Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion

Implementing the PAM–AfD merge

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

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

Reorganising the page

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Split how-to

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Definitely support this change. As it stands, it's very difficult to follow. Deb (talk) 15:52, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting. I see that you created an AfD nomination. Would you clarify which pages need improvement? Flatscan (talk) 04:30, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The redirect Wikipedia:Guide to deletion 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 June 12 § Wikipedia:Guide to deletion until a consensus is reached. Flatscan (talk) 04:36, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

It was noted recently that "There's more information here than on GTD." [1] Can we go ahead and finish splitting the content of section Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Process into WP:GTD? fgnievinski (talk) 12:10, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

As was explained above, WP:GTD is just a worse duplicate of § Process. If you really want to keep them separate, I recommend you blank WP:GTD and move the contents of § Process to that title. FaviFake (talk) 12:18, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

That would be a good solution. I intend to leave behind the lead (automatically excerpted). I've started a short summary, if anyone feels like expanding it. fgnievinski (talk) 13:18, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Impact of the inclusion of Merge Discussions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for expressing my thoughts so much more clearly than I ever could. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:08, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

  sadly, some things are just beyond the pale. Lol Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:22, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I guess I mostly see it from my perspective and I assure you that when I close a discussion arguments about validity of the nomination better be well founded or they get no weight whatsoever. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:57, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't yet have enough experience to say whether the new way is working. I do have enough experience to say that the old way was not broken. Letting merge proposals marinate, sometimes for years, is often the right thing to do for complicated or borderline cases - WP:NODEADLINES. ~Kvng (talk) 21:27, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

That option is still available. Merge discussions aren't mandated to take place at AfD. Owen× ☎ 22:49, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

except that discussions started the old way still seem to get moved to afd Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:31, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

True enough. One common theme I find in merge discussions at AfD is that many participants believe independent notability is enough to oppose merging. Notability is required, but insufficient for a standalone page when the content fits better on another page. But try to explain that to the nose-counters. Owen× ☎ 12:07, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

That's because those use the old formal process. New informal discussions are allowed and don't get moved. FaviFake (talk) 13:42, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

So if we don't put up {{merge-from}}, {{merge-to}} banners, we can carry on as we did before the AFD-merge merge? ~Kvng (talk) 15:56, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes. That's what has always distinguished a PAM discussion from a normal talk page discussion. FaviFake (talk) 19:17, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

And AFD is deluged with editors contributing on vibes and opinion rather than analysis and policy. Brilliant. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:18, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

What does that have to do with anything? FaviFake (talk) 21:45, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

including merges has made AFD less effective. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:30, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

I think it's nice to have an option to nominate an article for merging through AfD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Regular way contracts from today, where as far as I am concerned we have achieved clear agreement to merge in a week, where the old merge process would take far longer to reach the same place). On the other hand, I can understand (especially because merge discussions tend to be more vibes based- look no further than that same AfD) that some discussions are not as clear/need more time. So maybe if a clear consensus is not reached on a proposed merge at afd we should be able to send the discussion to the old, longer proposed merge process? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:31, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Don't confuse faster with more efficient. Merges under the older process may have taken longer to resolve but that doesn't mean it took more effort. In many cases I would put up a merge proposal, and if there was no discussion after a year, I'd check to see if I still agreed with my own proposal and then perform the merge. ~Kvng (talk) 14:09, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

If merge discussions really tend to take longer to reach consensus, we can simply increase our usual 2-3 relistings limit to a higher cap for merge AfDs, leaving it unchanged for deletion ones. One reason people supported the RfC to combine the two processes is that most here want a deterministic process that you know would end no later than a specific deadline. I suspect most would prefer a limit of, say, six weeks to the old, open-ended way of doing this. Owen× ☎ 14:53, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Oooh, that's a good idea. Maybe relisting the same discussion up to 4 or 5 times could be explicitly allowed, exclusively for merge discussions? FaviFake (talk) 15:05, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

I think merge discussions take longer because you want feedback from editors who have worked on the articles (or at least the topic area) in question. Many of these editors don't visit Wikipedia daily or even weekly. I would also suggest that they rarely visit AfD so giving more time at AfD may not address the issue. ~Kvng (talk) 15:44, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

The AfD notice is right on the page they edited. If they don't even have that on their watchlist, I don't see how we can hope to get them involved regardless of what forum we use to discuss it. Owen× ☎ 16:04, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Is the AfD notice on both pages involved in a merge proposal?

