This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Articles for deletion page. |
|
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. |
![]() | 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 |
![]() |
|
As most editors who have been active in AfD discussions for some time have noticed, AfD has seen a decline in participation in recent months. A couple of editors, me included, have also seen a couple of issues with AfD, some of which discourage editors from participating in discussions. Is it time to start thinking of new ways to change the AfD process? This could include new/deleted things, or changed policies. I'm sure that some editors have seen issues with AfD that they'd like to see change, or have ideas on how to gather more participants that would need consensus before they are implemented. If there is sufficient support for such a reform, my idea would be to conduct it as follows:
Should this be done, yes or no? Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
P.S. Any user has permission to edit my comment to ping more people.
Please do not suggest ideas (yet) on how to change AfD the goal of this RfC is to know whether we should open for a lot of these ideas.
Pinging active AfD users
|
---|
@ Liz @ Explicit @ Doczilla @ OwenX @ Saqib @ Oaktree b @ Wcquidditch @ Malinaccier @ LibStar @ PhotographyEdits @ Fram @ Boneless Pizza! @ Daniel @ Pppery @ Dream Focus @ JPxG @ Mdann52 @ Mushy Yank @ HopalongCasualty @ LaundryPizza03 @ The Banner @ Spiderone @ JTtheOG @ Rugbyfan22 @ ComplexRational @ Star Mississippi, CNMall41, Donaldd23, ToadetteEdit, Eastmain, Toadspike, S0091, SafariScribe, and Timtrent: |
Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
What is the evidence that reform is needed? Not evidence that there's less participation (although numbers would help there, too), but evidence that participation is low because of some flaws with the AfD process itself. Over at RfA, there's a ton of discourse about specific problems with the process that lead to lack of participation (as in candidates). It's toxicity, it's the questions, it's the standards, it's the voting format, it's the crat chats, etc. What are the problems at AfD? If it's just "we need more people to participate and have no idea why people aren't participating" then this skips a key step in determining there's something wrong with the process itself. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:19, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
decline in participation in recent monthswhen you yourself have only been participating there for a few months?
If a nomination has received few or no comments from any editor, and no one has opposed deletion) as well as
the closing administrator should treat the XfD nomination as an expired PROD, which links the process to the well-defined one at WP:PRODNOM. – Joe ( talk) 09:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
Yes: While the process has its benefits, it does appear that participation has been decreasing recently, and a discussion for how to reverse the trend is warranted. Let'srun ( talk) 20:12, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
This article should be nominated for deletion and have the requisite debate and vote. It fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTEWORTHY guidelines as she holds a local office and has yet to achieve substantial WP:RS news coverage beyond the standard local coverage to be expected of a local official. The article has also been cited in the past for suspected WP:COI editing and no edits or adjustments appear to have resulted. Go4thProsper ( talk) 22:41, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
I nominated a page for a 2nd time but it had been moved in the interim. Can someone fix Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ernie Smith (baseball, born 1931) (2nd nomination)? The 1st nom was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ernie Smith (Negro leagues). Rgrds. -- BX ( talk) 01:38, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
I'm aware the previous AFD ended as keep, but A. it was procedurally kept because of the nominator's bad faith actions, and B. I would like to challenge it again because all that's here is primary sources, listicles, and toys. 2605:B40:13E7:F600:5C3E:C3DA:FDE9:A738 ( talk) 01:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
An editor seems to be pushing OR in the AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M-T pronouns. Any thought on dealing with this? It's getting a bit bitey too — Iadmc ♫ talk 12:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Paweł Borys - I nominated it. Today, I withdrew it per instructions how to do that. However, a bot put the AFD back on the article. Do I need to do something else, or will this resolve itself at some point? — Maile ( talk) 14:16, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Here is my rationale:
100.7.34.111 ( talk) 20:34, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
I just stumbled across List of Android games and the related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Android games which seems to be malformed: for instance it doesn't appear on the relevant AfD log page. I don't know enough about the AfD process to be confident fixing it myself – perhaps someone who does can take a look? Caeciliusinhorto ( talk) 21:44, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
There has been a lot of Edit-warring between this unknown "Australian Railroad IP" and a lot of people who go up against this IP.
Plus, the vast majority of the article has less references despite having four references.
