Wikipedia is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.

Article milestones Date Process Result February 5, 2005 Peer review Reviewed March 9, 2005 Peer review Reviewed April 4, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted April 9, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted May 4, 2005 Featured article candidate Promoted April 1, 2006 Articles for deletion Speedily kept August 1, 2006 Featured article review Demoted September 15, 2006 Good article nominee Listed February 25, 2007 Peer review Reviewed August 12, 2008 Peer review Reviewed August 15, 2008 Good article reassessment Kept July 21, 2009 Peer review Reviewed July 26, 2012 Peer review Reviewed November 7, 2012 Featured article candidate Not promoted August 25, 2014 Guild of Copy Editors Copyedited September 5, 2014 Good article reassessment Delisted May 21, 2021 Peer review Reviewed February 4, 2023 Featured article candidate Not promoted March 12, 2023 Peer review Reviewed A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on January 15, 2005. This article was on the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive for the week of February 7, 2007. Current status: Former featured article

This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Wikipedia Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's encyclopedic coverage of itself. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Please remember to avoid self-references and maintain a neutral point of view, even on topics relating to Wikipedia.WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject WikipediaWikipedia Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Websites: Computing Top‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing (assessed as Mid-importance). Internet High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Internet culture Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Internet culture To-do: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles Expand : Pick an article from here or here Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images Stubs : All stubs are located here Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}} See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention Brands Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Books: Reference works This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook This article is supported by the Reference works task force. Spoken Wikipedia This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Wikipedia Guild of Copy Editors This article was copy edited by a member of the Guild of Copy Editors on September 10, 2014.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors

	Other talk page banners

The redirect Wiki encyclopedia has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 5 § Wiki encyclopedia until a consensus is reached. Heyaaaaalol (talk) 07:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The screemshot in the infobox isn't aligned to centre on mobile view, it's a bit to the left. Sushidude21! (talk) 01:52, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks centered on my Android Pixel device. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect VVikipedia has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 7 § VVikipedia until a consensus is reached. Heyaaaaalol (talk) 18:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BRD. I want the april fools AFD nominations to be removed from this page. No other talk page does this, it seems pointless, and the "consensus" is wrong anyways. Also there is no humor template. @Johnjbarton SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 04:45, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Having a look at Wikipedia:April Fools/April Fools' Day 2024, you might be right. Why did you delete the merge though? CMD (talk) 04:57, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chipmunkdavis That was a mistake I made. SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 05:14, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done a few more spotchecks, found Talk:Balloon, but that's the only one so far. CMD (talk) 05:18, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chipmunkdavis doesn't really make sense to include april fools AFD nominations. April fools day on wikipedia is contained to just April 1st, not for it to be actually used. SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 05:28, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They might be humorous, but they were actually filed. I say keep them, it's what the Old Afd-template is for. I don't know of any routine to exclude "funny" afd:s, my default assumption is that if it happened, it should be added. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:41, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keepers, for the humour alone (and the ever-present historic value). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:21, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for starting this discussion. I don't agree with your reasons for your delete:

• "No other page does this," No other page is named "Wikipedia" either. Many pages have old-AfD listings, but I've never seen such a listing deleted. Perhaps deleting these are more common than I think.
• "it seems pointless" If you mean the Fools part, please see Humour As with any art form, the acceptance of a particular style or incidence of humour depends on sociological factors and varies from person to person. If you mean retaining a list of old AfD, then please start an RFC to remove Template:Old XfD multi from all pages.
• "the "consensus" is wrong anyways." I am unclear on what this means. The word "consensus" appears in your proposed delete in the sentence The discussion was closed on 27 February 2010 with a consensus to merge. which appears to me to be true based on the records.

Johnjbarton (talk) 16:57, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted above, from my checks it seems the majority of April Fools AfDs are removed from their relevant talkpages. CMD (talk) 18:27, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chipmunkdavis I agree that is a reasonable argument to remove the April Fools AfD on this page. Johnjbarton (talk) 00:16, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnjbarton consensus of the AFD's SimpleSubCubicGraph (talk) 23:44, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe the consensus of the AfD's is incorrect, I suppose you can attempt to appeal them with an RFC but I think that is very unlikely to be popular. I don't see how your opinion on the consensus of these AfD becomes an argument to delete the record. Johnjbarton (talk) 00:09, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I kind of also agree with you that we should update this page instead of deleting it. Bro StaRs (talk) 02:09, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fwiw, the OP is currently indeffed. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:02, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support removal Generally agree with the consistency argument put forward by SimpleSub. I also can see this being confusing to new editors, who might come to this talk page as they are trying to figure out how Wikipedia works and get a false impression that it is proper process to nominate articles about clearly notable subjects for deletion over concerns about things like article quality, bias, etc. Flip^andFlopped ツ 22:50, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to edit what I thought was subjective in the first paragraph, where it brags about its stats as most visited reference work, and I was about to delete it but I wanted to check first to make sure it wasn't subjective. Empirejack182 (talk) 23:20, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You will need to build a convincing case the sources given in that paragraph are not reliable. They look good to me. Johnjbarton (talk) 23:23, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I read them, they look good. Empirejack182 (talk) 23:05, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Wikipediya has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 March 4 § Wikipediya until a consensus is reached. Duckmather (talk) 16:26, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]