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)

How many times should we encourage users to use twinkle?

So many times this is repeated. Are people nominating articles that incapable of following the instructions. In the old days twinkle didn't exist and it didn't hurt us to learn wiki markup even if it did dissolve our brains and make them dribble out of our ears. Isn't the relentless demand to use twinkle overplayed ? Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:20, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Considering how much easier it makes multiple-step processes, I don't think it's overplayed much, not really. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:23, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

No. Readers are generally unaware of Twinkle and in my opinion, the page in its current state doesn't even make it clear enough just how much stuff Twinkle does behind the scenes. Especially after a completely different process, with completely different templates, was merged into AfD.

The manual instructions are so complicated now that they're basically just a guide on how Twinkle works. FaviFake (talk) 18:39, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Actually, I recommend you try to nominate an article for merging without using Twinkle just to see how horrible the experience is. I did a similar thing once a few years ago. FaviFake (talk) 18:41, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm still unclear what benefit we have achieved from bringing all merge discussions into AFD but I'll take your word that manual merging nominations are horrible. Are we at the point then that twinkle should become the default for listing all discussions and other systems should be deprecated? If so, we need a mechanism for people who don't want to use the tool to list their nominations. If we did that, we could possibly lose 20-25% of the page. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:57, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm still unclear what benefit we have achieved from bringing all merge discussions into AFD
Same, which is why I've always opposed it.

25%? We would only lose the § Manual insturctions, but that's not a quarter of the page. The rest explains the process. I don't thin we need to deprecate anything, I think we can just collapse the manual instructions so they don't take up so much space. FaviFake (talk) 19:06, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Don't be shocked with all my talk of slowing down but I think we can be more radical then collapsing stuff. The page is not fit for new users. Let's break it up and be radical about it. See below. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:13, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

A side effect of the complexity of AFD nominations is that unregistered users are encouraged to use PROD instead, especially since they are literally unable to create the AFD subpage. These PRODs are far more likely to be controversial. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 10:14, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Failed subst

Hey, I just used Twinkle to set up Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ken Silverstein (business journalist) ... only the subst:afd2 template failed to get subst'd, it just shows the template within its curly brackets. Can't figure out how to fix. Can anyone lend a useful hand? -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:16, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

This has now been taken care of by User:Wcquidditch. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:35, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sikhism in Catalonia

A non-admin attempted to close this, and did not follow the correct process. Someone please help.4meter4 (talk) 02:22, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

 Done BD2412 T 03:17, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Kensington Community High School

I added PROD template, but it was previously PRODded. Could a kind user please create an AFD? The simple rationale is that the subject is not notable. I cannot identify any significant coverage at all. ~2026-47521-94 (talk) 10:36, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

 Done FaviFake (talk) 10:54, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Twinkle is not a user-friendly recommendation

I recently wanted to propose two pages be merged, and found these instructions which now heavily recommend using "Twinkle". As someone with a strong technical background, and some knowledge of Wikipedia jargon, I was able to follow the instructions, but it's very clear that this was built as a "power user" tool, not something for the average user.

To help put it in perspective, here's how I think the instructions will read to a non-technical user:

1. Click this link to a settings page with several hundred tickboxes
2. Find the one that sounds like a My Little Pony character, tick it, and click "Save"
3. Go back to the article you want to nominate, and click the letters "JX" which have now appeared near the edit and history links
4. From the menu of secret codes that appears, click "PZQ"
5. Now you will be given a form to fill in the details of your proposal
6. Fill in as much as you can, hoping the fields you don't understand aren't important
7. Click "Submit", and watch as a load of edits are made under your name

To be clear, I think the actual automation is great, and much better than directing the user to place exactly the write template in exactly the right place. But I think it needs to be separated out from this power tool into something explicitly designed for novice users. - IMSoP (talk) 19:22, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

• Sorry, I got lost at the word “twinkle” (which proves your point, I think). Blueboar (talk) 20:20, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
• I fear that the ridiculous complexity is seen as a feature rather than a bug by many regulars here - it keeps the riff-raff out. You don't need to install Javascript gadgets to nominate files on Commons. Why is en:wiki different?Nigel Ish (talk) 20:51, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
• That was actually surprisingly useful feedback! I've completely rewritten the instructions based on your post, let me know if you think something else could be improved! FaviFake (talk) 21:34, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

  It's certainly more honest, but it just makes it all the more obvious that this isn't really the right tool. It's like if resetting the trip distance counter in a car required you to open up the bonnet/hood and press a button somewhere inside - you could write instructions that guided people to do it, and ignore everything else they don't understand, but it would still be a bad place for the button.

