Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 79

I made the following addition, which was then deleted by User:Alexandermcnabb. Let's discuss this:

• Before nominating, consider fixing any problems. Whenever possible, we prefer that new articles be fixed rather than deleted. AfDs are very disruptive and time-consuming processes, as well as a discouraging affront to the author, so they should be avoided if at all possible. There must be very strong reasons to delete, and many AfDs are opened without such reasons, but rather because someone does not like what they see or it offends their beliefs. Perceived problems with NPOV, bias, balance, etc. can all be fixed without deletion, so seek to preserve the article.

Maybe this is already covered, but I didn't notice it, so I feel it provides necessary mention and considerations. As my edit summary said: "We could probably avoid 70% + of AfDs, as they violate PRESERVE and are just various flavors of IDONTLIKEIT." -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:53, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

There is nothing 'necessary' about using Wikipedia project space to put your own personal spin on normal Wikipedia processes - of which AfDs (including those that result in deletion) are very much core. Save the comments about what is or isn't 'disruptive', or an 'affront to the author' for contexts where you can provide actual evidence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:25, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Reminding readers that IDONTLIKE it and PRESERVE are very relevant to the topic of AfDs is not "personal spin" but an explanation of how policies affect each other. Also, anyone who has had a very notable and well-sourced article immediately taken to AfD for no legitimate reason (other than poorly disguised IDONTLIKEIT because it hurt my polical beliefs and feelings) knows it is a personal affront and very discouraging to an author who has put in a lot of hard work, and those who start such AfDs should be trouted or topic banned from AfDs and MfDs. They waste a lot of our time. These are just observations any seasoned editor will understand. BTW, you don't really have to live up to the Grump part of your name at every opportunity. Being a bit more relaxed, civil, and collegial wouldn't hurt at all. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:36, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

BTW, I'm very open to rewording of my proposed addition. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:38, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

It is a simple fact that amongst 'seasoned editors' there are a broad range of views as to the appropriate scope of something presenting itself as an 'online encyclopedia', and it does little to further the cause of those taking a more inclusivist perspective to present AfDs as inherently malicious in intent. Which is very much the way your edit came across. The AfD mechanism exists for a reason - because over the years, the community has consistently enacted policies which constrain what can be presented as a Wikipedia article. Neither made-up 'statistics' (per your edit summary) nor your general griping about the supposed motivations of those who have the temerity to disagree with you will alter the fact that the AfD mechanism (along with Deletion Review) is seen by the community as a necessary part of an imperfect process. Sure, there will be inappropriate AfD nominations on occasion, and sure they are going to be annoying for those having to deal with them. I'd have to suggest (without inventing statistics to back it up) that in comparison to the problems Wikipedia has with inappropriate article content, often due in part at least to poor enforcement of existing notability standards, they are a mere drop in the ocean. And a lot less damaging to the credibility of the project, such as it is. And I'm also inclined to suggest that having one's work subject to a critical gaze regarding such factors as Wikipedia-'notability' very much goes with the territory, when working in a collaborative environment. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:34, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Well, I largely agree with what you wrote, but there is more to the matter. I find it unfortunate that so many nominations are NOTLIKEIT and ignore that the article clearly passes GNG, and also ignore that any defects can be fixed, per PRESERVE. Those latter two points are not mentioned a single time, and NOTLIKEIT isn't mentioned either. That is three key omissions I tried to fix. Maybe they are mentioned somewhere, but I don't see it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:33, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

How many is 'so many'? And is this verifiable fact, or just your opinion? If there is a specific, verifiable, issue with 'NOTLIKEIT' nominations, we should maybe look at finding a way to prevent, or at least discourage them. First though, we need something more to go on than mere assertions. And frankly, I fail to see how your edit would do anything to actually solve the problem anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:15, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

I did not delete your addition, I reverted it. See WP:BRD. It was impetuously BOLD to add a paragraph to policy with no attempt to discuss or obtain consensus. Any editor can challenge any edit and discussion follows. Ideally, without silly Ad Hominem distractions like calling other editors grumpy. The addition adds nothing to existing policy, it is accepted that deletion is not cleanup. A small footnote: I have a personal dislike referring to Wikipedia as 'we', instantly othering the reader and conferring some degree of insider status to the magical 'we'. As for AfDs are very disruptive and time-consuming processes, as well as a discouraging affront to the author, just no. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:13, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Alexander, I followed BRD, that's why we're discussing. Keep it civil. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 06:38, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Looks like @Notaoffensivename has closed a string of AfD discussions manually but neglected to remove tags, etc., in the articles in the right way. Could someone please help them fix that? Cielquiparle (talk) 23:45, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

I am sorry about that. I am currently working on it. However, I cannot delete the AfD templates as I am not extended confirmed. Notaoffensivename (talk) 00:26, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

I'd have to suggest that someone with only Wikipedia 154 edits in total shouldn't be closing AfDs in the first place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:38, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm quite sorry I was closing discussions. I simply wanted to be closer to the Wikipedia community. Notaoffensivename (talk) 01:41, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

I have to concur with Andy here. Someone who isn't WP:XC probably shouldn't be closing discussions of any kind. If you want to help and be closer to the community go copy edit stuff that interests you and participate in discussions. If you've got a grasp on our notability guidelines you could even create some articles on subjects that we don't currently have articles on. TarnishedPath^talk 13:00, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

@Notaoffensivename: I have to agree that closing AfDs before becoming extended-confirmed isn’t a great idea, but to be fair, none of the closes I saw looked otherwise like bad closes. Thanks for your interest in contributing. --Finngall ^talk 19:34, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

This article has not cited any sources since January 2015. Does this page qualify for an AfD? Thank you. Aona1212 (talk) 16:55, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Could someone please nominate Paradha for AfD2 on my behalf, using the rationale below? I'd really appreciate it!

No release date announced. The article fails WP:NFF, and the sources are primarily promotional press releases.

Thank you. 157.50.100.56 (talk) 14:48, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Article fails WP:NFF. 2409:40F3:2:38D:3816:4FF:FE05:1FEA (talk) 16:39, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Article fails WP:NFF. 2409:40F3:2:38D:3816:4FF:FE05:1FEA (talk) 16:39, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Article Fails WP:NFF. 2409:40F3:2:38D:3816:4FF:FE05:1FEA (talk) 16:41, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Can someone nominate this article for deletion on my behalf? Rationale:

"Clear case of WP:BLP1E as stated in the previous discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Logan Brown (pregnant man)" 61.8.154.186 (talk) 19:37, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Article has been greatly expanded since last nomination, including information about becoming a published author. I'm not sure if BLP1E still applies, so someone else will have to do it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:53, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

WP:NACAFD states, experienced non-admins in good standing may consider closing a discussion on that page which is beyond doubt a clear keep, so to make sure (because I feel like I've seen this happen before, though don't remember when), non-admins aren't supposed to make possibly controversial closures/relists? Thanks! GoldRomean (talk) 02:04, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Basically, yes. Nevertheless, there are non-admins in very good standing with extensive experience who can make closures in cases which have been less than a clear keep. As with much of Wikipedia, the exceptions depend on the context. However, from personal experience, when I made NACs, I can only think of 2 or 3 times in about 100 where the result was anything but a clear keep. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 09:25, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Can someone nominate Abhimanyu (elephant)? Seems like a bit of PR work; questionable notability and would definitely need cleanup/editing otherwise. 198.54.107.101 (talk) 21:18, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Given that this elephant gets individual coverage in The Hindu deletion seems inappropriate. Additionally, WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP. Jahaza (talk) 23:13, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

A malformed AfD has been created at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abhimanyu (elephant) and there's another malformed AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fresno Missionary Baptist Institute and Seminary, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 21:08, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

I moved Fresno Missionary Baptist Institute and Seminary to its current name at Western Missionary Baptist Institute and Seminary, create Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fresno Missionary Baptist Institute and Seminary properly formed and listed, and tagged Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fresno Missionary Baptist Institute and Seminary for speedy deletion. --Jahaza (talk) 05:47, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

@Liz, thanks for deleting the extra page. The policy seems somewhat unclear as to whether AFD is required or optional after an unregistered user tags a page for deletion and places a request here. I'm not inclined to delete Abhimanyu (elephant), but I don't want to remove the deletion tag out of process. If they had just made the request here, that would have been moot, unless someone registered wanted to take responsibility, but they tagged the article and then @Aj227184 created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abhimanyu (elephant), presumably clicking through from the article itself, even though Aj227184 opposed deleting the article. Can we still back out of this without an endorsement from a registered user or should we just go through and create the AfD? --Jahaza (talk) 05:57, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Remember I don't know what happened but information about abhimanyu elephant is 100% real Aj227184 (talk) 17:18, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

I am taking responsibility for the AfD (and have formatted it properly), on both procedural and substantive grounds. Procedurally, the only other way out would be a speedy deletion, and I do no believe the speedy deletion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fresno Missionary Baptist Institute and Seminary was legitimate (which I've resolved by undeleting, history merging, and redirecting), nor would deleting the AfD page meet any speedy deletion criterion (see also WP:!G6); maybe you could argue it was "created in error", but that's really stretching it. Substantively, I don't think it's right to deny IPs their right to start a discussion, regardless of how frivolous you think their reasons are; If you think they are frivolous, then just !vote keep instead. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:54, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm afraid you've entirely missed the point of the comment you're replying to. I had already created a deletion page for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Western Missionary Baptist Institute and Seminary. (Apologies, I misunderstood your comment due to the way it switched back and forth from discussing one page then the other than the first again.) I did it under that name, since I thought it wise to consider the page for deletion under the current name of the institution rather than under one it stopped using five years ago. Undeleting the old name AfD and merging and redirecting it was not a necessary step to continue the consideration of the deletion of Western Missionary Baptist Institute and Seminary (a deletion that so far appears to me to be correct.)

The question about unregistered user nominations for deletion was about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abhimanyu (elephant), a completely different and unrelated article.

Because they can't create a new page, unregistered users precisely do lack the (user) "right" to start a deletion discussion. Certainly a frivolous article page tagging is possible even if you don't think that's the case with Abhimanyu (elephant). It seems unlikely that we'd go through the entire deletion process just because someone tagged a dozen pages for deletion if no one supported the request. Note that there are currently four deletion discussion requests on this page by unregistered users that no one has seen fit to process into a deletion discussion. There are many more in the archives. Jahaza (talk) 22:03, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

The problem with WP:!G6 is that it's an essay that can't limit the the actual G6 criteria. The G6 criteria don't specify that the first three bullet points are the only reasons for such deletions, it says that they are included in the criteria. Otherwise, we wouldn't have the template {{Db-g6|rationale=reason}}, since templates for the three first bullet pointed reasons would cover all possible reasons. Jahaza (talk) 22:19, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

About article deletion Aj227184 (talk) 05:30, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

WP:Articles for deletion/72 virgins which was closed on 23 June is still in Category:Relisted AfD debates. Is there anyone who could please diagnose and fix this? There's no raw coding for the category on the AfD page itself. Left guide (talk) 23:25, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Fixed, see Special:Diff/1298305149/1300007668. {{Relist AfD}} was not substituted properly, thus the category was being called from template itself. Usually, when the category is directly called from the AfD page due to substitution, it is removed by WP:XFDC during close. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 19:12, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Fixed two more: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sepulveda Rose, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nambiar Builders. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 20:10, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

@CX Zoom: Thank you! Left guide (talk) 20:05, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

You're welcome! —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 20:08, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

As per the AfD procedure, can a sufficiently validated user complete the AfD procedure on Heartbound (video game) for me? Thank you in advance. To quickly summarise the reasons layer out and backed in detail in the discussion of the article: self-advertising - majority of article is by game creator, irrelevance - less than 5 daily active players on average TheDigamma (talk) 23:59, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Done. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heartbound (video game) --Here2rewrite (talk) 01:07, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

This edit request to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Gadget Show series 18 has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please create an AFD for The Gadget Show series 18 with the following reason:

Completely unsourced, no other series of this TV show have their own articles. 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:6311:CAC1:2EA3:44E4 (talk) 11:50, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done Day Creature (talk) 18:14, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

I think Burl Stafford Bridge should be considered for deletion, but I find the AFD rules difficult, so I'm hoping for some assistance here. I think the bridge lacks any demonstrated significance and that the minimal sources contribute no meaningful support. The sources – two copies of the legislation naming the bridge and an obituary of the wife of the bridge's namesake – provide biographical details of Burl Stafford, who sounds like a wonderful person, but I don't think the sources establish his significance for a Wikipedia article, let alone the bridge named for him. There may also be a concern with an article contributor who has acknowledged that he's the son of the subject of another article and who wrote in that other article that his father "is the grandson in law of Burl Stafford"; i.e., IMO this article appears to be a tribute to his great-grandfather. What's the proper way to proceed with this? -- Pemilligan (talk) 14:12, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Looks like a good thing to merge to Delbarton, West Virginia. Jahaza (talk) 21:48, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Why merge? What in the article belongs on Wikipedia? -- Pemilligan (talk) 20:19, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Would someone mind nominating Avunculicide for AFD on my behalf with the following rationale?

This is half a WP:DICDEF, and half a list of scattered examples, some historical, some fictional (some unsourced, some not actual examples). A WP:BEFORE search brings up nothing to show that this meets either WP:GNG as a general concept, let alone WP:NLIST.