This article should either be moved to Draftspace or simply deleted because in its current state, it fails WP:GNG.
There has been a lot of Edit-warring between this unknown "Australian Railroad IP" and a lot of people who go up against this IP.
This article also contains some false information. There is no DF-123 class when checking on the history of the SD9E, plus this article has been REFBOMBED on some of its sections and needs to be fleshed out with proper sourcing and real citations.
This article should either be moved to Draftspace or simply deleted because in its current state, it fails WP:GNG.
This article was fleshed out with proper sourcing by a user but was somehow reverted. Which also backs up the claim that there has been a lot of Edit-warring against this article. 59.102.3.140 ( talk) 05:20, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
There is a major issue with the page very recently formed page Tiyyar. Its main page is Ezhava and all the info regarding these groups are clearly mentioned there with properly sourced from valid book sources. how ever a new page is being formed in the name Tiyyar This page clearly violates : WP:V WP:GNG
The new page Tiyyar which came into the view 2 weeks ago by removing the old redirect have got multiple issues and is violating almost all policies of wikipedia .
First of all 90 percent of the sources in this page is recently published news articles and this is about a historic community. The main page Ezhava recognices thiyya/theeya/tiyyar as a synonym of the same and include all major info within the main page, if we are creating a separate copy of the variations in the name thiyya,theeya,tiyyar,chegos, etc this would end up as a copy of like 10+ pages. however the new page claims that it is a separate ethnicity .The page even claims that there is dialect called thiyya that too in the lead. In addition to that the info about population , number etc are unsourced or clear misinformation. 95 Percent of the content of the page is either an unwanted low quality copy of the main page claiming that is separate and contradicting the things or complete misinformation from news articles. From the talk archieves from the main page ezhava its very clear that both are considered as same and in multiple articles they are being used synonymously used . The article even mentions that very clearly . However the new page is against all those policies .
As it fails it fails WP:GNG. This article should either be moved to Draftspace or simply deleted because , In the current state it is problematic as 95 percent of the information is misleading , while correct information is provided and included in the main page Ezhava. Lisa121996 ( talk) 08:06, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Articles for deletion page. |
|
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. |
![]() | 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 |
![]() |
|
As most editors who have been active in AfD discussions for some time have noticed, AfD has seen a decline in participation in recent months. A couple of editors, me included, have also seen a couple of issues with AfD, some of which discourage editors from participating in discussions. Is it time to start thinking of new ways to change the AfD process? This could include new/deleted things, or changed policies. I'm sure that some editors have seen issues with AfD that they'd like to see change, or have ideas on how to gather more participants that would need consensus before they are implemented. If there is sufficient support for such a reform, my idea would be to conduct it as follows:
Should this be done, yes or no? Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
P.S. Any user has permission to edit my comment to ping more people.
Please do not suggest ideas (yet) on how to change AfD the goal of this RfC is to know whether we should open for a lot of these ideas.
Pinging active AfD users
|
---|
@ Liz @ Explicit @ Doczilla @ OwenX @ Saqib @ Oaktree b @ Wcquidditch @ Malinaccier @ LibStar @ PhotographyEdits @ Fram @ Boneless Pizza! @ Daniel @ Pppery @ Dream Focus @ JPxG @ Mdann52 @ Mushy Yank @ HopalongCasualty @ LaundryPizza03 @ The Banner @ Spiderone @ JTtheOG @ Rugbyfan22 @ ComplexRational @ Star Mississippi, CNMall41, Donaldd23, ToadetteEdit, Eastmain, Toadspike, S0091, SafariScribe, and Timtrent: |
Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
What is the evidence that reform is needed? Not evidence that there's less participation (although numbers would help there, too), but evidence that participation is low because of some flaws with the AfD process itself. Over at RfA, there's a ton of discourse about specific problems with the process that lead to lack of participation (as in candidates). It's toxicity, it's the questions, it's the standards, it's the voting format, it's the crat chats, etc. What are the problems at AfD? If it's just "we need more people to participate and have no idea why people aren't participating" then this skips a key step in determining there's something wrong with the process itself. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:19, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
decline in participation in recent monthswhen you yourself have only been participating there for a few months?