  Even as a relatively confident user, I don't want to open my car bonnet. I don't want extra menus and links appearing in random bits of the UI labelled in unfamiliar jargon. I just wanted to say "hey folks, I think these two articles are covering the same topic, maybe they should be merged".

  Here's what I wanted:

  • A form linked to from the instructions, or a single link in the page UI with a clear label like "Propose page delete or merge"
  • The form to start by guiding me to the right process (no jargon: I don't want to read an essay about "Speedy Deletion" vs "Proposed Deletion" vs "Articles for Deletion")
  • A short explanation of what the tool was going to do on my behalf
  • No questions that I can't know the answer to without reading half a dozen policy pages, like which "something for deletion" page to put it on. If the tool puts the proposal in the wrong place, an expert user will have to come along and Twinkle it into the right place.

  The alternative is to have a radically simpler process: if you're not a power user, you list your proposal in a queue, and someone who is a power user comes along and does the rest for you, using whatever tools they want. - IMSoP (talk) 08:12, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

  I forgot to mention that I fully agree Twinkle is a terrible suggestion for new users, but the alternative (manual process) is just impossibly difficult. However, we already have a process for § Requesting a nomination, what do you think of it? FaviFake (talk) 09:17, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

  I think it probably needs to be flipped around, with top-level instructions more like this:

  • Beginner: Read the brief guidance (here), post a section on the article's talk page, and (click here) to ask someone to set up the formal proposal
  • Intermediate: If you have a working knowledge of Wikipedia processes, (click here) for instructions on using the Twinkle tool to set up a formal proposal for yourself or someone who has requested it
  • Advanced: If you need to post a formal proposal manually, or want to understand the steps involved, (click here) for the full details of the process

  In other words, expect that the majority of listings will be entered into a flat queue, and tidied up by "intermediate" users who are happy to use Twinkle. That queue should probably be its own page, rather than this talk page, so that discussions of the process don't get swamped by routine requests. - IMSoP (talk) 11:49, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

  Whoa, that's a great suggestion! I had never thought of something like that. Instead of naming the various methods based on the tool, we name and order them based on how difficult they are to use! Do you have a more concrete proposal in mind for how it could look? FaviFake (talk) 12:10, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Steward needed to close AfD (if deleting)

This discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of foreign footballers in top leagues of former Yugoslavia apparently needs a steward to close if deleting (due to the length of the revision history). I had attempted to close it (as delete) but was unable to do so. I have left a message with @Xaosflux: asking them to close. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 14:34, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

In this case I think you can invoke IAR and close the discussion even if you technically don't have the ability to carry out the result yourself. That rule is mostly intended for non-admins closing as delete. FaviFake (talk) 14:42, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Goldsztajn, yes, just reïnstate your closure and leave a note at meta:SRM (see WP:BIGDELETE). Stewards won't normally close these kinds of discussions themselves. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:01, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

2023–2024 El Niño event

please finish my draftification request for the article. I left my reasoning for draftifying at Talk:2023–2024 El Niño event. ~2026-48195-28 (talk) 16:06, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Request fulfilled by another editor here. - Asdfjrjjj (talk) 06:33, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Extra line break?

Just a question to the community: was it a conscious choice to change the AfD template in the past month or so to add an extra line break after the article's title at the top? I find it distracting and seems to group the article's title with the previous AfD in a list rather than with the nomination and !votes below. Perhaps I missed the discussion? (Likely; I usually just follow WP:PROF nominations.) Thanks! -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 00:19, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

The {{Afd2}} template wasn't updated recently. Can you give an example? FaviFake (talk) 09:48, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks FaviFake -- I'm looking at the nominations at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Academics_and_educators (logged out and logged in; Chrome and Safari) and currently every page there that doesn't have the "other-afds" class (2nd+ nomination) has an extra blank line between the "REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD" and the <noinclude>{ {AFD help} }&Lt.;/noinclude> line (e.g. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Laura_Newburgh) and this is showing up as a gap between the bolded name and the "Name, View log, edits," etc. line. Thanks! -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 02:20, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Huh, you're right. This is caused by the placement of the <noinclude></noinclude> tags. The page looks fine when viewed directly but the linebreak shows up when transcluded. Someone should look into this.