Thanks in advance, 35.139.154.158 (talk) 03:10, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Bump 35.139.154.158 (talk) 20:11, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Done. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:44, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

There's really nothing meaningful to say about him other than that he's inspired by Billy Ray Cyrus; notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. 2605:B40:1302:6C00:E969:5683:DF32:BAC1 (talk) 15:43, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Done. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:46, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

The article has been around for 13 years. The only citation on it is one to github. No evidence that it's notable, and nothing is sourced in the article. it's been tagged for a year as well giving anyone interested plenty of time to actually source the article. 2A06:5902:2FC0:3600:2C6A:F1F3:2244:E224 (talk) 07:14, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Done. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:47, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Apologies ahead of time if this has been asked before, or it erupts into flames (I've seen how contentious deletion discussions are). However, simply put, if the burden of proof is on the users wanting to add controversial content on an article to back it up, why is the burden of proof seemingly on the person who wants to delete an article to ensure it's not notable rather than on the people who want to keep the article to prove that it is? It seems backwards to me. If the article is well sourced already, that's fine, but if it's not, should someone have to go through the process of figuring out if it's notable before nominating it for deletion? The burden of proof that it fits on the encyclopedia would be on the ones who say it should stay on the 'pedia based on how Burden of proof works, no? 2600:6C51:447F:D8D9:4929:C59:7EFA:5DFC (talk) 01:35, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Simplest answer: Deleting pages is not the same as restoring edits. ConcernedDKfan (talk) 05:02, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

I am nominating the article Douglas Denoff for deletion because it does not appear to meet the notability guidelines (WP:N). It lacks significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, and therefore does not establish notability as per Wikipedia policy.

– Gvihar Gvihar 20:53, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

You can do this yourself. There are tips at WP:AFDLIST. Jahaza (talk) 21:52, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your guidance. Before proceeding, may I please ask if you have any reliable, independent sources about Douglas Denoff that I could review before listing the AfD?

Appreciate your support!

– Gvihar Gvihar 04:55, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

A Tony Winning Broadway producer is going to meet notability. I went ahead and added some sources and removed some of the unsourced content. Rublamb (talk) 06:50, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Looking at Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/, it seems that a fairly large number of AfD newbies cast their !vote at the wrong page. Unfortunately text on those pages are typically not seen by closers. So, should we have an editnotice that warns newbies to not create that page, and point them to the correct page instead? Or should we explore other solutions like a bot moving the comments to appriate location? —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 08:49, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

@CX Zoom: Anecdotally, this often happens when the main AfD page itself is protected (due to sockpuppetry, vandalism, contentious topic, etc). If it's not a CTOP, comments can be copied over by anyone willing and able with a note saying such. Left guide (talk) 05:09, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Secret combination (Latter Day Saints) per WP:NOTDICTIONARY and WP:N, I left a comment with my reasoning on the article talk page. 12.75.41.70 (talk) 01:25, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Please note, I followed step 1 where I am asked to tag the article, but @Discospinster: reverted without an edit summary. 12.75.41.70 (talk) 01:43, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Well that's definitely not a dictionary definition. Jahaza (talk) 02:38, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

The article had previously been nominated for deletion (closed as speedy keep), for the exact same reasons, by User:Big Money Threepwood who was a sockpuppet of User:Raxythecat. Additionally, IPs cannot create AfD nomination pages so it wouldn't go anywhere. ... discospinster _talk 14:41, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Just for future reference, "Secret Combinations" are discussed in D. Michael Quinn's Early Mormonism and the Magic World View, pp. 160-168, which, although published by BYU press, is considered a respectable work of secular scholarship. Jahaza (talk) 16:04, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Irrespective of Quinn's status within Mormonism and leaving aside that the book was published before his excommunication, that's not a reliable source I would go to *first* to demonstrate notability of this subject. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 11:50, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Feel free to offer better sources we should go to first, but first or not, it strongly contributes to establishing notability. Jahaza (talk) 19:00, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

With the caveat that it is an "in universe" source, so IMHO that's not "strongly". Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 07:50, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

No it does not. See below. TarnishedPath^talk 08:48, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

BYU is not an independent source for LDS/Mormon topics since it's a university owned and run by the church; doesn't count towards notability. Left guide (talk) 08:10, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Without offering an opinion on notability, anything published by BYU press (regardless of any considerations of reliability) is by definition not independent for anything to do with the LDS and does not count towards establishing notability. TarnishedPath^talk 08:47, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

I have created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Secret combination (Latter Day Saints) (2nd nomination), since there seems to be substantial AfD-type discussion happening here which should happen on an AfD page itself rather than on the talk page. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:51, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Underdown

It seems like a promo piece for CFI, which I am a reader of, but this article does not belong on Wikipedia. This individual severely lacks notability, and upon a quick review, the sources in the article mostly link back to either CFI or obscure websites. I am of the opinion this article should be removed. ConcernedDKfan (talk) 04:52, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Checking Talk on this page, it's worth noting that:

One: The article was created by Sgerbic, who claims to know Underdown personally and upon research is closely affiliated with CFI.

Two: A user going by VegitotheKnightmare pointed out that many claims lack verifiability.

I would add to that examples of severe promotional writing such as: "Between 1982 and 1999, he worked as a school teacher, truck driver, painter, limo driver, hotel clerk, furniture mover, football coach, carpenter, and bouncer. In the late 1970s, Underdown tried to win a $500 prize by wrestling a bear."

But the best reason remains that this subject simply lacks notability. ConcernedDKfan (talk) 04:56, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Are you unable to create the AFD nomination yourself? The easiest way is to install WP:Twinkle and use it to do the work for you. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:55, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

They aren't autoconfirmed yet, their account was just created today. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 16:17, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough. Seeing as how time and edit count will grant them autoconfirmed status, and Wikipedia has not deadline, I don't see a need for 3rd party nomination of this article. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:33, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

It has been created already. Thanks ARandomName. ConcernedDKfan (talk) 22:43, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Note: ConcernedDKfan has been blocked as a sockpuppet of VegitotheKnightmare. jlwoodwa (talk) 20:30, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

this article should be delete because they are making no sense 87.236.161.254 (talk) 07:47, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

It is unclear to me whether this refers to Directorates, which is just a redirect to the disambiguation page directorate; or to Directorate S: The C.I.A. & America's Secret Wars in Afghanistan & Pakistan, 2001-2016, which is a redirect to the author of a book by that title; or to some page actually called Directorate s which has already been deleted. Editor raised the same concern at Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion#MfD Talk:Directorate s. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:48, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

If there is an admin watching this, I would appreciate some input at Wikipedia talk:Merging#Procedural closure due to an AFD?. Let's keep the conversation there so as not spread it across multiple talk pages. Thanks for any assistance.4meter4 (talk) 04:29, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Proposed merges. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:05, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Not sure if Kiara C. Jones meets the notability guidelines set under WP:PRODUCER. I'm thinking about submitting it to AFD but want the opinion of someone who's more experienced than me before I decide whether to submit it or not. (This is a little ironic since I was the one who approved the article via AFC, but now I've had a change of heart.) Gommeh 🎮 20:17, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

@Gommeh: Consider asking the film WikiProject folks at WT:FILM. Left guide (talk) 23:06, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

This should not exist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bG4zpYpL9KA - Jeremy did not create the app. Much of this is speculation created by an a company that he didn't have much doing with, just his own account it's self. There was no moderation, etc. This is assumptions and needs to be deleted.

My reasoning for why.

People are also using the non existent app to troll with on social media and to the actor. Ariyen (talk) 03:53, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

I couldn't find any independent reliable sources that covered this topic in depth. This seems to be in universe only. There are some generally unreliable sources, but removing them leaves nothing except "These words are in the book of Mormon" 166.205.97.96 (talk) 03:20, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

@4meter4: Why did you delete the AFD tag from the article? This is the deletion process for IPs as outlined at WP:AFD. 166.205.97.96 (talk) 03:36, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

A quick search in google books seems to indicate there is significant coverage. There's even uses to criticize Mormons over these terms (such as ). They are words that were supposedly included on the Golden plates so they are a part of the Mormon religion. This would likely survive an AFD.4meter4 (talk) 03:37, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Was that your best source for WP:GNG? It's a single passing mention in a list of pseudo archeological problems. Not very in depth. What are your best sources? 166.205.97.96 (talk) 03:43, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

There are pages and pages of books in a google book search. Collectively they meet SIGCOV in my opinion. I also note the Kvng contested a PROD because of sources they found. We aren't required to accept requests from IPs; particularly if a WP:BEFORE yields results. I also note WP:GDBN which encourages IP users to create an account if they want to participate at AFD. If you wish to pursue this further I suggest creating an account.4meter4 (talk) 03:54, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

You didn't even see this until I pinged you, which I did after you added a block of unsourced fringe content to the article. If you are adding unsourced content, I don't think you get a supervote on this. 166.205.97.96 (talk) 04:11, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Actually I did. It's what took to me to the page in the first place. I just didn't choose to respond here first, and you commented before I had a chance to. You shouldn't make assumptions.4meter4 (talk) 04:14, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

The first action that is visible is you adding a block of WP:OR without reference while deleting the afd tag without mention. Using talk pages will prevent people from needing to guess what you are doing. 166.205.97.96 (talk) 04:17, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

I'll repeat what I said earlier. I reverted to an older state of the article because you removed a quote from a well known 19th century Mormon theologian directly discussing the topic. I'm fine with surgical removal of unverified text, but that isn't what you have been doing. You've been gutting verified content and sources along with unverified passages.4meter4 (talk) 04:31, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Are you really edit warring now to keep unsourced original research in the article? Did you read what you added? The only source is a primary source for a quote. Nothing you added about what LDS believes is sourced. 166.205.97.96 (talk) 04:33, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

It most definitely was not self published or a primary source. It's from Journal of Discourses published by George D. Watt. I noticed you removed it even though it's clearly not self published and from a well known Mormon journal.4meter4 (talk) 04:44, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Strawman. I didn't say self published source. 166.205.97.96 (talk) 04:48, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

The point stands. It's a secondary publication and you removed it under a false rationale.4meter4 (talk) 04:49, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

No it isn't. It's Pratt used to quote Pratt. That is a primary source. A secondary source would interpret it. Clearly, you didn't cite Watt, you cited Pratt. Because he wrote the sermon you quoted, and provided with no additional intpretation. Plus, the source is owned by the church. It isn't independent, at best it can speak for what the church believed in 1868. 166.205.97.96 (talk) 04:56, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Let's just be clear I didn't cite anything. I reverted to an older version of the article in objection to the removal of a quote from a published journal, which is not the same thing as being a contributing author to an article or adding references or text to the article myself. I haven't added any content to this article; I've only restored content added by others.4meter4 (talk) 05:15, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

That means you added it. You shouldn't blindly click revert unless you don't care what you are adding to Wikipedia, which would be reckless. You cited Pratt. Your name is next to the edit. Everyone can see the diff. 166.205.97.96 (talk) 05:51, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

You aren't likely to win over supporters with that kind of commentary. Gutting an article of its references and chopping large portions of text under misleading edit summaries isn't likely to be well received and can be viewed as disruptive. I note that I'm not the only one who has taken issue with your approach, and you have been reverted by another editor. Are they now an author of the offending passages as well? I don't think so.4meter4 (talk) 06:05, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, actually. The onus on anyone adding content is to ensure it is sourced. If anyone adds blocks to unsourced original research, the onus is on them to show it passes WP:V. Your content additions have been challenged because they were not verifiable, provide sources please. 166.205.97.96 (talk) 13:26, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

I removed the OR tag. In just doing a basic JSTOR search it took me 2 minutes to find Miller, Wade E.; Roper, Matthew (2017). "Animals in the Book of Mormon: Challenges and Perspectives". BYU Studies Quarterly. 56 (4). Most of the article's text seems to be built from this source which has a rather lengthy subsection on this topic plus interweaved content on the topic within other sections. I've gone in and added page numbers to some of the article. Honestly, a simple WP:BEFORE search could have brought you to materials to verify the article. Your behavior has been WP:POINTY which is disruptive.4meter4 (talk) 14:15, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

In case anyone here is unaware, there is additional discussion at Talk:Curelom_and_cumom#Contested_deletion. I did a WP:BEFORE and found enough to convince myself that the proposed deletion was potentially controversial, but not enough to clearly demonstrate stand-alone notability. If taken to AfD, I would guess it has a 50% chance of being kept. Otherwise, there is almost certainly an alternative to deletion available. ~Kvng (talk) 04:25, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

• Regardless of the back-and-forth above, and the talk page discussion, and the revert of the banner added to the article, and the two discussions at ANI, I see this as a good faith request and have completed the nomination. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Curelom and cumom. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:38, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Template talk:Afd2 § Fix for list of previous AfD pages regarding a change to the the Afd2 template.}} There is a discussion to edit the AfD2 template. FaviFake (talk) 14:54, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

There are no associated wikiprojects, so hopefully the relevant noticeboard talk is okay. There is a move discussion regarding a deletion-themed essay which is frequently cited, and whether it should be userfied, for anybody interested! ASUKITE 18:18, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Please come participate at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#The problem of AI generated deletion nominations.4meter4 (talk) 13:41, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

I think this fails WP:GNG, there doesn't seem to be any reliable sources. 67.243.13.178 (talk) 17:48, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't understand why you are attempting to nominate the page for deletion even though you reverted a redirect attempt. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and you could have just left the redirect alone if you believe the topic fails WP:GNG; please consider self-reverting. Or is there a reason you specifically oppose a redirect and believe it should be deleted instead? Left guide (talk) 14:18, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Well AfDs are the reasonable way for a redirect, just redirecting it doesn't make sense, therefore it has to go through a discussion. 2606:9400:989F:3830:C57A:ABFE:A823:5E7C (talk) 06:44, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Boldly blanking-and-redirecting is a quite common and normal practice on Wikipedia. AfD is typically only necessary if a redirect attempt is actually contested on merit. It does not otherwise have to go through a discussion. I am sorry, but what you are asking for is bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake. Left guide (talk) 07:07, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Can an admin please investigate what is happening here. Looks like a new editor nominated this and then blanked the page. Best.4meter4 (talk) 03:40, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

 Done I speedy kept it. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:25, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

There is exactly one notable thing about this episode, which it doesn't look like has been discussed much; WP:SUSTAINED. 2605:B40:1302:6C00:4563:2FE9:D15:1FAF (talk) 17:27, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

The article does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The only source cited is Hversu Noregr byggðist (snerpa.is), a primary source. There are no independent secondary sources providing significant coverage of Gard Agdi. Wikipedia requires notable topics to have coverage in reliable secondary sources. Since no additional sources have been found, the article, in my view, is eligible for deletion, or it could be merged/redirected to a broader article. Ell22Moore (talk) 19:53, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

