"WP:AFD" and "Wikipedia:Pages for deletion" redirect here. For the abuse filter documentation, seeWP:EFD. For the information page on April Fools' Day, seeWikipedia:April Fools. For other types of pages for deletion, seeWP:XFD.
Articles for deletion (AfD) is whereWikipedians discuss whether an article should be deleted. Articles listed are normally discussed for at least seven days, after which thedeletion process proceeds based on communityconsensus; if consensus is clear prior to the seven day threshold, an AfD may beclosed early. Common outcomes are that the article iskept,merged,redirected,incubated,renamed/moved to another title,userfied to a user subpage, or deleted per thedeletion policy.Disambiguation pages are also nominated for deletion at AfD.
This page explains what you should considerbefore nominating, the steps for nominating, and how to discuss an AfD. It also links to the lists of current debates, and two companion processes to AfD:speedy deletion has a clearly defined set of criteria such asvandalism andpatent nonsense, whereasproposed deletion is used to suggest deletions that no editor would contest.
If you want to nominate an article, theWikipedia deletion policy explains the criteria for deletion, and may help you understand when an article should be nominated for deletion. Theguide to deletion explains the deletion process. If an article meets the criteria for deletion and you understand the process, consultthe instructions below. If you areunsure whether a page should be nominated for deletion, or if you need more help, trythis talk page orWikipedia's help desk.
Current and past articles for deletion (AfD) discussions
Current discussions
Articles being considered for possible deletion are indexed by the day on which they were first listed.
Alternatively, if you believe that deletion of an article would be uncontroversial, you may place the code{{subst:prod|insert reason for deletion}} on the article instead. See alsoWikipedia:Proposed deletion for more information, andCategory:Proposed deletions, for other currently pending nominations for deletion.
AfDs are public, and are sometimes quoted in the popular press.[1][2] Please keep to public-facing levels of civility, just as you should for any edit you make to Wikipedia.
Avoidpersonal attacks against people who disagree with you; avoid the use of sarcastic language andstay cool.
Do not make unsourced negative comments about living people. These may beremoved by any editor.
Remember that while AfD may look like a voting process,it does not operate like one. Justification and evidence for a response carries far more weight than the response itself. Thus, you should not attempt to structure the AfD process like a vote:
Do not add tally boxes to the deletion page.
Do not reorder comments on the deletion page to group them by keep, delete, or other. Such reordering can disrupt the flow of discussion, polarize an issue, and emphasize vote count or word count.
Do not message editors about AfD nominations because they support your view on the topic. This can be seen as votestacking. SeeWikipedia:Canvassing for guidelines. But if you are nominating an article for deletion, you can send afriendly notice to those who contributed significantly to it and therefore might disagree with you.
If a number of similar articles are to be nominated, it is best to make this a group nomination so that they can be considered collectively. This avoids excessive repetition which would otherwise tend to overload involved editors. However, group nominations that are too large or too loosely related may be split up or speedy-closed.
While there is no prohibition against moving an article while an AfD or deletion review discussion is in progress, editors considering doing so should realize such a move can confuse the discussion greatly, can preempt a closing decision, can make the discussion difficult to track, and can lead to inconsistencies when using semi-automated closingscripts.
AfDs are a place for rational discussion of whether an article is able to meet Wikipedia's article guidelines and policies. Reasonable editors will often disagree, but valid arguments will be given more weight than unsupported statements. When an editor offers arguments or evidence that do not explain how the article meets/violates policy, they may only need a reminder to engage in constructive, on-topic discussion. But a pattern ofgroundless opinion,proof by assertion, and ignoring content guidelines may become disruptive. If a pattern of disruptive behavior persists after efforts are made to correct the situation through dialogue, please consider adispute resolution process outside the current AfD.
There are a number of practices that most Wikipedians use in AfD discussions:
When editors recommend a course of action, they usually do so inbold text, e.g., "Keep", "Delete", "Merge", "Redirect", or other view. A number oftools which parse AfDs will only recognize bolded words.[3]
Start comments or recommendations on a new bulleted line (that is, starting with*), and sign them by adding~~~~ to the end. If you are responding to another editor, put your comment directly below theirs, making sure it is indented (using multiple*s).