Current wikitext:

===[[:MLR Institute of Technology]]===
{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|O}}

<noinclude>{{AFD help}}</noinclude>
:{{la|1=MLR Institute of Technology}} etc...

which incorrectly becomes this when transcluded:

===[[:MLR Institute of Technology]]===
{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|O}}


:{{la|1=MLR Institute of Technology}} etc...

Correct syntax which would prevent the newline:

===[[:MLR Institute of Technology]]===
{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|O}}
<noinclude>{{AFD help}}</noinclude>
:{{la|1=MLR Institute of Technology}} etc...

FaviFake (talk) 08:08, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! Ah! I see, any individual AfD doesn't have the problem, but only when transcluded (and only before the AfD closes). This makes it a bit harder to diagnose when the problem started happening (and which template-of-a-template's change might have caused the problem) since going back in time and looking at the history of Deletion_sorting/Academics only shows closed AfDs but looking at the individual closed AfD's history (outside the sorting page) doesn't reveal any problem either. The earliest AfD I could find that was transcluded and still open was from August 20 and it had the extra line break, so the problem is at least 2 weeks old. (My gut sense is it's been a little more than a month). -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 02:34, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

This appears to be a difference in rendering between Parsoid (the new rendering engine) and the legacy parser. If you go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators and scroll down to "Kenneth W. Dye", you'll see a big space in Parsoid, but not in the legacy parser. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:13, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Demonstration of Parsoid difference

There are three blank lines above this.

There are also three blank lines above this.

The above has no transclusions but just blank source lines. Compare the result without Parsoid and with Parsoid. Without Parsoid there is no extra whitespace if the blank lines are after a section heading. Parsoid makes whitepace in both cases. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:13, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Dammit, it's Parsoid again. Do we need to file a ticket on phabricator? FaviFake (talk) 14:18, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

This may be related. ~2026-48776-93 (talk) 18:08, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Ah, good to know that it's not something directly related to AfD -- I'm not sure that the Parsoid rendering isn't actually more faithful to what I'd expect given the line breaks, etc. above, but definitely an unexpected change. Thanks! What an amazing community there is here! -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 02:22, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion request

Hello I do not have an account - can someone else complete the nomination for deletion process on my behalf for a biography page? I've completed my rationale in the Talk section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Clive_Sherlock I'm happy to have this reviewed by cannot see the value in this page and worry that the biography provides a sense of establishment for his own therapy that isn't validated (outside of himself). ~2026-48974-43 (talk) 09:48, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

 Done FaviFake (talk) 10:50, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Why is there "no prohibition against moving an article while an AfD is in progress"?

WP:EDITAFD currently says: (emphasis supplied)

While there is no prohibition against moving an article while an AfD [...] is in progress, editors considering doing so should realize such a move can confuse the discussion greatly, preempt a closing decision, make the discussion difficult to track, and lead to inconsistencies when using semi-automated closing scripts. If you move the article, note it on the AfD discussion page in a new comment.

I do think it should be highly discouraged to move an article during AfD. (Obviously not a complete "prohibition", to allow discretion for exceptional cases.) Moving an article during AfD breaks XFDcloser unless the mover meticulously replaces every single instance of the previous title with the new one, which I have never seen happen in my entire tenure here.

I propose we change the language to say something along the lines of "editors should not move an article during AfD unless the current title is highly disruptive". If an editor still wants move the article, they need to replace all instances of the previous title in the discussion and mention their action in the AfD discussion. If they can't do those two things, then they should let another editor move the article for them. In addition, an editor must never move the article outside of the mainspace and editors are allowed to move the article back for any reason if the mover didn't properly clean up after their move.

Closers should not be left with a discussion that can't be correctly closed by XFDcloser just because a mover failed to cleanup; that's their responsibility, not the closer's or the participants'.