I've thought about this a few times... sometimes a page is on the cusp of notable, or just not written deeply enough. The principle author hasn't scoured enough for sources, or taken everything they can out of every source. I've seen AfDs where an article will one citation, and then lists much more that could have been cited. For stuff that could later make it, shouldn't the presumption be on !delete outcome then to simply move it back into the primary author's user space? Then they can continue working it, and then kick it when ready to Articles For Creation whole for a new evaluation (and AFC is strictly on the merits of notability). That also preserves the entire contiguous edit and attribution history of the article for later, rather than someone having to cold start fresh. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 18:22, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

The AfD guidelines say to keep an article if it can be improved and has the potential to meet notability. Sometimes the AfD process encourages other editors to solve the problem which is the best possible outcome. But if it is brand new article with just one editor, sending it to Articles for Creation is always better than starting an AfD, IMO. There are literally thousands of articles in Wikipedia that have no sources, meaning that an article with one citation is ahead of the game. Rublamb (talk) 18:49, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

I have concerns that this article on Bryan Leach does not meet Wikipedia’s notability standards for a stand-alone biography. Nearly all of the coverage cited here is tied directly to Ibotta’s business operations, funding rounds, and IPO. Major outlets such as WSJ, Bloomberg, TechCrunch, and Forbes mention Bryan Leach primarily in the context of reporting on Ibotta, not in independent, in-depth profiles of him as an individual. Awards such as Ernst & Young’s regional Entrepreneur of the Year and Glassdoor’s “Top CEOs” lists are routine business recognitions and do not in themselves establish notability. The article’s emphasis on his education, board service, and philanthropy also appears sourced from local press and institutional communications, which further suggests promotional slant rather than broad, independent coverage. Taken together, the sourcing does not demonstrate the kind of significant, sustained, and independent attention required under WP:GNG, WP:BIO, or WP:CORP. The article currently reads more like a promotional biography than an encyclopedic entry about a subject with enduring notability. 185.159.5.122 (talk) 19:02, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Local press is fine and so is discussion in the context of reporting on his company. Imagine if we said a Yankees centerfielder wasn't notable because all the coverage was in the context of him as a baseball player. "Independent" means "not affiliated with the subject," not "covers the subject independent of any other subject." Jahaza (talk) 21:36, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your perspective. The distinction in this case is not simply whether coverage comes from sources “not affiliated” with the subject, but whether it demonstrates significant, sustained, and independent attention to the individual, per WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Coverage that primarily reports on Ibotta’s funding rounds, IPO, or business activities—even in reputable outlets—is about the company first and Leach second, which does not establish the level of independent notability required for a stand-alone biography.

Using your analogy: a professional athlete’s notability is inseparable from their performance in the sport, but a biography is justified only when sources provide substantial, in-depth coverage of the person as a distinct subject, not merely as part of the entity they are associated with. In the case of Bryan Leach, the current sources largely describe his role in Ibotta, with awards and local mentions that are routine or minor. There is no evidence of lasting coverage that profiles him as a notable individual beyond the company context.

Therefore, merging this information into the Ibotta article or redirecting the page would preserve the relevant material without creating a biography that fails the independence and notability criteria. Terareconinc (talk) 22:12, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Coverage that primarily reports on Ibotta’s funding rounds, IPO, or business activities—even in reputable outlets—is about the company first and Leach second, which does not establish the level of independent notability required for a stand-alone biography. No, that's simply not what "independent" means in this context. Jahaza (talk) 22:50, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

If you can identify two articles that provide significant coverage that are not from the corporation (independent), it probably squeaks by. When I look at the article, I immediately thought about inherited notability guidelines (i.e. just because he founded a company that is notable does not make him notable). Meaning it would be great to see something that puts him first, over the company. On the other hand, it may not be the best example of sourcing, but there are worse examples out there.

@Jahaza: Please refer to WP:NSPORT. Even athletes have to have at least one source that provides significant coverage about them, not how they played in a game. There are many athletic bios that need improvement. Rublamb (talk) 23:31, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

I second your point regarding inherited notability. The sources primarily cited focus on Ibotta rather than Bryan Leach personally. Under WP:BLP and WP:NOTBIO, a biography requires reliable, independent sources that provide significant coverage of the person, not just their company. With the current sources, I feel that this article may not meet that standard. Unless additional independent coverage about Leach himself can be provided, moving the article to draft, consolidating it with the broader Ibotta article as a subsection, or considering deletion would be consistent with Wikipedia policy. Terareconinc (talk) 06:11, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

This article contains original research with possible copied content from elsewhere, and has no references. The lead contains generic information and the rest of the article is a whole lot of a nothing burger which could be easily summed up in a short paragraph if needed. •Shawnqual• 📚 • 💭 16:03, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Of interest is Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Bot_to_add_dark_mode_compatibility_to_old_AfDs. —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 19:37, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

The last AfD for this subject was closed as keep, then added the notability tag and no made improvements the article. The article does not meet the general notability guideline. Requesting an AfD. 49.151.187.185 ^{talk to IP49! contributions to IP49!} 02:17, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I removed the notability tag that was added 2 days after the AfD closed with the closing that it met the minimum notability requirements. The AfD was only closed on 25 August 2025. Normally it's not good practice to open another AfD less than six months after the closing of the previous one. Jahaza (talk) 02:28, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

When I added this AfD, it had a previous AfD at the talk page but I don't know how to include it as part of the AfD page. See for example this AfD, it includes "AfDs for this article" box at the top right. How do I add that box when nominating with Twinkle? Mika1h (talk) 13:40, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

There were no previous AFDs for that listicle, so there is no need for the box. Twinkle (or the templates it uses) knows how to handle this automagically. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:38, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

If you need to do it manually for some reason, such as variant spellings, the template to use is {{Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/article name}}. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:42, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the template, although there really is a previous AfD at Talk:List of Therion demo albums, just with a different title. --Mika1h (talk) 16:08, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Ok. Fixed it for you. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:12, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

I do not understand why her name would be deleted from Wikipedia? Seems ridiculous to even have considered this. 82.31.146.140 (talk) 16:49, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

This not the place to register your support or opposition to the AfD. Go to the AfD page at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erika Kirk to register your support or opposition to the AfD. -- Pemilligan (talk) 17:51, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

If this is not the page, tell us where is the page, because we don't want her page to be deleted 2601:85:C782:7160:4712:F3B4:BE27:DCA3 (talk) 21:46, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

The deletion request page is currently semi-protected, meaning it can't be edited by very new or unregistered users. This is unfortunate, but it's precisely because of people not understanding why a deletion request was initiated (deletion requests are fairly normal, and don't always result in deletion). It's worth reading the discussion, and understanding the points and policies being raised. If there's anything substantial to add, based on the policies being discussed, then a request can be made at WP:RFED. Please understand that comments as simple as those above will be immediately ignored, whereas reasoned policy-based points may have a chance of getting transferred to the deletion request page. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:08, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

I wanted to nominate a page for deletion for the first time and I realised there's a ton of text on the section Wikipedia:Articles for deletion § How to nominate a single page for deletion and the next two sections that is unnecessay. I previously streamlined the instructions for WP:TfD in these edits; I'll paste the edit summary I used there, as it seems to also apply to the instructions on this page:

Wow, this instruction table was a mess. Sometimes the same things were repeated 2 or even 3 times in different points, using different words for the same things;

The situation here seems even worse, with the same exact instructions (e.g., the NominationName) being repeated up to 5 times in the same section, and here there are also 2 (or 3, if you include twinkle) set of intructions. I may end up splitting the different instruction sets (some of which contradict each other) into different sections, or collapsing the least user-friendly ones. I'll also make the table look like a table and add clickable buttons for user-friendliness and a {{clear}} so it's not so narrowed by the twinkle image. And other similar changes.

I'm writing this here because I highly suspect my changes will be reverted as "undiscussed" if I don't, so please let me know if you think... idk, that this page is perfect as-is? This is as close of an estimate of the edits i intend to perform as i can make it. FaviFake (talk) 17:16, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

I presume that there is no limit to the number of times an article can be nominated for deletion under current rules. The JetBlue Flight 292 article is currently at its 5^th nomination discussion. It is looking like the result will be the same as the previous four, i.e. keep.

Is it now time that a limit was set on the number of times that an article can be nominated? I would suggest that the fourth nomination should be the final nomination. It being extremely unlikely that consensus would change from keep to delete at that point. Mjroots (talk) 17:36, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars#Deletion_wars. Mangoe (talk) 21:40, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Hard disagree. Standards change, and the bar for notability has shifted substantially over the years. Perhaps there could be a time limit (no more than one AFD per year or something), but setting a blanket ban doesn't make sense considering the ever-evolving nature of WP. nf utvol (talk)

I would say twice, at the outside three times with excellent reasons for a third attempt. Four times is way too many (more like attempts to delete no matter what the time sink). Articles, once or twice saved, let alone three times, should have the accumulated weight of Wikipedia history and past editor commentaries at their backs. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:09, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

There are plenty enough of cases where articles were deleted after four or more AfDs. "Consensus can change," as they say. Mangoe (talk) 18:44, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from Rhiannon Software, which you proposed for deletion. While some may not see this as a significant company, Rhiannon Software was the first in the computer industry to create a game SPECIFICALLY aimed at bringing young women into computing, attempting to fill a need that STILL lacks any kind of movement in the computer industry. GandalfDDI (talk) 23:04, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

You posted this to the page for discussing the use of the "Articles for Deletion" process, which is a specific process and is different from "proposed deletion". It might be more on point to post your reason for deprodding at Talk:Rhiannon Software. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:28, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is the best venue for this, but I've been itching to write up a streamlined "circle of life" workflow for editors.

• Make a new article:

• Either it's just pushed live, or
• it's born from a draft via Wikipedia:Articles for creation.

• Article lives however long.
• Article faces a Wikipedia:Speedy deletion or goes through and loses at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.

• Article is deleted and becomes a red link like this.

• Article can be recreated to be a blue link again, if:

• A new draft is submitted to and passes Wikipedia:Articles for creation, or
• if you successfully argue it's restoration under polices at Wikipedia:Deletion review, or
• if you convince the Administrator who deleted it under Wikipedia:Articles for deletion to restore it, with new evidence.

• The article, again, lives however long.

Am I missing anything obvious as a possible procedural step here? I'm just after the big obvious routes for general editors and newer users. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 03:10, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

I think that mentioning draftification, where the article is not actually deleted just moved to the side, may be worthwhile. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 04:46, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Also... Article is redirected due to not meeting GNG/SNG (eg song failing NSONG to album), or merged per NOPAGE. Can later revert to full article if justified by sigcov / splitout. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 06:11, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Might also want to do the FA/GA/DYK/(A-class for military things) cycles. Also probation, protection, RfCs and ArbCom cases. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:47, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

The recreated article need not go through AfC. Editors often turn up new sources that are not discussed at AfD and quietly create a new article without issue. In other cases, a TOOSOON deletion is followed by more coverage and the subject becoming notable. I am afraid your list above makes deletion seem more permanent than it is, and recreation more challenging than it is. Toadspike [Talk] 08:19, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

There seems to be a problem with the format on this page. Bearian (talk) 19:30, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

@Bearian: I'm not seeing an issue. Can you point it out more specifically? Or perhaps it has been resolved as the vast majority of info on such pages is transcluded from other places. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:11, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

It's between Anthony Ruiz and Eclipses. There should be a separate section for Group-IB. Bearian (talk) 18:15, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

@Bearian: Ok, the issue was some stray tags in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Group-IB, which I've now fixed. Thanks for pointing this out. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:19, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

You're welcome! And thank you! Bearian (talk) 18:20, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi all. I tried to revert my relist action, as per my user talk page here. But I am struggling to do that, as I might have missed something there. Since there's an one vote after relist, will it be applicable to revert. Anyone could help me please? Pinging @Explicit and Liz: Fade258 (talk) 16:33, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi all — I’d like to request that some uninvolved editors take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wendell Brown (2nd nomination).

Two relists have already occurred, and it would benefit from fresh, neutral participation to help reach a clearer consensus.

Thanks for any additional eyes or guidance on how best to proceed. — Dharmabumstead (talk) 01:37, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Why does the backlog say zero when Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of largest law firms by profits per partner was opened on the second of October? GothicGolem29 (talk) 20:04, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Because it was relisted on the 10th. It'll be in the backlog again if it's still open after the 17th. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:19, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Ah ok thanks for explaining. GothicGolem29 (talk) 23:09, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Afd top. —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 18:52, 17 October 2025 (UTC) —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? - c) 18:52, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

I've opened a discussion about shortening the AfD tag that appears on articles at Template talk:Article for deletion#Proposal to shorten the wording. I would appreciate some input from others on this. Toadspike [Talk] 16:27, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Article was nominated for deletion a few months back, where it was closed as no consensus. AI-generated walls of text and bludgeoning severely inhibited the ability for a proper consensus to be reached. The article itself fails to assert the notability of the subject, since merely having 400,000 followers on TikTok doesn't meet WP:GNG. For the sources, none claim significant notability. Per WP:DAILYDOT, The Daily Dot only serves for plain facts and is highly opinionated. 48 Hills is a local publication. Game Developer and Instagram aren't independent coverage. I can find very little on WeWork, but the article cited itself seems like an opinion piece that doesn't claim the subject is notable, and the news site doesn't seem particularly notable either. The PocketGamer article is an interview that is mostly promotional and makes no claim that the subject is particularly notable. Alternate sources mentioned in the original deletion discussion were even less reliable, many being blatantly transphobic tabloid publications. 2600:1000:B110:C954:DD78:B56B:5097:628C (talk) 22:12, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

The last AfD for this subject was closed as keep. The article have not been edited for 1 month ago. The IP user then added the notability tag for a reason when removed by user. The article not meet WP:GNG. Requesting an AfD. 112.207.170.235 (talk) 03:24, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

• The previous AfD ended 11 August last so it's too early for another AfD. Wait at least 6 months, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:52, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