I disagree with the push to get these decided according to a deadline. I said my piece in the original discussion. My sense was that opinions from people who actually do merges was not given any more weight than anyone else chiming in with an opinion. I'm not saying we should re-litigate that discussion now. We'll go forward with the consensus and if it ends up not working, we'll need to try something else. ~Kvng (talk) 16:53, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

The AfD notice on the merge source page is always there. We generally refuse to close as delete or merge unless the tag was placed on it, and have overturned such closes at DRV. Those using the script have it done automatically. The notice is usually also on the merge target page, but during an AfD, new targets are often proposed, and not always tagged as well. Editors who worked on the source article often object to it being merged elsewhere. Editors who worked on the target page rarely object to having content added to it from the source page. I don't think we need to amend our procedures just to accommodate editors who check their watchlist less frequently than every six weeks. Owen× ☎ 19:19, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Agree with every point!

We generally refuse to close as delete or merge unless the tag was placed on it, and have overturned such closes at DRV.
— User:OwenX 19:19, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't visit DRV often, I'd be very curious to see the discussions you're referring to! The closing AfD instructions and the various merging information pages don't mention the fact that closers should take into account the placement of the templates or lack thereof (the only mention is at WP:AFD2, where it says the nominator should tag the target). Maybe we could add this somewhere, such as in WP:AFD5, based on the unwritten consensus formed at DRV. FaviFake (talk) 21:56, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

I found Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2026 June 27, but in this case there wasn't really much discussion and it was mostly closed procedurally/half-withdrawn by the closer. But you mentioned there were multiple such closes, so I'd appreciate if you could maybe link to the others here if you find them? FaviFake (talk) 22:26, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Loveworld Records was properly tagged when nominated, so that's not an example. The most recent I remember was a few months ago, when a bundled nomination for deletion was overturned because some of the nominated pages were not tagged for the AfD. I don't remember if this was an AfD I closed. I'm pretty sure Jclemens participated in the DRV, if that helps you find it. Owen× ☎ 13:29, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! I ran a quick search but couldn't find it. FaviFake (talk) 14:12, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

I definitely would oppose extra relists as we already get regularly challenged about why we haven't relisted a discussion for the 3rd or 4th time. Encouraging that for merges will create an unwelcome and unhelpful clamour for non-merge discussions. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:02, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Could you elaborate on that? FaviFake (talk) 20:37, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

sure, look through my talk page. There are regular complaints that articles relisted twice and closed against someone's wishes should be allowed more time to discuss. AFD works to a rhythm and a third relist is unusual. Constantly relisting is a drain on resources and very quickly becomes counter productive. If we offer another rhythm to merges then it will force us to change the rhythm for the rest of the discussions, but our nature is that non qualifying material needs to be removed in reasonable timescales. My view is that bringing merges to AFD cannot change the nature of AFD any more than it already has. The fact is, this union of entirely different processes was done with insufficient testing and understanding of the cultural differences between the two systems. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:05, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't think So maybe if a clear consensus is not reached on a proposed merge at afd we should be able to send the discussion to the old, longer proposed merge process? is a good idea. 1) It would have two processes side by side, which is complicated. 2) It would allow merge discussions to avoid closure indefinitely, which seems like something the PAM-AFD thing was trying to solve. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:27, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

to be honest that feels a very over engineered outcome. If the consensus is to bring merges into AFD then their handling has to work within AFD timescales and norms. I'd be interested down the road what differences experienced merge discussion participants have found after the move to AFD. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:22, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Article split discussions?

For reference, I just found out that article merges are now to be discussed at AFD with its previous procedure, which existed for almost 20 years, being deprecated.

Since I'm having a very hard time sitting through all the discussion, I must ask ... Was there any consensus formed regarding discussions for article splitting? Steel1943 (talk) 13:32, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

There was not. At § Your AfD merge closure, the closer explicitly said:

As for splitting [...] that would be one of the things I was referring to with "While there were a variety of other ideas discussed and even proposed, nothing else had enough discussion to justify formal mentioning in this close beyond the two topics above."

