Articles for Deletion (AfD) explained

What is Articles for Deletion?

Articles for Deletion, usually called AfD, is the forum where English Wikipedia decides by discussion whether an article should remain. It is used when a deletion is likely to be disputed, or when quicker processes such as proposed deletion or speedy deletion do not apply.

Each nomination gets its own page at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Page title, and a notice is placed at the top of the article with a bold link to it. Nominations are also listed on a log page for the day they were made, and current discussions are linked from the main AfD page, which is how most participants find them.

The discussion is public, and so is its record. Once closed it stays at the same address permanently, which is why the conduct of a discussion matters as much as its result. Our guide to what a failed attempt leaves behind explains how later reviewers use that archive.

How does an AfD nomination start?

A registered editor creates the discussion page, writes a nomination statement, and tags the article. The instructions ask nominators to be signed in, and nomination statements are usually under 150 words. The statement gives the reason for deletion, and that reason sets the terms of the whole discussion.

Before nominating, editors are asked to carry out a set of checks, often referred to by the shortcut BEFORE. These include reading the relevant policies, checking the article's history for recent vandalism or poor editing, checking whether there has been a previous nomination and whether enough time has passed since, and searching for sources that would show the subject is notable even if the article does not yet cite them. Not every nominator does all of this, and pointing out sources they missed is a legitimate response. The nominator's side of the process, from the minimum search to filing with Twinkle, is set out in how to nominate a Wikipedia page for deletion.

Nominators are not required to notify the article's creator or main contributors, but the instructions call it courteous. If the subject or their staff created the page, the first they know of the discussion may be a message on that account's talk page.

Once a discussion is under way, the notice must stay on the article until the close. Editors must not remove it, and it is added back automatically if they do.

What is a bundled AfD nomination?

A bundled nomination puts several related articles into a single discussion so that editors can consider them together. The AfD instructions say a group nomination is the better choice when similar articles are nominated for deletion or merging, because it saves the same arguments being made on several pages at once.

The instructions give examples of articles that may be bundled:

• articles with identical content under slightly different titles;
• a series of similar articles or lists that could be merged into their main page;
• articles on nearly identical manufactured products;
• a group of hoax or spam articles created by the same editor.

For a business, a bundle might take in the company, its founder and its flagship product where all three were written by one account and rest on the same thin sourcing.

The instructions also set limits. If one article in the group has a significantly better chance of standing on its own merits, it should not be bundled and should be nominated separately. Bundling is meant to happen near the start, ideally before any substantive discussion. Every article in the bundle must carry the deletion notice: the deletion process guidance tells closers that, where only some of the pages were tagged, the rest should be tagged and the discussion relisted, or the untagged part closed with no action.

A participant can argue the articles separately within one discussion. Where the sources differ sharply between them, saying so, page by page, is a fair contribution, and the instructions recognise that an oversized bundle can be withdrawn and split into single nominations.

How does an AfD discussion reach interested editors?

Mainly through the daily log and through deletion sorting. Every nomination is listed on the log page for the day it was made, and it can also be added to one or more topic lists maintained by WikiProject Deletion sorting, which editors watch for the subjects they know.

Deletion sorting is an organising system that runs alongside the date order. The lists cover subject areas and countries, such as actors and filmmakers, music, academics and educators, and many more. When a discussion is added to a list, a short line is posted at the bottom of the discussion saying which list it went to, so participants can see how others found it. The AfD instructions describe sorting as optional and say its value is in drawing people familiar with a topic area.

Two other routes bring readers in:

• WikiProject notes and Article Alerts. If an article falls within a WikiProject's scope, the project may welcome a brief, neutral note on its talk page. Projects that subscribe to Article Alerts are told automatically when an article carrying their banner is nominated.
• Notices to contributors. The nominator may notify the creator and main contributors, as covered above.

Every one of these notices is bound by the canvassing guideline. The AfD instructions say neutrality must be respected when inviting people to a discussion and that selectively notifying editors is not allowed. The deletion sorting project itself warns that it may not be used in breach of the rule against recruiting like-minded people. The practical effect for a subject is that a sorted discussion is read by editors who already know the field and its publications, so weak sourcing is noticed quickly. Our guide to who decides Wikipedia deletions looks at those participants in more detail.

