Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion

Implementing the PAM–AfD merge

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Implementing the PAM–AfD merge

 – Excessive length (300 comments at the time of moving). Has become unnavigable on mobile. Moved to a dedicated page and rethreaded. ~ oklopfer (💬) 14:59, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Reorganising the page

I had already made a similar post last year, but this page is mostly a mess. For starters, the § How to contribute is enormous. It covers bold/italic formatting conventions, sockpuppets, changing your mind mid-discussion (?!), when not to participate, and it's scattered and repetitive. (The same point about "this isn't a vote" is made at least three separate times across the page.) WP:BEFORE is hidden in the middle of the page despite being one of the most important steps. § How to nominate a single article and § Creating an AfD describe the same process in three different ways and don't make it clear whether they are alternatives or whether both are required. Guidance on notifying WikiProjects, deletion sorting lists, and article contributors is mixed into the nomination steps rather than following them, and in general most of the information on this page is duplicated in some other section of the same page. We should also avoid explaining things that are true for all deletion discussions, which are covered at the WP:DELPOL and WP:DELPRO.

I think we should adapt a structure similar to the one of WP:PAM, to follow the creation, discussion, and closure of an AfD in a logical order and most importantly without repeating everything twice or thrice:

1. Keep the short introduction on what AfD is and when to use alternatives like PROD or SD and the list of current discussions
2. Step 1, WP:BEFORE, which also absorbs the guidance on framing the nomination statement and what arguments are appropriate, since that fits naturally into preparing a nomination rather than being hidden at the bottom of § How to contribute.
3. Step 2, a single, unified nomination section covering both the Twinkle method and the manual process, where the steps are maybe more detailed and not constrained by the table.
4. Step 3: notifying interested editors and all other notifications, after the nomination is filed. This is spread across many sections and sub-sections.
5. Step 4: discuss. The discussion participation guidance, which is where § Contributing to AfD discussions ends up.
6. Step 5: closure covering consensus criteria, the seven-day timeline, and the procedures for nominators, non-admins, and admins. This is, unsurprisingly, covered in three different sections: § How an AfD discussion is closed, § Withdrawing a nomination and § How to contribute

Thoughts? FaviFake (talk) 13:45, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

I agree that this reorganization would clarify things, especially for newer and less active/experienced editors. Are you suggesting creating shortcuts for each step like "AFD1", "AFD2" etc.? I think they could help (in addition to the current shortcuts obviously). Step 5 should also include instructions on appealing closes. I would also add a step 6 on following up from AfD discussions with information on next steps for things that close with an ATD (like merging needing to be performed) or no-consensus (cool off period, renomination). ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 14:10, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Definitely! I hadn't thought about the shortcuts but the WP:M1 to WP:M5 i had created worked great! But I think your step six could be covered by step 5? Or at this point we should just merge Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Administrator instructions all into step 5. For whatever reason, merges, redirect, and even withdrawals are listed there instead of AfD, despite the fact that non of these require an admin action or approval. And, of course, they're also outdated and duplicated! Yay! I've lost count of the sections that explain nominator withdrawal. FaviFake (talk) 14:23, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

I think having a separate step 6 would make it easier to keep step 5 clear and concise with the close instructions (even if they remain linked on a separate page, I figure there will be some sort of summary on this page). The follow up from finding consensus is a separate step with different information than closing discussions. ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 15:05, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Yeah you're right. So basically step 5 would be § How an AfD discussion is closed, except the part that starts with "On the article page", and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Administrator instructions § Closing the AfD, while step 6 would be merged from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Administrator instructions §§ Carrying out the AfD close​ and Relisting AfDs. FaviFake (talk) 15:21, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Mostly yes, except I thought relisting would go in step 4 or 5 so that step 6 is very clearly after consensus is determined/the discussion is closed. ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 15:26, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Right! Makes sense. Step 4 will mostly be a bunch of rules thrown together, so i think step 5 is more appropriate for relisting, as it's mostly a how-to. Sounds like a good plan, I might start working on it tomorrow. FaviFake (talk) 15:33, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

I'd like to help you with it, do you think we should do it in a sandbox version of the page that we can move over to the main page when its done? Just to minimize the potential disruption. ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 15:37, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Meh, personally, as many here probably know, I like to "test in production", especially for things like this. I usually edit multiple pages simultaneously, refine them, and then publish all of them at once. This also avoids possible edit conflicts between when the sandbox is created and implemented. FaviFake (talk) 15:51, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Should we also have a renaming discussion now that merge is officially a part of AFD? It would help reduce confusion if people come to the discussion expecting to see whether an article would be deleted or not, since it is still called "articles for deletion", rather than "articles for discussion"? BOZ (talk) 22:32, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Note that Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Rename AFD which is linked to at the top of this talk page is now badly outdated. :) BOZ (talk) 22:34, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Feel free to update it then! FaviFake (talk) 17:01, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Oh, never mind! This is already happening at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC on renaming AfD. BOZ (talk) 22:35, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Split sections about Discussions, Nominating, and Closing and merge them into the corresponding sections on Wikipedia:Guide to deletion, as WP:AFD is not supposed to be a how-to. fgnievinski (talk) 02:54, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Wait a second, what the hell is Wikipedia:Guide to deletion? I've never heard of it, or maybe I forgot about it. It looks like a duplicate of this entire page! We should do the opposite, move everything in that page to here: we can't remove all instructions on how to nominate articles or participate in AfDs from the WP:AFD page... And I cannot think of a reason to keep these two pages separate. That's like making a page for "Process X" that's basically empty (or, in this case, a duplicate) and a separate page for "Guide to Process X". Of course readers who scroll down want to know how the process works, and of course that shouldn't be explained in a separate page. Adding to this mess, we have Wikipedia:Deletion process and Wikipedia:Deletion policy, which at least describe all processes. FaviFake (talk) 15:00, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for merging the duplicated material. I still think the merger target should be the opposite. So, I'll start a splitting discussion. fgnievinski (talk) 03:57, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

