Wikipedia talk:Deletion process

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

Whistleblower - Unauthorized - Unlawful conduct and misuse of personal property. Requesting immediate removal/deletion Including Removal/deletion for the following: AIP131, API132, API133, API134, API135, API136, PRC5531, PRC1831, PRC1057, PRC1050 Unauthorizedfbs (talk) 21:12, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Unauthorizedfbs, it's not entirely clear what you are asking for. Please use some wikilinks to point to the page(s) that are problematic, and maybe explain a bit more about the issue you are seeing. Primefac (talk) 20:21, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I am the subject of the Wikipedia article below. I did not create this page, and I have concerns about privacy and notability. I would like to request review and possible removal under Wikipedia’s Biographies of Living Persons policy. Importantly, I want to remove my age. Article link: Niranjan_Parajuli Thank you. Niranjan Parajuli Parajuli1972 (talk) 19:22, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

@Parajuli1972: This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:Deletion process. That aside, do any of the speedy deletion criteria apply? Failing that, you could try the articles for deletion process. Also, have you read WP:BLPSELF? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:50, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

I withdraw my request because I did not know the regulations. Sorry for the inconvenience. ~2026-27929-3 (talk) 23:46, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

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

The redirect Wikipedia:Speedy close 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/2026 March 3 § Wikipedia:Speedy close until a consensus is reached. Jay 💬 02:41, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

The redirect Wikipedia:SPEEDYCLOSE 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/2026 March 3 § Wikipedia:SPEEDYCLOSE until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 16:00, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

An article may be silently deleted by simply converting it into a redirect. I can distinguish two situations:

• Merge redirectting. This may be formally reverted with edit summary "No consensus to merge".
• Redirecting to something completely different, which is essentially deleting an article. I am not aware of any guideline which can be cited to revert such bold redirect. Can you point me to one? --Altenmann >talk 16:32, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

@Altenmann: The first one is WP:BLAR. The second is WP:HIJACK/A. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:23, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

When the nomination was to merge and was never a deletion nomination to begin with, and the proposal fails, that has the outcome of “not merged”, not “keep”, because merging is a form of keeping content, so "keep" does not communicate that the opposite of what was proposed was the outcome (this is different from the usual AfD where the nomination was to delete ending with "keep"). @Extraordinary Writ I’ve pinged you elsewhere relating to these pages, so I might as well ping you here. —Alalch E. 18:31, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Pinging @Star Mississippi as the vocabulary for these closures seems to be more controversial than I thought. I think keep is also fine, in that the article is kept separate, but I don't mind not merged either. FaviFake (talk) 15:59, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

“Keep” is really bad for an additional reason — an AfD merge proposal may fail on the merits of merging, but the AfD did not decide on the merits of deletion/retention because that was not the focus of the discussion. The outcome is recorded as “keep”, standing in for the true outcome of “not merged”. Then, an editor—believing that the article (about a non-notable topic), since it was not merged (because its content was poor, for example), should be deleted—may nominate the article again at AfD, immediately afterwards, which should not be counted against WP:RENOM. That purely-deletion AfD should proceed normally, but in the described scenario the nomination will have a recent seemingly contradicting “keep” outcome in the backdrop, which can be used to (wrongly) argue against the nomination as “relitigating” and “we just had this discussion”, which overall distorts the process of forming a consensus on the relevant issue. —Alalch E. 09:13, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Sure. Which pages should we update to mention that a result of keep should become not merged in AfD merging discussions? FaviFake (talk) 18:48, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Noting that this will also require updating XFDCloser and we'll need a different template (maybe just a switch template) for the failed AfD merge nom to put on the talk page. ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 19:03, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

So many things left to do! @Oklopfer, I can't wait for your to-do list, hahaha. FaviFake (talk) 19:07, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

The list keeps growing... ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 19:09, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

@FaviFake might be able to get to it today. My plan is a table with the headers: Task (short description), Status (todo, in progress, done, etc), Description (longer explanation of what is needed), Plan (how to enact), Links (relevant discussions) ~ oklopfer (💬) 19:14, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Do you already have a spot for the list? I'd be happy to help put it together. ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 19:25, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Just need to place this somewhere, we should probably also cleanup the old proposals at Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Merge portions from sometime. FaviFake (talk) 19:28, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

@ScrubbedFalcon not yet, was probably just going to make a user subpage, perhaps User:Oklopfer/AfD-PAM-Refactor or similar. Help would be great, I'll ping again when I start setting it up! ~ oklopfer (💬) 19:59, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

I've blanked WT:Articles for deletion/to do and added the {{to do}} template atop WT:AFD, maybe we could use that page instead of a userpage? It's more visible and works with the to-do template. FaviFake (talk) 20:59, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

I added a table that we can start to fill in ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 21:27, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

I realized that with the to-do template the main talk page header becomes very unwieldy, I've removed it for now, what do you both think of the table? ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 21:32, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Looks great, thanks for doing that! I'll add more to it in a bit. ~ oklopfer (💬) 21:57, 17 April 2026 (UTC)