Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy

Please see Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion § Follow up from RfC. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:45, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Noting here that there is an ongoing discussion happening in the thread linked below about where to put MERGEREASON after the RfC. @RGloucester tagging you since you reverted the merger of the content here.
Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Moving the list of reasons for merging ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 16:01, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

A few weeks ago I boldly rewrote ATD-M (see )as part of the process of implementing the PAM-AfD merge consensus that was found in March. After some discussion I thought it might be better to simply move WP:MergeReason to ATD-M instead of having multiple different guidelines on good reasons for merging (see this version ). These were both reverted, but I still think that the current version of ATD-M doesn't reflect current practice or consensus post the merge of PAM and AfD. I'm moving the discussion about this from the AfD talk page section where the implementation of the PAM-AfD merge is taking place because I think this talk page is a better venue for this particular discussion. ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 11:09, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion § Moving the list of reasons for merging

 – This is a better venue for this discussion

Noting that I've adjusted WP:ATD-M to reflect WP:MERGEREASON a bit better in light of the RfC. If someone wants to revert or object, I'm happy to discuss the implementation here or on the talk page over there. ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 11:40, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

We could also consider moving all of MERGEREASON to ATD-M? ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 11:45, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

That's a great idea, there's no reason why these two sections should be different. In H:M we can just leave a one sentence summary in the link to the AFD section FaviFake (talk) 12:09, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Disagree: There are 3 ways to merge (following the RfC): boldly, by local consensus, and by AfD. It's best to keep the broader Reasons for merging on Wikipedia:Merging to more explitly cover all 3 cases. Klbrain (talk) 12:18, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Hmm, good point. Maybe we should transclude it in both pages then? They definitely don't need to be written differently. FaviFake (talk) 12:21, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

That seems like a good option. I would say the parent version should be a ATD-M since that's the formal venue now and we can transclude to the current location for informal discussions ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 12:22, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Agreed FaviFake (talk) 12:25, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Do you think we should take WP:NOMERGE over as well? Its not as well explained as the reasons to merge, but would seem relevant to editors in discussions. ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 12:29, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Done, if someone wants to check my work (especially on the transclusion and adjusting the redirects for the shortcuts) ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 13:39, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Looks good! But you might want to give a read to WP:ANCHORSUBST :) FaviFake (talk) 14:41, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Should we get rid of the separate anchors and shortcuts for each reason? The seem a little excessive the way its set up now. If we keep them I think they should be standardized a bit, we could keep the old anchors in the wikitext to not break the redirects but only have one visible and more consistent shortcut. ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 12:21, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Yeah definitely keep the anchors, but I'm not sure about removing the shortcuts. without the shortcuts, if someone wanted to reference a specific reason to merge, they would have to specify, like, "the third bullet point" or something like that. The shortcuts are not only useful for linking to stuff but also to help the user who is redirected understand specifically to which bullet they were redirected to FaviFake (talk) 12:28, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Yeah I agree with you on that, I think I just don't like the shortcuts that we have right now because they don't have a consistent format. I think this list would be good:

• DUPLICATE (already links to DUP right now)
• OVERLAP (already have it)
• SHORT (but I doubt that will happen so SHORTTEXT)
• CONTEXT (which currently goes to the MOS, but we might be able to get it through RfD)
• MERGENOTABILITY (in my opinion MERGENOT is to close to NOMERGE)

ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 12:38, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Yeah shortcuts are always a mess, personally I've learned not to care about them. I was glad to see that the WP:M1 ... WP:M5 shortcuts I had created were widely used, but then they became historical after a couple of months, so lesson learned! FaviFake (talk) 14:32, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Those shortcuts were really helpful! Hopefully we can clarify things and provide a step by step process that is approachable for newcomers at the new location. ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 14:36, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

I disagree with your edits to Wikipedia:Deletion policy; effectively, you promoted an information page to a policy, which no one has ever agreed to. Secondly, you can compare this to WP:ATD-R, which doesn't include lists from WP:REDIRECT. Kelob2678 (talk) 14:58, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

The deletion policy is a policy. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:09, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Correct, and WP:MERGE is not even a guideline. Kelob2678 (talk) 15:11, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

