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 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 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 |
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)
- 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)
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)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)
- Request was by a now-blocked SOCK. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:57, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- @Iffy: Able to complete this nomination?--100.12.36.99 (talk) 18:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- Don;t know why I didn't see this ping until now, but
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)
- 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)
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)
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)
AFD request: Hey Everybody[edit]
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)
- Done, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hey Everybody (2nd nomination). StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 16:44, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
AFD request: Ultraman Belial and Ultraman Tregear[edit]
These are both 100% primary sourced and only provide a facsimile of reception. 50.113.53.158 (talk) 02:06, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- Done by User:Greenish_Pickle!. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ultraman Belial and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ultraman Tregear. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 23:27, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
If you want me to provide full context, here it is in quotation marks:
"Three sources have failed verification the More Footnotes Needed notice was up since January 2017 and nothing has changed. Even one external link has failed verification. Therefore, all these issues combined make this article fail GNG."
"The notice "This article includes a list of general references, but it lacks sufficient corresponding inline citations." on that article has been there since January 2017. And nothing has changed for it to meet Wikipedia's notability guideline. This article is being taken to AFD due to failure to meeting requrements of a wikipedia article and coupled with that it was originally proposed for deletion, but someone had removed the PROD thinking that they could get away with it. Therefore, AFD is a solution." 194.223.33.176 (talk) 12:32, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Here you go, IP 194, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GE boxcab Star Mississippi 00:10, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
AFD Request: Southern Pacific class GS-3 & Southern Pacific class GS-5[edit]
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)
- 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)
- Concur. Both articles have references, just not in-line citations. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:19, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
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)
Cross Wiki notification of AfDs[edit]
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)
Malformed AfD[edit]
Hi, can someone please fix the AfD for Honorary Chaplain to the King, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 20:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Done. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
AFD request[edit]
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)
AFD request: Tomax and Xamot and Thunder Machine (G.I. Joe)[edit]
Occasional references does not make something notable 2605:B40:13E7:F600:D034:1B79:2140:1EDF (talk) 21:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
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)
AFD Request: Racial hoax[edit]
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)