Wikipedia talk:Deletion process

Semi-protected edit request on 24 November 2025

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

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

Request to delete my wiki

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

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

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

RfC on merging merge discussions with AfD

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

"Wikipedia:Speedy close" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Wikipedia:Speedy close has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 3 § Wikipedia:Speedy close until a consensus is reached. Jay 💬 02:41, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:SPEEDYCLOSE" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Wikipedia:SPEEDYCLOSE has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 3 § Wikipedia:SPEEDYCLOSE until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 16:00, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Impicit deletion by redirecting

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

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

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

The opposite of “merge(d)” is “not merged”

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

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

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

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

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

@Alalch E. and @Star Mississippi, it seems the the opposite of “merge” is indeed "keep"! Over these 2 months, I've witnessed dozens and dozens of merge proposals at AfD, and all of them use keep to denote consensus against merging, except SP, who specifically wondered about this. I don't think it'd be wise to change that, so I think we can definitely say that failed merge proposals should be closed as keep (and move on to more pressing issues with the transition. FaviFake (talk) 20:01, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Things left to do

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Does soft merge apply?

The WP:SOFTMERGE section currently states the following:

A soft merge closure may be used when a discussion receives very few or no comments. As a result of this closure, the articles are merged or added to the merge backlog, though any editor can reverse this by splitting them back out or removing them from the backlog. As with soft deletion, the discussion does not need to be relisted and the closer should make it clear that their closure is soft.

But this doesn't clarify whether articles that have previously reached consensus to keep at AfDs can be closed as soft merges without any relist. This question came up at a recent AfD, so I think it should be clarified to aid closers. Can AfDs be closed as WP:SOFTMERGE without being relisted if the article has previously been kept at AfD? FaviFake (talk) 15:11, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm assuming that the current wording of SOFTMERGE postdates the PAM-AfD merger but can't quickly find any recent discussion. Any pointers? Rosbif73 (talk) 15:44, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

It does, yes. Its creation and final wording was decided at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Implementing the PAM–AfD merge § Details of closing AfD merge discussions. FaviFake (talk) 16:59, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

I raised this after FaviFake checked to make sure I knew about SOFTMERGE here. My not deeply thought through opinion is that if there has been a previous "Keep" consensus then a new consensus would be needed to overrule that and so softmerge could not apply, in a similar manner to when SOFTDELETE does not apply. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:29, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

I think it could still be ok for a discussion to close as SOFTMERGE considering that merges can be reverted by any editor, depending on the context of the previous consensus. For example if a merge was raised as a possible ATD and the article was still kept, or if there's a previous failed merge proposal on a talk page, then SOFTMERGE might be inappropriate. But if it was just that an article was nominated for deletion and it was kept because no one pointed out that there was significant overlap with another article, or something like that, then SOFTMERGE could still be appropriate, especially since the close itself makes clear that it doesn't form consensus and it can be easily reverted. ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 19:09, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

To try expressing my thinking in in a stronger manner: consensus can change but only a new consensus can replace an old consensus. A SOFTMEREGE (and SOFTDELETE) is a weak form of consensus, relying on WP:SILENCE. But when we've had an active consensus expressed previously it should take a new affirmative consensus to override that which a silent form of consaensus is not. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:14, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

I think that position is fair, I also mostly agree with it. The one little bit of nuance I wanted to add was that a keep consensus doesn't necessarily mean that consensus was against a merge (if the merge wasn't even considered in the discussion where the consensus was expressed). Sort of in the vein of the discussion above about the opposite of "merge" being "not merged" as opposed to "keep". I'll admit that its splitting hairs a bit... ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 08:52, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with your thinking but we can't really put that in a guideline. We need a more cleanly defined criterion. FaviFake (talk) 13:00, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Right, but I think the current guideline is fine as is, its up to the closer if they're comfortable with softclosing it or if relisting it is the correct course (the ambiguity is a feature not a bug, our rules don't need to account for every eventuality). ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 13:09, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

its up to the closer if they're comfortable with softclosing it or if relisting it is the correct course
This would be a reasonably short addition, to clear confusion. FaviFake (talk) 14:38, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

I think it would benefit from guidance. Perhaps something like If a merge was actively considered in previous discussion (for example as an alternative to deletion) a soft merge closure will not usually be appropriate. Thryduulf (talk) 20:31, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

I can support that ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 12:44, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

I'd suggest "recent" discussion. You don't want people to feel bound by discussions that happened 10 years ago. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:56, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

I disagree. If there was previously an active discussion, even 10 years ago, then there should be some active discussion today to counteract that. We're not binding people to the outcome of that discussion, only to not ignoring it. Thryduulf (talk) 18:14, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Moving a page as a deletion process

Wikipedia:Deletion process#Deletion discussion venues lists Wikipedia:Requested moves at the end of the table. It is the seventh out of the "the six places to formally nominate a page not eligible for speedy deletion for a discussion". This was not in the original but was added (without discussion) the next year.