You'll have to excuse my lack of fluency in wiki-law citation, but this biography of a living person (Dan Cohn-Sherbok) is an example of WP:PROMOTION, NPOV, WP:N, WP:AUTO, COI, and it should be deleted. Most importantly, the article is largely a resume and bibliography, largely written by the subject himself according to the page history. This is self-promotion and autobiography for a subject who is not notable within his field, and the article does not make any credible claims that he is. 67.168.18.133 (talk) 03:48, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Although the subject has edited his own article over the years, his edits appear minor. Essentially, adding his own publications to a list of his publications. While this is frowned upon and discouraged, it is not the case that the subject wrote the article or did anything non-neutral to his article. I left him a {{welcome-coi}} last year. He has authorship of no more than 15% of the article. The bulk of the article was written at present by Kevinalewis. Also, your AFD was malformed. You can submit an article to AFD but this one would likely be kept as he is arguably an WP:NACADEMIC and WP:NAUTHOR and meets WP:GNG. Andre🚐 04:08, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

For what it is worth, the article has now been nominated by another editor per this request. I also left a message on his talk page, but I agree that he easily meets the notability guidelines. If you would like to participate, I think your input might be valuable since you are informed on the page, but it may be unnecessary because the article is so likely to be kept. Cornerstone1949 (talk) 00:56, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

The article have not edited for 6 months or 1 year. may not meet WP:GNG because a lack of significant coverage. Requesting an AfD. 112.207.170.235 (talk) 03:49, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done Cornerstone1949 (talk) 01:11, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, @Cornerstone1949! 112.207.170.235 (talk) 01:32, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

The article have not edited for 6 months. Does not meet WP:GNG. Requesting an AfD 112.207.170.235 (talk) 01:39, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

The redirect Wikipedia:Pfd 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 October 25 § Wikipedia:Pages for deletion and similar titles until a consensus is reached. Thanks, 1isall (he/him) (talk | contribs) 14:13, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Please complete this AfD request with the below rationale:

Twice deleted previously. I doubt the person has become notable in WP:GNG sense even though there is a lot of SEO content online. The article is currently being edited by a few WP:SPAs to add negative information, while some IPs appear to be countering those edits (possibly the subject himself). He is mainly for serving as CEO of small companies such as Neptune Wellness Solutions and Schmidt's Naturals. After applying the stringent WP:BLP policy, not much would likely remain, and most of the controversies or negative aspects could be better covered in the Neptune Wellness Solutions article per WP:NOPAGE.

Some cited sources like Forbes article () falls under WP:FORBESCON, and the Money article is merely an WP:INTERVIEW with limited independent content, written by Paul Schrodt, a professional guest contributor. The article clearly lacks the WP:BLP-quality sources required to meet WP:SIGCOV. A simple redirect to Neptune Wellness Solutions should be enough to preserve relevant information. Brodie Dotson (talk) 23:55, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi there, Could I get a second opinion on List of sports figures considered the greatest? I'm not entirely familiar with Wikipedia's notability guidelines for lists which are related to this kind of thing, though I tried to dig around to find out. It looks as if the page was created by a split from GOAT (sports culture), but I'm not sure whether the creation of a separate article with a detailed list of (potentially, if not likely) hundreds of athletes solely connected by this designation is necessary given the "general" example list already on the GOAT page.

But, as I said, I'm not sure whether the page actually goes against any WP guidelines, or even if AfD isn't necessary, whether there are any bigger issues I (or page contributors) have failed to notice. Would really appreciate an external & impartial perspective with better knowledge on this. PunkAndromeda (talk) 07:30, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

@PunkAndromeda: WP:NLIST seems to be the prevailing guideline for whether a list page should exist. A possibly better venue for this discussion might be the sports notability guideline talk page (WT:NSPORT) which will likely attract feedback from editors more interested in this subject. Left guide (talk) 07:58, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

I'll head over there! Thank you so much. PunkAndromeda (talk) 08:08, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

I noticed that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Canadian honours has been open for 20 days without being relisted, and currently doesn't appear in the list of old AfDs. I can only assume something must have gone wrong here, just wanted to draw some attention to it. Thanks, MediaKyle (talk) 14:11, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

I relisted it on a new AFD log page so hopefully it will get closed now. The issue might be that on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 October 10 the two previous AFDs were commented out but not relisted normally. This confused XFDcloser when I did the relist, it might have also caused the AFD not to show up for usual AFD closers. Maybe someone with more technical knowledge than me should look further into this. --Here2rewrite (talk) 16:05, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Need some uninvolved editors to please look carefully at the discussion and weigh in on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Happiness Becomes You. One relist has already occurred, and th discussion would benefit from fresh, neutral participation to help reach a clearer consensus. Thanks for any additional eyes or guidance on how best to proceed. Dharmabumstead (talk) 05:09, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

The redirect Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Temp 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 November 10 § Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Temp until a consensus is reached. Duckmather (talk) 22:55, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Literally just a plot summary of the first three movies; sources are just about how they’re not in the fourth one. ~2025-31969-91 (talk) 19:44, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Partly done. Redirected to the main character list. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:56, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

The article have not edited for 1 year. Does not meet WP:GNG. Requesting and AfD ~2025-32685-14 (talk) 02:50, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done - UtherSRG (talk) 15:35, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, @UtherSRG! ~2025-32685-14 (talk) 00:32, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Adam Brooks (wrestler). I didn't nominate it but someone else did and instead of putting a request for completion here they asked the user who removed the previous prod, and I think the user may have ignored it. There is a reason for deletion on the talk page which I think is SOP. Can someone complete it? ~2025-32539-02 (talk) 07:10, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Done. --Here2rewrite (talk) 13:41, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Cneoridium dumosum (Nuttall) Hooker F. Collected March 26, 1960, at an Elevation of about 1450 Meters on Cerro Quemazón, 15 Miles South of Bahía de Los Angeles, Baja California, México, Apparently for a Southeastward Range Extension of Some 140 Miles It seems the tilie is too long. Ghren (talk) 16:38, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: Can you do me a favor? --Ghren (talk) 16:42, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

The page is fine and very well sourced, please think thrice (or more) about trying to delete this topic. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:44, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

I have thoroughly checked the source of the entry, and I do not believe it has sufficient citations. I believe the entry needs to be reviewed by AFD, but I am experiencing technical issues and cannot submit it. The entry title is too long; it is showing as an "invalidtitle" and I cannot submit it. Ghren (talk) 16:57, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Thems the breaks. Ha. It is a classic article, and to be serious, I have no idea how to post the title on AfD. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:00, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Ghren, if you abbreviate the name of the AfD subpage, it should work: try adding {{subst:afd|Cneoridium dumosum (Nuttall) Hooker F. Collected March 26, 1960 etc.}} to the top of the article and then following the link from there to create the nomination. Titles this long (250 characters out of the maximum 256) are kind of a mess for AfDs, pagenotices, talk-page archives, etc. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:23, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and nominated this article (as best as I understand under the technical issues). Ghren and Pigsonthewing, please feel free to comment at the AFD discussion. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 05:08, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank for your kindly help. Ghren (talk) 05:57, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for not pinging me? Randy Kryn (talk) 06:04, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Given your horribly inappropriate behavior here and at User talk:Ghren#Prods, be thankful I didn't drag you to ANI instead. A user was asking for technical help with nominating an article for deletion. If you don't agree with it, fine. If you don't even want to help, fine. But the mocking tone here was just really uncalled for, and it reeks of WP:GAMING the system in order to achieve your desired outcome. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 06:14, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

For a user who is proud of the fact that they club "baby seals for fun and profit" your judgement about horrible behavior may be in question. Get it? Humor, not gaming, nor inappropriate unless Ghren has no sense of humor or has the thinnest skin around (Monobook). And please read the prod discussion again where you claim my behavior was horribly inappropriate - my concern was that this long-term article with many sources was prodded by an inexperienced user and was just trying to explain why a prod wasn't the way to go in this situation, which is when they brought it here for AfD assistance. Randy Kryn (talk) 06:43, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Ok but nothing you’ve written here is funny? ~2025-33108-20 (talk) 01:38, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

I thought referencing "Thems the breaks" was funny, an old time saying probably not familiar now. Other than that I don't know what was being talked about above, those three words? The article itself is the kind of rare Wikipedia article that contains encyclopedic humor in an appropriate encyclopedic way, so I'm not going to hide that I enjoy it. The esteemed author of the 1962 paper meant for that to happen. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:56, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Zero reliable independent sources. See the source assessment table on Talk:Phạm Xuân Phương#Source assessment. The article was previously deleted so I cannot PROD it. ~2025-33667-75 (talk) 17:48, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:15, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Ex biker who's written some books and consulted on some TV shows about being a biker.

Most of the sources are user generated sites like IMDB or sites linked directly to the subject. The independent sources that mention him are either passing mentions or promotional content.

I don't think any of this gives him enough notability for a wiki page. ~2025-34124-40 (talk) 10:20, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Done.--Here2rewrite (talk) 16:29, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I hope you can take a look at the article List of Street Fighter Grand Slam champions. This article is very strange. It lists several tournaments and provides some sources to cite the tournaments themselves. However, none of the sources in the article mention the concept of a “Grand Slam.” I have also searched online extensively and could not find any reference to a so-called Street Fighter Grand Slam.

All the sources in the article only mention the tournaments listed in the article—they do not mention a Grand Slam at all. The article itself also does not explain how the “Street Fighter Grand Slam” was established or why these particular tournaments are considered part of it.

Most importantly, the prize differences among the four tournaments mentioned are huge: EVO and EVO Japan only have prize pools of around $30,000–$40,000, while Capcom Cup has over $1,000,000 in prize money. It is hard to believe that these tournaments would be grouped together as a “Grand Slam.” Moreover, for EVO alone, there is EVO, EVO Japan, EVO France, and EVO Singapore, making it difficult to understand why only EVO Japan is considered a Grand Slam while EVO France and EVO Singapore are not. Additionally, EVO is now linked with Capcom Cup and the Esports World Cup, where the champion can qualify for Capcom Cup and Esports World Cup, which makes EVO feel more like a qualifier for Capcom Cup and Esports World Cup rather than a tournament of the same level. Since the article is clearly misleading, I think it could be considered for deletion or at least for revising its title and content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YuelinLee1959 (talk • contribs) 08:45, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

@YuelinLee1959: Unless you are blocked from doing so for some reason, you should follow the directions that start at WP:BEFORE to create the AFD discussion. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:30, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

I just don't know how to do it. Can you just tell me how to apply article deletion YuelinLee1959 (talk) 18:05, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

The easiest way is to install/enable WP:Twinkle. It has an XFD nomination button. Otherwise, please go to WP:BEFORE for the manual instructions. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:13, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Does not meet WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Requesting an AfD. ~2025-35211-47 (talk) 01:30, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS - no indicaiton of sustained covereage in a whole load on manufactured outrage from both sides. ~2025-38159-71 (talk) 14:36, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Created. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:24, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

The redirect Wikipedia:AFDPURPOSE 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 December 10 § Wikipedia:AFDPURPOSE until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 20:44, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

This article does not cite any sources since it was created. I checked the history log and found nothing. The last update was in 2023. Please review. Thank you. Aona1212 (talk) 07:56, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

 Not done. Aona1212, you are WP:AUTOCONFIRMed and can start an AFD yourself; see WP:AFD for more information. I'd suggest using Twinkle, as it makes the process much easier. However, I'd recommend you flesh out your rationale a bit. The date of the last edit to the article is wholly irrelevant and has no bearing on whether or not it should be deleted. Lack of sources are a problem, but if they can be found, it may be worth it to keep and improve the article. That being said, I think this one is probably irredemably bad; we have policies like WP:OR, and even essays like WP:TNT to point to that would help argue your case more than simply "the article has no sources and hasn't been edited recently". –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 08:07, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. I didn’t know that anyone with an autoconfirmed account can start an AfD. I guess I’m just hesitant to flag someone’s page for deletion, especially since I’m not yet confident in my judgment. That’s why I’m here. Thank you for the tips, and I appreciate your quick response. Aona1212 (talk) 08:33, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

MacKinzie Kline participated in one LPGA event as a 15 year old, and never again participated in professional golf. In a 2018 article , she said "I wish I would not have accepted the invitation. That tournament wasn’t a good thing for me. I feel like everything could have been different. Everything started spiraling downhill after that." She appears to be a non-public person now. Other than the one retrospective, I find no substantial coverage of her. ~2025-35132-06 (talk) 17:51, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

 Done, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MacKinzie Kline. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:58, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

A Hollywood lawyer who is also Arnold Schwarzenegger's nephew.

Apart from one interview the sources contain only trivial mentions of him from Hollywood magazines, either being named as a legal representative or because of his relation to Arnold.

The only in depth coverage is an interview he did with the German language Call Magazine. I can find very little info about this magazine and it does not seem particularly notable. ~2025-40999-05 (talk) 11:13, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't think an AfD is the answer as per WP:INVALIDBIO and WP:ATD-R you can redirect to Arnold Schwarzenegger. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:27, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Re-requesting this deletion as the blank and redirect has been reverted by an IP user. Per WP:ATD-R I think we need a full discussion. ~2025-42075-48 (talk) 23:02, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

 Done at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Knapp Schwarzenegger (2nd nomination). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:43, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Curious: When reading closing arguments/conclusions of AfDs, I sometimes realize that I forgot to sign one of my comments (like here bullet 3). Is the "Do not modify" on closed AfDs an absolute rule so that such signing should never be added? Or is the "not modify" connected to the comments that belong on the Talk Page or Deletion Review instead? Thanks! -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 00:01, 22 December 2025 (UTC) (I remembered to sign this one)

Eh, I'd say minor fixes like that are usually okay. I don't know why SineBot didn't get it...does it not work anymore? It might be best to use the {{unsigned}} template so long after the fact though. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:47, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you Deacon! -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 02:14, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

The redirect Draft:Wikipedia:Alternative für Deutschland 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 December 29 § Draft:Wikipedia:Alternative für Deutschland until a consensus is reached. Sugar Tax (talk) 22:25, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

The subject of this article is not notable. He appears to be the ancestor of one of the editors of the article, but is otherwise only one of many early immigrants to New England.Lois Hacker (talk) 22:49, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Please renominate for deletion - I left my new reasoning on the talk page. ~2025-44120-31 (talk) 16:56, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

A user just removed the tag from the article despite my attempt to get an AFD (sorry about the Switch, my browser got deleted.) could one be started? ~2026-14183 (talk) 17:13, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 18:35, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Re the edit summary at ("we don't create sections in afds") I can find no such rule in WP:AFD or any other policy or guideline. I may have missed it though, we have a lot of policies and guidelines, and a few essays that have become de-facto guidelines.