@FaviFake I added the anchor for AFD1 because when I went to add redirect cats to the shortcuts redirect helper warned me that the redirect was going to a non-existent anchor (even though it was working as intended). ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 22:21, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Makes sense! Unfortunately that error message almost never works. FaviFake (talk) 05:11, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Split how-to

Wikipedia:Guide to deletion was recently merged here. While I appreciate the de-duplication, I understand deletion discussion venues are not how-to pages. We already have separate pages for the deletion policy and the deletion guideline. Splitting the how-to will properly recognize the nature of each administrative page. fgnievinski (talk) 04:10, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Since nothing is really discussed directly on this page what are you suggesting we keep here? Is it just the first section with the links to the nomination logs from each day? ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 05:51, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

After opening up space on this page, one could expand on some of the deletion discussions. For example, today's AfD could be displayed by default, via automatic excerpting. Currently it's only hinted via a hatnote. fgnievinski (talk) 00:25, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

I think the current organization is more intuitive, especially for newer editors who are learning about the process, having as much as possible on this page is valuable. The discussion logs are prominently linked. ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 14:14, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good idea to split this page into two. As SF said already, this page would become just a small list of links. (And some transclusions?) But most importantly, I think we should keep the instructions on how to nominate articles or participate in AfDs from in the WP:AFD page, where they've always been. Imagine editors saying "please go to AfD to nominate this article", and then the reader is sent to a page which has no instructions on how to actually nominate an article. That's like making a page for "Process X" and a separate page for "How to use to Process X". Readers will naturally want to scroll down to see how the process works and explaining the instructions on a separate page seems unnecessary. FaviFake (talk) 05:39, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

The redirect WP:AFD could be retargeted to the how-to page. Or the how-to content could be left here and the actual discussions could be split off onto a separate page. There's really no need for covering both aspects, the how-to and current discussions, on the same page. The average editor is only interested in very few specific deletion discussions, related to the pages they follow. Even the AfD patrollers, who are interested in all current deletion discussions, would not be interested in the how-to. Maybe only aspiring AfD patrollers would be interested in both aspects, but that's a tiny fraction of the audience here. Separating the two types of content will benefit both, as they would have more space to flourish, unencumbered by the current space constraints. No surprise AfD is difficult to navigate, as noted by FF (re: a "mess") above and last year. Why not try something different? fgnievinski (talk) 22:59, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't know, it just feels like a solution in search of a problem. You're saying we should remove the instructions because most people who visit AfD don't need them and are not interested in them? What problem needs fixing here? FaviFake (talk) 16:59, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Most people who visit the WP:Guide to deletion (GtD) are not interested in the list of all current articles for deletion and vice versa. Someone interested in the GtD has to scroll past five screens of content (on a mobile screen), full of links and hatnotes and tables and lists, before reaching process step 1. I can only think of inertia or sadism for keeping things as they are. fgnievinski (talk) 00:55, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't think its inertia or sadism for keeping things as they are, I think we might just have different ideas about what is easy, convenient, and intuitive, especially for editors who are new to AfD or editors who are trying to direct people to an information resource. The way I see it its easier for most editors to not have to many pages that information is spread out over (it prevents people from having to go looking for something, or missing something important). I take your point about mobile editors (which I guess is also different depending on if you're in the app or on the mobile browser version?), maybe we can try and give it some more thought. ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 09:26, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Precisely. Also if someone were to visit the WP:Guide to deletion today, they wouldn't have to scroll because the redirect points to the "Process" section. We also have other shortcuts, like WP:AFD1. But if someone is on mobile, they're most definitely not here to learn how to nominate an article. I don't even think you can use Twinkle on mobile, and using the other manual methods on mobile would be incredibly annoying. It's just two scrolls for editors on desktop, and, again, none if you're redirected. FaviFake (talk) 14:46, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

I support restoring WP:Guide to deletion and trimming it as needed. It would provide guidance beyond the core basics of WP:Articles for deletion. −53,476 and −11,132 versus +12,991 and +2,257 is a huge decrease that is extremely difficult to review without direct diffs. The merge altered details I value, such as the numbered list in You may edit the article during the discussion (compressed into prose in Editing the article during the discussion) and the table in Outcome summary (removed). Flatscan (talk) 04:27, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Indeed, in following summary style, the lead of WP:GtD could be left here. The preference of "having as much as possible on this page" is counter to having separate Wikipedia:Deletion guideline and Wikipedia:Deletion policy pages. fgnievinski (talk) 13:13, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

I restored WP:Guide to deletion after a few weeks with no replies here. Flatscan (talk) 04:21, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Per WP:SPLITCLOSE, "In more unclear, controversial cases, the determination that a consensus to split has or has not been achieved should be made by an editor who is neutral and not directly involved in the split proposal or the discussion. If necessary, a request that an administrator, who is not involved, close the discussion can be made at the Requests for Closure noticeboard."