I can see where you're coming from on the information page to policy to some extent. I think in the context of implementing the RfC changes have to be made to the deletion process in order to accommodate merging formal merger discussions into the AfD process. I'm trying to find logical places to put the relevant information from the deprecated merge process in the context of what already existed for AfD. I would note that almost everything in MERGEREASON that was moved to Deletion policy links to other policies and guidelines that already exist (and provide explanations for them in the context of mergers), the primary exception is point 3 on short text which was already included in a slightly different form at ATD-M before I moved everything. ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 15:14, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Details can remain on a separate information page WP:MERGE. Very little in MERGEREASON links to other policies. Now, for example, editors can argue for a merge on the basis of content overlap and this would be far stronger than a contrary argument based on notability, because the latter is only a guideline. Kelob2678 (talk) 15:33, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. Nobody in their right mind would give more weight to an argument hinged on WP:OVERLAP just because WP:N is a guideline. If anything, it just goes to show how meaningless all these labels are. FaviFake (talk) 15:44, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

There is nothing ridiculous in putting more weight on a policy than on a guideline. Again, for a long time WP:MERGE wasn't even a guideline, but for some reason we should make part of it a policy now. Kelob2678 (talk) 15:47, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Yet it was enforced as it if were! What's your point? FaviFake (talk) 15:52, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

It was never enforced as it was a policy. The point is that it will lead to wikilawyering along the lines of "merge because WP:ATD-M" and further demands to treat this as a superior argument. Kelob2678 (talk) 15:54, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

It was never enforced as it was a policy.
I said it was essentially enforced as a guideline, not a policy. Most editors mention one of the 5 points more often than other guidelines when discussing PAM merges.

And, as you said, that's WP:WIKILAWYERING and wikilawyers aren't given much weight in consensus discussions. FaviFake (talk) 16:07, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't know about that argument, point 8 of WP:DEL-REASON links directly to the notability guidelines as a reason for deletion. ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 15:48, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Outright deletion is not relevant in this discussion. The topic being notable is a guideline-based reason to keep. But the presence of overlap is a policy-based reason to merge (which is stronger than just a guideline). Why cannot this information stay in WP:MERGE? Kelob2678 (talk) 15:56, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

My point was that things in documents called 'policy' reference things in 'guidelines' and vice versa. If we wanted to have a very strict heirarchy of policy vs guidelines we would need to do a thourough scrubbing of links in policy pages to guidelines. The information can't stay in WP:MERGE because the formal process that that page documented doesn't exist anymore per the RfC. I moved MERGEREASON to ATD-M as the most logical destination for the information since AfD is the new location for formal merge discussions, I left the transclusion to the old location as information for editors persuing bold merges or some other informal consensus. But it is important to have the information at the correct location for the formal discussions. ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 16:06, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

WP:MERGE continues to exist separately from WP:AfD because we have WP:BOLDMERGE, and now there is no place which provides justifications for such a merge. Kelob2678 (talk) 16:39, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

The justifications are the same for a bold merge as they are for a merge consensus, just like the justifications for a PROD are the same as the justifications for an deletion consensus at AfD. The information should be kept on the page that documents the formal discussion process. ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 17:03, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

But Wikipedia:Deletion policy is not a page that documents the formal discussion process, that page would be WP:AfD. Similarly, reasons to keep/delete redirects are listed at WP:RfD, which is also not even a guideline. Kelob2678 (talk) 17:19, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

I agree. WP:MERGE is an informational page that describes when merged are appropriate. The deletion policy shouldn't contain merge reasons etc. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:53, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Policies document consensus at a high level. Granular details shouldn't be on policy pages. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:54, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

The deletion policy is very detailed, the same policy page has a very specific list of reasons for deletion, I don't think MERGEREASON is more detailed than that, I actually think its less specific. Voorts, I'm curious what your take is on some of the other arguments made in this thread. I don't think the current version of ATD-M is well written as policy, it reads more like information than MERGEREASON does. ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 15:55, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

I agree with Kelob2678, voorts, and RGloucester (revert diff) that WP:Merging#Reasons to merge articles (shortcut WP:MERGEREASON) should not be merged into WP:Deletion policy#Merging (shortcut WP:ATD-M). Flatscan (talk) 04:30, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

I made the link to Wikipedia:Merging more prominent by moving it into a {{Main}} similar to Wikipedia:Editing policy in WP:Deletion policy#Editing and discussion above. Flatscan (talk) 04:28, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that! I had a version of the text that was a bit more specific, but didn't move merge reason here directly. What do you think of this:

There are multiple reasons that an article might be a good candidate for merging. For example:

• If two pages are duplicates, have significant overlap or are otherwise redundant, one should be merged and redirected to the other, using the most common, or more general page name.
• Articles that are short and unlikely to be expanded could be merged into larger articles or lists. For example, information about family members of a celebrity who are not otherwise notable is generally included in, or merged into, the article on that celebrity. Pages about non-notable fictional elements are generally merged into list articles or articles covering the work of fiction in which they appear.
• Some topics that are independently notable require context and are best covered in the same article in order to better serve reader understanding.