It says that RM "may result in deletion (e.g. of a redirect or trivial content at the target page name) or merger."

I don't think this fits in the table. Yes, it's possible (though rare) that a page move (also a split, also a merge) can result in the remnants of an article becoming eligible for speedy deletion, or we may have a result that makes deletion be part of a reasonable outcome, and, consistent with WP:NOTBURO, we don't want to tell editors to make a perfunctory trip to (e.g.,) RFD to vote WP:RETURNTORED. But RM is not a "formal" place to "nominate" a page for deletion, so IMO it doesn't belong in this list. What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:08, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Noting that this was resolved. FaviFake (talk) 14:17, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:XFDcloser § Rash of unhelpful XFD users

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:XFDcloser § Rash of unhelpful XFD users. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:36, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Requested move 21 June 2026

Wikipedia:Deletion process → Wikipedia:Deletion processesWikipedia:Deletion processes – The title "Deletion process" implies there is a single unified process for deletion, while we actually have several distinct processes that operate independently of one another. Most obviously, CSD, PROP, and XfDs are three entirely separate mechanisms with different criteria, timescales, participants or lack thereof, and outcomes. A page that qualifies for speedy deletion bypasses discussion entirely; a PROD resolves in seven days without discussion; an XfD runs a 7-day discussion and requires a closure to close. Within XfDs alone, there are six separate venues, each with their own scope and instructions.

These obviously aren't stages of one process, they're alternatives. The singular "process" might make sense if this page were just a step-by-step walkthrough of one procedure, or if the procedures were remotely similar. The plural reflects that in a clearer way. FaviFake (talk) 14:17, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose There is one deletion process per context. That still means that each of them can individually be called the "deletion process" for that context, and that the title can refer to whatever deletion process a user is looking for. I think this is a solution for a nonexistent problem unless there is evidence people are getting massively confused by this. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:10, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

  There is one deletion process per context
  There really isn't, unless you have a really odd definition of context. In the context of an article, for example, there are 3. And of course people aren't getting massively confused by this. We don't need people to get massively confused about something to improve it slightly. FaviFake (talk) 00:17, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

• Support per nom. This would satisfy WP:PLURAL although this is not an article so we don't need to appeal to P&G specific to article titles. Common sense and a plain reading of the guideline supports this. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 00:26, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose - All deletion falls under the perview of the 'deletion process', of which all types are described on the page in question. Deletion outside of the 'deletion process' is innapropriate. Pluralizing this takes away from the meta-concept. This is not simply a list of deletion venues, but rather a landing page for our deletion system ethos. There is but one button to delete a page (metaphorically; nuking aside), and this describes the path to it being pressed. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 09:04, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

  the 'deletion process', of which all types are described on the page in question
  So a venue such as AfD would be a "type of deletion process"? I've never heard anyone call a venue anything similar to that. FaviFake (talk) 17:10, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Support per nom. There are alternative processes of deletion. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:37, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose. At first thought I agreed that there are multiple processes for deletion, but after reviewing the comments I will have to agree with Godsy that this is the guide to the path to deletion. I guess if you see it as “the deletion process” it would make more sense. Jacksonvil (talk|contribs) 23:43, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Deletion guidelines for administrators § Merge into Wikipedia:Deletion process § Determining consensus

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Deletion guidelines for administrators § Merge into Wikipedia:Deletion process § Determining consensus. FaviFake (talk) 11:22, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Deletion nominations being closed as "merge"

For deletion nominations being closed as "merge", there seem to be no adequately docmented procedures either here or in WP:Deletion guidelines for administrators . The eventual merge target will not have been tagged during the discussion. This may have been the case for a long time but the problem arises more frequently with the new combined procedure. Thincat (talk) 10:00, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

What problem? FaviFake (talk) 17:13, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

The eventual merge target will not have been tagged during the discussion so people watching the merge target will not have been aware of the problem.[1][2] Thincat (talk) 18:40, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

You mean aware of the discussion? A discussion is not a problem. FaviFake (talk) 20:15, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Then why was it a required for merge proposals? Katzrockso (talk) 02:41, 28 June 2026 (UTC)