Please disclose whether you have a vested interest in the article, perWP:AVOIDCOI.
Please have a look at the article before making a recommendation. Do not base your recommendation solely on the information supplied by the nominator or other editors. To understand the situation, it may also help to look at the history of the article. However, please read the earlier comments and recommendations. They may contain relevant arguments and further useful information.
When participating, please consider the following:
The debate is not a vote; please do not make recommendations on the course of action to be taken that are not sustained by arguments.
When making your case or responding to others, explainhow the article meets/violates policy rather than merely stating that it meets/violates the policy.
Use of multiple accounts to reinforce your opinions is absolutely forbidden. Multiple recommendations by users shown to be using "sock puppets" (multiple accounts belonging to the same person) will be discounted and the user manipulating consensus with multiple accounts will likely beblocked indefinitely.
You can explain your earlier recommendation in response to others but do not repeat a bolded recommendation on a new bulleted line.
Nomination already implies that the nominator recommends deletion (unless indicated otherwise), and nominators should refrain from repeating this.
Do not make conflicting recommendations; if you change your mind, modify your original recommendation rather than adding a new one. The recommended way of doing this is to use strike-through by enclosing a retracted statement between<del> and</del> after the*, as in"•Delete Keep".
Unregistered or new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted if they seem to be made in bad faith (for example, if they misrepresent their reasons).
There are many good ways to advocate keeping, deleting or even redirecting an article. These include:
Arguments commonly used to recommend deletion are: "unverifiable" (violates bothWP:V andWP:NEXIST, i.e., not just currentlyuncited), "original research" (violatesWP:NOR), and "non-notable" in cases where the subject does not meet their respectivenotability criteria. (In the cases of non-notable biographical articles, it is better to say "does not meetWP:BIO" to avoid insulting the subject.) Accusations ofvanity and other motives should be avoided as they are not in themselves reasons for deletion. The argument "non-neutral point of view" (violatesWP:NPOV) is often used, but often such articles can be salvaged, so this is not a very strong reason for deletion either.
If you wish for an article to be kept, you can directly improve the article to address the reasons for deletion given in the nomination. You can search outreliable sources, and refute the deletion arguments given using policy, guidelines, and examples from ourgood andfeatured articles. If you believe the article topic is valid and encyclopedic, and it lacks only references and other minor changes to survive, you may request help in the task by listing the article on therescue list in accordance with instructions given atWP:RSL, and then adding the{{rescue list}} template to the AfD discussion by posting{{subst:rescue list}} to the discussion thread. Please donot do this for articles which are likely to be eventually deleted on grounds other than simple incompleteness or poor writing (seeWP:SNOW).If the reasons given in the deletion nomination are later addressed by editing, the nomination should be withdrawn by the nominator, and the deletion discussion will be closed by an admin. If the nominator fails to do it when you think it should have been done (people can be busy, soassume good faith on this point), leave a note on the nominator's talk page to get their attention.
Alternatives to deletion should be considered. If you think the article should be adisambiguation page, aredirect ormerger to another article, then recommend "Disambiguation", "Redirect" or "Merge". Do not recommend deletion in such cases.
You do not have to make a recommendation on every nomination; considernot participating if:
A nomination involves a topic with which you are unfamiliar.
You agree with the consensus that has already been formed.
Review the article's history to check for potential vandalism or poor editing.
Read the article'stalk page for previous nominations and/or that your objections haven't already been dealt with.
Check to see if enough time has passed since previous nominations beforerenominating.
Check "What links here" in the article's sidebar, to see how the page is used and referenced within Wikipedia.
Check if there areinterlanguage links, also in the sidebar, which may lead to more developed and better-sourced articles. Likewise, search for native-language sources if the subject has a name in a non-Latin alphabet (such as Japanese or Greek), which is often in the lead.
Consider whether the article could be improved rather than deleted:
If the article can be fixed throughnormal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD.
If the article was recently created, please consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article.