How long does an AfD discussion last?

At least seven days. The instructions describe discussions as normally running for seven full days, or 168 hours, and a backlog of discussions waiting to be closed can stretch that.

Throughout this period the article can still be edited. Improving it, especially by adding the sources the discussion is about, is welcome. Blanking it, turning it into a redirect or quietly copying its content elsewhere before the close is not.

How do closers decide the outcome of an AfD?

By weighing arguments against policy. The AfD instructions put it plainly: the process may look like voting, but it does not operate like one, and justification and evidence carry far more weight than the bold recommendation in front of them.

In practice the closer does several things:

• Reads each comment for the policy it relies on and the evidence it gives. A comment that lists three independent, in-depth articles about the subject counts for more than five comments saying it is well known.
• Discounts contributions made in bad faith, including from sockpuppets, and may discount comments that give no reasons at all.
• Gives little weight to arguments that contradict policy. The deletion process guidance notes that local agreement in one discussion cannot override content policy.
• Weighs comments from new accounts with care. The instructions say suspicion of new users is a fact for the closer to weigh, not an attack on the person.

Discussions are normally closed by an uninvolved administrator. Experienced editors who are not administrators may close some discussions, but must mark the close as a non-administrator closure, should only close outcomes they can carry out themselves, and are expected to leave close calls to administrators. The closer usually writes a short explanation, and that explanation becomes the most-read part of the archive.

What are the possible outcomes of an AfD?

The common outcomes are keep, delete, merge, redirect, draftify and no consensus, and each has a distinct effect.

One rule affects private individuals. Under the deletion policy, a discussion about a relatively unknown, non-public person who has asked for their article to be deleted, where there is no clear consensus to keep, may be closed as delete. How much weight such a request gets is left to the closing administrator's discretion. It does not help public figures or companies.

A closed discussion is not the end of the matter. A disputed close can go to deletion review, which looks at whether the closer read the discussion correctly, and a deleted subject can return with a better draft. Both routes are covered in our guide to restoring a deleted page.

What are the alternatives to deleting an article?

Fixing the article by editing, merging it, redirecting it, moving it to draft space, or cutting it back to a short sourced stub. The deletion policy states the principle directly: if editing can address all the relevant reasons for deletion, that should be done rather than deleting the page, and the named alternatives such as merging and redirection count as editing for this purpose.

These alternatives shape the nomination itself. The AfD instructions tell nominators that an article fixable by normal editing is not a candidate for deletion, and that a topic not important enough for its own article should be proposed for merging or redirecting instead. A participant who can show that one of these routes answers the nomination is making a policy argument, not a plea.

Draft space carries a rule that catches subjects out. A single editor may move a new article to draft once, and an objection, for example moving it back, means the move needs consensus. The drafts guideline excludes editors with a conflict of interest from making that objection, so a subject who moves their own article back to the main encyclopedia has not, under that guideline, objected at all. The proper course is to improve the draft or ask for a discussion.

Are Wikipedia merge proposals now handled at AfD?

Yes. Since March 2026, a merge that is likely to be contested is nominated at Articles for Deletion, using the same discussion pages and the same seven-day timetable as a deletion nomination. A request for comment reached consensus on 24 March 2026 to fold the old Proposed article mergers process into AfD, and that process is now marked as historical.

Before the change, formal merge proposals were usually opened on the talk page of the destination article. Now the AfD page describes itself as the place where editors discuss whether an article should be deleted or merged, and the merging guideline sends anyone expecting opposition to a merge to nominate it there. Several articles can be bundled into one merge nomination.

A few practical points follow:

• A merge nomination looks like a deletion nomination. It runs through the same AfD pages and is listed in the same daily log. A subject seeing an AfD notice should read the nomination before assuming the aim is deletion.
• The nominator must say what they want. A nomination that recommends no course of action is treated as a proposal to delete. A merge nomination is expected to say which parts of the article should be merged.
• The result can differ from the proposal. The instructions say a merge nomination can end in a redirect, and a deletion nomination can end in a merge.
• Bold merges still exist. An uncontroversial merge can be carried out by any editor without discussion, but not while an AfD on the article is open.
• Anyone can carry out an agreed merge. The merging guideline says no administrator is needed, and it notes that the backlog of agreed merges exists because supporters do not finish the job.