We are at two editors in favour and two editors against, so this is definitely an unclear and controversial case. Since the guide duplicated the entirety of WP:AFD, I've restored the redirect. I've listed this discussion at WP:CR, so kindly wait for a formal closure before proceeding. FaviFake (talk) 04:29, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

You were bold to merge GtD, which is equivalent to a page deletion; now I've formalized the missing XFD nomination. fgnievinski (talk) 14:17, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

What? I was not bold, I discussed the change with ScrubbedFalcon for several days before starting to carry out the merge.

Also, you said yourself that this is a splitting discussion, so it should have been kept at WP:SPLIT, not MfD. Besides, at § Where are miscellaneous merges discussed?, it was decided that Miscellany for Deletion is an unsuitable for proposing page merges, let alone page splits... FaviFake (talk) 16:35, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Initially you were proposing just cleaning up AfD. Then, I proposed splitting the how-to into GtD. Finally, you boldly merged GfD into AfD (see here). Since the merger was contested, it should have been more broadly announced, with hatnotes and notifications. Now that mergers are considered deletions, the formal nomination could take place at either MfD or the Village Pump, as per WP:PfD. Regardless of the discussion venue, more eyes are needed to reach a broader consensus here. fgnievinski (talk) 18:06, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Guide to deletion

Wikipedia:Guide to deletion has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. Flatscan (talk) 04:35, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Should AfD pages display a scam warning banner?

It seems that the two main areas that scammers target article subjects are at AfC and here at AfD. Various noticeboards semi-regularly get posts asking if the email they received from "wikipedia" is legit, with the most recent example being today at AN.
AfC's decline templates include a prominent warning that submitters may be targeted by scammers offering their service to "save" drafts from rejection; should AfD follow suit and also display something similar to {{scam warning}} at the top of AfDs? nil ^nz 11:53, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Are you suggesting the banner for discussion pages or as an addition for the AfD notice banner on articles? ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 12:02, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

I was thinking as an addition to the discussion pages, but open to either or. I guess the question should be: where would it most likely be seen by those the scammers intend to target? nil ^nz 13:18, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

My guess would be that most people would be more likely to see it in article space. On the other hand, that template is already a bit information dense so I'd be a little wary of adding another warning to it. I would hope that people would follow the discussion link to project space and a warning there would be sufficient (but it would be less visible). If we do it I think we should try to configure it in a way that it can be hidden via CSS or a userscript by AfD regulars. ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 13:30, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

The other thing to figure out is how to do it so that the warning doesn't transclude to any log pages, and is removed when the discussion is closed. Since {{afd2}} is always substituted, that might require changes to multiple templates, and possibly XfD closer (unless we can include it in {{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD}} which is already removed by XfD closer?). ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 15:12, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 15:22, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

I've implemented this at {{Afd2/sandbox}} so that it includes the warning on individual nomination pages, but doesn't transclude onto the log pages of each day. Before it I ask for it to be merged to the main template I would try and update XfD closer so that it gets removed when the discussion is closed. ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 09:41, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Ahh I should mention, you can only see it at Template:Afd2/testcases or if you try substing it yourself in the sandbox (please remove it afterwards) ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 09:42, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Nice work, thank you!! nil ^nz 22:34, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Just thinking... it probably isn't necessary to remove it when the discussion closes? Especially if the result is a delete, it's probably better to keep in place, as it warns against scammers offering to restore a page. nil ^nz 03:14, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

That’s a good point about discussions that end in delete. I’ve also added instructions to the warning template on how editors can hide it for themselves if they want, so I guess it wouldn’t be that annoying. ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 06:31, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

@Nil NZ, What do you think about limiting the warning to nominations in the categories Category:AfD debates (Organisation, corporation, or product), Category:AfD debates (Biographical), and Category:AfD debates (Media and music)? I've adjusted the sandbox to do that. ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 10:57, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Sounds sensible, as those are the areas most ripe for targeting nil ^nz 11:46, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

I've made the template edit request ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 12:59, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

I think this change is pointless and looks terrible, by the way. GiantSnowman 20:27, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

It's fairly easy to hide by adding a line to your css! Why do you think its pointless? ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 09:38, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Please see the discussion about this at Template talk:Afd2#Template-protected edit request on 13 May 2026. ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 11:27, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Deletion process § Does soft merge apply?

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Deletion process § Does soft merge apply?. FaviFake (talk) 15:11, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2026

~2026-25947-49 (talk) 14:38, 13 May 2026 (UTC)mayor  Zoharn Mamdnai and First Lady Rama Duwaji 

nominate this page for deletion under Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. The article currently violates WP:NOTNEWS. Rather than acting as a permanent encyclopedic record, the page has been overrun by routine, short-term breaking news coverage and political crossfire that lacks long-term historical significance. Because the subject's career is currently unfolding in real-time, a neutral, encyclopedic biography cannot yet be maintained in accordance with WP:NPOV (Neutral Point of View)." I move to delete this page under Wikipedia:Notability (people). The subject lacks significant independent notability outside of her marriage to the Mayor of New York City. The vast majority of media coverage is recent, routine political reporting centered entirely on her husband's career and temporary campaign controversies. Her professional work as an illustrator does not meet the sustained depth required by the General Notability Guideline (GNG). This profile should be merged into the spouse section of the main mayoral article rather than existing as a standalone biography."

