view · edit Frequently asked questions Q1: I don't like this page's name. I want to rename it toArticles for discussion or something else. A1: Please seeWikipedia: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 useWikipedia:Proposed mergers orWikipedia:Requested moves for those kinds of proposals. Q3: How many articles get nominated at AfD? A3: Per theOracle 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 atWikipedia:Oracle/All andWikipedia: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'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects:
Deletion (defunct) This page is within the scope ofWikiProject Deletion, a project which is currently considered to bedefunct.DeletionWikipedia:WikiProject DeletionTemplate:WikiProject DeletionDeletion

This project page has beenmentioned 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

Index1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 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 theArticles for deletion page has to be used as a contingency archive. One can look in theDeletion 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 itstalk 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 than25 days may be auto-archived byLowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 4.

I presume that there is no limit to the number of times an article can be nominated for deletion under current rules. TheJetBlue Flight 292 article is currently at its5^th nomination discussion. It is looking like the result will be the same as the previous four, i.e. keep.

Is it now time that a limit was set on the number of times that an article can be nominated? I would suggest that the fourth nomination should be the final nomination. It being extremely unlikely that consensus would change from keep to delete at that point.Mjroots (talk)17:36, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please seeWikipedia:Lamest edit wars#Deletion_wars.Mangoe (talk)21:40, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hard disagree. Standards change, and the bar for notability has shifted substantially over the years. Perhaps there could be a time limit (no more than one AFD per year or something), but setting a blanket ban doesn't make sense considering the ever-evolving nature of WP.nf utvol (talk)

I would say twice, at the outside three times with excellent reasons for a third attempt. Four times is way too many (more like attempts to delete no matter what the time sink). Articles, once or twice saved, let alone three times, should have the accumulated weight of Wikipedia history and past editor commentaries at their backs.Randy Kryn (talk)13:09, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty enough of cases where articles were deleted after four or more AfDs. "Consensus can change," as they say.Mangoe (talk)18:44, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to nominate a page for deletion for the first time and I realised there's a ton of text on the sectionWikipedia:Articles for deletion § How to nominate a single page for deletion and the next two sections that is unnecessay. I previously streamlined the instructions forWP:TfD inthese edits; I'll paste the edit summary I used there, as it seems to also apply to the instructions on this page:

Wow, this instruction table was a mess. Sometimes the same things were repeated 2 or even 3 times in different points, using different words for the same things;

The situation here seems even worse, with the same exact instructions (e.g., the NominationName) being repeated up to 5 times in the same section, and here there are also 2 (or 3, if you include twinkle) set of intructions. I may end up splitting the different instruction sets (some of which contradict each other) into different sections, or collapsing the least user-friendly ones. I'll also make the table look like a table and add clickable buttons for user-friendliness and a{{clear}} so it's not so narrowed by the twinkle image. And other similar changes.

I'm writing this here because I highly suspect my changes will be reverted as "undiscussed" if I don't, so please let me know if you think... idk, that this page is perfect as-is? This is as close of an estimate of the edits i intend to perform as i can make it.FaviFake (talk)17:16, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this is the best venue for this, but I've been itching to write up a streamlined "circle of life" workflow for editors.

• Make a new article:

• Either it's just pushed live, or
• it's born from a draft viaWikipedia:Articles for creation.

• Article lives however long.
• Article faces aWikipedia:Speedy deletion or goes through and loses atWikipedia:Articles for deletion.

• Article is deleted andbecomes a red link like this.

• Article can be recreated to be ablue link again, if:

• A new draft is submitted to and passesWikipedia:Articles for creation, or
• if you successfully argue it's restoration under polices atWikipedia:Deletion review, or
• if you convince the Administrator who deleted it underWikipedia:Articles for deletion to restore it, with new evidence.

• The article, again, lives however long.

Am I missing anything obvious as a possible procedural step here? I'm just after the big obvious routes for general editors and newer users. —Very Polite Person (talk/contribs)03:10, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that mentioning draftification, where the article is not actually deleted just moved to the side, may be worthwhile. --Nat Gertler (talk)04:46, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also... Article is redirected due to not meeting GNG/SNG (eg song failing NSONG to album), or merged per NOPAGE. Can later revert to full article if justified by sigcov / splitout.^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~06:11, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Might also want to do the FA/GA/DYK/(A-class for military things) cycles. Also probation, protection, RfCs and ArbCom cases.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk)06:47, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The recreated article need not go through AfC. Editors often turn up new sources that are not discussed at AfD and quietly create a new article without issue. In other cases, aTOOSOON deletion is followed by more coverage and the subject becoming notable. I am afraid your list above makes deletion seem more permanent than it is, and recreation more challenging than it is.Toadspike[Talk]08:19, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the{{proposed deletion/dated}} tag fromRhiannon Software, which you proposed for deletion. While some may not see this as a significant company, Rhiannon Software was the first in the computer industry to create a game SPECIFICALLY aimed at bringing young women into computing, attempting to fill a need that STILL lacks any kind of movement in the computer industry.GandalfDDI (talk)23:04, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You posted this to the page for discussing the use of the "Articles for Deletion" process, which is a specific process and is different from "proposed deletion". It might be more on point to post your reason for deprodding atTalk:Rhiannon Software. --Nat Gertler (talk)23:28, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a problem with the format on this page.Bearian (talk)19:30, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian: I'm not seeing an issue. Can you point it out more specifically? Or perhaps it has been resolved as the vast majority of info on such pages is transcluded from other places. -UtherSRG(talk)22:11, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's between Anthony Ruiz and Eclipses. There should be a separate section for Group-IB.Bearian (talk)18:15, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian: Ok, the issue was some stray tags inWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Group-IB, which I've now fixed. Thanks for pointing this out. -UtherSRG(talk)18:19, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! And thank you!Bearian (talk)18:20, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all. I tried to revert my relist action, as per my user talk pagehere. But I am struggling to do that, as I might have missed something there. Since there's an one vote after relist, will it be applicable to revert. Anyone could help me please? Pinging@Explicit andLiz:Fade258 (talk)16:33, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all — I’d like to request that some uninvolved editors take a look atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wendell Brown (2nd nomination).

Two relists have already occurred, and it 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)01:37, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the backlog say zero whenWikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of largest law firms by profits per partner was opened on the second of October?GothicGolem29 (talk)20:04, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because it was relisted on the 10th. It'll be in the backlog again if it's still open after the 17th.Extraordinary Writ (talk)21:19, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok thanks for explaining.GothicGolem29 (talk)23:09, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion atTemplate 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]

I've opened a discussion about shortening the AfD tag that appears on articles atTemplate 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]

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 meetWP: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, imvAtlantic306 (talk)19:52, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article was nominated for deletiona few months back, where it was closed as no consensus. AI-generatedwalls of text andbludgeoning 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 meetWP:GNG. For the sources, none claim significant notability. PerWP: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]

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

 DoneCornerstone1949 (talk)01:11, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 byKevinalewis[1]. Also, your AFD was malformed. You can submit an article to AFD but this one would likely be kept as he is arguably anWP:NACADEMIC andWP:NAUTHOR and meetsWP: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]

The article have not edited for 6 months. Does not meetWP:GNG. Requesting an AfD112.207.170.235 (talk)01:39, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The redirectWikipedia:Pfd has been listed atredirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets theredirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect atWikipedia: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]

• Wikipedia pages referenced by the press