come from an RfD discussion. Perhaps overly cautious, but there is little harm in keeping any given discussion open for a few more days and no rush to close this one, even if it would be easy to argue a consensus to delete at this point. Hope that helps to clarify. TigerShark (talk) 00:11, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kira Vincent Davis is ongoing, but the article page does not indicate that it is being discussed for deletion. Can anyone help? CT55555 (talk) 11:44, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And this one too Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farrah Sarafa (2nd nomination) CT55555 (talk) 11:49, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The problem has been solved. Seems like it was caused by someone relisting 10 year old unclosed discussions from 10 years ago. I did not realise that at first. Thanks @SouthernNights CT55555 (talk) 13:19, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help. This happened to a number of AfDs from a decade ago. I think I caught all of them and closed them out, but if I missed any just let me know.--SouthernNights (talk) 13:27, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• There were about a couple dozen of these preposterous AfDs left unclosed over the course of the last ten years -- I am pretty sure all of them have been dealt with now. There are still orphaned/unclosed AfDs from 2004 to 2009, but these are all procedural closes as far as I can tell, because I can conceive of virtually no situation in which relisting them would be reasonable. The below section here (#Amendment to deletion guidelines regarding extremely old AfDs is also relevant). jp×g 03:50, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale at Talk:2022 Langley shootings. 128.189.112.147 (talk) 02:02, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this user created an account and made the nomination, which is at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2022_Langley_shootings. jp×g 03:31, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_process#Preposterously_old_AfDs, per this, this and this discussion. Comments are welcome. jp×g 03:35, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Having witnessed the regularly occurring arguments at ANI over large amounts of low-quality articles, it seems like large batch nominations (dozens or even hundreds of articles) are a subject of some interest. Having looked through the archives of this talk page, it doesn't seem like there have been any recent proposals along this vein (the last discussion along this vein I could find here was in 2009). Anyway, here's the shit of it, as of now:

It seems to me like batch AfD nominations tend to cause a lot of headache -- we don't really have a good process for dealing with dozens (or hundreds) of articles in a single go. Basically, we only have two ways to do this.

1. The first method is to make nominations one at a time, which causes a lot of redundant effort from participants, who must make a large number of identical arguments across many pages (as well as monitor all the discussions individually, which is difficult even if you use your own AfD stats page to get a current list).
2. The second method is to make one nomination which includes many articles. This practice of "batch nomination" was created as an alternative to the first method, but it still leaves much to be desired. For example:

• It's hard to !vote on a batch AfD. People who don't have the same opinion about every article in the batch end up having to make awkward !votes ("Keep 1 through 5, Redirect 6, and Delete the rest). This is doubly a pain in the ass for closers -- if ten people comment on a ten-page AfD, that could be as many as a hundred !votes to read through when closing. Of course, it won't be that many, but it's considerably more than a single AfD with ten !votes would have.
• It's hard to discuss things in a batch AfD. There are several conversations happening simultaneously on the same page. "What people have to say about Article #3" is dispersed throughout a gigantic discussion where people are talking about many other articles. It's often unclear whether comments are about one of the articles, several of the articles, or all of the articles.
• Most importantly, they only have seven days (and a relist, if someone decides to relist, but that's still only another seven days). This makes no sense to me, and feels like an oversight rather than a deliberate decison. If we agree that it takes seven days to discuss one article, why the hell would it also take seven days to discuss a dozen articles?

Because of this, I think it may be worth contemplating some kind of supplemental guideline (or even a new process) for batch nominations. I don't know exactly what a solution would look like -- it might just be a couple lines in Wikipedia:Deletion policy saying "batches of more than five articles run for thirty days instead of seven" and a page that links to all currently-running batch deletions. But, who knows: maybe an entire "BfD" process could exist where a nomination page has separate sections for each article (as well as one section for overall discussion).

Anyway, I figured I would throw this out there, because it's an idea I have been thinking about. jp×g 05:21, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for starting this. Clearly we need a process. Such a process could reach roadblocks if it becomes dominated by people who either want to keep everything or people who want to delete everything and it will more likely be successful if participants are willing to build consensus and if people recognise that that means being willing to update conclusions when persuasive arguments are presented or new information comes to light. A lack of that, in my opinion, seems to hamstrings AfD sometimes. CT55555 (talk) 18:31, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can I just point out that there's a related Arbitration case which is ongoing which has a remedy which is currently passing for an RfC on this - Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Requests for comment/AfD at scale. I'd like to suggest that we hold of on this for a few weeks until that red link turns blue. Worm^TT(talk) 08:18, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could a registered user please complete the nomination process for this article: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saibini Detailed reasons for the deletion have already been discussed on the article's Talk page. Thank you very much in advance for your time and help.