In case it isn't clear, this is a request relating to Rama Duwaji. I'm not moving on it myself as it seems to actually be a merge request rather than a deletion, and I've not taken the time to figure out navigating merges in the new environment. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:16, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Merge nominations are identical to deletion nominations, except that the nom prefers merging, and there are no extra steps needed if you use Twinkle and select "Merge" as the desired outcome when nominating. FaviFake (talk) 15:55, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: As Rama Duwaji falls within the scope of the Arab–Israeli conflict contentious topic, non-extended confirmed editors are not permitted to participate in discussions concerning it, including making nominations at AfD. See WP:ARBECR. Day Creature (talk) 16:49, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Please nominate National Anthem of Macau for deletion.

Macao has never been a nation or something similar; and the list has nothing exclusive (I cannot even find any such songs proposed by rebels.) to Macao, hence such a disambiguation page is useless – as it is unlikely that you would welcome the creation of National flower of Macao, National flag of Macao, National flag of Macao, National emblem of Macao... ~2026-29057-36 (talk) 08:33, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

National Anthem of Macau is a disambiguation page and not an article though? nil ^nz 09:49, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

The format does not make it more or less useful... If one thinks that this one should stay, then they may replace the word Macau and replace it with whatever place names to make thousands of similar entries! Take Alaska as an example, when it belonged to Russia, its national anthem was God Save the Tsar!, when it belongs to the U.S.A., its national anthem is The Star-Spangled Banner. Do you think such a disambiguation page National Anthem of Alaska should exist? ~2026-28875-91 (talk) 11:02, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: ~2026-29057-36 is mine. ~2026-28875-91 (talk) 11:05, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Where are accusations of LLM-abuse handled?

Increasingly, we're getting nominations that are based solely on an accusation of misuse of LLM, e.g. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Public–private_joint_management, where the nominator has given no reason for deletion except an accusation that the article is a machine translation whose sources the creator has not checked. The creator has stated that they checked the translation and the sources, but that they didn't update the source-accessed date. Traditionally at AfD we assess subjects and articles; we don't have to assess the honesty of other editors. I don't think this sort of deletion can be handled here. It's based on a judgement of the behaviour of an editor. But ANI is far too clumsy and heavy a tool to deal with routine accusations, and the new AI noticeboard seems to be a list of articles that need anti-AI-clean-up rather than an assessment-forum. So where do we go? Elemimele (talk) 12:23, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

I mean, WP:LLMPROD just became a guideline like a week ago which also created a new Category:AI-generated content proposed for deletion. ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 12:42, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Ah, right, I remember looking at that, and thinking the text was well-written and appropriate. It names WP:AINB and WP:ANI, though obviously it's for a PROD-equivalent rather than a full AfD. My difficulty is what do we do when the presumed-LLM-abuser says they're innocent? The LLMPROD is then invalid, and deletion has to be dealt with elsewhere. I don't think AfD is equipped to do the job. Does that mean inevitably ANI? This also means that the accuser must be prepared to get castigated drastically for failure to assume good faith. Elemimele (talk) 13:51, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

AINB seems good to me. The area might benefit from a discussion at WP:VP to reach editors who don't monitor this talk page. ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 15:37, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angus Harrison

This afd from years ago was never closed. Bearian (talk) 16:25, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

The article was deleted and recreated 5 years later, so I've removed the tag. FaviFake (talk) 16:34, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I was about to relist, and didn't spot that. Thanks for checking. Iffy★Chat -- 16:36, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

The modern AFD close procedure didn't exist at that point, there doesn't seem to have yet been a universally adhered to standard closers used until 2005. I think historical AFDs (VFDs actually) are supposed to just be left as they are. There's quite a few in the state of this one. --Here2rewrite (talk) 16:38, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I've created a fresh AfD here. Even though the old deletion discussion was never closed I think a new one is needed since the article was deleted and re-created. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 01:21, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Comment on "Editing the article during the discussion"

I believe that there should be some prohibition against gutting an article during the course of a deletion discussion. I have seen a few instances where nominators have made what would likely be highly controversial removals of content, including removal of sourced content for which the sources could reasonably be argued as permissible, and removals of unsourced content for which sources could likely easily be found if the content was properly tagged as needing a citation. Absent removal of actual BLP violations and demonstrable hoaxes, editing the article during the discussion should really be directed towards actually improving the article. BD2412 T 01:01, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

"... editing the article during the discussion should really be directed towards actually improving the article." Ah, but there's the rub. Improvement is in the eye of the beholder, and sometimes gutting poor content is an improvement. It's hard to see how you actually enforce this; it's part of the normal editing process. It's probably good practice to mention any major changes like that at the AFD itself lest it look like it's being done deceptively, but you can't prohibit normal editing. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 06:08, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

