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 |
AFD request: Hiromu Kori
[edit]Hiromu Kori - I tried to nominate this myself but found the process too confusing. He only made appearances in the J3 League and was released in 2018 for breaching the club's code of conduct and hasn't played since. He has a few sources on his Japanese Wikipedia page but he's probably not notable enough - I want to see what everyone else thinks. RossEvans19 (talk) 13:36, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- Done Dan • ✉ 23:15, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
Negativity of AFD process
[edit]The first step for responding to a bad page is to try improving it, but it is also one of the most effective ways I've found to completely burn oneself out on Wikipedia, such that I've had to take a hard line of just refusing to improve any article that is up for AFD.
Consider: improving Wikipedia articles is already such a marginally rewarding / unrewarding task that the vast majority of people who could, don't. For the most part, only those of us who are wired a little strange to begin with even bother trying.* And even those mostly don't stick around for long.
Suppose an article has a 50% chance of survival if improved -- that cuts that already-tiny marginal reward of editing in half, and not many folks are going to keep going for long. Add in the fact that negative feedback has a much stronger impact than positive feedback, and the rewards of this kind of work are actually negative. Add in the fact that the actual odds of an article surviving AFD are much lower than 50%, and you have a situation that would make most humans profoundly miserable within a week.
This would be bad enough if the harms of AFD were limited to nominated articles, but -- circling back to TFA -- its harms extend much more broadly. In particular, I suspect the highly subjective and unpredictable way the notability guidelines are enforced in practice on AFD plays a major role in the outcome documented here. It would be very interesting to know if a survey of just AFD-nominated articles would show similarly biased outcomes (I suspect it would, in fact if I had to guess I suspect the effect of gender on AFD outcomes might be stronger). But even if that's not the case, even if AFD itself were firmly dedicated to gender parity -- given how deeply demoralizing the AFD process is, even a small increase in the likelihood of an article being nominated for AFD if it is about a woman would likely have a sufficiently discouraging effect over time to account for the results documented here.
And all of this harm is done (by the gleeful bullies who congregate in AFD where their behavior is socially rewarded and protected from consequences by a culture of weaponized civility) in service of a goal that is, as you note, of very limited value to the project. A hundred bad articles are less damaging than the loss of one good one.
AndrewHart500 (talk) 01:52, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- You seem to have had a hard time defending an article or two, Andrew - and you're clearly a wee bit more bitter about things as a consequence. I have personally seen articles challenged at AfD through to improvement and survival on many, many occasions. The clear, bright line of three good sources is really what most people are looking for and that basic notability guideline is reasonably clear-cut and, per consensus, fair. My own WP:HEY moment was provided by Winston Churchill's pets, a rotten little stub with absolutely nothing going for it, little sourcing, no chance of ever being notable (who cares about his pestilent pets?) which I nominated for AfD only to see transformed by a growing number of ardent defenders into an absolute titan of an article, currently supported by 29 excellent sources. In short, they're not out to get you, nobody is being a bully (nobody I have seen, in any case) and maybe a short Wiki-break, a little consideration of the policy and process and a cupful of benign intent might help smooth things out a little. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:57, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Yep. It might be worth considering why AfD is the only place that kind of improvement generally happens (I think everyone on the spectrum of 'should X have an article' would far prefer that cleanup happening outside the scope of AfD and those articles that are ultimately keeps not ending up nominated at all) but if one is getting burned out on parts of the project, taking a step back is a prudent one. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 11:14, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Poor enforcement of WP:BEFORE is sometimes an issue with some. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 11:32, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Yep. It might be worth considering why AfD is the only place that kind of improvement generally happens (I think everyone on the spectrum of 'should X have an article' would far prefer that cleanup happening outside the scope of AfD and those articles that are ultimately keeps not ending up nominated at all) but if one is getting burned out on parts of the project, taking a step back is a prudent one. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 11:14, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
AFD request: V/Vm Test Records
[edit]Non-notable record label, complete lack of sources and very little news coverage. Only two of the artists mentioned in the article mention V/Vm Test Records on their page, one of these artists is V/Vm himself. Violates WP:GNG. 74.108.22.119 (talk) 12:27, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
AFD Request: R. Scott Bakker
[edit]Hello, new user trying to nominate an AFD for R. Scott Bakker.
