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:AFDWT: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 auto-archived by if there are more than 4.

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

Discussion at Template talk:Afd top

You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Afd top. —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 18:52, 17 October 2025 (UTC) —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 18:52, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for modified AfD notice wording

I've opened a discussion about shortening the AfD tag that appears on articles at Template talk:Article for deletion#Proposal to shorten the wording. I would appreciate some input from others on this. Toadspike [Talk] 16:27, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Request: ProGet

The last AfD for this subject was closed as keep. The article have not been edited for 1 month ago. The IP user then added the notability tag for a reason when removed by user. The article not meet WP:GNG. Requesting an AfD. 112.207.170.235 (talk) 03:24, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The previous AfD ended 11 August last so it's too early for another AfD. Wait at least 6 months, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:52, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AFD Request: Lilly Contino

Article was nominated for deletion a few months back, where it was closed as no consensus. AI-generated walls of text and bludgeoning severely inhibited the ability for a proper consensus to be reached. The article itself fails to assert the notability of the subject, since merely having 400,000 followers on TikTok doesn't meet WP:GNG. For the sources, none claim significant notability. Per WP:DAILYDOT, The Daily Dot only serves for plain facts and is highly opinionated. 48 Hills is a local publication. Game Developer and Instagram aren't independent coverage. I can find very little on WeWork, but the article cited itself seems like an opinion piece that doesn't claim the subject is notable, and the news site doesn't seem particularly notable either. The PocketGamer article is an interview that is mostly promotional and makes no claim that the subject is particularly notable. Alternate sources mentioned in the original deletion discussion were even less reliable, many being blatantly transphobic tabloid publications. 2600:1000:B110:C954:DD78:B56B:5097:628C (talk) 22:12, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Request: DXDV-AM

The article have not edited for 6 months or 1 year. may not meet WP:GNG because a lack of significant coverage. Requesting an AfD. 112.207.170.235 (talk) 03:49, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done Cornerstone1949 (talk) 01:11, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Cornerstone1949! 112.207.170.235 (talk) 01:32, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Request: Dan Cohn-Sherbok

You'll have to excuse my lack of fluency in wiki-law citation, but this biography of a living person (Dan Cohn-Sherbok) is an example of WP:PROMOTION, NPOV, WP:N, WP:AUTO, COI, and it should be deleted. Most importantly, the article is largely a resume and bibliography, largely written by the subject himself according to the page history. This is self-promotion and autobiography for a subject who is not notable within his field, and the article does not make any credible claims that he is. 67.168.18.133 (talk) 03:48, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Although the subject has edited his own article over the years, his edits appear minor. Essentially, adding his own publications to a list of his publications. While this is frowned upon and discouraged, it is not the case that the subject wrote the article or did anything non-neutral to his article. I left him a {{welcome-coi}} last year. He has authorship of no more than 15% of the article. The bulk of the article was written at present by Kevinalewis [1]. Also, your AFD was malformed. You can submit an article to AFD but this one would likely be kept as he is arguably an WP:NACADEMIC and WP:NAUTHOR and meets WP:GNG. Andre🚐 04:08, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For what it is worth, the article has now been nominated by another editor per this request. I also left a message on his talk page, but I agree that he easily meets the notability guidelines. If you would like to participate, I think your input might be valuable since you are informed on the page, but it may be unnecessary because the article is so likely to be kept. Cornerstone1949 (talk) 00:56, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Request: DXNV

The article have not edited for 6 months. Does not meet WP:GNG. Requesting an AfD 112.207.170.235 (talk) 01:39, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia:Pfd" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Wikipedia:Pfd 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/2025 October 25 § Wikipedia:Pages for deletion and similar titles until a consensus is reached. Thanks, 1isall (he/him) (talk | contribs) 14:13, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Forgotten AfD discussion

I noticed that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Canadian honours has been open for 20 days without being relisted, and currently doesn't appear in the list of old AfDs. I can only assume something must have gone wrong here, just wanted to draw some attention to it. Thanks, MediaKyle (talk) 14:11, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I relisted it on a new AFD log page so hopefully it will get closed now. The issue might be that on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 October 10 the two previous AFDs were commented out but not relisted normally. This confused XFDcloser when I did the relist, it might have also caused the AFD not to show up for usual AFD closers. Maybe someone with more technical knowledge than me should look further into this. --Here2rewrite (talk) 16:05, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Request: Michael Cammarata

Please complete this AfD request with the below rationale:

Twice deleted previously. I doubt the person has become notable in WP:GNG sense even though there is a lot of SEO content online. The article is currently being edited by a few WP:SPAs to add negative information, while some IPs appear to be countering those edits (possibly the subject himself). He is mainly for serving as CEO of small companies such as Neptune Wellness Solutions and Schmidt's Naturals. After applying the stringent WP:BLP policy, not much would likely remain, and most of the controversies or negative aspects could be better covered in the Neptune Wellness Solutions article per WP:NOPAGE.