Courtesy ping: OwenX as we've had a similar conversation in the past. FaviFake (talk) 21:40, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose change, works fine as it is, we don't need a major discussion to determine that. And we should never be changing policy for a script's convenience. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:51, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

  Major discussion? Changing policy? This is a simple talk page thread on a how-to page. FaviFake (talk) 21:57, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

• Linking the RfC on this issue from a few years back: Template talk:Article for deletion/Archive 9#RFC: Add Instruction Not to Move. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:18, 10 September 2026 (UTC)
• I think the current language is fine. I certainly wish that a) page moves during discussions were less common, and b) that more good-faith moves were matched with good-faith cleanup as per FaviFake's proposal, but I think that demanding it is putting it too strongly. That said, I also wish that closers take better care to check whether a move has occurred rather than just push the buttons on XFDcloser. (side rant) This also goes for discussions which have "also nominated" articles, which XFDcloser doesn't handle at all. (end side rant) --Finngall ^talk 22:20, 10 September 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose change. Some moves are actually useful during an AfD; an incorrectly-spelled title can lead to ineffective searches for sources. Offering the creation of an AfD as a way of creating a week-long lockdown on a problematic title seems a bad encouragement. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:43, 10 September 2026 (UTC)
• Concern: could an editor who is “losing” in an RM discussion attempt to derail (or at least delay) a potential move outcome by opening an unrelated AFD about the same article?

If we do end up saying saying “no RM during AFD”, I think we would have to match it by also saying “and no AfD during RM discussions”. Otherwise people could play one process against the other. Blueboar (talk) 23:24, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

I'd call that a Speedy Keep, if it was opened for no good reason. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:34, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

The way to deal with the abuse of process is not to design the process around that, but to block those editing disruptively. CMD (talk) 00:44, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

That would qualify for WP:SK2. This proposal is for for discouraging uncontroversial moves. FaviFake (talk) 08:13, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose unless there are examples of where this has been a problem that has led to serious confusion or animosity (not just an "oops I need to clean up the close differently"). I can't come up with an example off the top of my head, but I'm sure I've been on AfDs where it came to a consensus during the discussion that "the author isn't notable but his/her (co-authored?) book is," and someone on the keeping side, moved the article to what everyone agreed was the notable part of the subject, rewrote the lede and reordered, and everyone was happy. And not having it is just one fewer rule to have to remember. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 02:24, 11 September 2026 (UTC)
• Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_policy/Archive_53#Move_protection_for_articles_at_AfD which I started has some relevant discussion as well. I personally still think move protection would be helpful and would allow for the better search/proper name situation NatGertler referenced above. Star Mississippi 13:42, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Dinasudar

Could anyone please create an AFD for this article, reason is non notable local newspaper and no sources. ~2026-49372-26 (talk) 12:07, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-49372-26  Done FaviFake (talk) 16:59, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Can we change the message that appears on target articles to reflect merges

At the moment, when an article goes through this process, irrespective of whether it's being nominated for merging or for deletion, the target article gets a rather scary message at the top stating This article has been nominated for deletion. in bold print. It then invites people to take part in the deletion discussion. This is fighting talk! Why raise hackles when the proposal might be the mildest of merges, with no intent to lose anyone's work? Could we change this to This article has been nominated for deletion or merging to another article and invite people to take part in merely the discussion? Elemimele (talk) 16:00, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Blueboar (talk) 17:00, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

@Elemimele The specific issue regarding the Fragrance article merge was caused by @Smokefoot removing the AfD tag from the article (twice) while the discussion was still in progress (see the diff), which is forbidden by WP:EDITAFD. I had warned them on their talk page but I guess they missed or ignored my message. This caused the bot to place the default tag instead, which is for deletion. FaviFake (talk) 17:29, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Ah okay that makes sense, thanks for the explanation. I think they merely misunderstood what was going on, and wanted to withdraw their suggestion, and I see you've explained that to them. Elemimele (talk) 09:10, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Tags for proposed action?

Reminded of this by the above section, when perusing some of the delsort lists, I suddenly see things that aren't actually nominated for deletion due to the new process. This is fine, but it would be nice to just be able to see at a glance what the proposed action is instead of having to hunt through the nom statement. Maybe just a simple little colored tag at the top that says "Deletion", "Merging", etc. when something is nominated? Just an idea. (I don't know the best way to implement this anyway) –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:31, 14 September 2026 (UTC)