Wikipedia article deletion discussions
"WP:AFD" and "Wikipedia:Pages for deletion" redirect here. For the abuse filter documentation, see
WP:EFD
. For the information page on April Fool's Day, see
Wikipedia:April Fools
. For other types of pages for deletion, see
WP:XFD
.
![](//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/db/Busy_desk_red.svg/50px-Busy_desk_red.svg.png) | This page has an
administrative backlog
that requires the attention of willing administrators.
This notice will automatically hide itself when the backlog is cleared.
|
![Information icon](//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/35/Information_icon.svg/100px-Information_icon.svg.png) | Before listing an article for deletion here, consider whether a more efficient alternative is appropriate:
Scripts are available to view all deletion discussions
[
1
]
or those opened
[
2
]
or closing
[
3
]
today.
|
Articles for deletion
(
AfD
) is where
Wikipedians
discuss whether an article should be deleted. Articles listed are normally discussed for at least seven days, after which the
deletion process
proceeds based on community
consensus
. Common outcomes are that the article is
kept
,
merged
,
redirected
,
incubated
,
renamed/moved
to another title,
userfied
to a user subpage, or deleted per the
deletion policy
.
Disambiguation pages
are also nominated for deletion at AfD.
This page explains what you should consider
before 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 as
vandalism
and
patent nonsense
, whereas
proposed deletion
is used to suggest deletions that no editor would contest.
If you want to nominate an article
, the
Wikipedia deletion policy
explains the criteria for deletion, and may help you understand when an article should be nominated for deletion. The
guide to deletion
explains the deletion process. If an article meets the criteria for deletion and you understand the process, consult
the instructions below
. If you are
unsure
whether a page should be nominated for deletion, or if you need more help, try
this talk page
or
Wikipedia'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.
Read how to
?
Add a new entry
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 also
Wikipedia:Proposed deletion
for more information, and
Category:Proposed deletions
, for other currently pending nominations for deletion.
AfDs sorted by topic & country
Search current and archived AfD discussions by topic
- To find discussions containing the word
navy
, enter:??
navy
- To find discussions about articles whose titles contain
battleships
, enter: ?
intitle:battleships
- To find discussions with
navy
anywhere, but
battleships
only in the article title, enter: ?
navy intitle:battleships
- Or,
browse archived discussions grouped chronologically
here
- A
sortable table of current AfDs
can be found
here
Contributing to AfD discussions
Wikietiquette
- Users participating in AfD discussions are expected to be familiar with the policy of
civility
and the guidelines
Wikietiquette
and
"do not bite the newbies"
.
- This also applies to the other deletion pages.
- 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.
- Avoid
personal attacks
against people who disagree with you; avoid the use of sarcastic language and
stay cool
.
- Do not make unsourced negative comments about living people. These may be
removed 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. See
Wikipedia:Canvassing
for guidelines. But if you are proposing deletion of an article, you can send a
friendly 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 closing
scripts
.
How to contribute
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 of
groundless 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 a
dispute 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 in
bold
text
,
e. g.
, "
Keep
", "
Delete
", "
Merge
", "
Redirect
", or other view. A number of
tools
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 do not accompany comments with
label templates
.
- Please disclose whether you have a vested interest in the article, per
WP: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, explain
how
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 be
blocked 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). Conversely, the opinions of logged in users whose accounts predate the article's AfD nomination may be given more weight when determining consensus.
There are many good ways to advocate keeping, deleting or even redirecting an article. This includes:
- Arguments commonly used to recommend deletion are: "unverifiable" (violates both
WP:V
and
WP:NEXIST
, i.e., not just currently unverified), "original research" (violates
WP:NOR
), and "non-notable" in cases where the subject does not meet their respective
notability criteria
. (In the cases of non-notable biographical articles, it is better to say "does not meet
WP:BIO
" to avoid insulting the subject.) Accusations of
vanity
and other motives should be avoided and is not in itself a reason for deletion. The argument "non-neutral point of view" (violates
WP: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 out
reliable sources
, and refute the deletion arguments given using policy, guidelines, and examples from our
good
and
featured
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 the
rescue list
in accordance with instructions given at
WP:RSL
, and then adding the
{{
rescue list
}}
template to the AfD discussion by posting
{{subst:rescue list}}
to the discussion thread. Please do
not
do this for articles which are likely to be eventually deleted on grounds other than simple incompleteness or poor writing (see
WP: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, so
assume good faith
on this point), leave a note on the nominator's talk page to draw their attention.
