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 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:

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, 79

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

Erroneous category

WP:Articles for deletion/72 virgins which was closed on 23 June is still in Category:Relisted AfD debates. Is there anyone who could please diagnose and fix this? There's no raw coding for the category on the AfD page itself. Left guide (talk) 23:25, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, see Special:Diff/1298305149/1300007668. {{Relist AfD}} was not substituted properly, thus the category was being called from template itself. Usually, when the category is directly called from the AfD page due to substitution, it is removed by WP:XFDC during close. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 19:12, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed two more: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sepulveda Rose, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nambiar Builders. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 20:10, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CX Zoom: Thank you! Left guide (talk) 20:05, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 20:08, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Editnotice for talk pages of AfDs?

Looking at Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/, it seems that a fairly large number of AfD newbies cast their !vote at the wrong page. Unfortunately text on those pages are typically not seen by closers. So, should we have an editnotice that warns newbies to not create that page, and point them to the correct page instead? Or should we explore other solutions like a bot moving the comments to appriate location? —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 08:49, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CX Zoom: Anecdotally, this often happens when the main AfD page itself is protected (due to sockpuppetry, vandalism, contentious topic, etc). If it's not a CTOP, comments can be copied over by anyone willing and able with a note saying such. Left guide (talk) 05:09, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Help completing the AfD for Heartbound (video game)

As per the AfD procedure, can a sufficiently validated user complete the AfD procedure on Heartbound (video game) for me? Thank you in advance. To quickly summarise the reasons layer out and backed in detail in the discussion of the article: self-advertising - majority of article is by game creator, irrelevance - less than 5 daily active players on average TheDigamma (talk) 23:59, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heartbound (video game) --Here2rewrite (talk) 01:07, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AFD request: The Gadget Show series 18

This edit request to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Gadget Show series 18 has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please create an AFD for The Gadget Show series 18 with the following reason:

Completely unsourced, no other series of this TV show have their own articles. 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:6311:CAC1:2EA3:44E4 (talk) 11:50, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done Day Creature (talk) 18:14, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AFD request: The Observatory of Economic Complexity

The article has been around for 13 years. The only citation on it is one to github. No evidence that it's notable, and nothing is sourced in the article. it's been tagged for a year as well giving anyone interested plenty of time to actually source the article. 2A06:5902:2FC0:3600:2C6A:F1F3:2244:E224 (talk) 07:14, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:47, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Denoff

I am nominating the article Douglas Denoff for deletion because it does not appear to meet the notability guidelines (WP:N). It lacks significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, and therefore does not establish notability as per Wikipedia policy.

– Gvihar Gvihar 20:53, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can do this yourself. There are tips at WP:AFDLIST. Jahaza (talk) 21:52, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your guidance. Before proceeding, may I please ask if you have any reliable, independent sources about Douglas Denoff that I could review before listing the AfD?

Appreciate your support!

– Gvihar Gvihar 04:55, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A Tony Winning Broadway producer is going to meet notability. I went ahead and added some sources and removed some of the unsourced content. Rublamb (talk) 06:50, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AFD request: Robby Stewart

There's really nothing meaningful to say about him other than that he's inspired by Billy Ray Cyrus; notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. 2605:B40:1302:6C00:E969:5683:DF32:BAC1 (talk) 15:43, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:46, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AFD request: Avunculicide

Would someone mind nominating Avunculicide for AFD on my behalf with the following rationale?

This is half a WP:DICDEF, and half a list of scattered examples, some historical, some fictional (some unsourced, some not actual examples). A WP:BEFORE search brings up nothing to show that this meets either WP:GNG as a general concept, let alone WP:NLIST.

Thanks in advance, 35.139.154.158 (talk) 03:10, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bump 35.139.154.158 (talk) 20:11, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:44, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Burl Stafford Bridge

I think Burl Stafford Bridge should be considered for deletion, but I find the AFD rules difficult, so I'm hoping for some assistance here. I think the bridge lacks any demonstrated significance and that the minimal sources contribute no meaningful support. The sources – two copies of the legislation naming the bridge and an obituary of the wife of the bridge's namesake – provide biographical details of Burl Stafford, who sounds like a wonderful person, but I don't think the sources establish his significance for a Wikipedia article, let alone the bridge named for him. There may also be a concern with an article contributor who has acknowledged that he's the son of the subject of another article and who wrote in that other article that his father "is the grandson in law of Burl Stafford"; i.e., IMO this article appears to be a tribute to his great-grandfather. What's the proper way to proceed with this? -- Pemilligan (talk) 14:12, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a good thing to merge to Delbarton, West Virginia. Jahaza (talk) 21:48, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why merge? What in the article belongs on Wikipedia? -- Pemilligan (talk) 20:19, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AFD Request: Secret combination (Latter Day Saints)