There is one very good reason why a call for close or close request should be in a separate section. The editor who closes a discussion has to be someone who is not involved in the discussion. By definition such an editor is unlikely to see a call for close comment in a discussion that they are not participating in, and those who do see it can only second or oppose it, not act on it.

I could not find a previous AFD example, but calling for close section have a long tradition on Wikipedia, and this is the first time that I have seen anyone object to one. Here are some examples:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive301#Call_for_close
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive294#Call_for_close
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive306#Call_for_close
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive875#Call_for_Close
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1065#Call_for_close
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive895#Call_for_close
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Feynman_Prize_in_Nanotechnology#Close_request
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates/archive88#Close_request
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive905#Call_for_close
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive895#Call_for_close
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive894#Call_for_close
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)/Archive_19#Call_for_close
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive944#Call_for_close

So, does such a policy exist? If not, should it? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:17, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

AFDs have a duration of at least 7 days. The AFD in question is contentious. What is the reason for calling for a close so soon? Especially opening a new section? Does calling for a close really warrant all that attention that it merits a section? Who are you to even decide that it warrants a close? Bringing up multiple non-AFD close requests won't help the case. Creating a section calling for a close on an AFD, especially one that doesn't meet WP:SNOW, doesn't make any sense. Skyshiftertalk 15:27, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

It makes sense to me, for the reasons I gave in my call to close. The AfD was posted on 27 December 2025. It is now 3 January 2026 -- seven days. I do not expect any call for close to be acted on in less than a day, and indeed I would object it it was. You need a few days at least to allow other editors to agree or object. You might want to post your objection there; the closer is unlikely to read this discussion.

Re: "Who are you to even decide that it warrants a close?" I am actually forbidden from deciding that it warrants a close because I participated in the discussion. All I can do is request that an uninvolved editor look at it.

Again I ask, what policy are you enforcing? This looks like a rule that you made up. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:49, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

If it has been seven days, then an uninvolved admin will review the AFD in due time. That's how AFD works. Just wait. Skyshiftertalk 16:02, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

After the AfD has been open for the requisite period of time (7 days), it will be added to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old by Mathbot. This is done periodically, so it won't show up in this list until typically a little bit after 24 hours (I can't recall the intervals, but I typically see it updated around midnight EST on my watchlist for one period). After it is included on that list, admin and non-admin closers will review the discussion and then decide whether to close or relist the discussion. @Guy Macon.

Refer to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Administrator instructions#Closing out an AfD log page and WP:CLOSEAFD. It is never necessary to specifically call for a close. Katzrockso (talk) 19:16, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! Good to know. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:38, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't know if any such policy and I think sections on AFDs should be avoided if only because they clutter up listing pages. I will say I think they should always be a level lower than the AFD header itself so on pages such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 December 27 they section doesn't should up as a "false" AFD. I have in the past properly put sections inside the AFD and probably would have here if I had seen it before this discussion. So Guy Macon, I suggest at a minimum change the "===" header to "====". Skynxnex (talk) 17:15, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Done. I will be sure to do it that way from now on. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 18:29, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

While unnecessary, I genuinely can see no harm in this - there's cases where a call for an early close can be made, cases where a call for a close can be made where closure is overdue. An uninvolved editor/admin can respond - essentially all AfD closes will actually be early or overdue depending on how precisesly one measures the seven day period. Awhile back (cannot remember how long) there was some concern over closes happening half a day to a day early - since then as far as I can see we've been pretty clear on sticking to a full seven day period. This is currently listed in the 27 December log for closure, it will be dealt with in due course (although not be me having now expressed a related opinion on the topic, broadly defined). Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 00:29, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

can someone finish the AFD I set up? I left my logic on the talk page. ~2026-93172 (talk) 15:13, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done by Bobby Cohn --pro-anti-air ––>(talk)<–– 18:36, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Redirected multiple times for lack of notability. ~2025-43709-54 (talk) 13:05, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

It has been protected so that only extended confirmed editors can redirect. That should stop the sockpupppets. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:47, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

The article lacks significant coverage in reliable, independent sources and fails to meet the general notability guideline. Multiple claims are unsourced or cite non-reliable references, and the tone is non-encyclopedic. RomeoSingh2010 (talk) 14:45, 10 January 2026 (UTC)RomeoSingh2010

@RomeoSingh2010@ ~2026-22695-7 (talk) 15:13, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

There have been no complaints, but I pinged ALL editors involved (excluding administraion work) in prior nomination discussions (not the current one on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Solomon_family_(3rd_nomination) and added a summary of the prior discussions. I did (with a lot of fiddling) use AI to create the list. Wakelamp (talk) d[@-@]b 12:40, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Why use AI? AI-creep on Wikipedia is a real thing. Could have just cut-and-paste or another method. Thanks, just my two AI cents. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:47, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Do you think pinging is ok though?

(I too loathe AI with a passion because it removes the humanity that is so much of wikipedia

So, I contemplated not mentioning AI (because I knew it would side track) but I thought I would admit all my sins). Wakelamp (talk) d[@-@]b 13:06, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Go, and sin no more. Personally I think alerting all editors who discussed the topic in the previous nominations is fine, and there may be a guideline OKing it, but I haven't memorized the full rules and regs. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:29, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, it's fine to notify people who've participated in previous discussions (WP:APPNOTE). I don't think you need to list out how they !voted, though (people can check the old discussions if they're curious). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:13, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Is there some sort of standard template, explaining the purpose of an afd talkpage, that can be put on those pages? Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/American hybrid warfare against Greenland during the second Trump administration made me wonder. "The discussion is not taking place here, if you wish to comment, go to the other page." or something like that. If there isn't one, should we make one? Perhaps even include it in the automated process? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:02, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Template:Right place could perhaps be used. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:28, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Don't know if there's any existing template. My sense from looking at AFDs over the past few years, the number of AFDs that end up with talk pages are a tiny minority so probably does not make sense to automatically create them. My memory is the rare time an AFD has been semi/extended-protected is the main time and then having a header might make sense.

I'm not very conversant with Wikipedia:Editnotices but I wonder if it'd be possible to make a group edit notice rooted at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/ to have a similar message as you proposed? Skynxnex (talk) 19:40, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Something like at Wikipedia talk:Help desk is an option. Like you say, automatic creation is probably unnecessary. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:55, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

can you finish the AFD nomination for the article? I left my reason for deletion on the talk page. ~2026-35518-9 (talk) 00:40, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Please be aware, this is most likely a SOCK of WP:LTA/A5, who has previous now-blocked SOCKs who have started/attempted to start AFDs on articles created by WeatherWriter. (See the SPI logged and near associated edits with ~2026-93172. WeatherWriter (talk) 00:48, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

I have no clue who that is and the IP for this geolocates to Oklahoma, whereas the location for the user you linked is from the Northeast US. I just think the information can easily be merged; that’s all. ~2026-35518-9 (talk) 00:49, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

I have created the nomination, I would have supported a redirect myself but the request by the creator was to take it to AFD so here we are. Primefac (talk) 13:00, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

please nominate 2026 Kansas City Chiefs season, 2026 Green Bay Packers season, 2026 Carolina Panthers season, 2026 Los Angeles Chargers season and 2026 Jacksonville Jaguars season for deletion. I left my reasoning on the talk pages. ~2026-36172-2 (talk) 14:41, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 14:51, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Following Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_nominate_a_single_page_for_deletion, I posted the rationale on the talk page: Talk:Chris_DeArmitt#Article_for_deletion. Could please someone take care of the remaining steps? Thank you. ~2026-36945-7 (talk) 23:18, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

I've posted your rationale to the AfD page. Thanks. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:54, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

please finish the AFD I tried to set up ~2026-37187-9 (talk) 21:04, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done. Primefac (talk) 10:18, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § RfC: Merging merge discussions with AfD. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:27, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

My interest stems from this AfD discussion Before going to pump, I am seeking feedback from notabiliyt and AfD.

The current WP:GNG (general notability) and WP:NOTGENEALOGY don't specifically tackle "family" as a collective entity. Requiring explicit criteria (e.g., demonstrated collective significance via secondary sources treating the family as a unit, not just individuals) could prevent cruft (Family appears in thet itle of 12,000 articles and 22000 AfDs) while allowing well-sourced ones (e.g., Kennedy family or Rockefeller family) or biological and other uses, Wakelamp (talk) d[@-@]b 01:57, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

A user, ThatTrainGuy1945, attempted to start an AfD, but it failed. I de-prodded it as controversial. Can somebody please help them? Thanks in advance. Bearian (talk) 03:31, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

I think someone should create a template to notify WikiProjects of new discussions similar to RM notice for requested moves. This would encourage editors using this process to notify WikiProjects readily with this much easier and more elegant option. This template I am proposing should have a parameter to switch between user and WikiProject notification. It should be merged into the current Template:Afd notice. Qwerty123M (talk) 06:55, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Please finish the AFD nom I attempted to create. I left my reason for deletion at the respective talk page. ~2026-41476-9 (talk) 19:11, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done Local Variable (talk) 15:51, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

The instructions now tell users to use the tag "subst:afd1". User:Wcquidditch has pointed out that it is "afd2" that triggers the correct response in the deletion log.

Can we update the instructions? Trumpetrep (talk) 20:53, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't think you are interpreting the instructions correctly. {{subst:afd1}} is what generates the AfD tag that is placed on the article itself. {{subst:afd2}} is what generates the formatting for the nomination, and goes on the nomination subpage. (The transclusion of the subpage on the deletion log, for the record, is generated by {{subst:afd3}}). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:57, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I misspoke. I followed the instruction to put "subst:afd3 | pg=NominationName" on the deletion log. That didn't generate the header that you had to come along and fix by using afd2. Trumpetrep (talk) 21:45, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

How do we tag or otherwise indicate AfDs where you get "delete"s by accounts with some track record, but a large number of "keep"s from temp accounts, like at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Freedom of Uselessness? Tag them all with SPA? "Not a ballot"? An SPI won't do much good when you only have temp accounts I think. Fram (talk) 09:44, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

There is no need to tag signed temporary account contributions (the situation will be obvious to the closer) but when they are unsigned WP:UNSIGNED will be appropriate. Tagging the whole discussion may appear to be prejudicial. As an aside, it should be borne in mind that longterm editors may have become jaundiced in their views and new editors may bring fresh perspectives. Thincat (talk) 11:49, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

True, but it is rather rare to get so many new editors to a fairly low level AfD (I mean, it's not some hotly debated political topic or some such). Usually this indicates either socking or off-wiki campaigning. Fram (talk) 12:00, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes indeed. That should be apparent to whoever closes the discussion. If not, WP:DRV may be appropriate, after attempting discussion with the closer. In this case the campaign may be trying to dissuade people from even starting to look at the film. Thincat (talk) 12:20, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. Fram (talk) 13:28, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the process and made a statement to that effect. To my eyes it's one contributor using multiple IPs. BusterD (talk) 13:47, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for investigating. Thincat (talk) 14:17, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

From me as well! Fram (talk) 14:35, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Article cites one source that isn't connected to the book, contains a large amount of unsupported claims, and reads like a high school essay, for the most part. I've already tagged it, it would be good if someone could create the AFD page. ~2025-42329-12 (talk) 13:48, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done. Chess enjoyer (talk) 22:31, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

WP:NLIST says:

• Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables
• One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; and other guidelines on appropriate stand-alone lists. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been.

As this list article does not contain any statements or cite any independent reliable sources that discuss this topic as a group or set in general, I added a {{Notability}} tag to the top of it, with edit summary per WP:NLIST to show notability, this list needs to show that "mass stabbings in the UK" has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, hoping that someone might fix the problem.

However, that tag was removed within 24 hours, with no apparent addition of any explanation of notability of the group or set in general, with the edit summary if you think this topic isn't notable, take it to AfD.

Do we think that this article meets the notability requirements? If not, will someone please add an AfD for it please. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:03, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

@DeFacto: Note that your quote from NLIST says "One accepted reason...". Further down in that, you'll see "There is no present consensus for ... or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists". WP:LISTCRIT also applies. It's definitely not a delete -- at most WP:CSC#1 could be applied with it cut down to only bluelinked entries (see Category:Mass stabbings in the United Kingdom), but I don't think the list needs that pruning based on length at this point (indiscriminate lists for any stabbings in the UK would, on the other hand be way too long). It doesn't look like there's an article on knife crime in the UK, only a short section at Crime_in_the_United_Kingdom#Knife_or_sharp_instruments. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 22:37, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

@Hydronium Hydroxide, yes I saw that, and assumed that "There is no present consensus for... what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists" means that therefore there is no other acceptable way to justify it and that the one accepted method is the only one that has a consensus to use. The page itself needs to be notable, not just the entries in it. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:47, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

please finish the AFD for this article. ~2026-61810-1 (talk) 18:28, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done - UtherSRG (talk) 18:58, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Please help me finish the AFD for this article as well. Reason for deletion on the talk page. ~2026-61810-1 (talk) 18:30, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done - UtherSRG (talk) 19:01, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Please submit on my behalf, per WP:AFDHOWTO (non logged-in editor).