If a nomination has received few or no comments from any editor, and no one has opposed deletion) as well as
the closing administrator should treat the XfD nomination as an expired PROD, which links the process to the well-defined one at WP:PRODNOM. – Joe ( talk) 09:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
Yes: While the process has its benefits, it does appear that participation has been decreasing recently, and a discussion for how to reverse the trend is warranted. Let'srun ( talk) 20:12, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
This article should be nominated for deletion and have the requisite debate and vote. It fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTEWORTHY guidelines as she holds a local office and has yet to achieve substantial WP:RS news coverage beyond the standard local coverage to be expected of a local official. The article has also been cited in the past for suspected WP:COI editing and no edits or adjustments appear to have resulted. Go4thProsper ( talk) 22:41, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
I nominated a page for a 2nd time but it had been moved in the interim. Can someone fix Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ernie Smith (baseball, born 1931) (2nd nomination)? The 1st nom was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ernie Smith (Negro leagues). Rgrds. -- BX ( talk) 01:38, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
I'm aware the previous AFD ended as keep, but A. it was procedurally kept because of the nominator's bad faith actions, and B. I would like to challenge it again because all that's here is primary sources, listicles, and toys. 2605:B40:13E7:F600:5C3E:C3DA:FDE9:A738 ( talk) 01:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
An editor seems to be pushing OR in the AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M-T pronouns. Any thought on dealing with this? It's getting a bit bitey too — Iadmc ♫ talk 12:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Paweł Borys - I nominated it. Today, I withdrew it per instructions how to do that. However, a bot put the AFD back on the article. Do I need to do something else, or will this resolve itself at some point? — Maile ( talk) 14:16, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Here is my rationale:
100.7.34.111 ( talk) 20:34, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
I just stumbled across List of Android games and the related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Android games which seems to be malformed: for instance it doesn't appear on the relevant AfD log page. I don't know enough about the AfD process to be confident fixing it myself – perhaps someone who does can take a look? Caeciliusinhorto ( talk) 21:44, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
There has been a lot of Edit-warring between this unknown "Australian Railroad IP" and a lot of people who go up against this IP.
Plus, the vast majority of the article has less references despite having four references.
This article should either be moved to Draftspace or simply deleted because in its current state, it fails WP:GNG.
There has been a lot of Edit-warring between this unknown "Australian Railroad IP" and a lot of people who go up against this IP.
This article also contains some false information. There is no DF-123 class when checking on the history of the SD9E, plus this article has been REFBOMBED on some of its sections and needs to be fleshed out with proper sourcing and real citations.
This article should either be moved to Draftspace or simply deleted because in its current state, it fails WP:GNG.
This article was fleshed out with proper sourcing by a user but was somehow reverted. Which also backs up the claim that there has been a lot of Edit-warring against this article. 59.102.3.140 ( talk) 05:20, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
There is a major issue with the page very recently formed page Tiyyar. Its main page is Ezhava and all the info regarding these groups are clearly mentioned there with properly sourced from valid book sources. how ever a new page is being formed in the name Tiyyar This page clearly violates : WP:V WP:GNG
The new page Tiyyar which came into the view 2 weeks ago by removing the old redirect have got multiple issues and is violating almost all policies of wikipedia .
First of all 90 percent of the sources in this page is recently published news articles and this is about a historic community. The main page Ezhava recognices thiyya/theeya/tiyyar as a synonym of the same and include all major info within the main page, if we are creating a separate copy of the variations in the name thiyya,theeya,tiyyar,chegos, etc this would end up as a copy of like 10+ pages. however the new page claims that it is a separate ethnicity .The page even claims that there is dialect called thiyya that too in the lead. In addition to that the info about population , number etc are unsourced or clear misinformation. 95 Percent of the content of the page is either an unwanted low quality copy of the main page claiming that is separate and contradicting the things or complete misinformation from news articles. From the talk archieves from the main page ezhava its very clear that both are considered as same and in multiple articles they are being used synonymously used . The article even mentions that very clearly . However the new page is against all those policies .
As it fails it fails WP:GNG. This article should either be moved to Draftspace or simply deleted because , In the current state it is problematic as 95 percent of the information is misleading , while correct information is provided and included in the main page Ezhava. Lisa121996 ( talk) 08:06, 1 July 2024 (UTC)