- Alternatives to deletion
should be considered. If you think the article should be a
disambiguation page
, a
redirect
or
merger
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; consider
not
participating if:
- A nomination involves a topic with which you are unfamiliar.
- You agree with the consensus that has already been formed.
Please also see
Wikipedia:Notability
.
Nominating article(s) for deletion
Before nominating: checks and alternatives
Prior to nominating article(s) for deletion, please be sure to:
- Read and understand these policies and guidelines:
- The
Wikipedia deletion policy
, which explains
valid grounds for deletion
as well as
alternatives to deletion
and the
various deletion processes
.
- The main four guidelines and policies that inform deletion discussions:
notability
(
WP:N
),
verifiability
(
WP:V
),
reliable sources
(
WP:RS
), and
what Wikipedia is not
(
WP:NOT
).
- Subject-specific notability guidelines, which can be found at
Category:Wikipedia notability guidelines
, with further related essays at
Category:Wikipedia notability
.
Common outcomes
may be checked to see if other articles on a specific topic tend to be kept or deleted after an AfD discussion.
- Carry out these checks:
- Confirm that the article does not meet the criteria for
speedy deletion
,
proposed deletion
or
speedy keep
.
- If there are
verifiability
,
notability
or other sourcing concerns, take reasonable steps to search for
reliable sources
. (See step D.)
- Review the article's history to check for potential vandalism or poor editing.
- Read the article's
talk 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 before
renominating
.
- Check "
What links here
" in the article's sidebar, to see how the page is used and referenced within Wikipedia.
- Check if there are
interlanguage
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 through
normal 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 adding
a 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, consider
merging
or
redirecting
to an existing article. This should be done particularly if the topic name is a likely search term.
If a redirection is controversial, however, AfD may be an appropriate venue for discussing the change in addition to the article's talk page.
- Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability:
- The minimum search expected is a
normal Google search
, a
Google Books
search, a
Google News
search, and a
Google News
archive
search;
Google Scholar
is suggested for academic subjects.
- Where possible, also please make use of
The 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 a
lack of sources
, 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.
- If you find that adequate sources
do appear to
exist
, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination. Instead, you should consider citing the sources, using the advice in
Wikipedia: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 see
WP:CTT
.
How to nominate a
single page
for deletion
| Does this look too complicated?
Try this semi-automated process instead:
- 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.
|
This section describes how to list
articles
and their associated talk pages for deletion. For pages that are not articles, list them at other appropriate
deletion venues
or use
copyright violation
where applicable. As well, note that deletion
may not be needed
for problems such as
pages written in foreign languages
,
duplicate pages
, and
other cases
. Use
Wikipedia:Proposed mergers
for discussion of mergers.
Only a registered, logged-in user can complete steps II and III.
(
Autoconfirmed
registered users can also use the
Twinkle
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 at
Wikipedia 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.
I
? Put the deletion tag on the article.
- Insert
{{subst:afd1}}
at the
top
of the article. Do not
mark the edit as minor
.
If this article has been nominated before, use
{{subst:afdx|2nd}}
or
{{subst:afdx|3rd}}
etc.
- Include in the edit summary
AfD: Nominated for deletion; see [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/
NominationName
]].
replacing
NominationName
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
}} ~~~~
Replace
PageName
with the name of the page,
Category
with a letter from the list
M, O, B, S, W, G, T, F, and P
to categorize the debate, and
Why the page should be deleted
with the reasons the page should be deleted.
- If appropriate, inform members of the most relevant
WikiProjects
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 as
Creating deletion discussion for [[
PageName
]].
Publish the page.
|
III
? Notify users who monitor AfD discussions.
- Open the
articles for deletion log
page for editing.
- At the
top
of the list on the log page (there's a comment indicating the spot), insert:
{{subst:afd3 | pg=
NominationName
}}
Replace
NominationName
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 the
NominationName
(use "
PageName
(2nd nomination)
" etc.):
{{subst:Afd notice|
PageName
|
NominationName
}} ~~~~
|
How to nominate
multiple related pages
for deletion
"WP:BUNDLE" redirects here. For citation bundling, see
WP: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 often a good idea to only 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 group of
hoax articles
by the same editor.
- A group of
spam articles
by the same editor.