If an article has issues try first raising your concerns on the article's talk page, with the main contributors, or an associated WikiProject, and/or addinga cleanup tag, such as{{notability}},{{hoax}},{{original research}}, or{{advert}}; this ensures readers are aware of the problem and may act to remedy it.
If the topic is not important enough to merit an article on its own, considermerging orredirecting to an existing article. This should be done particularly if the topic name is a likely search term.
If possible, also please make use ofThe Wikipedia Library, which offers free access to various subscription databases of additional resources. Not every resource available in that collection will always be relevant in every situation, so it is not necessary to exhaustively check every database, but there are many resources which may be useful for specialized or older topics that might not Google well.
If you find alack of sources in the real world (not in the article), you've completed basic due diligence before nominating. However, if a quick search does find sources, this does not always mean an AfD on a sourcing basis is unwarranted. If you spend more time examining the sources and determine that they are insufficient, e.g., because they only contain passing mention of the topic, then an AfD nomination may still be appropriate. It is a good idea to explain the searches you performed in your nomination statement.
If you find that adequate sourcesdo appear toexist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article isnot a proper basis for a nomination. Instead, you should consider citing the sources, using the advice inWikipedia:Citing sources, or at minimum apply an appropriate template to the page that flags the sourcing concern. Common templates include{{unreferenced}},{{refimprove}},{{third-party}},{{primary sources}} and{{one source}}. For a more complete list seeWP:CTT.
Write an explanation of why you believe the article should be deleted:
This statement is usually less than 150 words long, though there is no required minimum or maximum.
If you have already attempted to locate additional reliable sources that could be cited in this article, it's helpful to describe how you searched. If you did not, then say that, too.
Please don't nominate the article for deletion if your main reason is one of theWikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (e.g., "it's not important") or could be fixed by editing (e.g., "it's promotional").
How to nominate asingle page for deletion
Please also take a look atWikipedia:Deletion process, which includes more information about deletion discussions.
Only a registered, logged-in user can complete steps II and III. (Autoconfirmed registered users can also use theTwinkle tool to make nominations.) If you are unregistered, you should complete step I, note the justification for deletion on the article's talk page, then post a message atWikipedia talk:Articles for deletion requesting that someone else complete the process.
You must sign in to nominate pages for deletion. If you do not sign in, or you edit anonymously, you will get stuck part way through the nomination procedure.
To nominate asingle page for deletion, you can useTwinkle, or follow these three steps:
I – Put the deletion tag on the article.
Insert{{subst:afd1}} at thetop of the article. Do notmark the edit as minor. If this article has been nominated before, use{{subst:afdx|2nd}} or{{subst:afdx|3rd}} etc.
Include in the edit summaryAfD: Nominated for deletion; see [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NominationName]]. replacingNominationName with the name of the page being nominated. Publish the page. The NominationName is normally the article name (PageName), but if it has been nominated before, use "PageName (2nd nomination)" or "PageName (3rd nomination)" etc.)
II – Create the article's deletion discussion page.
The resulting AfD box at the top of the article should contain a link to "Preloaded debate" in the AfD page. Click that link to open the article's deletion discussion page for editing. Some text and instructions will appear.
You can do it manually as well:
Click the link saying "deletion discussion page" to open the deletion-debate page.
Insert this text: {{subst:afd2 | pg=PageName | cat=Category | text=Why the page should be deleted}} ~~~~ ReplacePageName with the name of the page,Category with a letter from the listM, O, B, S, W, G, T, F, and P to categorize the debate, andWhy the page should be deleted with the reasons the page should be deleted.
If appropriate, inform members of the most relevantWikiProjects through one or more"deletion sorting lists". Then add a{{subst:delsort|<topic>|<signature>}} template to the nomination, to insert a note that this has been done.
Use an edit summary such asCreating deletion discussion for [[PageName]]. Publish the page.
At thetop of the list on the log page (there's a comment indicating the spot), insert:{{subst:afd3 | pg=NominationName}} ReplaceNominationName appropriately (use "PageName", "PageName (2nd nomination)", etc.)
Link to the discussion page in your edit summary:Adding [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NominationName]]. Publish the page.