Fails Notability, insufficient detail for a bio, all refs but one are primary sources (e.g., trade directories and commercial promotional business portal) being passing mentions only rehashing and repeating folklore from 1800s and mid 1900s. Youtube is likewise passing mentions of folklore and should be discounted; the one secondary source LeicestershireLive is similarly folklore/trivia

PROD was correctly applied, removed by author within three hours, later discussed at article Talk. Full details are at Talk:Henry James Walker#Nominating for deletion. I will be off-Wiki now for 16 hours. Thanks.--~2025-39893-76 (talk) 01:37, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done - UtherSRG (talk) 02:08, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Basically, she is just not notable. I have explained here: Talk:Deborah_Honeycutt#Nominating_Deborah_Honeycutt_article_for_deletion

A WP:PROD was contested, but even the person contesting said "I put the odds of deletion at AfD 50-50". See Special:Diff/1335410473/1335495027

~2026-63974-0 (talk) 00:55, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done – Nil🥝 04:40, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

please nominate both articles for deletion. My logic is: “Both articles are for AFCCGs not shown to be independently notable, and only Super Bowls are guaranteed articles.” ~2026-30901-1 (talk) 23:15, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Both tags were removed as you did not complete the instructions - Unregistered users placing this tag on an article cannot complete the deletion nomination and should leave detailed reasons for deletion on (the relevant article's talk page) and then post a message at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion requesting that someone else complete the process. If the nomination is not completed and no message is left on the talkpage, this tag may be removed.

Please try again... - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 01:42, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Rich Smith, I added logic to the talk page. (Note new users still cannot create AFDs for 4 days). Can you finish it now? --KansasCity021 (talk) 02:19, 15 January 2026 (UTC) STRIKE SOCK -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:36, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm confused, what policy or guideline are you quoting? - Adolphus79 (talk) 03:53, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

@Adolphus79: Editors do not get pings for replies like this :) Tagging KansasCity021 - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 09:26, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

User:KansasCity021, looks like other AFC Championship games simply get redirected to that season's playoff page. For example, 2021 AFC Championship Game gets redirected to 2021–22 NFL playoffs. You don't need to "delete" those articles, you can be bold and merge them. I betcha if they went through the deletion process, the consensus would be "merge" anyway. I'd support that bold merge. Just follow the steps at Wikipedia:Merging. Masterhatch (talk) 08:10, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

@Masterhatch: I tried removing the tags and starting a merge discussion but I can’t, so can you either create the AFD or nominate a merge for me? ~2026-31669-3 (talk) 13:36, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

I removed the deletion tags. You can either boldly merge it yourself or start a merge discussion. Note, if your bold merge gets reverted, don't revert back. In that case you would have to start a merge discussion. For the record, I support a merge. Masterhatch (talk) 18:36, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

@Masterhatch: I began the merge discussions. ~2026-32871-8 (talk) 22:19, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CLiX (markup) seems to have gotten lost from the log and needs to be relisted, can anyone handle this please? Schützenpanzer (Talk) 22:38, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Done, thanks. XFDcloser was evidently not very happy about having Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CLiX (markup) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CLIX (markup) right next to each other on the log... Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:11, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! Schützenpanzer (Talk) 02:31, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

The article Priyadarsan Patra appears to have been written by a new user and failed AfC for all of the usual reasons, but said user later proceeded to move it to mainspace anyway. As a new user myself I'm unsure of protocols here - it doesn't quite appear to fit WP:G4 for speedy deletion. Should it be nominated via normal AfD process or is something else appropriate in this situation? ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 09:10, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

@ChompyTheGogoat: As it wasn't deleted, G4 does not apply at all. You can try AFD. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:28, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

I've seen other mentions of speedies in similar situations but didn't look into the details, so I wasn't sure if I was missing something. G4 seemed to be the closest I could find. Is dodging AfC like that just considered bad form then, rather than an actual policy or guideline violation? I haven't read up on the process yet. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 16:58, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Yup. AFC is generally optional, but highly encouraged. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:55, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Is it then safe to assume that going against the AfC WP:CONSENSUS like this will almost always result in deletion, unless by chance they actually make sufficient improvements in between? ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 03:07, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

An AFC review is done by a single person. It's not a consensus process. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:09, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Oh, my mistake. So is deletion a higher bar than creation then? Meaning it just needs to be good enough to meet minimum standards with room for improval to pass creation, but deletion likely means that it's either so bad it needs to be rewritten from scratch, or the subject doesn't qualify for an article at all (or both)? In other words, something that's borderline in terms of AfC but does get posted would probably be left up with suggestions to improve if it was nominated to AfD, rather than deleted?

I have been reading up on policy and guidelines but can't keep them all straight sometimes. It's a lot! ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 15:53, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Correct, to a degree. ;) AfC is generally about ensuring there's notability for the subject to warrant an article, as shown via the sources used. However, AfC is optional, though highly encouraged. Articles can be created outside of the AfC process; those that do not have adequate referencing can be brought to AFD for consensus removal. However, AFD can also be used to tear down a notable subject's article so that things can start afresh. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:13, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

AfC is generally about ensuring there's notability for the subject to warrant an article

That's the purpose of rejection vs denial then - "this needs more work before going live", vs "this doesn't qualify for an article and you should drop it"? ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 23:41, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:55, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

That's helpful to know. Thanks for being patient with me! ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 09:08, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

His article was already nominated for deletion back in 2008, at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Al_Siebert. Some news articles were mentioned, but they all seem to be WP:PROMO. For more detailed reasons, see Talk:Al_Siebert#Nominating_Al_Siebert_article_for_deletion ~2026-75315-7

(talk) 18:39, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

 Done – By someone else Sdfgdsf (talk) 18:12, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Overall, this article does not meet WP:GNG and WP:NUNI. A close examination of the sources reveals that virtually none constitute significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. See Talk:Anaheim_University#Why_this_article_should_be_deleted for more details. ~2026-78471-2 (talk) 13:46, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

 Done -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:04, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Until last year, this article was a redirect. The main issue is that many sources promote the pseudoscientific facilitated communication method. From Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amy Sequenzia (2nd nomination), "Reliability is always evaluated in terms of a specific work from that publisher and in terms of the specific information being cited, in relation to the current article." See Talk:Naoki_Higashida#Justification_for_deletion for full details and many examples. ~2026-78471-2 (talk) 14:16, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

 Done - UtherSRG (talk) 15:45, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

When you bundle, Step V says to use :{{la|related article 1}}. @Tenshi Hinanawi: is not the first to have to cleanup (I never mind, and much appreciate!) but I hate to leave a mess. Is this an MfD specific one since it's not article space, or do the issues show at AfD too? I can't find my last messy bundle. Thoughts or ideas? Star Mississippi 17:20, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Some examples from the past few days: That's just from the sportspeople deletion sorting. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 13:50, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Of courses not, and those (and others in the future) should be removed as soon as the AI has been determined to have been used to create them and a warning given to the creating editor. Either Wikipedia goes full-in on opposing AI use or we just give in and allow a takeover (such as with the AI created "editorial" in the recent Signpost). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:53, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Beyond the pale of moral reasons, no. Since AfD discussions are a form of consensus gathering, and we collapse and omit AI text from consensus in regular discussion, the same must be applicable here. Viva la horde, ~ GoatLordServant^(Talk) 13:55, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Aren't each of these invalid nominations? BusterD (talk) 16:52, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

I believe once they've gotten a good-faith !vote (as each of these have) they will be kept up and closed through the normal process, with the AI nomination not considered as a valid argument to delete by the closer. --Here2rewrite (talk) 16:57, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

I'd love to assume good faith, but just one machine-written AFD opens the door to LLMs swamping all our human-moderated processes. Humans need to sleep. This capability might have been handy when Lugnuts was around, but it's against policy. Love to hear comments from sysops (and former sysops). BusterD (talk) 17:12, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

LLMs should not be used for this purpose, nor for most purposes regarding human communication and consensus gathering. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:32, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Seconding this as a sysop. If someone uses LLMs to generate tens of AfDs nominations and puts the burden to deal with "the hard part" (searching for sources, evaluating notability, considering applicable policies, etc.) on other editors, then there is an asymmetry of effort that should be avoided. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 11:47, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

The irony of your point seemingly being confirmed by the same LLM-using AfD nominator themselves, who couldn't be bothered to produce a complete IP report before bringing it to another user's attention. StonyBrook _babble 05:33, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

The developing consensus at my RfC on the topic seems to be that no, we shouldn't. People generally don't support my proposed guideline on the topic, but do more broadly support a prohibition on AI generating user-to-user communication including AfDs. You may want to weigh in your own support there. Athanelar (talk) 12:06, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Another one ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 00:22, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anaheim_University may be one as well, and if so, my fault, as I was answering an AfD requsst on this page and didn't have my "wondering if its AI" cap on at the time. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:30, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Per WP:DRV#Speedy closes, LLM-generated DRV appeals can be speedy-closed. I don't see why AfDs can't or shouldn't be speedy-closed for the same reason. Left guide (talk) 00:36, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

There are about 40 articles about US journalists created by a user who has been blocked for writing poor BLP articles. I think they all could be deleted for failing notability. I could PROD all of them but is there a better way? 🌊PacificDepths (talk | contrib) 03:09, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

I'd say that prodding them individually would be the way to go, if you genuinely think they fail on notability grounds (I've taken a look at a few, and tend to agree for those at least). Given that being created by a subsequently-blocked user isn't in of itself grounds for deletion, they each need to be looked at on their merits, if anyone contests the PRODs. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:21, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. I will go through and PROD the ones that seem likely. The articles that were created earlier have a lot of local newspaper coverage and are kept. The articles created towards the end, I didn't see a lot of coverage for. 🌊PacificDepths (talk | contrib) 21:35, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

There appears to be issues with this nomination and I can't fix it. Bearian (talk) 09:32, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

It has been fixed, it seems. ~2026-78471-2 (talk) 15:10, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Overall, this event doesn't seem to be notable enough. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:GEOSCOPE. For more details, see Talk:Tora-Con#Notability_concerns_-_sourcing_does_not_establish_WP:GNG ~2026-78471-2 (talk) 15:58, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

Done - by someone else ~2026-78471-2 (talk) 15:12, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

This article should be deleted without dispute, based on consensus from many years ago. Rapid Prompting Method, the way he allegedly communicates, is scientifically discredited. Regarding consensus, see this blog post for an in-depth explanation: https://corticalchauvinism.wordpress.com/2019/06/26/a-triple-victory-three-wikipedia-articles-promoting-facilitated-communication-are-deleted/

I am surprised that these points were not brought up in the previous discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ido Kedar.

For more details, see Talk:Ido_Kedar#This_article_should_be_deleted_without_dispute,_based_on_consensus_from_many_years_ago ~2026-78471-2 (talk) 13:50, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

•  Done - created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ido Kedar (2nd nomination). --Finngall ^talk 16:25, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

I made a change (diff) to the instructions there advising people to simply post here with their request. Doing step 1 and then tossing the reason on the article talk page just creates more hassle for both parties when it can simply be done with Twinkle much more easily. If anyone thinks this is bad, they can revert, but I can't imagine it's a problem. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 05:37, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

@Deacon Vorbis I find that much improved. On the rare occasions I do this on someone's behalf it makes much more sense to have no steps done rather Tham trying to sort out the goodwill created 'stuff'. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 15:13, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

@Deacon Vorbis Thanks! I guess this is in response to all my requests. ~2026-78471-2 (talk) 15:14, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-78471-2: I tend to be relentlessly AGF when it comes to completing anonymous AfD nominations, but if you're planning on continuing to tag articles, then please create an account so that you can complete these yourself without shifting the work on to your fellow editors. Thanks. --Finngall ^talk 16:31, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, but I do like to stay anonymous though when possible. Nothing has to be done right away however. ~2026-88582-5 (talk) 18:58, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Firehouse Tales has only one source which is about TV shows in general and does not count as WP:SIGCOV regarding the given topic. A quick internet search also reveals no reliable sources that pass WP:RS or SIGCOV—hence this show doesn't pass the WP:GNG and should be deleted. There are many children's shows that don't pass WP:GNG and hence have articles; its use as a redirect (given that its original network is itself a redirect) would also be somewhat dubious. ~2026-79355-8 (talk) 05:50, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

 Done - UtherSRG (talk) 15:39, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

With the promotion of WP:NEWLLM into guideline status, which states that large language models should not be used to generate new Wikipedia articles from scratch, there have been an influx of nominations/comments citing the guideline as a rationale for deletion.

Detecting AI-generated content and judging whether its reparable, is whole another skill set than determining notability and would benefit from attracting experts. In fact, a 2025 preprint found that a panel of five human evaluators misclassified only one out of 300 writing samples.

A new AfD sorting tag for "suspected wholly AI-generated articles" make such nominations more discoverable. Ca ^{talk to me!} 02:07, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

fyi, regarding AI-detecting experts, I don't want to sound too egotistical, but those of us active at WP:AIC have an ever-expanding wealth of experience in identifying AI-generated text. I encourage you (and everyone) to ping me or to post at WP:AINB if you need help identifying text as AI-generated. Athanelar (talk) 14:12, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Is being LLM-generated grounds for deletion at AfD? I wasn't aware that was the case. NicheSports (talk) 19:29, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

It can be, particularly when augmenting a WP:TNT argument. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 19:47, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Hmmm. But is it generally accepted as a valid reason, even for LLM-generated articles covering topics that are clearly notable? Edit: I think most articles that are LLM-generated with insufficient human review should be deleted, but want to understand how the community is currently handling this post WP:NEWLLM NicheSports (talk) 19:53, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure that WP:TNT (an essay) is uniformly accepted as a deletion argument. Jahaza (talk) 19:58, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

As mentioned within, that essay essentially forwards a WP:DEL-REASON #14 and WP:ATD-E argument. AfD is not a strict criteria-based process like with speedy, editors make reasoned arguments, those arguments are considered and evaluated per consensus. I've personally made at least one AfD nom of an LLM article myself which, in part, utilized a TNT argument here back in May 2025. The article was deleted. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 21:01, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Makes sense. I certainly support the approach for such articles NicheSports (talk) 21:17, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

I am determined to move this proposal forward. I believe it would be wise to open a RfC as this proposal might carry policy implications. Ca ^{talk to me!} 11:36, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

I support your efforts. What would the RfC be for? The sorting tag, or a new WP:DEL-REASON that certain types of articles meeting WP:NEWLLM would be eligible for deletion? There is definite LLM RfC fatigue right now, with two open currently (one of which is unlikely to pass) and two recently closed. If your immediate goal is just to add the sorting tag, do you think an RfC is necessary? NicheSports (talk) 08:44, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Even though I've seen little pushback so far, unsaid in NEWLLM is whether it is "valid" to cite it in AfDs. I wanted to avoid the appearance of pushing a singular interpretation of the guideline. But given the LLM fatigue as you mentioned, I might just take the BOLD route.