That means that the standard WP:PROSPLIT procedure remains in place (i.e., create a discussion, place the template, close the discussion, update the template, etc.). FaviFake (talk) 16:34, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Wikipedia talk:Guide to deletion which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 15:17, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Editing the article during the discussion should include some advice on reasonable editing

I propose that this section include additional wording along the lines of:

While good-faith editing of an article is permitted, editors seeking to keep an article proposed for deletion should note that adding large amounts of poorly sourced content, or adding a large number of poor sources, can backfire and make it apparent to discussion participants that good sources cannot be found for the subject. Conversely, editors seeking to delete an article should not remove large amounts of sourced content from the article merely to make the article look less worthy of being kept. Instead, use tags to indicate where content is unsourced undersourced, needs better sources, or fails verification in the sources provided.

I have seen more than enough instances in which a deletion discussion has led to bad editing of an article, either with poor attempts to improve it or improper removal of content to degrade it. BD2412 T 13:06, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Support. I made these types of mistakes as a new editor too, so I understand the temptation, especially if it's a subject you feel strongly about. I'm not quite sure about the wording but in general, I think this would be a good idea. In solidarity, Gommeh ^{(talk 🎮 sign)} 00:16, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

I like this addition. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:32, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

This feels like it could be expressed in much fewer words. FaviFake (talk) 10:03, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support both the content and the wording. Owen× ☎ 12:26, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

No contest here, this seems like a good addition Katzrockso (talk) 00:50, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:VPPR § Should we disallow opening parallel RM and AfD discussions?

 You are invited to join the discussion at WP:VPPR § Should we disallow opening parallel RM and AfD discussions?. FaviFake (talk) 10:57, 7 July 2026 (UTC) FaviFake (talk) 10:57, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Biography/Living Person Articles that contain majority primary sources - how to deal with them?

I was clicking on "Random Article" and trying to see what I can go through, and I find many instances where the article is about a person, but their sources are all like the place that hired them and there are no secondary sources. For example, an article can be about a professor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_F._Hall) where some of the links are biographies from the university vs. actual good secondary sources from other institutions talking about the said professor's efforts.

What's the general consensus around this? Should they be flagged for AfD or a warning template is needed? ABehjat (talk) 19:17, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Should definitely not be submitting them to AfD on this basis. This is particularly true about a professor, who can meet notability requirements through the general notability guidelines or through WP:NACADEMIC, which include such criteria of notability as a named professorship... which Kim F. Hall has, and for which her employer is a fine source for verification. There are tag options for needing more sources. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 19:41, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

My closures of AfDs

I've had a few people in the last few days come over to my talk page questioning a few of my AfD closures. I do my best to assess consensus according to the guidelines, but I'd like to nip any problems with the way I close AfDs in the bud before they become more serious than they are. So, is there anything that I can do better? Any advice for how to do a better job? Any help is appreciated. In solidarity, Gommeh ^{(talk 🎮 sign)} 22:35, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't see any problems. Bearian (talk) 23:52, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't either, but considering that all but one of the times where I've had one of my AfD closes challenged have happened within the last two days, I figured I'd check anyway. In solidarity, Gommeh ^{(talk 🎮 sign)} 00:12, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pritam and Pedro personally I would have closed as non consensus but I can't see that it's a big deal either way.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelly Brunt I think this should have been relisted rather than kept. The first editor after the relist votes keep to everything and their argument was extensively challenged and the keep vote after that was an assertion without detail. I would have relisted it and asked for a source analysis.

I would advise you against no consensus closes as they are actually the hardest. Most of the others I looked at were reasonable. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:55, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

No sources for the name "Brunswick Star"

Hi, so I'm here because at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_nominate_a_single_page_for_deletion it says "post a message at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion requesting that someone else perform the nomination, making sure to explain your rationale there."

The article is Brunswick Star https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brunswick_star. It has two references but neither even uses the term Brunswick Star.

The reference desk editors tried to find sources to improve this and could not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2026_July_1#Brunswick_star

Notably, they also couldn't find the term used in published heraldry books.

So possibly this is not a real term and the article should be deleted?

thanks. ~2026-25530-49 (talk) 23:14, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

I will note that Google Scholar has a number of uses of "Brunswick star" to describe a similar shape. Google Books has some references to it as a design (seemingly as well as using the term to describe some sort of illuminating device), see one here. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:38, 16 July 2026 (UTC)