Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| 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:
|
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 |
nominate the gresham cat hostage taking incident
the event wasn't notable enough and I'm using a phone so someone else needs to nominate it for deletion, animal hostage takings happened before and they don't get wiki pages, this one doesn't have anything notable about it so therefore the article should be nominated for deletion, at the very least there's enough grounds to nominate it for deletion from what I said so someone else has to do it NamelessPsychopath (talk) 10:23, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- Looks notable to me. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:52, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- Sources would suggest it's notable enough to deserve a page. ArthurTheGardener (talk) 15:50, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- Disagree. In fact, the only sources are news, making this a case of WP:NOTNEWS. I've nominated it myself. TheTechie[she/they] | talk? 03:09, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
Laura K. Field
Page for this scholar was started recently, and apparently deleted this last week; could someone help provide the link for the discussion of the deletion? ErnestKrause (talk) 23:57, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
- It was a WP:G5 "Created by a banned or blocked user (Slowking4) in violation of ban or block" not an AFD. You can see that by going to the redlinked page ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 00:29, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
- Someone delted the page, likely from sys ops; does anyone know who it was? ErnestKrause (talk) 17:00, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kazakh–Dzungar War (1681–1684)
Obviously badly formatted; could someone help correct it? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:35, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
Done Qwaiiplayer (talk) 22:14, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
AfD request: New Testament Christian Churches of America
Please create a deletion discussion for the New Testament Christian Churches of America. Rationale: This article is about a small religious cult () that hasn't received independent significant coverage. The main cited source is The Dispatch, which is a small county newspaper and is not even notable enough for a Wikipedia article. It is sad what the members go through, but unfortunately on Wikipedia the notability of the topic matters most. In my literature review, I found nothing about this organization. It fails WP:NORG. ~2026-12389-37 (talk) 21:30, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
- Done at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Testament Christian Churches of America. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:59, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
AFD request
Please can a deletion request be created for 1940 Jersey election and Edward Campbell (politician) - both are hoax articles. ~2026-12475-99 (talk) 09:01, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
- Can you elaborate on this? There are sources, but I don't have access to these to try to verify anything in here. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:54, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
- I found the lone reference on Google Books and "Edward Campbell" gets zero results from search inside. Obviously there are reasons that's not 100% reliable, but it does lead some credence to the hoax accusation. Perhaps needs attention from an expert especially as the 1940 election article cites more sources. --Here2rewrite (talk) 17:45, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
- From an incomplete search (via what Google books will show me), I can't seem to find any mention of Campbell in the sources cited in the 'election' article. Or evidence that an election actually took place: if it did, I'd expect it to have been better documented, given the extensive discussion the Jersey occupation received. It thus seems entirely possible that both articles are indeed hoaxes, though clearly this needs more investigation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:59, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
- I found the lone reference on Google Books and "Edward Campbell" gets zero results from search inside. Obviously there are reasons that's not 100% reliable, but it does lead some credence to the hoax accusation. Perhaps needs attention from an expert especially as the 1940 election article cites more sources. --Here2rewrite (talk) 17:45, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
- Both articles have been speedy deleted after confirming that there are no trustworthy sources which actually support the material, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1940 Jersey election. Many thanks to ~2026-12475-99 for bringing this to our attention. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:22, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
AfD Request: ProGet
Please create a 2nd nomination of deletion discussion for the ProGet Rationale: This article have not edited for 6 months. Does not meet WP:GNG. This article should be deleted. ~2026-13151-64 (talk) 18:20, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
Not done for now. Not having been edited in some amount of time is not a valid reason to delete (nor does it even tip the scales). A claim of not meeting GNG is, but you need a little more than a plain assertion like that. Some analysis of sources, evidence of looking for more sources not in the article, and/or why the keep outcome of the first AFD might not have been correct would all help to start a more productive AFD discussion. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:45, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
- Expanding on the Deacon's remarks, I suggest seeing WP:BEFORE. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 19:50, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
(Second) AfD Request: ProGet
The last AfD for this subject was closed as keep which was treated as an meet minimum notability under current standards. This article is promotional and based on primary sources, I can't find WP:SIGCOV. Requesting an AfD. ~2026-14489-34 (talk) 22:19, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
(Third) AfD Request: ProGet
The last AfD for this subject was closed as keep which was treated as an meet minimum notability under current standards. after closed then added the notability tag, when notability tag removed by user after 6 months, then nominated the afd tag, when afd tag removed again by user. This article is promotional and based on primary sources, I can't find WP:SIGCOV. Requesting an AfD. ~2026-12377-69 (talk) 01:18, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