Note that an outcome of "merge and delete" may potentially cause licensing problems if attribution for the merged content is lost in the process. The essay Wikipedia:Merge and delete discusses this, whereas the essay Wikipedia:Delete or merge discusses a different case that causes no such licensing problems.

ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 08:08, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

I do not prefer your draft. I expect that a list of reasons or examples here will lead editors to try to synchronize them with WP:Merging or to assume that any differences are intentional and meaningful. Flatscan (talk) 04:34, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal: Eliminate anything that locks in an obsolete version. (which discusses audio files of very old versions of a page embedded in the current version) an editor opined

"I would certainly think an admin would make sure something they revdel isn't remaining in an audio file on the article. That's something that has to be expected to be done."

I could find no guidance telling administrators to listen to those old audio files to see if they contain the revdeled material. Is this indeed something that we expect to be done? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:38, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

It shouldn't usually be necessary to listen to them. Check the date on the audio file. Compare it to the date(s) you revdel'd information on. If the audio file predates the addition of the objectionable material, then the objectionable material couldn't have been in the audio file. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:37, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Good point. My impression is that it most revdels involve recently added material. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:43, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes I don't mean you have to listen to it, this is what I was thinking can be done. I apologize for being unclear. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 02:32, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

This phrasing comes from October 2013.

The edit changed "article content" to "article", without any reference to previous discussion. The idea that an article fails V but meets N is spurious. That an article contains unverifiable content is common.

No idea what work "severely" is doing there. A claim either meets V or it does not. Articles don't need to meet V anyway: their claims do. There's a confusion between RS and V at play.Selbstporträt (talk) 15:12, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

@Deacon Vorbis as a matter of fact, the particular meaning of "editing" here has been contested in previous discussions, with a few editors contesting that WP:BLAR, WP:MERGE does not count as editing and needs to be considered separately as part of the WP:ATD policy. Katzrockso (talk) 01:05, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Here's some diffs, to avoid any confusing any future wikiarcheologists. I'm not sure how I feel about this, but do you have any examples? Chess enjoyer (talk) 01:21, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

it comes up sometimes at WP:DRV Katzrockso (talk) 03:19, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Did you link to the correct comment? The definition of editing is not discussed by RL0919; they are saying that "improving the page" does not mean "redirect to another article" (which are indeed two different things). Primefac (talk) 13:59, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

When you quote the deletion policy and say, "That is ...", the position that you then present is something the deletion policy does not clearly state and is IMO a strained interpretation. The phrases "improvement or deletion of an offending section" and "improve the page" would normally be understood to refer to editing the content inside an article, not to redirecting or merging it. The former phrase is followed by a list of reasons that a page could be deleted, including "Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline". The latter phrase appears in a subsection on "Editing and discussion" that is parallel to separate subsections about merging and redirection. Katzrockso (talk) 15:23, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

They're talking about "improve[ing] the page", not "editing". Primefac (talk) 15:40, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

"can improve the page" was the part of WP:ATD that immediately succeeded "editing" at the time that comment was written. Katzrockso (talk) 16:23, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure we're talking about the same things, nor do I think we are having the same interpretation of the comments made above. I'm not going to continue speculating about what they meant. Primefac (talk) 21:18, 20 June 2026 (UTC) "irrelevant" wikilink removed, no wording changed. Primefac (talk) 22:05, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

I have no idea why the Wikipedia:No original research policy has any relevance here whatsoever (besides a pointless or perhaps performative wikilink), given that it explicitly doesn't apply to talk pages (This policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards), it doesn't apply to the interpretation of unreliable sources (a talk page comment in a Wikipedia discussion certainly that) and its invocation here would make discussion impossible as every reply on Wikipedia requires the wholly original interpretation of the comment being replied to. Katzrockso (talk) 21:40, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

I used it for the title, not the content, but if you're that upset about me misusing a cheeky wikilink I shall remove it. Primefac (talk) 22:05, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Other examples of editors arguing that "editing" does not including any use of the edit button [or perhaps better construed as changes that don't require use of administrator tools] (e.g. redirects or draftification) include ATD-E is clearly referring to editing a page to remove a section that is inappropriate - redirecting is separately addressed in the ATD policy (where advocating to redirect an article is somehow construed as "backdoor inclusionism"), Even if this section applied to draftification, no one argued that the reasons for deletion could be resolved by any means., or Your interpretation of ATD is not apparent in a plain reading. It requires cherry-picking If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. from the Editing and discussion subsection (shortcut WP:ATD-E) and twisting it to cover the other ATD subsections and all AfD outcomes., just searching for the section of the policy If editing can... Katzrockso (talk) 23:16, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's not really clear what you're referring to or why it's relevant. If there's some sort of disagreement, it should be hashed out, rather than snuck in as a footnote (a completely on-its-face tautological footnote too). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:29, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

If it's tautological, then it shouldn't be an issue to add, but it resolves an extant interpretive issue. Katzrockso (talk) 03:16, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

This is the first time I'm hearing of this "issue". Where was this discussed previously and why would it be controversial?