What @Deacon Vorbis said, basically. If someone's making unhelpful changes, it's worth flagging that in the discussion for the closer's benefit. But changes is changes, both plus and minus. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:24, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeah removing LLM or unsourced content might be the most realistic way to save an article. Let people see an encyclopedic stub rather than a mess that needs to go. Bad removals already can be dealt with through existing policy and the normal editing process. --Here2rewrite (talk) 11:38, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

While I agree in principle, I'm not sure how you would modify WP:EDITAFD to reflect this policy. This seems like something that should just be handled on a case by case basis through consensus of what is considered "improving" the article rather than trying to make a general policy. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:41, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Please nominate for deletion article: Historiography of Chinese philosophy

This article is unfounded intellectuallized racist nonsense. The page does not represent a real debate that exists in the world, it only exists to cast illigitimacy on Chinese people and their thought, so white supremacists can claim western civilization's intellectual superioriy.

I propose deletion under criteria:

G10. Pages that disparage, threaten, intimidate, or harass their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose

as the page exists only to diparage Chinese people.

it's currently located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography_of_Chinese_philosophy

this has been discussed before under it's previous title's talk page and I can't help but wonder if it changed its name to avoid the stink: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3ALegitimacy_of_Chinese_philosophy ~2026-30992-15 (talk) 12:42, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

I can see nothing to suggest that the article meets G10 criteria. As for it being "unfounded intellectuallized racist nonsense", the claim of racism would appear at least on the surface to be implausible based on the names of the authors of the sources cited. If the article actually merits deletion as not representing a "real debate" (and thus not meeting Wikipedia notability criteria) it will need a better argument than that - not one I'm qualified to give, so maybe you should do it? You might find it helpful to create an account. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:09, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump

The dearth of sources should indicate the lack of notibility. Each page is sourced individually to make it appear as though there's many more sources than actually exist. Otherwise I'm not sure how to prove a negative here.

Philosophers literally never shut up, never stop debating, if this were real there'd be numerous modern sources, they wouldn't have to pull from one old compilation.

Chinese names are used specifically to make it appear credible. It's a common tactic of white supremacists, It's why they hire Candace Owens to spit racist BS.

Israeli propagandists used the exact same tactic when they dug through mountains of Muslim writings and patched them together to concoct the "72 virgins" lie. ~2026-30992-15 (talk) 13:36, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

If you can provide evidence that the sources have actually been written by 'white supremacists' using false Chinese names, that will of course be of relevance in an AfD debate, since presumably such sources wouldn't be deemed reliable. Meanwhile though, there is no point in trying to convince me of anything. This isn't a topic I know anything much about, and beyond stating the obvious - that what constitutes 'philosophy' is likely to differ depending on cultural context - I'm not in a position to offer an opinion. Any AfD discussion will need to start with more than mere assertions of racism, and frankly that seems a red herring. The issue, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, is whether there is an actual topic, supported by the necessary coverage in published reliable sources, to demonstrate meeting Wikipedia notability criteria. If you think it doesn't, you need to present an argument as to why: an argument that doesn't base itself around unverified assertions and off-topic analogies. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:51, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump

If you don't know anything about this, I don't understand why you're providing all this pushback.

I didn't say they were white supremacists using fake Chinese names, they are likely real Chinese names compiled out of context and misinterpreted to suit a narrative no one besides white supremacists are telling. That is the MO for this type of attack. (see the 72 virgins lie)

The idea that white people brought philosophy to China in the 19th century is patently absurd. I wish that assertion got a modocum of the interrogation I'm getting for pointing it out. ~2026-30992-15 (talk) 14:01, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Suit yourself. If you can find someone else to start an AfD based on your evidence-free claims regarding 'white supremacists' then go ahead. Or create an account, and start it yourself. I'm under no obligation to assist you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:14, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump

I'm not a wikipedian, I'm just a reader who saw something fucked up in the encyclopedia. It took me all morning sifting through wikipedia's bureaucracy just to find the process for petitioning an article be removed, found out I had to go through more checks and jump through more hoops just to make the request.

Rather than make an account I'll never use, I came here to ask anyone, not specifically you, to make the nomination. You could've ignored my request.

Instead of investigating the hateful evidence-free published article, you saw Chinese names on the sources, claimed my request was baseless, and sought to poke holes in my request. ~2026-30992-15 (talk) 14:44, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

If you want the article deleted, you will have to provide a rationale. One that doesn't make evidence-free claims. One that actually addresses the question of whether the article meets our notability criteria. This isn't 'poking holes', it is pointing out how AfD works. Something I do know a fair bit about. And expecting other people to 'investigate' an article is optimistic, given your evident unwillingness to take note of what you've been told. Maybe the article merits deletion, maybe it doesn't. This depends not on the article content itself (which can be amended), but the subject, and on what has been written on it. That is what a successful AfD proposal is based around. Not using unsubstantiated claims of 'racism' as some sort of trump-card. That doesn't work. Yes, Wikipedia is bureaucratic - quite possibly unnecessarily so - but that's the way it is, and there aren't any shortcuts. Given that the article has been around since 2012, it seems unlikely that we'll just delete it on your say-so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:37, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump

