Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion

Frequently asked questions (FAQ)
I don't like this page's name. I want to rename it to Articles for discussion or something else.
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.
You mean I'm not supposed to use AFD to propose a merger or a page move?
Correct. Please use WP:Proposed mergers or WP:Requested moves for those kinds of proposals.

Move protect by default[edit]

Hello. Today, I was thinking that AFD discussions are highly visable pages, and may be moved by New users. I was thinking that since these factors are true, that a move protection should be a default. Please put support or oppose below if you think this is a good or bad idea. Thanks! --Wyatt2049 | (talk) 14:57, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Can you provide diffs of where this has been a problem? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:15, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Viral drink is one recent example. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:27, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Jo-Jo Eumerus, the OP referred to ‘AFD discussions’ rather than the articles themselves but they have been CU blocked so I guess this is as far as it goes. :) --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:23, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Eh. I don't think that move protecting AFDs would make sense; disruption by AFD move is not common. Move protecting the article for the duration of the AFD might make sense through as it often creates confusion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:14, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Will be Wikipedia's downfall[edit]

Whoever decided and came up with the policy about having a cabal of self-righteous inquisitors working for the holy mother Churchipedia needing to approve new articles or embark on a hunt constantly deleting what they have no idea about should be the person you blame for its certain decline.

As communist economics has demonstrated, it's simply impossible to centralize and plan wide distribution networks - especially of knowledge. Patrick Bet David is just another one of many names I've googled to find out more about only to discover the remnants of an archaeological virtual dig on Wikipedia where someone created a page and then has one of you Stalinists rush to exercise the little power you have in your lives to declare that page irrelevant.

The VERY reason why I ever liked Wikipedia was because it was relevant, new, and had articles about topics SOMEONE knew about and wrote about, no matter how abstract and out of the mainstream. This made it better than the centralized and censored information of mainstream encyclopedias, because anyone coudl create and update page which allowed wikipedia articles to have much more than the others.

But in the day and age of butt hurt people some idiot has decided they should have God's censor power to decide what is relevant and isn't, irrational and egotistical, centres of the universe.

Meaning for the first time since Wikipedia has existed, I am googling things and not finding articles on the Wikipedia page but going elsewhere. Nice job - you will kill every company, organization and society. Off with their heads, quick, someone out there is creating a page you weren't asked permission to create and haven't heard about before - quick, delete delete lest it offend your sense of superiority. Canlawtictoc (talk) 10:32, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Canlawtictoc, totally irrelevant rant, I'm afraid, and in any case in the wrong venue. All Wikipedia rules and policies are decided by consensus of the Wikipedia editing community which is very large, and such discussions are generally subscribed by users who have an experience far greater than only 170 edits. Thank you for your time. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:40, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • The article on Patrick Bet-David was properly deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Bet-David. Patrick Bet-David is an entrepreneur, and as such he is associated with promotion. This is difficult for Wikipedia, because Wikipedia strives very hard to not be another venue for commercial promotion. The answer is a strict adherence to demanding the existence of independent secondary sources that cover the subject directly. Using non-independent sources would mean reworking promotion. If you want to make the case that an article should exist, see WP:THREE. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:56, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more that this will be the Encyclopedia's downfall. I just became aware of this trend by a serial deleter who flagged a stub three minutes after it's initial creation, even though it had a cite. Just crazy.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smoothswim (talkcontribs) 02:30, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the ruination of Wikipedia. The introduction of deleting articles. Because it's such a brand-spanking new aspect of the site, right? --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:51, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Please complete Ann-Sophie Qvarnström deletion nomination[edit]

Hi, per I should ask somebody here to finish the deletion nomination of this article for me (i.e. I've done step 1, but can't do step 2 & 3), since I don't use an account and can't do it on my own:öm