I still need to figure out the proper process of adding a new sorting tag, given there is a lot of templates and scripts involved. Ca ^{talk to me!} 11:36, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

I support the BOLD route. The tag will increase visibility for everyone - both those for and against invoking NEWLLM as a reason for deletion. And for the technical considerations, hopefully you'll forgive me for pinging @Chaotic Enby to see if they have any suggestions (or interest in taking this on). NicheSports (talk) 11:43, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Supporting this as a concept, but there is absolutely a level of LLM policy fatigue. If we make a change (or propose one), it should be a short, concise one rather than a centralized RfC over a long policy addition. This is (to me) the most natural interpretation of NEWLLM, as it would otherwise be unenforceable.

If we want some actual measurable criterion, maybe Articles suspected of being generated by LLMs with several citations that fail verification may be nominated for deletion per WP:NEWLLM. The vast majority of LLM-generated articles will have source verification issues (note that straight-up hallucinated or unrelated sources can get them sent to WP:G15 instead), and that is, if anything, the main reason why we don't want them here. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 11:54, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

I would support your proposed language as an addition to WP:DEL-REASON but Ca's immediate idea is just to add a sorting tag at AfD which I suggested could be done without an RfC. I wondered if you had any suggestions for implementing this? NicheSports (talk) 13:06, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

The implementation of the sorting tag itself should be feasible (cf. Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Flat). Twinkle and other scripts use Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Computer-readable.json which can also be updated at the same time. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:27, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointers! I've created the deletion sorting tag which now shows up on Twinkle. Ca ^{talk to me!} 16:36, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Page for this scholar was started recently, and apparently deleted this last week; could someone help provide the link for the discussion of the deletion? ErnestKrause (talk) 23:57, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

It was a WP:G5 "Created by a banned or blocked user (Slowking4) in violation of ban or block" not an AFD. You can see that by going to the redlinked page ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 00:29, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Someone delted the page, likely from sys ops; does anyone know who it was? ErnestKrause (talk) 17:00, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Obviously badly formatted; could someone help correct it? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:35, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

 Done Qwaiiplayer (talk) 22:14, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Please create a deletion discussion for the New Testament Christian Churches of America. Rationale: This article is about a small religious cult () that hasn't received independent significant coverage. The main cited source is The Dispatch, which is a small county newspaper and is not even notable enough for a Wikipedia article. It is sad what the members go through, but unfortunately on Wikipedia the notability of the topic matters most. In my literature review, I found nothing about this organization. It fails WP:NORG. ~2026-12389-37 (talk) 21:30, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

 Done at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Testament Christian Churches of America. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:59, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Please can a deletion request be created for 1940 Jersey election and Edward Campbell (politician) - both are hoax articles. ~2026-12475-99 (talk) 09:01, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Can you elaborate on this? There are sources, but I don't have access to these to try to verify anything in here. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:54, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

I found the lone reference on Google Books and "Edward Campbell" gets zero results from search inside. Obviously there are reasons that's not 100% reliable, but it does lead some credence to the hoax accusation. Perhaps needs attention from an expert especially as the 1940 election article cites more sources. --Here2rewrite (talk) 17:45, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

From an incomplete search (via what Google books will show me), I can't seem to find any mention of Campbell in the sources cited in the 'election' article. Or evidence that an election actually took place: if it did, I'd expect it to have been better documented, given the extensive discussion the Jersey occupation received. It thus seems entirely possible that both articles are indeed hoaxes, though clearly this needs more investigation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:59, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Both articles have been speedy deleted after confirming that there are no trustworthy sources which actually support the material, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1940 Jersey election. Many thanks to ~2026-12475-99 for bringing this to our attention. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:22, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Please create a deletion discussion for this page. The article relies on only one source. Thank you. WikiTributor2026 (talk) 13:57, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Give the lack of any notability whatsoever, I've used Wikipedia:Proposed deletion instead. We shouldn't need an AfD discussion to get rid of obvious promotional junk. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:03, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for the link. WikiTributor2026 (talk) 14:06, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm surprised this wasn't G11'd, but good move PROD'ing it. TheTechie^[she/they] | talk? 03:00, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

the event wasn't notable enough and I'm using a phone so someone else needs to nominate it for deletion, animal hostage takings happened before and they don't get wiki pages, this one doesn't have anything notable about it so therefore the article should be nominated for deletion, at the very least there's enough grounds to nominate it for deletion from what I said so someone else has to do it NamelessPsychopath (talk) 10:23, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Looks notable to me. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:52, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Sources would suggest it's notable enough to deserve a page. ArthurTheGardener (talk) 15:50, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Disagree. In fact, the only sources are news, making this a case of WP:NOTNEWS. I've nominated it myself. TheTechie^[she/they] | talk? 03:09, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Please create a 2nd nomination of deletion discussion for the ProGet Rationale: This article have not edited for 6 months. Does not meet WP:GNG. This article should be deleted. ~2026-13151-64 (talk) 18:20, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Not done for now. Not having been edited in some amount of time is not a valid reason to delete (nor does it even tip the scales). A claim of not meeting GNG is, but you need a little more than a plain assertion like that. Some analysis of sources, evidence of looking for more sources not in the article, and/or why the keep outcome of the first AFD might not have been correct would all help to start a more productive AFD discussion. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:45, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Expanding on the Deacon's remarks, I suggest seeing WP:BEFORE. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 19:50, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

The subject doesn't appear to be inherently notable. The sources in the article are mainly first-party or marketing releases, and after searching I don't see much independent coverage in reliable sources. I previously nominated it for PROD, but that was contested. ~2026-47018-8 (talk) 11:12, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

It's a 72-year-old major furniture franchise chain, seems notable enough to survive an AfD. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:44, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn: The age of a company is irrelevant to its notability, per the criteria. ~2026-47018-8 (talk) 19:52, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Declined - Looks notable to me. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:30, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Going to have to agree with the TA here. Even though the sources in the article currently doesn't determine notability, a quick search doesn't find any other sources about this company that aren't primary. The TA is also correct that the age of the company doesn't affect notability. Unless some saving grace of a source is found, I don't see why this shouldn't go to AfD. TheTechie^[she/they] | talk? 03:00, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-47018-8: I have nominated it for deletion, because I agree with you on your rationale. TheTechie^[she/they] | talk? 15:52, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Abbasid expeditions to East Africa § Nominated for deletion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:35, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps someone could take a look at this? A user nominated the article for deletion but didn't finish the rest of the process. I tried advising them just to follow the rest of the steps in the AfD template, but they seem reluctant to do so. The same user prodded the article for deletion, but the prod was subsequently contested and the article restored; so, there's at least one person who feels the article should be kept. I know absolutely nothing about the subject matter and don't want to proxy-AfD an article just because someone is unable/unwilling to complete the process. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:40, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

For the time being, I have reverted the incomplete nomination from Abbasid expeditions to East Africa and suggested that the nominator (Yubudirsi) make an AfD request here if they do not feel confident to complete the process themselves. @Yubudirsi, if you choose to do that, remember you will have to give a proper rationale for deletion. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 11:21, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Gotcha Yubudirsi (talk) 15:42, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi! I was trying to fix a redirect to List of hospitals in Lesotho and ended up creating List of Hospitals in Lesotho by mistake. Please could you delete the second one? Thank you. H0n0r (talk) 00:39, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Done. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:43, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! Sorry about that. H0n0r (talk) 00:48, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

An article on BLP Tom Brier was repeatedly recreated and placed for AfD with the result on 3rd nom as DELETE & SALT (2022): . Since that time there have been certain RS and notability criteria that just may allow the article to finally be accepted under WP guidelines for music / musician. Here is the German WP which was simply a translation from the English (which would not pass here). However, as can be seen there are a few recent achievements that may allow this inclusion here. 1. An annual scholarship and competition has been named / awarded in Brier's honor (2025). Youth Competition, Isaiah Burton: 2025 recipient of the Historic Sutter Creek Ragtime Festival Tom Brier Scholarship. 2. Received award. Outstanding Achievement Award, . 3. BLP is mentioned in books. Happimetrics. 4. Coverage of his paralysis from car accident is being covered. Tom Brier -- The story and Tragic Ending, Appreciating Tom Brier (2025). I know MEDIUM is not a RS, but placing it here to show additional coverage. . Wondering if these are enough to finally get this BLP article approved. Before, the article had no RS or SIG:COV and only primary sources. Willing to reconstruct and update correctly. Thoughts? Maineartists (talk) 14:23, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Support unsalting the page as the coverage of Tom Brier has grown since 2022 and there seems to be enough independent reliable in depth coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. I would like to see at least one example of coverage outside of the jazz/ragtime scene (and maybe more high quality than an online blog or a passing mention in a book), but the coverage provided is enough to at least look into it and provide an opportunity to find more sources. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 17:51, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Just as a procedural note, ultimately what you're looking for is a request for page unprotection which should be first discussed with the protecting administrator (in this case Explicit). Qwaiiplayer (talk) 18:19, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, Qwaiiplayer, for all this. It is a great help. I will contact Explicit and get the ball rolling. I too would like to find sources outside of the jazz/ragtime scene and a passing mention. But judging from past "keep" AfDs such as this one: based on a passing mention in a book and only reviews by the same source / reviewer in the same genre, I've been hoping that this BLP could at least pass with similar criteria for WP:GNG. Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 19:06, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

This building does not appear to meet notability standards, I do not see any reliable sources establishing the subject's notability. Many of the sources are primary, and by the look of the prose, the entire article is original research. This appears to be a nondescript building on the campus of a very small college. The intricate level of detail into the college's governance is either original research or improper synthesis. Nominating for deletion per the existing templates. ~2026-16420-40 (talk) 09:35, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Filed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lane Hall. DMacks (talk) 11:54, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

The article does not clearly meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for organizations (WP:ORG) or the general notability guideline (WP:GNG). The available sources are limited and do not demonstrate significant, in-depth coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources. Much of the sourcing appears to be routine mentions or insufficient to establish encyclopedic notability.

Additionally, there are concerns regarding neutrality, as parts of the article read in a potentially promotional tone. The article may also have been created by a contributor with a possible connection to the subject (User:Saranghills), raising potential conflict of interest concerns.

Overall, the lack of strong independent sourcing and concerns about tone make it difficult to verify the content and justify inclusion in the encyclopedia.

~2026-18300-09 (talk) 12:01, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

•  Done - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarang school. --Finngall ^talk 19:28, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:AfD stats § Merge votes, where the AfD stats tool's treatment of merge votes is presently being discussed, particularly in light of the merger of the proposed merger process with AfD. silviaASH (inquire within) 08:08, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

I am requesting that the Article About Onlyfans must be deleted from Wikipedia ~2026-19417-62 (talk) 01:25, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Please read WP:IDONTLIKEIT. We won't be deleting an article about a website that easily meets our notability criteria. nil ^nz 01:40, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

What's wrong with the OnlyFans article? GrinningIodize (talk) 12:36, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi ~2026-19417-62. Welcome to the project. We have specific criteria for deleting articles. Please see WP:DELETION and in particular WP:DELREASON. After reading that if you still think the article doesn't belong here, feel free to come back and offer a policy and guidelines based explanation. Thank you for your efforts to improve the encyclopedia. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:47, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

This discussion has been disrupted by block evasion, ban evasion, or sockpuppetry from the following user: Iljhgtn (talk · contribs · block log · spi) Their comments should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

So now that merges might go here, and I know we have this in the banner box, "Q1: I don't like this page's name. I want to rename it to Articles for discussion or something else. A1: Please see Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Rename AFD. Note that all of the "for discussion" pages handle not only deletion, but also proposed mergers, proposed moves, and other similar processes. AFD is "for deletion" because the volume of discussion has made it necessary to sub-divide the work by the type of change." but it seems to me like we may want to revisit this now at least one more time and see about an RfC for changing the official title of this from "Articles for deletion" to "Articles for discussion" (or some other names such as maybe, Articles to be determined (ATBD), articles to be decided on (ATBDO), articles under deliberation (AUD), articles being discussed for significant changes (ABDSC)?

I know this has been "perennially discussed" but the merge or proposed merges to now fall under AfD seems to me to be a significant enough of an event to finally have us decide what to do about the name of this activity. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 20:21, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

That is the focus of this currently-live RfC: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC on renaming AfD. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 20:35, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, I will carry on there then. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 21:07, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Article seems to be mostly promotional, while not being very notable. Does not have any sources, and it is worded in a way that sounds strongly of advertising. It seems @Borogrove is the books author, based on what he has edited. Leading me to assume it was written with promotion in mind (also based on how it is phrased). All mentions I can find about the book on a cursory Google search are places selling it and one short review.

Apologies for this being a bit poorly written, woke up about six hours ago, operating on 3.5 hours of sleep. Registered Feline (talk) 15:27, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm trying the less-involved WP:PROD method of deletion; given the lack of activity on the page, it seems likely to succeed. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:34, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you.  I was unsure whether to do that, due to the article having previously been nominated for PROD (though, literally 20 years ago). So, I appriciate it. Registered Feline (talk) 16:16, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Ah, my PROD was in error then (I had missed that the article was old enough that it predates PRODs automatically being listed on the talk page.) In any case, someone has dePRODded it, so a PROD will not work. I myself am not doing to AFD it at the moment as someone is in the midst of seeking to improve it; others are welcome to help you place the AfD. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:38, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

, Nat Gertler (talk) 17:38, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't see this article's relevance on Wikipedia, with weaker notability. I don't think it should have its own article, maybe, WP:TOOSOON. Qadri223 Mi página de discusión Mis contribuciones a Wikipedia 08:27, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Notability certainly looks questionable, and though the article creator was entitled to remove the earlier WP:PROD, I can't say that the justification they gave in their edit summary was exactly convincing. You should be able to start an AfD discussion yourself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:21, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Specifically, page as the param does not seem to work, it has to be pg now, except I don't know why since neither this page nor the template seem to have changed at all Gnomingstuff (talk) 03:55, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

not actually famous enough. ~2026-21835-36 (talk) 17:24, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

•  Not done - The is in reference to the TA's tagging of Xav - no policy-based justification has been provided, so I have reverted the tag. --Finngall ^talk 18:15, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Editors are coming to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Assyrian continuity thinking it is a deletion discussion, while it is a merge discussion. Part of the reason may be that the old template on the article says in bold letters that "an editor has nominated this article for deletion", linking to "the deletion discussion, which will decide whether to keep it", etc.