I'm not asking for it to be deleted just on my say so, I'm asking for it to be nominated so the investigation and discussion can actually start. I'm confident that if enough eyes look at said article, the truth will be seen. ~2026-30992-15 (talk) 16:15, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Don't be! It looks like a clear keep to me. At AFD you need to prove, not that the article is somehow wrong or poor, but that the subject is just not notable. Johnbod (talk) 16:27, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

@Johnbod

Good to know I can makeup whatever I want on here so long as I source the same document 30 times I guess. ~2026-30992-15 (talk) 17:37, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

please nominate acquisiton of directv bY AT&T

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

{{merge|AT&T|DirecTV|discuss=Talk:Acquisition of DirecTV by AT&T#Merge proposal|date=May 2026}} I propose that Acquisition of DirecTV by AT&T be merged into the main articles on AT&T and/or DirecTV. The current standalone article is not viable in its present form and does not meet Wikipedia’s standards for a separate page. Reasons:

• Fails WP:V and WP:RS: The article contains large unsourced sections, incomplete paragraphs, and claims with no citations. Much of the content appears to have been added without verification.
• Fails WP:SUMMARYSTYLE: The acquisition is already covered in the parent articles, and the existing content here does not expand meaningfully beyond what belongs in a summary section.
• Fails WP:NOTNEWS: Routine corporate transactions generally do not merit standalone articles unless they have long-term encyclopedic significance supported by substantial secondary coverage.
• Incomplete and abandoned: Several sections are unfinished or contain placeholder text, suggesting the article was never properly developed.
• Redundant: The verifiable information can be integrated more effectively into the acquisition or corporate history sections of AT&T and DirecTV.

Given the lack of sourcing, incomplete structure, and redundancy with existing articles, merging is the most appropriate course of action. Any salvageable content should be incorporated into the relevant sections of the parent articles.

~2026-31013-37 (talk) 04:56, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

 Not done. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:28, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Please nominate Black Weblog Awards for deletion

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Black Weblog Awards

Nominating for deletion as failing WP:GNG and WP:NORG. The subject has been name-checked in reliable outlets, but on examination the coverage is not significant coverage of the awards themselves — it is overwhelmingly about individual winners, or it is passing/routine, or it is non-independent. A source-by-source analysis:

- The Washington Post, "Be More Than a Blip in the Blogosphere" (2007) — A how-to listicle on growing a blog's readership. The awards appear only as a single example, via one winner, and are then folded into a general aside about the "plague" of blog contests. Passing mention; not WP:SIGCOV.

- Los Angeles Times, "Blogger goes into 'the fields'" (2007) — A profile of an individual blogger, not of the awards. Trivial mention at best.

- NPR, "Every Blogger is a Star at the Webby's" — This piece is about the Webby Awards, not the Black Weblog Awards. Does not support notability of this subject.

- NPR, "Honoring the Best Black Blogs" (2007) — On-topic but brief; a short news hook noting that year's winners were announced before the segment pivots to the program's own blog roundtable. WP:ROUTINE announcement coverage rather than in-depth treatment.

- NPR, "Author Keith Boykin Snags Blog Awards" (2007) — The most substantive item, and I'll concede it contains some secondary description of the awards' structure (dual popular/judges' vote, category count, year founded). But the segment is framed around and dominated by Boykin himself; the awards are context for a winner interview, not the subject of independent analysis.

- Pippins, *We Inspire Me* (2018), p. 117 — A single-page mention; not significant coverage.

- Remaining citations are non-independent or unreliable for notability: the subject's own website (about page, rules page, "2015 info"), its Kickstarter campaign, the Kickstarter page itself, and niche blogs (blackblogmedia.com, blackweb20.com) that do not establish WP:ORGDEPTH.

Taken together, the coverage establishes that the awards existed and were briefly noted in passing across a few 2007 broadcasts, but there is no independent source that treats the organization directly and in depth. Under WP:NORG, which sets a deliberately higher bar for organizations and excludes routine announcements and coverage that is really about award recipients, this falls short. Notability is not inherited from the celebrities who won. I was unable to locate sustained, in-depth independent coverage of the organization, and the article has relied on this same thin sourcing since the 2015 notability tag.

~2026-31450-61 (talk) 16:49, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

 Not done CONFUSED SPIRIT(Thilio).Talk 16:56, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Please nominate Black Weblog Awards for deletion

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. Black Weblog Awards

Nom for deletion per WP:GNG and WP:NORG. There are some recognizable outlets in the reflist, but once you actually read them, none amounts to significant coverage of the awards as an organization. Most are about individual winners, the rest are passing or non-independent. Going through them:

• Washington Post, "Be More Than a Blip in the Blogosphere" (2007): a how-to listicle on growing your blog. Mentions the awards once, through a single winner, then waves at blog contests generally. Passing mention, not WP:SIGCOV.
• LA Times, "Blogger goes into 'the fields'" (2007): profile of one blogger. Not about the awards.
• NPR, "Every Blogger is a Star at the Webby's": this is about the Webbys. Wrong subject entirely.
• NPR, "Honoring the Best Black Blogs" (2007): on topic but it's a 30-second "winners are out today" intro that immediately turns into the show's own blog segment. WP:ROUTINE.
• NPR, "Author Keith Boykin Snags Blog Awards" (2007): the best of the bunch, and it does describe the format a bit (popular vs judges' vote, number of categories, year founded). But it's a Boykin interview. The awards are the peg, not the subject.
• Pippins, We Inspire Me (2018): one line on p. 117.
• Everything else is primary or junk for notability purposes: the org's own site (about/rules/2015 pages), its Kickstarter, the Kickstarter listing, and small blogs (blackblogmedia.com, blackweb20.com). Nothing here meets WP:ORGDEPTH.