And yes, tautological statements are useless FaviFake (talk) 11:32, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Do you think that redirecting a page is a form of editing? Not all editors agree it is included in the particular context of this section of the deletion policy Katzrockso (talk) 21:41, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Of course it is. How could anyone redirect a page without editing it?

Since, per your comment above, it needs some clarification, we can just add "if editing, including redirecting, the article etc" or something to that effect. FaviFake (talk) 23:26, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but some editors have interpreted "editing" here to mean "editing the content of a page". I think this is a twisted interpretation, as Wikipedians commonly understand any contribution listed on the Special:Contributions page to be an "edit", not just those that add or remove wikitext from an article (but somehow excluding those edits that remove all text from an article and convert the title to a redirect).

I'm not opposed to your proposed change here (adding including redirecting), I just wonder if there is some other more specific way to clarify that editing here is not the restricted sense I clarified above. Katzrockso (talk) 23:33, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

If changing the page (e.g., by editing or redirecting it) ...? FaviFake (talk) 23:39, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

I would support this. Katzrockso (talk) 23:43, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

I do not. That implies that redirecting is not editing, which it is. Redirecting is a type of editorial action and falls under the word editing. Let's not confuse readers by making a distinction where there is none.4meter4 (talk) 23:48, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

If editing the page in any way, such as by rewriting or redirecting it,? FaviFake (talk) 23:52, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Then how do you propose we clarify the page so that the interpretations I enumerated above don't continue to arise (I believe there are even misunderstandings of this kind in the edit history of this very talk page)? Katzrockso (talk) 23:52, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Could you please clearly articulate what misunderstandings you are seeing? Highlighting a bunch of random quotes from threads I haven't read is not particularly helpful. We need context here. Links to specific AFDs would be helpful where the comments can be viewed in context would be best.4meter4 (talk) 23:57, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

random quotes from threads I haven't read
You can... read them? Besides, the quotes are self-explanatory even without context. FaviFake (talk) 23:59, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

The quotes are from Wikipedia:Deletion reviews, which you can open and read if desired. I don't typically see people debate the nuances of the deletion policy itself at WP:AFD. Katzrockso (talk) 00:00, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Honestly, some of the things you are objecting to just seem like normal policy debating/disagreements. I'm not seeing a problem here. Some things didn't go your way, but the argument on the other side was not unreasonable or flaunting policy in any obvious way that I can see. I get that you are frustrated with the way other editors are interpreting policy when it hasn't gone your way, but that doesn't mean that the other editors were wrong. I think your experience is leading to rash edits to the policy page and that is not a good idea. We need to be careful here to avoid WP:INSTRUCTIONCREEP, and not make changes to the meaning of the original language approved by WP:CONSENSUS. A small group of editors shouldn't be changing deletion policy.4meter4 (talk) 00:11, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I have no problem with the result of that deletion review (which was only one of four quotes I brought up), so you attributing the edit here as a reaction to that is not a good faith assumption. Why not try addressing the actual arguments presented here on the talk page instead of psychoanalyzing me? Katzrockso (talk) 00:19, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Here is another example of the misunderstanding of the meaning of "Edit" in this particular section of the policy; There is wording to the effect that editing and discussing is preferable to deletion. That does not apply to merging, deletion, incubation, and transwiki-ing, since it does not appear in the relevant sections for them or in a preamble to ATD (see a longer comment here ). Katzrockso (talk) 00:22, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