For a company or person, the change means a page that might once have been quietly folded into a parent article after a talk-page exchange is now more likely to face a listed, time-limited discussion with a recorded close. The same rules on disclosure and canvassing apply to it.

If a page has already become a redirect, this guide to merged and redirected pages explains how to read the old version and when it can return.

What may a subject or their representative do during an AfD?

Take part openly, make the case once with sources, and improve the article. The AfD instructions say that anyone acting in good faith can contribute, including the article's main authors, and they ask every participant to disclose whether they have a vested interest in the article. The conflict of interest guideline asks the same wherever a connected person discusses the topic.

A proper contribution from the subject's side looks like this:

1. A disclosure. One sentence saying who you are and your connection: the subject, an employee, or an editor paid by them.
2. The sources. Links to the best independent, reliable sources that cover the subject in depth, with a line on what each one shows. If the article does not yet cite them, say so.
3. A response to the nomination. Address the policy the nominator relied on, calmly and briefly.
4. Nothing more unless asked. Answer direct questions, but do not reply to every comment.

Comments must be written by the person making them. The instructions now say editors should not use generative AI tools to write comments.

Improving the article during the discussion is allowed for anyone, but a connected editor should follow the conflict of interest guideline here as everywhere: propose changes on the article's talk page and let others make them. Our guide to edit requests explains the format.

What must a subject's side never do in an AfD?

Never recruit support, use more than one account, or have others argue on your behalf without disclosure. Each of these is named in Wikipedia's rules and treated as disruption.

• Sockpuppetry. The AfD instructions say the use of multiple accounts to reinforce your opinion is forbidden. Such comments are discounted and the person behind them is likely to be blocked indefinitely.
• Meatpuppetry. Recruiting other people to try to alter the result of a discussion, such as asking staff, friends or customers to comment, is treated the same way.
• Canvassing. The canvassing guideline defines it as notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome. An acceptable notice is limited, neutrally worded, sent to a nonpartisan audience and made openly. Emails or messages on platforms such as Discord asking people to join in are singled out as stealth canvassing.
• Removing the notice or blanking the article. The notice is restored automatically and the attempt is recorded.
• Attacking the nominator. The instructions advise against accusing others of a conflict of interest or hidden motives, which are not reasons for keeping or deleting.

Off-wiki appeals, such as posts asking followers to comment, meet the same definition: a notification intended to influence the outcome, sent to an audience chosen for its likely view.

Which arguments carry little weight in a deletion discussion?

Arguments that rest on opinion rather than policy and sources. Wikipedia's essay on arguments to avoid in deletion discussions is not policy, but experienced participants and closers use it constantly, and the patterns it names are the ones that fail most often.

The same essay warns against weak arguments for deletion too, such as deleting a poorly written article as punishment when its problems could be fixed by editing. Pointing that out, politely, is a fair response to a nomination that is really about style.

Should a subject take part in an AfD personally?

A subject can, and a short, disclosed comment with good sources is a perfectly proper thing to post. If the independent coverage is strong and easy to find, that may be all the discussion needs, and doing it yourself is a reasonable choice.

The difficulty is that most subjects facing an AfD do not know which of their coverage counts. Interviews, press releases, sponsored features, trade listings and local profiles all feel like evidence to the person featured in them, and experienced participants will dismiss them in a sentence. A subject who argues hard from the wrong sources, replies to each comment, or asks colleagues to weigh in creates the archive that the next reviewer reads, and a delete result here is what makes G4 available against any similar recreation.

An experienced editor adds value in a few specific ways: assessing honestly whether the sources meet the standard before anything is posted, finding coverage the nominator missed, proposing improvements through the talk page, and making one clear policy-based comment. Our dispute support service covers deletion discussions, and if an AfD has already opened, a page health check is the quickest way to an honest view of the sources. With a discussion open, send us the link and we will be back to you within the working day.