So what we have is proof the awards existed and got a few passing 2007 mentions, mostly hung on whichever celebrity won that year. WP:NORG is deliberately stricter for orgs and rules out routine announcements and coverage that's really about the recipients, and notability isn't inherited from the winners. I looked for an actual in-depth independent piece on the organization and couldn't find one. The sourcing has been this thin since the notability tag went on in 2015.

~2026-31555-75 (talk) 18:04, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

 Not done FaviFake (talk) 20:16, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Please nominate Black Weblog Awards for deletion

I will try to break it down into smaller pieces: Black Weblog Awards

To begin with, I removed excess content that was WP:UNDUE, and sources which were irrelevant or contained passing mentions. A summary can be found here: Special:Diff/1356643396

This leaves three sources:

• https://www.npr.org/2007/09/05/14192378/honoring-the-best-black-blogs - A relatively short conversation about the Black Weblog Awards
• https://www.npr.org/2007/09/07/14253966/author-keith-boykin-snags-blog-awards - Also NPR, simply about a single winner
• https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2007-oct-18-na-blogger18-story.html - About another single winner

Overall, there is very little coverage about Black Weblog Awards as a whole. Passing mention in a bunch of articles, and most articles that somewhat discuss it focus on individual winners.

Maybe there are some in-depth sources, but they could be very hard to find. ~2026-31212-44 (talk) 00:42, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

 Done by someone else ~2026-31555-75 (talk) 10:49, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Please nominate Tora-Con for deletion (2nd nomination)

Previous nomination: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tora-Con

Direct link to article: Tora-Con

In the previous nomination, it seemed that nobody carefully looked at the sources, and/or gave this article unusually lenient treatment without a good explanation. There aren't many third-party sources covering Tora-Con in-depth, and they are all local.

Example of standard treatment (this is a significantly more notable event): User_talk:LuniZunie#Kindly_reconsider_your_decline_of_Imagine_RIT._I_have_been_waiting_four_months,_and_this_article_is_definitely_notable

One person says with respect to this other article (which has far more third party sources) "Welp, i'd be declining this, too. If Rochester Beacon and WXXI news are the best sources you can provide, the topic is certainly not notable at all" ~2026-31555-75 (talk) 10:33, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Not done for now Based on the discussion on @LuniZunie's talk page I would gently suggest that you take a look at the advice on using "other stuff exists" arguments. It seems like this AfD nom is related to the decline of this AfC Draft:Imagine RIT. It would be easier to help you if you can provide a nomination statement that makes references to our WP:Deletion policy and that substantiates the claim that There aren't many third-party sources covering Tora-Con in-depth. Please make sure to do a proper "before" search. In solidarity, ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 10:58, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:XFDcloser § Rash of unhelpful XFD users

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:XFDcloser § Rash of unhelpful XFD users. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:36, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

AfD Dellamarie Parrilli

Hi - please complete the steps of WP:AFD2 for me. AfD rationale:

Fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO. This article slipped through the cracks and survived somehow. There is literally no in-depth coverage in secondary sources (even no coverage in trade publications) about her. As an independent artist, she has self-published some work, which has received some "awards" but based on my knowledge none of the mentioned awards are significant enough to pass WP:ANYBIO. There is so much WP:COI work going on (possibly by the subject herself) since article creation by User:Johnmoor (blocked UPE) . ~2026-33180-15 (talk) 01:13, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

AIFF Super Cup to Federation Cup (India)

https://www.olympics.com/en/news/india-football-2026-27-calendar-schedule Merge of cups confirmed Эльдар Шукоров (talk) 16:48, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Impact of the inclusion of Merge Discussions

I have to say that I don't find the inclusion of merge discussions a happy outcome. Firstly I can't close merged as the policy is so vague and the discussions are basically vibes and hopes for a better outcome. Secondly, I get the impression that merge discussions need more time than the 3 weeks AFDs get. Thirdly, the influx of editors used to giving opinions based on vibes and hopes for a better outcome helpful as they are now offering the same standard to AFD discussions which is really not helpful as it's not engaging policy in a helpful way.