This was a better example see my new proposal below.4meter4 (talk) 00:34, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose. I don't think we need an explanatory note here. This is like stating people die when they are killed. Any change to a page's history is "editing". Merging is editing, redirecting is editing, correcting spelling is editing, adding or removing content without deleting a page is editing, etc. The only thing that is not editing is deleting a page so that an article's history is no longer viewable. That's it. We don't need an explanatory note explaining the obvious. Note that WP:ATD actions can be taken at any time outside of the context of a deletion discussion as a form of normal WP:BOLD editing. You don't need to take something to AFD to WP:BLAR or WP:MERGE a page; particularly when doing so is not controversial. There are far more cases of non-controversial merge and redirect actions happening all of the time than cases where we need to talk about them.4meter4 (talk) 23:41, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
• New proposal. @Katzrockso: Now that I have a better understanding. I think the problem is that editors do not realize that the "Editing and discussion" section is a prelude to all of the other sections. I believe the solution here is to open that section with "If editing can address all relevant reasons for deletion, this should be done rather than deleting the page. This includes the implementation of any of the named ATD actions listed in the sub-sections below as possible editing solutions, such as redirection and merging." The addition of the sentence leads the editor to read the ATD top section as it was intended, as an opening section to the entire ATD thread. Best.4meter4 (talk) 00:34, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

  I agree with this interpretation of the structure of the policy and had drafted a comment explaining that effect earlier, but deleted it as non-responsive to any of the points brought up thus far. I think this would address my concerns as well.

  Thanks for your proposal, it seems like a good way forward.

  @FaviFake, any thoughts? Katzrockso (talk) 01:10, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

  Looks nice! Since it applies to all the subsections below, i've simply added it to the lede of the level-2 section And relegated the Editing section to disputes over content. FaviFake (talk) 10:34, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

• Thanks, remark, and question. Great job! In a formal sense, a tautology is a statement that is true however one interprets it. In rhetoric, a tautology is a statement where the predicate is "contained" (so to speak) in the subject. Tautologies may still carry some function: a rose is a rose is a rose, and edit is an edit is an edit. To define an edit as any action one can do after which one presses the save button (including nothing at all - as an empty edit) is far from being trivial. That being said, this should be defined in WP:E somewhere. Where should it be put? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Selbstporträt (talk • contribs) 21:44, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
• I object to all pieces of FaviFake's edit, and I reverted it. WP:Editing policy – containing WP:Editing policy#Try to fix problems (shortcut WP:PRESERVE) – is a relevant {{Main}} link originally added in 2009. Almost everything else is part of the long-running dispute, so a strong consensus is desirable. I request that we take our time discussing, as this is not urgent. WT:Deletion policy/Archive 51#Prefatory material on alternatives (October–December 2023) was 2.5 years ago, and my impression is that the affected AfDs/DRVs are infrequent. Flatscan (talk) 04:25, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

  Sure. I usually find it easier to discuss something when it's put into practice for everyone to see, and mostly everyone agreed on that proposal.

  Do you object the edit just because I removed the {{main}} template? You can just add it back. Or because the affected AfDs/DRVs are infrequent and thereby this would constitute WP:CREEP? Or something else? FaviFake (talk) 10:37, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

  It's more that Flatscan has been in a 10 year old argument advocating that we should delete articles rather than redirect them. You can go see his evidence submitted at the AfD ArbCom case. Katzrockso (talk) 11:44, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

  That is a misrepresentation of my stance, but interested readers can go to the Arbcom case for the details. Katzrockso reverted my revert, after waiting several days as I requested. I plan to continue the discussion in a new subsection below. Flatscan (talk) 04:34, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

  Do you have a link to the arbcom case? FaviFake (talk) 07:12, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

  The case was WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct in deletion-related editing in 2022. In response to discussion at Workshop#Alternatives to Deletion, I submitted Evidence#Alternatives to deletion are not preferred over deletion. Flatscan (talk) 04:31, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks! FaviFake (talk) 13:30, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

The relationship between WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD-E has an RfC

The relationship between WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD-E has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at WP:Village pump (policy)#RfC: The relationship between WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD-E. Thank you. Flatscan (talk) 04:28, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Can we have some guidelines about renomination of speedily-withdrawn articles? For example, Abnash House was nominated today, and withdrawn by the nominator less than 5 hours later because another editor basically told the nominator to withdraw their nomination, based on what I consider to be a misunderstanding of WP:GEOFEAT. Does this mean no one should re-nominate it for 6 months? Or are we forced to go to DR to contest the closure? Elemimele (talk) 17:14, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Withdrawn is a form of WP:SPEEDYKEEP. The closure is incorrect. I've contacted the closer. It can be renominated immediately, of course. FaviFake (talk) 20:20, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

The six month notion, mentioned in WP:RENOM, assumes a completed (rough) consensus-finding discussion. It does not apply to a speedy withdraw. However, when nominating again, it is probably going to be useful to mention the speedy closed nomination and why it doesn’t counter your deletion rationale. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:44, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

There is an RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § RfC: MfD relists. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:04, 16 July 2026 (UTC)