Consider letting the authors know on their talk page by adding:{{subst:Afd notice|Page name}} ~~~~ If this is not the first nomination, add a second parameter with theNominationName (use "PageName (2nd nomination)" etc.):{{subst:Afd notice|PageName|NominationName}} ~~~~
How to nominatemultiple related pages for deletion
"WP:BUNDLE" redirects here. For citation bundling, seeWP:CITEBUNDLE.
Sometimes you will find a number of related articles, all of which you feel should be deleted together. To make it easier for those participating in the discussion, it may be helpful to bundle all of them together into a single nomination. However, for group nominations,it is a good idea to first list one article at AfD and see how it goes, before listing an entire group.
Examples of articles which may be bundled into a single nomination:
A group of articles with identical content but with slightly different titles.
A series of articles on nearly identical manufactured products.
An article with a fair or better chance of standing on its own merits should not be bundled—nominate it separately. For the avoidance of doubt, bundling should not be used to form consensus around policy decisions such as "should Wikipedia include this type of article". Bundling AfDs should be used only for clear-cut deletion discussions based on existing policy.If you're unsure, don't bundle it.
For the sake of clarity, debates should be bundledonly at the start or near the start of the debate, ideally before any substantive discussion, but may be acceptable following one or two other editors' comments, particularly (but not only) where those comments are "per nom", bysingle purpose accounts, the article creator, or were clearly in bad faith.
ReplaceNominationName with the page name of the first page to be deleted,not the current page name. In other words, ifSome article was the first article you nominated, replacePageName withSome article (orSome article (nth nomination) if this is not the first nomination ofSome article). As before, please include the phrase "AfD: Nominated for deletion; see [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NominationName]]" in the edit summary (again replacingNominationName with the first page name to be deleted), and do not mark the edit as minor. Publish the page. Repeat for all articles to be bundled.
(If the article has been nominated before, use{{subst:afdx}} instead of{{subst:afd1}}, and replace "NominationName" with the name of the pageplus a note like "(2nd nomination)" for a second nomination, etc. SeeTemplate talk:Afdx for details.)
V.
Add the additional articles to the nomination.
Go to the first article's deletion discussion page: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName, and add a note under your original nomination listing all related pages, for example:
I am also nominating the following related pages because [insert reason here]::{{la|related article 1}}:{{la|related article 2}}
In the edit summary, note that you are bundling related articles for deletion.
Creating an AfD
This template can be used byautoconfirmed users to nominate an article for deletion:
If you do it this way, remember to add{{subst:AFD|article name}} at the top of the article, as well as list the nomination at the top ofthe current AFD log page.
Alternatively, you can useTwinkle (TW) to do the same thing, and without having to add the nomination to the current AFD log page, plus a bunch of other things, such as reverting and reporting vandalism and marking articles and templates for speedy deletion. Twinkle can be activated by going toyour preferences page, click on the "Gadgets" tab, make sure the "Twinkle" checkmark under the "Editing gadgets" section is selected, and click on "Save". For more information, seeWikipedia:Twinkle/doc.
After nominating: Notify interested projects and editors
While it is sufficient to list an article for discussion at AfD(see above), nominators and others sometimes want to attract more attention from and participation by informed editors. All such efforts must comply withWikipedia's guideline against biased canvassing.
To encourage participation by less experienced editors, please avoid Wikipedia-specific abbreviations in the messages you leave about the discussion, link to any relevant policies or guidelines, such asnotability,verifiability or a specific section ofWikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, e.g.,Wikipedia is not a directory, and please provide a link to the AfD discussion page itself.
Deletion sorting
Once listed, deletion discussions can, optionally, also be transcluded into an appropriatedeletion sorting list, such as the ones foractors,music,academics, or for specific countries. Since many people watch deletion sorting pages for subject areas that particularly interest them, including your recent AfD listing on one of these pages helps attract people familiar with a particular topic area. Please see thecomplete list of lists.
Notifying related WikiProjects
WikiProjects are groups of editors that are interested in a particular subject or type of editing. If the article is within the scope of one or more WikiProjects, they may welcome a brief, neutral note on their project's talk page(s) about the AfD.