I used the Twinkle tool to nominate, but I'm not seeing the article show up in the AFD log. I'm not sure if Twinkle only completes step I described here, or if it completed step II/III as well? Does it usually take some time or do I need to do the other steps manually? Just afraid of spamming the pages. Mintopop(talk) 16:47, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- There are a couple different deletion processes. What you've created on that page is not an AFD (Article For Deletion) but a WP:PROD... a proposed deletion, which means if no one objects to the deletion for a week, it gets deleted, no further discussion needed. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:11, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- @NatGertler Oops, that was not my intention. I assumed this deletion proposal might be somewhat controversial given it is a biography, so I wanted to open up for AFD. It sounds like it's an either/or thing with AFD and PROD. I guess at this point I just wait to see if the PROD goes through and then take next steps from there if someone objects? Mintopop(talk) 20:21, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- That is a normal way of doing things. However, if you do personally feel this is too controversial to take that route, you are free to delete the PROD tag and refile as an AfD now... however, given the lack of substantive additions to the article in years, I suspect you'll just save other editors time by letting the PROD run. (A new AfD is always an option, but once an AfD has been run and the article has survived, PROD is no longer an option.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 20:31, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- Understandable, thank you for the assistance! I'll let the PROD run and see what happens in the next week. Mintopop(talk) 20:33, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- That is a normal way of doing things. However, if you do personally feel this is too controversial to take that route, you are free to delete the PROD tag and refile as an AfD now... however, given the lack of substantive additions to the article in years, I suspect you'll just save other editors time by letting the PROD run. (A new AfD is always an option, but once an AfD has been run and the article has survived, PROD is no longer an option.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 20:31, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- @NatGertler Oops, that was not my intention. I assumed this deletion proposal might be somewhat controversial given it is a biography, so I wanted to open up for AFD. It sounds like it's an either/or thing with AFD and PROD. I guess at this point I just wait to see if the PROD goes through and then take next steps from there if someone objects? Mintopop(talk) 20:21, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
Is a mass nomination appropriate here?
[edit]I've recently nominated quite a few political parties in NZ for deletion for failing NCORP, there are many of them: Template:Historic_New_Zealand_political_parties and most fail GNG, let alone NCORP. Would a mass nomination be appropriate here or would it be better to nominate individually? Traumnovelle (talk) 23:33, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- Nominate individually, so that each can be discussed on its merits. IdiotSavant (talk) 23:58, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
How should I make a discussion for an article deletion? I've seen it happen as a subpage and as a request here. Tonkarooson (discuss). 23:40, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- IPs can't create AfDs so they request it here. The page on WP:AFD explains how to create one but it is far easier to install WP:TWINKLE and use that.
- Enable Twinkle in the Gadgets tab of your preferences.
- Go back to the article, and choose "XFD" from the new Twinkle ("TW") menu.
- Fill in the form and submit it.
- Traumnovelle (talk) 00:17, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
AfD request: John Dawson (anchor)
[edit]The subject of this article does not meet notability guidelines in WP:BIO. The entire article lacks sources to support Dawson's notibility. Many of the links provided show events Dawson has been part of but fail to establish that Dawson himself is of note. None of those sources are significant coverage of Dawson; he merely plays a minor part (such as moderating a conference or event) in those events. The only source that actually provide coverage of Dawson is the PRWeek article, however, as it is a one-to-one interview of Dawson himself, the source is a primary source and therefore does not support notability of the subject itself, per WP:BASIC. 218.189.35.59 (talk) 23:14, 21 September 2024 (UTC)