- 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 bundled
only
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", by
single purpose accounts
, the article creator, or were clearly in bad faith.
To bundle articles for deletion:
I.
II.
III.
|
Nominate the first article.
? Follow
steps I to III above
.
|
IV
.
|
Nominate the additional articles.
? On each of the remaining articles, at the top insert the following:
{{
subst:afd1
|
NominationName
}}
Replace
NominationName
with the page name of the first page to be deleted,
not
the current page name. In other words, if
Some article
was the first article you nominated, replace
PageName
with
Some article
(or
Some article (nth nomination)
if this is not the first nomination of
Some article
). As before, please include the phrase "AfD: Nominated for deletion; see [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/
NominationName
]]" in the edit summary (again replacing
NominationName
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 page
plus
a note like "
(2nd nomination)
" for a second nomination, etc. See
Template 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 by
autoconfirmed
users to nominate an article for deletion:
If you do it this way, remember to add
{{
subst:AFD
|Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/
subpage name
}}
at the top of the article, as well as list the nomination at the top of
the current AFD log page
.
Alternatively, you can use
Twinkle
(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 to
your 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, see
Wikipedia: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 with
Wikipedia'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 as
notability
,
verifiability
or a specific section of
Wikipedia: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 appropriate
deletion sorting
list, such as the ones for
actors
,
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 the
complete 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.
- Tagging the nominated article's talk page with a relevant Wikiproject's banner will result in the article being listed in that project's
Article Alerts
automatically if they
subscribe to the system
. For instance, tagging an article with
{{
WikiProject Physics
}}
will list the discussion in
Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Article alerts
.
- Notifying substantial contributors to the article
- While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the
good-faith
creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion. One should not notify
bot accounts
, people who have made only insignificant 'minor' edits, or people who have never edited the article. To find the main contributors, look in the
page history
or
talk page
of the article and/or use the
Page History tool
or
Wikipedia 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, refer to the next section.)
Withdrawing a nomination
If you change your mind about the nomination, you can 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 a
WP: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.
How an AfD discussion is closed
- A deletion discussion should normally be allowed to run for seven full days (168 hours).
- Consensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments.
- The AfD nominator can withdraw the nomination
and
close a discussion as
speedy keep
reason #1, if
all
other viewpoints expressed were for
Keep
and
doing so does not short-circuit an ongoing discussion. For how to perform this, see below, subsection
Procedure for non-administrator close (nominator withdrawal)
- An
admin
who is
uninvolved
and has not participated in the deletion discussion will assess the discussion for
consensus
. For how to perform this, see
WP:AFD/AI
.
- An editor in good standing who is not an administrator, and is also uninvolved, may close AfDs in certain circumstances; closures that non-admins may make are detailed at
Wikipedia:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions
. For how to perform this, see below, subsection
Procedure for non-administrator close (other)
- If consensus seems unclear the outcome can be listed as
No consensus
(with no effect on the article's status) or the discussion may be
relisted
for further discussion.
- A discussion can be closed sooner than seven days if
any of certain special conditions
applies.
- Questions or concerns about a closure should first be asked on the
talk page
of the editor who closed the discussion. If that does not resolve the concerns, the closure can be appealed at
Wikipedia:Deletion review
.
Procedure for non-administrator close (nominator withdrawal)
As mentioned
above
, the AfD nominator can withdraw the nomination
and
close a discussion as
speedy keep
reason #1, if
all
other viewpoints expressed were for
Keep
and
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}}}} ~~~~
- 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 as
Closing 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 as
AfD 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.
- {{Old AfD multi|page=
PageName
|date=
Date
|result='''speedy keep'''}}
- Publish the page with an edit summary such as
AfD closed as speedy keep (nomination withdrawn).
Procedure for non-administrator close (other)
As mentioned
above
, an editor in good standing who is not an administrator, and is also uninvolved, may close AfDs in certain circumstances; closures that non-admins may make are detailed at
Wikipedia:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions
.
For a result of "keep", this procedure differs from the
Procedure 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.
For any other appropriate result, the procedure is basically the same, with the differences listed in
WP:Articles for deletion/Administrator instructions#Carrying out the AfD close
.
See also
Citations
- ^
"The battle for Wikipedia's soul"
,
The Economist
, March 6, 2008.
- ^
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."
- ^
The tools
AfD Statistics
and
Admin AfD Counter
[
dead link
]
cannot parse unbolded !votes or closures.