The reason I think it should be deleted is because there's obviously not any significant coverage of her all. Her claim to fame is to have made maps for Swedish role playing games in the 1980's, but she's not received much coverage/mention outside of the occassional blog or forum post. Thoug the article might look well-sourced at a first glance, the only sources that seem to meet RS guidelines (a handful of articles that supposedly appeared in local newspapers) are not formatted properly and not verifiable, i.e. "Nya Kristinehamnsposten, 13 July 1990", "Kuriren, 3 July 1984", "Bergslagsposten, 2 July 1984" and "Jönköpings-Posten 12 July 1993". It's impossible to determine if whatever coverage she might have received in these articles would classify as "significant" - my guess is not. There's plenty of references provided as evidence that Former Deputy Prime Minister of Sweden Maud Olofsson often wore jewelry designed by Qvarnström but none of those actually mention Qvarnström but merely depict Olofsson wearing jewelry (supposedly made by Qvarnström), which obviously isn't relevant. I was able to find only one verifiable RS (not included in the article, but from Google News) where she is very briefly mentioned:

"Den frilansande illustratören Ann-Sophie Qvarnström, i dag silversmed, anlitades ofta av för att rita främst kartor. Hon var också en hängiven spelare.

– Man måste komma ihåg att det här var långt innan datorerna slog igenom på bred front. Rollspelen gjorde att vi kunde bygga egna världar utan begränsningar. Det var så långt vi kunde komma på den tiden utan datorer, säger hon."

Google Translate:

"Freelance illustrator Ann-Sophie Qvarnström, today a silversmith, was often hired to draw mainly maps. She was also a dedicated player.

- You have to remember that this was a long time before computers broke through on a broad front. The role-playing games allowed us to build our own worlds without limitations. That was as far as we could get at that time without computers, she says. "

All in all this article seems like a vanity project. (talk) 06:01, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ann-Sophie Qvarnström. --Finngall talk 14:42, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. (talk) 15:42, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Please complete the deletion nomination of Svante Thunberg[edit]

Per WP:AFDHOWTO, I'm requesting help with nominating the Svante Thunberg article for deletion (since I don't use an acccount). My motivation for the nomination is that this article seems to fail the basic criteria. There doesn't seem to be any significant non-trivial coverage of Thunberg. I checked on the Swedish Wikipedia page and even there, all the links are just "databases" proving he's appeared in this or that stage show/movie/TV show, or articles about either his wife or daughter (both who are clearly notable). He's appeared in some productions but it's not clear to me that the roles he played in them were "significant" (per WP:NACTOR). I tried looking him up on Google and while I get hits for several news articles where his name appears even before Greta became famous, they all seem to be trivial mentions as "Malena Ernman's husband"). A google news search for

"svante thunberg" -"greta" -"malena"

set to "before august 2018" (when Greta started her school strike) receives no hits. (talk) 08:20, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I have removed your tag, you need to learn how to properly format an AFD which means having a discussion not just tagging the article! When you have elarnt how to do this you can tag the article but you musn't tag the article and not have a discussion. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 08:25, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi Richard. I did make a small mistake in that I posted my motivation for the deletion here instead of on Svante Thunberg's talk page. If you read WP:AFDHOWTO though you'll see that you are not required to have an account to nominate pages and having a discussion beforehand isn't required either (though there are actually 2 such discussions on the talk page already), and that I've otherwise followed the instructions. I'll repost my motivation for the nomination to the right place and reinsert the deletion nomination. (talk) 08:30, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
To the volunteers: I've noted my reasons for the deletion nomination on the talk page. Thank you. (talk) 09:59, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
To the volunteers: I've fulfilled step 1 but I've been reverted 3 times already by 2 different users who refuse to accept an incomplete nomination. (talk) 11:12, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
RichardWeiss, we have previously opened AFD on behalf of IP users. See these:
just to name a few. Please look at the archives for more examples. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:41, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

The AfD was completed by User:Andy Dingley. Thank you. (talk) 13:35, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