I'm opening this discussion to guage what the thoughts of other editors are about this? Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:30, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

• Agree This comment is framed in terms of my perspective as a closer. To me, AfD was quite clear, at least in the abstract, that it was always intended to be for discussions centred on notability. The difficulty with merge discussions is they are inevitably about content. So I find myself having to use very different criteria to assess discussions on merge proposals (more "vibey", less p/g) and I *have* to familiarise myself with content in ways I would never do in assessing an AfD discussion. Furthermore, with AfD, when I come to a discussion to close, and I cannot determine a clear outcome, I'll contribute myself - which in most cases does not require significantly more work. Whereas, where the same happens with a merge discussion that I feel I cannot determine a consensus, more often than not I go no further because I'd need familairise myself not just with the sourcing but the content. That said, there appear to be other editors/admins closing merge discussions, so perhaps this aspect is more of a discomfort issue for closers such as myself and Spartaz...? Can we compare rates of merge closing before it was introduced into AfD and after? Has it produced a noticebale change? Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:08, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Could you expand on why you say you can not close “merge” proposals? Is your problem technical (ie we are unclear as to the mechanics of how to perform a merger)? Is your problem with enforcement (ie no one actually performs the merger)? Or is it something else? Blueboar (talk) 12:11, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

my problem is that I have closed discussions for 18 years based on notability and policy, which I like to think I have a very deep understanding of, which I can do by assessing the arguments against policy without looking at or having an opinion on the article. Merges are opinions and content decisions that to properly understand you need to approach from an editorial not administrative perspective. It's a completely different discipline and I don't think I could learn to do the latter without becoming less effective at the former. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:17, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Merge discussions are almost always based around WP:MERGEREASON and WP:PAGEDECIDE, the latter of which is a policy. Have you tried to asses the arguments against those specific sections? FaviFake (talk) 13:22, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't understand them and the discussions don't have the policy edge I have trained myself to analyse. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:25, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

WP:MERGEREASON and WP:PAGEDECIDE are essentially editorial content guides, they are not policy. While everything in Wikipedia can be grey to some extent, some parts are a lot more grey than others... and editorial decision making is far, far more grey than notability and policies such as WP:NOT and WP:OR. Having been fairly active at AfD for the better part of seven years, 90%+ of the time I agree with fellow editors'/admins' notability decisions at AfD; when it comes to content decision making, two editors might never agree on a subject without ever contradicting a single Wikipedia policy or guideline. And that's the problem in trying to determine merge outcomes, it requires far more familiarity with content and prior discussion than a notability discussion. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 01:40, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

• I can understand Spartaz's reservations about the new system. Merge discussions cover a lot more editorial ground than pure deletion discussions. They are still governed by P&G, particularly PAGEDECIDE and MERGEREASON. I think it's a bit too soon to tell whether the change is helpful or not. But while we gather more experience with the new arrangement, admins who are more comfortable with deletion discussions can stick to closing just those, while those who are comfortable with either type can also handle the merge discussions. Since closing most merge discussions doesn't require admin rights, this could be a good area for experienced non-admins to lend a hand.
  I agree that editorial discussions like merge proposals leave more room for closer discretion, and are therefore "vague", as Spartaz says. But in the end, the goal isn't to get them all "right", but to get them done reasonably well and in a timely fashion, which is already better than what we had before the change. Let's come back and reexamine this in 3-6 months. Owen× ☎ 17:08, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

  congratulations, you can have all my merge closes :-) Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:07, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

  You take the sports related AfDs, and it's a deal. :) Owen× ☎ 23:13, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

  deal! Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:16, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

  Can someone pony up and take everything related to Lady Gaga, please? Goldsztajn (talk) 01:42, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

It has made it extremely hard to get any kind of PAGEDECIDE merge done; whereas before, we could discuss for an extended period of time, now we are hard limited to a week which is just not enough for the complexities of merge discussions. And people keep notability in mind rather than the actual benefits of the merge/PAGEDECIDE (no one at AfD cares about PAGEDECIDE), so people will vote keep based on notability even when notability isn't the consideration but whether it is best to cover pages this way. You just get no consensus close after no consensus close. It is terrible all around, if the topic is a technical GNG pass just give up on the thought of ever merging it, even if it would make the articles better due to content overlap, because it is impossible to get consensus for it now. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:22, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

For another example, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deep Wizardry; whereas before we could have had a discussion on a proper merge on the talk page, but now we are forbidden from doing so and we cannot action anything on dealing with these permastubs for months. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:27, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Why would you say that? I specifically left the door open for speedy renomination in smaller bundles, getting there in piecemeal fashion. In its nominated form, that discussion would have never concluded with a "merge all" result no matter how long we kept going. I don't think your accusation is fair.

As for PAGEDECIDE, I generally down-weight "GNG"-type arguments in a merge discussion if they don't address MERGEREASON. I did exactly that in an AfD I closed yesterday. It shouldn't be difficult for you to find that one as well. Owen× ☎ 22:33, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

"In its nominated form, that discussion would have never concluded with a "merge all" result no matter how long we kept going", yes, that is part of my point, that is the issue with doing this at AfD versus the old method, the key in mind is technical notability passes versus the actual benefits of the merge, which is what was considered before. Getting there in piecemeal faction is also not going to work with a readthrough of the discussion, and ignores the series section of NBOOK. An admin weighting things differently is not going to solve the structural problem doing all merges at AfD represents - also I don't think "leaving the door open" has much policy backing; even with no consensus closes people are often frustrated when you don't wait. A whole dispute once started over me renominating a no consensus close 10 months later. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:41, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

That's one thing at afd, a renom of a no consensus after 2 months is highly unlikely to cause trouble and the closing admin will likely ignore the process wankery when they close it out. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:18, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Not in my experience, a renom will absolutely cause trouble if it is the same person doing it, even if it is nearly a year later. And of course the admin could, but they also might not. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:46, 7 June 2026 (UTC)