While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify thegood-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion. One should not notifybot accounts, people who have made only insignificant 'minor' edits, or people who have never edited the article. To find the main contributors, look in thepage history ortalk page of the article and/or use thePage History tool orWikipedia Page History Statistics. Use:{{subst:Afd notice|article name|AfD discussion title}} ~~~~
At this point, you've done all you need to do as nominator. Sometime after seven days have passed, someone will either close the discussion or, where needed, "relist" it for another seven days of discussion. (The "someone"must not be you, the nominator. However, if you want to see how it's done, seeWikipedia:Articles for deletion § How an AfD discussion is closed.)
If you change your mind about the nomination, you should withdraw it. This might be because the discussion has produced new information about the topic, or because you realise the nomination was a mistake.
To withdraw a nomination, add a note saying "Withdrawn by nominator" immediately below your nomination statement at the top of the discussion, give a brief explanation, and sign it.
If no one has supported deletion of the article you may close the discussion yourself as aWP:Speedy keep, or you may leave it for someone else to close the discussion. Withdrawing a nomination can save other editors' time by cutting short the discussion.
A deletion discussion should normally be allowed to run for seven full days (168 hours), but may beclosed early if the consensus is 100% clear.
Consensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments.
The AfD nominator can withdraw the nominationand close a discussion asspeedy keep reason #1, ifall other viewpoints expressed were forKeepand doing so does not short-circuit an ongoing discussion. For how to perform this, see below, subsectionProcedure for non-administrator close (nominator withdrawal)
Anadmin who isuninvolved and has not participated in the deletion discussion will assess the discussion forconsensus. For how to perform this, seeWP:AFD/AI.
If consensus seems unclear the outcome can be listed asNo consensus (with no effect on the article's status) or the discussion may berelisted for further discussion.
Questions or concerns about a closure should first be asked on thetalk page of the editor who closed the discussion. If that does not resolve the concerns, the closure can be appealed atWikipedia:Deletion review.
Procedure for non-administrator close (nominator withdrawal)
As mentionedabove, the AfD nominator can withdraw the nominationand close a discussion asspeedy keep reason #1, ifall other viewpoints expressed were forKeepand doing so does not short-circuit an ongoing discussion.
This procedure involves performing edits to three pages, as follows:
On the deletion discussion page
Remove the{{Closing}} tag from the page, if it was placed beforehand.
Insert at the top of the page:{{subst:Afd top|'''speedy keep'''. Nomination withdrawn. {{subst:nac}}}} ~~~~. Put this tag above the article page title. It should be at the very top of the page.
Remove the line containing{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD}}
Insert at the bottom of the page:{{subst:Afd bottom}}
Publish the page with an edit summary such asClosing AfD, result was speedy keep (nomination withdrawn).
On the article page
Find the article page
The name of the votepage might not identically match that of the article
The prefix "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion" should not be part of the "votepage" name
Remove from the top of the page the text beginning<!-- Please do not remove or change this AfD message until the issue is settled --> and ending<!-- End of AfD message, feel free to edit beyond this point -->
Publish the page with an edit summary such asAfD closed as speedy keep (nomination withdrawn).
Paste the suggested template from the article page on the top of talk page itself. It resembles the following, with PageName and Date prefilled.
For a result of "keep", this procedure differs from theProcedure for non-administrator close (nominator withdrawal) above, only in the reasons to be listed in the templates and the comments to be annotated in the edit summaries. Follow those instructions, replacing references to "keep (nomination withdrawn)" with the relevant reason.
Pleasedo not try to update these pages or start a new one yourself. These pages are not the deletion log pages referred to instep III of the instructions, above.
^Seth Finkelstein,"I'm on Wikipedia, get me out of here",The Guardian, September 28, 2006. "At Wikipedia, contentious decisions are made by a process of elaborate discussion culminating in administrative fiat. Deletions go through a comment period. The process is not a vote, but the result forms a recommendation to the administrators."
For a listing of current collaborations, tasks, and news, see theCommunity portal. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see theDashboard.
