Articles For DeletionEdit
Articles For Deletion is a formal governance mechanism used in collaborative encyclopedias to decide whether a candidate article should be removed from the main space. It operates as a gatekeeping tool designed to keep the repository focused, reliable, and navigable by ensuring that topics meet agreed standards of significance and verifiability. In practice, it balances a commitment to robust knowledge with a preference for clarity and efficiency, recognizing that not every idea deserves a dedicated article in a crowded encyclopedia.
In projects like Wikipedia, the aim is to present a stable, usable record of human knowledge. The AfD process channels disagreement into a transparent, time-bound discussion rather than letting it fester on individual talk pages or in edit wars. By design, it relies on broad community participation, clear criteria, and a closing decision by knowledgeable editors or Administrators when consensus is reached. This structure helps protect readers from misleading or trivial content while preserving space for well-sourced topics that truly merit encyclopedic treatment.
Overview
Articles For Deletion operates as a sequence of steps that editors can follow when they believe a page does not meet core editorial standards. A nomination is posted on the Articles for deletion page, inviting community members to comment and vote on the page’s fate. The typical outcomes are to keep the article (often with improvements), delete the article, redirect it to a related topic, or merge it into a broader page. In some cases, a page may be moved to a more appropriate location within the encyclopedia or turned into a stub with the intent to expand later.
The standards behind AfD are rooted in widely accepted editorial concepts such as Notability and Verifiability. Topics should be notable, meaning they have received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, and the content should be verifiable through those sources. In addition, material should be presented in a neutral, encyclopedic tone and be more than a trivial listing of facts. Editors frequently discuss whether a topic has lasting significance, whether it is covered by multiple independent sources, and whether the available sources provide a balanced view.
Key terms you will see in AfD discussions include Reliable sources and Notability. The former refers to information that is trustworthy and publicly verifiable, while the latter concerns whether a topic has enough lasting importance to justify a standalone article. Related concepts such as Verifiability and the use of Edit war-resistant sourcing play important roles in assessing a page’s eligibility.
In practice, AfD is not designed to suppress controversial topics as such, but to prevent the encyclopedia from becoming a vehicle for fleeting trends or low-quality content. Some debates center on the balance between breadth and depth: should the encyclopedia exhaustively catalog every minor subject, or should it concentrate on topics with substantial public, scholarly, or historical resonance? The answer, in many communities, is governed by the combination of notability criteria, reliability of sources, and editorial judgment exercised in a transparent, archived discussion.
Process and criteria
Notability and sources
Notability is the central hurdle in many AfD discussions. A page typically needs coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. This helps ensure that material isn’t driven by a single editor’s interest, personal bias, or ephemeral coverage. The standards are designed to reflect durable significance rather than popularity or notoriety. In the balance between inclusivity and quality, the notability standard acts as a proxy for long-term interest and reliable documentation.
Verifiability and tone
Verifiability requires that statements be traceable to credible sources. The tone must be encyclopedic—neutral, objective, and free of advocacy. This is not about suppressing controversial topics but about presenting them with careful sourcing, context, and proportional emphasis. When sources diverge, editors should summarize the range of viewpoints, clearly distinguishing fact from interpretation.
Outcomes and governance
The main outcomes are: - Keep: The article remains, often with improvements to sourcing or framing. - Delete: The article is removed from the main space. - Redirect: The topic is merged into a related page to avoid fragmentation. - Merge: Similar articles are combined to reflect consolidated knowledge. - Move or convert: The article is relocated to a title that better matches encyclopedic scope or converted into a different format (e.g., a section within a broader article).
Closing authority typically rests with experienced editors or Administrators who review the discussion, assess the quality of sources, and determine whether consensus exists. Appeals and alternative discussions can occur on related pages or meta forums, with the aim of transparency and due process.
Controversies and debates
Gatekeeping versus openness
Critics argue that AfD can function as gatekeeping, potentially suppressing legitimate topics that lack mass coverage in mainstream outlets. Proponents counter that notability criteria are necessary to prevent the encyclopedia from becoming a catchall for every idea, rumor, or personal project. From a governance perspective, the goal is to strike a balance between safeguarding reliability and avoiding unilateral suppression.
Bias and consistency
Any governance process runs the risk of inconsistency or bias, especially in a volunteer environment where editors come from varied backgrounds. Some argue that certain cultural or political topics may be treated differently depending on who participates in a given discussion. Supporters contend that the archiving and archival trails provide accountability and allow patterns to be identified and corrected over time.
Orphan pages and topic creep
A frequent concern is the proliferation of “orphan” pages—articles that drift away from a coherent neighborhood of topics and become hard to maintain. AfD discussions often address whether a page is sufficiently linked to related content or whether it exists in isolation with weak sourcing. The pragmatic view holds that consolidating fragmented coverage helps keep the encyclopedia navigable and avoids dead ends for readers.
Free expression and editorial power
Opponents sometimes worry that AfD expands editorial power in ways that resemble censorship. Defenders argue that voluntary, community-based governance with transparent closing criteria is a form of self-regulation that preserves freedom of expression while preserving accuracy and reliability. The debate here intersects with broader questions about how open platforms should handle content that is controversial but not well-supported.
Woke criticisms, and counterarguments
Some critics describe notability and deletion practices as instruments that can be leveraged to downplay or erase topics favored by certain groups. From a practical, non-ideological standpoint, the response is that the standards emphasize verifiability and enduring significance rather than popularity among any particular audience. Critics who claim systemic bias often push for broader inclusion of sources or different standards, arguing that the bar for notability is sometimes too stringent or applied unevenly. Proponents may respond that while no process is perfect, the transparency of AfD discussions and the availability of archived debates provide a mechanism for accountability and improvement. In this view, the safeguards and procedures serve to prevent content that is not reliably sourced or that clouds the record with transient noise.
Notable practices and cases
AfD discussions frequently revolve around the quality of sources, the interpretation of notability, and the relative importance of a topic within a given field. The process is designed to be iterative: someone can nominate a page, others contribute citations and context, and the community works toward a common standard. Over time, repeated patterns in decisions can lead to clearer guidelines and better consistency across the encyclopedia, while still allowing for exceptions where a strong, well-documented case exists.
In this framework, the role of editors and Administrators is to enforce consistency, solicit cooperative input, and ensure that deletion decisions are robust, well-documented, and reversible if new evidence arises. The end result is a balance between broad knowledge coverage and a curated, dependable foundation for readers.