Some cited sources like Forbes article ([2]) falls under WP:FORBESCON, and the Money article is merely an WP:INTERVIEW with limited independent content, written by Paul Schrodt, a professional guest contributor. The article clearly lacks the WP:BLP-quality sources required to meet WP:SIGCOV. A simple redirect to Neptune Wellness Solutions should be enough to preserve relevant information. Brodie Dotson (talk) 23:55, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can't handin AFD

Cneoridium dumosum (Nuttall) Hooker F. Collected March 26, 1960, at an Elevation of about 1450 Meters on Cerro Quemazón, 15 Miles South of Bahía de Los Angeles, Baja California, México, Apparently for a Southeastward Range Extension of Some 140 Miles It seems the tilie is too long. Ghren (talk) 16:38, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing: Can you do me a favor? --Ghren (talk) 16:42, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The page is fine and very well sourced, please think thrice (or more) about trying to delete this topic. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:44, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have thoroughly checked the source of the entry, and I do not believe it has sufficient citations. I believe the entry needs to be reviewed by AFD, but I am experiencing technical issues and cannot submit it. The entry title is too long; it is showing as an "invalidtitle" and I cannot submit it. Ghren (talk) 16:57, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thems the breaks. Ha. It is a classic article, and to be serious, I have no idea how to post the title on AfD. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:00, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ghren, if you abbreviate the name of the AfD subpage, it should work: try adding {{subst:afd|Cneoridium dumosum (Nuttall) Hooker F. Collected March 26, 1960 etc.}} to the top of the article and then following the link from there to create the nomination. Titles this long (250 characters out of the maximum 256) are kind of a mess for AfDs, pagenotices, talk-page archives, etc. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:23, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion?

Hi there, Could I get a second opinion on List of sports figures considered the greatest? I'm not entirely familiar with Wikipedia's notability guidelines for lists which are related to this kind of thing, though I tried to dig around to find out. It looks as if the page was created by a split from GOAT (sports culture), but I'm not sure whether the creation of a separate article with a detailed list of (potentially, if not likely) hundreds of athletes solely connected by this designation is necessary given the "general" example list already on the GOAT page.

But, as I said, I'm not sure whether the page actually goes against any WP guidelines, or even if AfD isn't necessary, whether there are any bigger issues I (or page contributors) have failed to notice. Would really appreciate an external & impartial perspective with better knowledge on this. PunkAndromeda (talk) 07:30, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PunkAndromeda: WP:NLIST seems to be the prevailing guideline for whether a list page should exist. A possibly better venue for this discussion might be the sports notability guideline talk page (WT:NSPORT) which will likely attract feedback from editors more interested in this subject. Left guide (talk) 07:58, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll head over there! Thank you so much. PunkAndromeda (talk) 08:08, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AFD Request: Furious Five (Kung Fu Panda)

Literally just a plot summary of the first three movies; sources are just about how they’re not in the fourth one. ~2025-31969-91 (talk) 19:44, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Partly done. Redirected to the main character list. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:56, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request for additional input on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Happiness Becomes You

Need some uninvolved editors to please look carefully at the discussion and weigh in on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Happiness Becomes You. One relist has already occurred, and th discussion would benefit from fresh, neutral participation to help reach a clearer consensus. Thanks for any additional eyes or guidance on how best to proceed. Dharmabumstead (talk) 05:09, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete AfD

Adam Brooks (wrestler). I didn't nominate it but someone else did and instead of putting a request for completion here they asked the user who removed the previous prod, and I think the user may have ignored it. There is a reason for deletion on the talk page which I think is SOP. Can someone complete it? ~2025-32539-02 (talk) 07:10, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Temp" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Temp 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/2025 November 10 § Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Temp until a consensus is reached. Duckmather (talk) 22:55, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Request: DYCM

The article have not edited for 1 year. Does not meet WP:GNG. Requesting and AfD ~2025-32685-14 (talk) 02:50, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done - UtherSRG (talk) 15:35, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @UtherSRG! ~2025-32685-14 (talk) 00:32, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]