The AfD - - was withdrawn by the same user after I suggested he should withdraw his vote, which he didn't take kindly to. Can somebody possibly reopen it? Said user wasn't really the nominator, now was he? He was merely acting on my behalf, supposedly. Or do I need to make a new nomination? It seems a little ridiculous and a waste of everybody's time (a couple of people had responded to the AfD already). (talk) 15:29, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
I have created the AFD. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Svante Thunberg (2nd nomination) --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:24, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Request to update AFDFORMAT[edit]

@HighKing, Northamerica1000, Softlavender, and Floquenbeam: pinging everybody who seemed to be involved in this previously; feel free to add anybody I've missed.

Under WP:AFDFORMAT, we say: Nomination already implies that the nominator recommends deletion (unless indicated otherwise), and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line. I propose we clarify that to make it clear that the bullet per-se, is not the significant thing.

In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdali Medical Center (2nd nomination), my original misclose was based on two things. First, HighKing's bolded Delete (albeit without a bullet) looked like a !vote. Second, User:Makeandtoss, while arguing to keep, did not actually say Keep anywhere. The end result was I took a quick look at this, saw the nomination, two more deletes (apparently in addition to the nomination), and no keeps. This led me to believe it was 3:0 and I didn't bother to read more closely. Had neither of those minor mis-formattings occurred, it would have been obvious that it was 2:1, and I would have invested the time to read it more carefully.

The point of stylized formatting is to make it more obvious what the writer's intent is. Our guidelines on how to format a nomination are clearly not doing the job, so they should be updated to make it more clear. I propose we make the bullet point simply, Nomination already implies that the nominator recommends deletion (unless indicated otherwise), and nominators should refrain from repeating this. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:28, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

  • I think you meant to ping someone besides me? None of this sounds familiar. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:37, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks Roy. I think you should be more explicit if you want to avoid a bolded Delete as part of the nomination text. I suggest Nomination already implies that the nominator recommends deletion (unless indicated otherwise), therefore nominators should refrain from repeating this or beginning their nomination with the word Delete. In my opinion, I think the bolded Delete is a better way of making a nomination as all too often, the nomination and reasoning is overlooked and in some cases, I suspect is not even counted. (Edit: P.S. I responded to your comment at the Afd) HighKing++ 17:29, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
What makes you think nomination statements get overlooked or discounted? Do you have some examples? -- RoySmith (talk) 18:47, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
I have seen it from time to time when contributors are "counting" !votes and they'd say something like "there's 5 !votes to Keep and only 2 !votes to Delete to consensus must be to Keep" and of course (excluding the incorrect logic) they would not have counted the nom. In fairness, I can't recall any closing that specifically overlooked or discounted the nomination. HighKing++ 20:25, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
  • It seems pretty clear that consensus is that the AFD nominator shouldn't be putting a bolded delete in their nomination. Might as well clarify the text to reflect consensus, practice, and common sense, so that it doesn't create unnecessary confusion. Nfitz (talk) 03:58, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Really? That's a bit of a climb-down for you to admit that, in fact, I wasn't in breach of AFDFORMAT. Thank you. As to "consensus", this discussion has hardly gathered any comment, certainly not enough to amend the text. HighKing++ 21:26, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
      • You were clearly in breach of the spirit of it. I don't think anyone anticipated that anyone would actually do what you'd been doing. I simply think that the text should be beefed up, for the benefit of those, who have difficulty comprehending context - not that there's anything wrong with that, I've been caught on the opposite side of consensus before, despite being literally correct. Nfitz (talk) 03:02, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support I agree that the example presented looks misleading and RoySmith's evidence demonstrates that it can cause disruptive confusion. We should therefore clarify the wording so that nominations don't appear to contain a separate supporting !vote. The key issue is the bolding rather than the bullet and so we should make this clear. We should also hear from Uncle G who usually avoids giving a bold !vote when he comments at AfD. Presumably his position is that these are supposed be discussions not votes and so we should act accordingly. Andrew D. (talk) 22:11, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Malformed AFD - please help[edit]