Secret combination (Latter Day Saints) per WP:NOTDICTIONARY and WP:N, I left a comment with my reasoning on the article talk page. 12.75.41.70 (talk) 01:25, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please note, I followed step 1 where I am asked to tag the article, but @Discospinster: reverted without an edit summary. 12.75.41.70 (talk) 01:43, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's definitely not a dictionary definition. Jahaza (talk) 02:38, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article had previously been nominated for deletion (closed as speedy keep), for the exact same reasons, by User:Big Money Threepwood who was a sockpuppet of User:Raxythecat. Additionally, IPs cannot create AfD nomination pages so it wouldn't go anywhere. ... discospinster _talk 14:41, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just for future reference, "Secret Combinations" are discussed in D. Michael Quinn's Early Mormonism and the Magic World View, pp. 160-168, which, although published by BYU press, is considered a respectable work of secular scholarship. Jahaza (talk) 16:04, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Irrespective of Quinn's status within Mormonism and leaving aside that the book was published before his excommunication, that's not a reliable source I would go to *first* to demonstrate notability of this subject. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 11:50, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to offer better sources we should go to first, but first or not, it strongly contributes to establishing notability. Jahaza (talk) 19:00, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With the caveat that it is an "in universe" source, so IMHO that's not "strongly". Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 07:50, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No it does not. See below. TarnishedPath^talk 08:48, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BYU is not an independent source for LDS/Mormon topics since it's a university owned and run by the church; doesn't count towards notability. Left guide (talk) 08:10, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Without offering an opinion on notability, anything published by BYU press (regardless of any considerations of reliability) is by definition not independent for anything to do with the LDS and does not count towards establishing notability. TarnishedPath^talk 08:47, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Secret combination (Latter Day Saints) (2nd nomination), since there seems to be substantial AfD-type discussion happening here which should happen on an AfD page itself rather than on the talk page. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:51, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why doesn't WP:BURDEN apply to deletion discussions, instead of WP:BEFORE?

Apologies ahead of time if this has been asked before, or it erupts into flames (I've seen how contentious deletion discussions are). However, simply put, if the burden of proof is on the users wanting to add controversial content on an article to back it up, why is the burden of proof seemingly on the person who wants to delete an article to ensure it's not notable rather than on the people who want to keep the article to prove that it is? It seems backwards to me. If the article is well sourced already, that's fine, but if it's not, should someone have to go through the process of figuring out if it's notable before nominating it for deletion? The burden of proof that it fits on the encyclopedia would be on the ones who say it should stay on the 'pedia based on how Burden of proof works, no? 2600:6C51:447F:D8D9:4929:C59:7EFA:5DFC (talk) 01:35, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Simplest answer: Deleting pages is not the same as restoring edits. ConcernedDKfan (talk) 05:02, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Request: James Underdown

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Underdown

It seems like a promo piece for CFI, which I am a reader of, but this article does not belong on Wikipedia. This individual severely lacks notability, and upon a quick review, the sources in the article mostly link back to either CFI or obscure websites. I am of the opinion this article should be removed. ConcernedDKfan (talk) 04:52, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Checking Talk on this page, it's worth noting that:

One: The article was created by Sgerbic, who claims to know Underdown personally and upon research is closely affiliated with CFI.

Two: A user going by VegitotheKnightmare pointed out that many claims lack verifiability.

I would add to that examples of severe promotional writing such as: "Between 1982 and 1999, he worked as a school teacher, truck driver, painter, limo driver, hotel clerk, furniture mover, football coach, carpenter, and bouncer. In the late 1970s, Underdown tried to win a $500 prize by wrestling a bear."

But the best reason remains that this subject simply lacks notability. ConcernedDKfan (talk) 04:56, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you unable to create the AFD nomination yourself? The easiest way is to install WP:Twinkle and use it to do the work for you. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:55, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't autoconfirmed yet, their account was just created today. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 16:17, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Seeing as how time and edit count will grant them autoconfirmed status, and Wikipedia has not deadline, I don't see a need for 3rd party nomination of this article. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:33, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It has been created already. Thanks ARandomName. ConcernedDKfan (talk) 22:43, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: ConcernedDKfan has been blocked as a sockpuppet of VegitotheKnightmare. jlwoodwa (talk) 20:30, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]