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 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 does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
 | 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, 78 |
|
|
|
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 |
Josette Marie Laure Baisee
[edit]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josette_Baisse
Is it appropriate to delete this article because she's too insignificant of a person to have her own article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yusuf Michael (talk • contribs) 20:41, October 13, 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why you're posting here when you already created an AfD? You'll doubtless hear whether other editors feel the article should be deleted as part of that discussion. DonIago (talk) 17:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Incorrectly formatted AfD nomination for Xuemin Lin
[edit]Could someone please fix the formatting for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xuemin Lin? The nominator appears to have just created a plain text page with their nom reason. The article appears to be tagged correctly though. Fork99 (talk) 10:04, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Fork99, I've fixed the discussion page. --Ratekreel (talk) 11:32, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
Francesco Banchini
[edit]'Unregistered users placing this tag on an article cannot complete the deletion nomination and should leave detailed reasons for deletion on Talk:Francesco Banchini and then post a message at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion requesting that someone else complete the process. If the nomination is not completed and no message is left on the talkpage, this tag may be removed.'
Hello, see the message above. I'm new, don't want to register, but would like to help clean up a self-promotor...could some chap please take over? 31.30.165.218 (talk) 11:53, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- Hello and welcome! The AFD process is somewhat redundant to the PROD process you've also tagged the page with (and in fact, AFD normally prevents a PROD from going through) but I believe our speedy deletion process is appropriate, so I have tagged the page accordingly. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:00, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- Cheers, I'm new and not with the lingo 31.30.165.218 (talk) 14:15, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
AfD request for Health & Help and Vladimir Spivakov International Charity Foundation
[edit]There is no lighting in the sources. Only press releases and links to themselves. 95.153.180.247 (talk) 09:07, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
- Given the lack of substantive editing on these articles in recent years, I have used the WP:PROD system to suggest deletion on your behalf. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:44, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure back door deletion of possibly unwatched articles is a good thing. If no one is watching them then AfD will give them proper attention, Atlantic306 (talk) 18:52, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
- You are certainly welcome to deprod them and take them to AfD. The problem with unwatched articles going through AfD is that the lack of people watching often means no one participates in the AfD, and they end up going through several rounds of relisting and sticking around not because anyone objects, but because no one bothers to be involved. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 20:02, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
- Possibly irrelevant, but I couldn't figure out what "There is no lighting in the sources" meant – is this some obscure jargon I haven't encountered before? — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 23:59, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
- Given that the IP is Russian-based (and is commenting on Russian-related entries), I am not expecting perfect English. I guess I took it as nothing that shines the light of notability on the subject. The first is only sourced to an annual report, the second has no references (one external link, but it's to the subject's website.) The one below has more sourcing, but I'm not in position to easily evaluate the quality of that sourcing. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:56, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure back door deletion of possibly unwatched articles is a good thing. If no one is watching them then AfD will give them proper attention, Atlantic306 (talk) 18:52, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
AfD request for Foundation for Education Support
[edit]There is no lighting in the sources. 95.153.180.247 (talk) 09:10, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
- Given the lack of substantive editing on this article in recent years, I have used the WP:PROD system to suggest deletion on your behalf. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:45, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
Page for AfD - Rebecca Tamás
[edit]Would appreciate discussion being opened. Cannot go through process myself as an unregistered user. "Daughter of Someone Famous". This is a vanity page which refers to self-published poems and lists university awards as reason for notability. No substantial or notable press or internet presence. Not something one would expect in a generalist reference. Rebecca_Tamás 80.194.211.108 (talk) 22:50, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- I don't understand your comment about this article. Would you be able to explain about what your concerns are? It is important to make certain that this conversation is grounded in Wikipedia's content policy, and not personal opinion --and without ad hominem reasoning. Rebecca Tamás is an established poet with an emerging body of published work and critical recognition; this seems to meet the notability criteria. If you have any specific elements that you find lacking or problematic in the article itself, please point them out so we can work to constructively improve the page. :PaliGol (talk) 10:29, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
"List of Super Heavies"
[edit]I just found this suspicious redirection page and marked it for possible deletion, but as IP cannot complete it's deletion subpage. Please have a look and help. My reasoning, given in the edit summary, is: "this is a redirection of a meant-to-be-funny term, created by an editor to redirect to his favourite playground. The term is by no means usual, or ever been used by anyone other than this editor who likes to link to this page. I reccon this misuse of redicection pages" 47.67.225.78 (talk) 10:07, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
- I think you want Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion instead. But I don't understand the problem. List of Super Heavies redirects to a list of rockets called "SpaceX Super Heavy". Commander Keane (talk) 11:18, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
- The problem is not where it redirects. The problem is the term of the redirection page itself: "List of Super Heavies" is not a common term someone would look up, but "a meant-to-be-funny term". There is no need at all to have that page, it's a joke - "Heavies". With the same reason one could make a redirection page "starshipies" to redirekt to "starship". 47.67.225.78 (talk) 11:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap has some thoughts on the matter. But by all means open a Redirects for Discussion thread. Commander Keane (talk) 11:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
- What is the sense of putting me down here and telling me to open a Redirects for Discussion, just to oppose there speedily again. Reccon you find it funny to let me do all this effort just to put me down again? 47.67.225.78 (talk) 09:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- Check out the RfD discussion again. I changed from keep to delete (before I read this post). It may end up retargeted though. Thanks for opening the RfD. I think we will get a positive outcome. Commander Keane (talk) 09:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. While I still think this redirect page is misleading and superfluous, a redirect to the page listing everything "super heavy" is a compromise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.67.225.78 (talk)
- Check out the RfD discussion again. I changed from keep to delete (before I read this post). It may end up retargeted though. Thanks for opening the RfD. I think we will get a positive outcome. Commander Keane (talk) 09:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- What is the sense of putting me down here and telling me to open a Redirects for Discussion, just to oppose there speedily again. Reccon you find it funny to let me do all this effort just to put me down again? 47.67.225.78 (talk) 09:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap has some thoughts on the matter. But by all means open a Redirects for Discussion thread. Commander Keane (talk) 11:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
- The problem is not where it redirects. The problem is the term of the redirection page itself: "List of Super Heavies" is not a common term someone would look up, but "a meant-to-be-funny term". There is no need at all to have that page, it's a joke - "Heavies". With the same reason one could make a redirection page "starshipies" to redirekt to "starship". 47.67.225.78 (talk) 11:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
- The redirect is fine. The bigger issue here is your personal hounding of Redacted II. Your posting history on this IP and on the other IP you've used shows a pretty extreme personal vendetta. Ergzay (talk) 16:40, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
"Wikipedia:Vote for deletion" listed at Redirects for discussion
[edit]
The redirect Wikipedia:Vote for deletion 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 November 4 § Wikipedia:Vote for deletion until a consensus is reached. TheWikipede (talk) 21:36, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
Georges-Claude Guilbert. Lack of satisfied criteria and risks of self promotion
[edit]Lack of academic criteria for the biography https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges-Claude_Guilbert And risks of self promotion regarding creator and editors of the article Paul John Dedalus (talk) 13:33, 9 November 2024 (UTC)