I have tried to fix a malformed nomination with this edit after the nominator appears to have missed step III, but it appears that other steps were missed as well as the log is not showing the title or the intro links. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:11, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done I've added the AFD2 template to the nomination. IffyChat -- 11:21, 4 October 2019 (UTC)


What is with editors claiming that the nominator didn't follow WP:BEFORE even after the nominator stated that they searched for sources beforehand? I thought I would mention it here because it just happened again with me and the sources given were instructions, a non-English reference, and a reference that requires a subscription. It seems unfair and assuming bad faith. SL93 (talk) 21:57, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I am assuming it is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hackergotchi as the AFD in question. There are several points: You did not itemize what you looked for for that term. Did you just use Google, etc? It is best to explain (to offer a good BEFORE rationale) what you searched, which may or may not be sufficient for the topic in question. Second, just because a source is behind PAYWALL or is in a foreign language does not invalidate them, though for notability purposes, someone needs to at least verify them as reliable sources. PAYWALL is harder, but you can always Google Translate to get a rough idea of a foreign-language source to know what it is saying, if we're talking a one line mention or a full blown article. Basically, if you want to say you've done the BEFORE work you need to be very clear what you actually did, otherwise the nom is challengable. --Masem (t) 22:07, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
I never invalidated them. SL93 (talk) 22:09, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
BEFORE actually doesn’t state that I need to list everything in my nomination - just to do it. SL93 (talk) 22:10, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Don't stress about WP:BEFORE. Although it's purportedly there to improve the quality of deletion nominations, it is more often used just to attack the nominator. Reyk YO! 06:48, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Reyk, I've often seen it used when someone found an obscure source. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:00, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
...yep, and then it's a lot of snide, condescending commentary about how a mention in an out-of-print book in another language proves the nominator is a blithering moron who can't even use google. Reyk YO! 15:39, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Please restore Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Conaghan[edit]

Hi everyone. I found references for this article and I was going to make a keep argument but got an edit conflict when I tried to post. Could we please unclose this AFD so the discussion can continue? Thank you.4meter4 (talk) 01:22, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I left a message at User talk:RL0919, but I'm not sure if they are still active at the moment.4meter4 (talk) 01:24, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Developmental dysfluency nominated for deletion[edit]

... but I apparently did not do it correctly. I listed the reasons for the nomination at Talk:Developmental dysfluency#AfD: Nominated for deletion. I apologize for my confusion and error.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 18:06, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Developmental dysfluency — JJMC89(T·C) 20:54, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Request: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moody Margaret[edit]

(multiple bundle, also Perfect Peter) No reliable sources, only source is main topic itelf (in-universe referencing), definitely does not have a cult following. Best deleted. (talk) 06:25, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moody Margaret
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Perfect Peter
I thought it would be best to split it so each can be discussed separately. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:59, 10 October 2019 (UTC)


Hi is there any way I can get someone to finish this of for me plz Chooike (talk) 08:17, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Finish what? Is there an article that you believe warrants deletion? If so, what article and why?Nigel Ish (talk) 08:28, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

John_Mark_Dougan[edit] was put up for deletion rather hastily in my opinion. Could you point out the steps I can take to appeal that decision. Also there is a policy somewhere (I don't remember where) in which I can request the delete article. Could you send me the delete article please? Thank you in advance. :) Moscowdreams (talk) 22:49, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdali Medical Center (2nd nomination)[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdali Medical Center (2nd nomination) is still open, and listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 September 27 - doesn't seem to be listed as active on any current day's list, but isn't closed. Can someone close or relist? Nfitz (talk) 02:01, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

See also Special:Diff/921208460 -- RoySmith (talk) 02:05, 15 October 2019 (UTC)