Can the message in the article be altered, or perhaps somehow hidden? If it can be hidden, a {{Merge to}} template can be added linking to the AfD discussion. That would probably clear up some confusion. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 06:40, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

As you might be able to see from above, we are currently working through reconciling the merge processes with AfD and updating the templates. It's not perfect, but a semi-fix that was just introduced now allows for outcome and target parameters for {{Article for deletion/dated}}, which I just added to the template on Assyrian continuity. ~ oklopfer (💬) 06:51, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! It still speaks about "the deletion discussion, which will decide whether to keep it", so the template does appear to need some more work, but it's already an improvement! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 06:53, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

And all updated! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:13, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

@Chaotic Enby looks good! Thanks for your work. ~ oklopfer (💬) 16:58, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Since we have agreed to include mergers at AfD, I think we need a slight procedural change… when/if an article is nominated for merging, I think we should be required to leave a notice on the target article’s talk page… so that the editor’s there are aware of the discussion and can comment for/against the proposed merger. Blueboar (talk) 12:47, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Yup. @ScrubbedFalcon and I are currently adding those tags ourselves, but feel free to add the guidance in the § Manual method. Note that Twinkle is being updated to do automatically tag both pages when nominating an article for merging. FaviFake (talk) 12:59, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Oh, never mind. The § Manual method is already up-to-date. Then I'm not sure what you're recommending? FaviFake (talk) 13:01, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

I would recommend still placing the {{merge-from}} template on the proposed destination article with a |discuss= parameter to the AfD discussion. From my experience you have to do it manually since twinkle will currently still create a discussion on the talk page and you’ll end up editing the template anyway to correct the link to the discussion. For the AfD template I think we’ll have to keep patrolling until twinkle is updated, plenty of editors are still unaware of the changes. ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 13:06, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

with a |discuss= parameter
FYI it's better to use the |afd= parameter (the name of the subpage w/o the WP:Articles for deletion/ prefix) for categorisation to help with the transition in the future. FaviFake (talk) 13:12, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Sounds like others have thought of this before me, and it is already being implemented. Good to know. Thanks. Blueboar (talk) 13:22, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Ahh, I didn’t realize that had been implemented, I’ll change my approach. ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 13:24, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

No worries! (And of course there's no need to update existing notices, these discussions will be long closed before the distinction will become useful) FaviFake (talk) 13:33, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

It seems that Twinkle has not yet been updated. Is there an userscript of sorts to automatically create merge proposals, or do we just need to do manually for now? Skyshiftertalk 19:59, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Its manual for the time being. If you create the afd discussion with twinkle you can either edit the parameter manually in the normal editor or use a tool like diffEdit to make it a little easier. You need to add |outcome=merge |target=Destination article after the name of the nominated article in the AfD template. Then add {{merge-from |Source article |afd= name of the discussion without the Articles for Deletion/ string |date=September 2026}} to the proposed destination article (if you use twinkle at the moment it'll create another discussion on the talk page). Or ping me if you want a hand after nominating via twinkle. ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 22:05, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

@FaviFake I think we need to clarify the instructions for bundling merge nominations or figure out a way to allow editors to bundle nominations after the nomination has been made. Otherwise we end up with situations like the one below which wouldn't have happened in the old PAM process since discussions were all happening at the proposed destination talk page.

Two AfD merge noms: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/De Ghuma Ke and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/O Prithibi Ebar Ese Bangladesh Nao Chine

Result in two separate discussions and two {{merge-from}} tags on the proposed destination article 2011 Cricket World Cup. ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 09:51, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

You're right. I think we'd need to update the new section you just created, § Temporary instructions for nominating for merging with Twinkle, or § Nominate additional related articles, or {{AfD in 3 steps}}, which is transcluded here, or all of them??? I don't have a lot of free time this week, but the instructions should basically say to clearly state which articles are nominated at the beginning of the nomination, and then copy and paste the AfD template (including the two comments above and below it) to all nominated articles. FaviFake (talk) 10:02, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

I'll try and put some more thought into this and how to do it with the wrapper templates later in the week. ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 10:46, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Despite the notice to not nominate here, I was lead here by WP:AFD2. Thereby, I request someone look through it and put it on the actual AfD page.

Hack Club is full of WP:COI editing and WP:NOTE, latter being my proposed reason for deletion. Speaking of conflicts of interests, I am too apart of the problem (disclosure: was on the Slack space last year, left by own initiative); which in a way proves the notability issues further given that everyone familiar with the topic in any way also by definition has a COI with it.

Constructively speaking, here is my Template:SAT (not too experienced with creating these).

More information Source, Independent? ...

Source assessment table

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://web.archive.org/web/20240716040212/https://www.ffwd.org/blog/tech-nonprofits/hack-club-students-coding-super-power/	Claims to be a fundraiser of sorts for non-profits			✘ No
https://www.businessinsider.com/zach-lattas-hacker-club-got-him-on-forbes-30-under-30-2016-1	~ While they offer paid article writing, there's no evidence of this one being paid	~ Reads as a lower effort Human interest story, see WP:NEWSORG	~	~ Maybe
https://www.wsj.com/articles/teen-hackers-try-to-convince-parents-they-are-up-to-good-11569922200		Could not verify behind paywall		? Unknown
https://www.forbes.com/30-under-30-2016/education/#77d886921570			Merely a biography	✘ No
https://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/2021/11/26/hack-club-shelburne-vt-grant-elon-musk-teens-coding/8552542002/		Paywall		? Unknown
https://insideevs.com/news/423720/tesla-elon-musk-full-interview-hack-club/	Reads as a personality cult	Bases it's claims exclusively on first party YouTube video		✘ No
https://www.wcax.com/2022/01/12/shelburne-based-hack-club-helps-teens-get-interested-computers/				✘ No
https://www.wcax.com/2025/07/04/shelburne-kids-coding-nonprofit-continues-see-growth/				✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Close

I have failed to find a source that both passes independence and coverage.

I would like to also add that claims about "members" are all sourced from the number on the front page which actually represents the number of user accounts on Slack, including past and restricted members as well as bots and alternative accounts. No source claims active members. If one were to take my word for it (you shouldn't), only ~15 people at any given week are active outside of specific event channels. I find that misleading to leave as is.

As for claims of "person abc agreed to xyz interaction", those may or may not be fit to be moved to their own respective articles. ~2026-24004-77 (talk) 20:43, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

 Done. I filed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hack Club for you. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:32, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I am unable to complete it myself. Please create page. Thank you. My reason is “not notable.” ~2026-24112-90 (talk) 19:13, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

appears to fail the general notability guideline (WP:GNG) and the specific notability criteria for musicians (WP:MUSICBIO). identifiable as the son of Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau, the article’s sourcing does not demonstrate significant independent coverage sufficient to establish encyclopedic notability. The majority of references cited are routine or trivial news reports primarily focused on the novelty of a public figure’s child releasing music, rather than sustained, in-depth coverage of Xav as an artist in his own right. Furthermore, much of the available coverage appears to derive its significance from his familial connection rather than his own achievements, raising concerns about WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTINHERITED. ~2026-24112-90 (talk) 19:19, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

thank you ~2026-24112-90 (talk) 19:20, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

 Done (Hope I did that right, it's been ages since I've done the AFD process manually) DiscoursesonLivvy (talk · contribs) 00:09, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Can anyone find the merge discussion that these diffs point to: , . The link is dead: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of computer animation. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 16:03, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't think an AFD exists? The merge should perhaps be undone, especially as the redirected page is in Template:Animation. --Here2rewrite (talk) 16:55, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Apparently it was supposed to be a bold/procedural merge. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 17:40, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

I'll clarify the instructions at WP:MERGE ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 17:46, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

You can revert a BOLDMERGE if you disagree with it. I've cleaned up the template a bit and removed the entry of the new redirect. ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 18:05, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

I have reviewed the criterion for deletion, but am not a registered user, therefore I am posting this request to ask someone to please nominate this request for me on the AfD page.

Lúc Lắc Vietnamese Kitchen is full of WP:COI editing and WP:NOTE, the latter being my proposed reason for deletion. While I have been a patron of this restaurant maybe times it does not meet the notability standard.

More information Source, Independent? ...

Source assessment table

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
PDX Monthly	~	~		✘ No
Willamette Weekly	~	~		✘ No
PDX Eater	~	~		✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Close

All news coverage I have been about to find is in local bulletins that promote "best of" restaurants or press release type coverage but all fail to demonstrate notability. There is an interview of the restaurateur, but again it is by a local news agency and does not meet notability standards. ~2026-25912-08 (talk) 13:58, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Article with long running coatrack issues, recently overhauled by an editor with a disclosed COI following a declined AfC of the company's preferred version which added a large body of sources which either have issues with independence and reliability, or which can't be verified to even exist.

There probably should be an article about this mill, but the company hiring a third party to get their article through without any verifiability is probably a problem considering the long history of that company editing the article (see the full list of COI accounts on the article talk page, as well as extended breakdown of the issues with the sources relied on for the AfC version). Without sources that can't be found to exist other than mentions at that specific article, there are still WP:GNG issues. ~2026-26288-29 (talk) 09:51, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Looks like someone already draftified it. Should be all set! –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:18, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Twin Dragons does not appear to meet WP:GNG, since all sources are either passing mentions, non-reliable or both. ~2026-26361-50 (talk) 15:02, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-26361-50 Please follow the process at WP:PROD. This isn't the venue for such requests. Thanks! Aydoh8^{[what have I done now?]} 15:04, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Please complete the AfD steps for me. Rationale for the AfD:

"Fails WP:NCORP. Coverage is mainly in the form of WP:SERIESA or WP:ROUTINE news like the launch of coworking space in Saudi Arabia etc. The best source is this article, but I think the analysis is not deep enough to pass WP:CORPDEPTH requirement. Part of the article or at least wikilinks are done with the help of AI, which violates WP:NOLLM." ~2026-26910-86 (talk) 22:31, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Done. --Here2rewrite (talk) 22:36, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

I'd like to nominate EQL (company) for deletion. Please complete the steps for me with the below rationale:

This startup was founded in 2021. Like any startup, it has raised some funds and has received some WP:ROUTINE coverage. AFR article () is about the company, but it is not in-depth enough to meet WP:CORPDEPTH or one article is never enough to pass WP:NCORP. ~2026-26908-90 (talk) 03:44, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

 Done nil ^nz 11:56, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

The latest changes to AfD instructions have hidden instructions of how to start AFDs without using Twinkle, and very much say that Twinkle should be used. We should not force users to use Javascript gadgets. AfD participation should not be restricted to AfD regulars. Disenfranchising users like this needs a very strong consensus establishing - where was the widely advertised RFC that justifies forcing editors to install Twinke?Nigel Ish (talk) 12:27, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

If this is true please ditch it. Only "tool" I've ever used is Hotcat and don't plan to start anything else. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:47, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

I have restored the visibility of the manual method which was hidden without visible discussion on this page, and lightened (but not eliminated) the push toward Twinkle that accompanies it. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:21, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

I mostly agree with your message, but I do think we should make the page more helpful to new and inexperienced users. Personally, last time I tried to create an AfD nomination manually, it took me about 10 minutes and I had to do a lot of confusing copy-pasting, following outdated and unclear instructions, and the experience felt horrible. And I did it because at the time I didn't know that I could do all that with Twinkle in less than 5 seconds, as the page did not explain this clearly.

All of this is made worse by the fact that AfD is now also the venue for proposing merges, redirections, and draftifications. The manual instructions still don't cover all the additional steps for these different nominations, and they shouldn't (and least not on this page), otherwise the page would get incredibly long and the instructions would become even more complex to follow.

I do still think experienced users should still be able to easily see the manual instructions as they wish, but I wouldn't want that to confuse new users, especially now that the WP:PAM process, which was used by many new and inexperienced users, has been merged into the more complex AfD process. FaviFake (talk) 18:54, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

I noticed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2026–27 Serbian SuperLiga, where the nominator specifically indicated that they proposed "draftifying because no citation". I also notice the {{Article for deletion}} template now has a parameter for outcome, with draft a suggested value.

Draftification has long been an accepted outcome of an AFD, usually as an alternative to deletion. But generally it's carried out as a bold move by a new page reviewer or recent changes patroller. WP:DRAFTOBJECT indicates that it does require consensus in situations where it is controversial. It says that, "In these circumstances, refrain from further draftifications until a consensus on the appropriate namespace has been established on the article's talk page, at articles for deletion, or another suitable venue." So I can see opening an AFD with draft as a suggested outcome if the article has already been draftified and moved back once, but as a first step?

Does this seem like process creep to anyone else? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 21:24, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

It was added to the template and as an option in Twinkle as part of the updates made after the PAM-AfD merger. The policy hasn't changed, so nominators are still responsible for draftify noms being made after an objection to the draftification (which is similar to how we want merge noms to go, be bold and come here if there are objections or if there's guaranteed opposition). I think the issue is that we can't force people to be bold and I think newcomers are more likely to be cautious (which was an issue brought up in the RfC on the PAM-AfD merge). I wouldn't revert the addition of the draftification option, it makes creating the discussion easier when it does need to be made. If anything we could add a speedy close criteria for draftification if there hasn't been a previous objection? I think that would be fairly easy to add to the relevant instructions and to XfD closer. We could also create a talk page template for the nominator encouraging them to be bold in their draftifications in the future? ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 09:49, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

I noticed that Twinkle now had the option and thought it was probably consequent of the PAM-AfD merger (as stated by ScrubbedFalcon above). I don't think it's process creep and it will change nothing about my draftification of articles as a new page patroller. TarnishedPath^talk 10:04, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

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

This edit request to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

~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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

	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)

	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)

	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)