- Hi ~2026-12377-69. Aussuming yu're the same person who also posted the two other AfD requests above. My suggestion to you is to follow the advice given above by both Deacon Vorbis and NatGertler and don't just keeping posting what is essentially the same AfD request (and starting a new discussion each time you do) over and over again. Such a thing is likely just going to annoy people and increase the chances of any further request just being ignored. If you want to respond to any of the comments made above, you should do so it that discussion thread. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:53, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
- My advice was to see WP:BEFORE; their later statement that they can't find WP:SIGCOV suggests that has been followed to at least some extent. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:41, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
- @NatGertler and Deacon Vorbis: The article was tagged for speedy deletion by an unregistered account (most likely one the same people posting above), and it was deleted per A7/G11 by ONUnicorn the day before yesterday (March 11). That seems, at least to me, a possible misapplying of both A7 and G11 given that the article was actually kept by consensus at AfD less than a year ago by RL0919. I've queried about this at User talk:ONUnicorn#ProGet. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:02, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
- I've restored the article. I'm half tempted to semi protect it so IPs stop tagging it. Thoughts on that idea? ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 03:37, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
- I'm not an admin, but PP (even temporary) is probably only going to be needed if the same or another unregistered account shows up and tags the article for speedy deletion again. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:17, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
- Added the en ref back to Wikidata so that the official website template works. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:12, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
- I've restored the article. I'm half tempted to semi protect it so IPs stop tagging it. Thoughts on that idea? ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 03:37, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
- @NatGertler and Deacon Vorbis: The article was tagged for speedy deletion by an unregistered account (most likely one the same people posting above), and it was deleted per A7/G11 by ONUnicorn the day before yesterday (March 11). That seems, at least to me, a possible misapplying of both A7 and G11 given that the article was actually kept by consensus at AfD less than a year ago by RL0919. I've queried about this at User talk:ONUnicorn#ProGet. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:02, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
- My advice was to see WP:BEFORE; their later statement that they can't find WP:SIGCOV suggests that has been followed to at least some extent. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:41, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
AfD request: Sim scanner
Please create a deletion discussion for this page. The article relies on only one source. Thank you. WikiTributor2026 (talk) 13:57, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
- Give the lack of any notability whatsoever, I've used Wikipedia:Proposed deletion instead. We shouldn't need an AfD discussion to get rid of obvious promotional junk. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:03, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
- Okay, thank you for the link. WikiTributor2026 (talk) 14:06, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
AfD request: Jerome's
 | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
The subject doesn't appear to be inherently notable. The sources in the article are mainly first-party or marketing releases, and after searching I don't see much independent coverage in reliable sources. I previously nominated it for PROD, but that was contested. ~2026-47018-8 (talk) 11:12, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
- It's a 72-year-old major furniture franchise chain, seems notable enough to survive an AfD. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:44, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Randy Kryn: The age of a company is irrelevant to its notability, per the criteria. ~2026-47018-8 (talk) 19:52, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Declined - Looks notable to me. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:30, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
- Going to have to agree with the TA here. Even though the sources in the article currently doesn't determine notability, a quick search doesn't find any other sources about this company that aren't primary. The TA is also correct that the age of the company doesn't affect notability. Unless some saving grace of a source is found, I don't see why this shouldn't go to AfD. TheTechie[she/they] | talk? 03:00, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Randy Kryn: The age of a company is irrelevant to its notability, per the criteria. ~2026-47018-8 (talk) 19:52, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
- @~2026-47018-8: I have nominated it for deletion, because I agree with you on your rationale. TheTechie[she/they] | talk? 15:52, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
Discussion at Talk:Abbasid expeditions to East Africa § Nominated for deletion
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Abbasid expeditions to East Africa § Nominated for deletion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:35, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
- Perhaps someone could take a look at this? A user nominated the article for deletion but didn't finish the rest of the process. I tried advising them just to follow the rest of the steps in the AfD template, but they seem reluctant to do so. The same user prodded the article for deletion, but the prod was subsequently contested and the article restored; so, there's at least one person who feels the article should be kept. I know absolutely nothing about the subject matter and don't want to proxy-AfD an article just because someone is unable/unwilling to complete the process. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:40, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
- For the time being, I have reverted the incomplete nomination from Abbasid expeditions to East Africa and suggested that the nominator (Yubudirsi) make an AfD request here if they do not feel confident to complete the process themselves. @Yubudirsi, if you choose to do that, remember you will have to give a proper rationale for deletion. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 11:21, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Deleting List of Hospitals in Lesotho as it is a duplicate
Hi! I was trying to fix a redirect to List of hospitals in Lesotho and ended up creating List of Hospitals in Lesotho by mistake. Please could you delete the second one? Thank you. H0n0r (talk) 00:39, 18 March 2026 (UTC)
- Done. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:43, 18 March 2026 (UTC)