Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion

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)Reply

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

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

Extra line space in AfD template

[edit]

Moved from a section below

 – FaviFake (talk) 10:49, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

If you look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2026 September 17, you can see that some nominations have an extra line space after their headers. Compare Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2026 September 17#Wray Serna (which has the extra space) with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2026 September 17#The Special Purpose (which doesn't). Furthermore, the extra line space appears only on the AfD log page -- it doesn't appear on pages such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wray Serna. Does anyone know where this extra line space came from? -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:08, 17 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Probably related to this MediaWiki update in early August. Based on the Wayback Machine snapshot, the 31 July listing did not have a line break on 31 July, but it appeared on 6 August.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wray Serna doesn't have a line break because it contains <noinclude>{{AFD help}}</noinclude>. If the template is removed, a line break appears. The update probably led to the line still being present after transclusion, so we have two empty lines in the code that display as a break. Kelob2678 (talk) 17:51, 17 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

See #Extra line break? above. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:16, 17 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I will post in that other section instead. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:31, 18 September 2026 (UTC)Reply

So, I have run into a bit of an issue with Chaxas (volcano). This recent source strongly implies that Sairecabur and Chaxas are the same volcanic system. Perhaps warranting a merger. Or not. I am not sure whether to bring this to AfD but I am not certain enough on the topic to carry out a merger boldly and the articles are too obscure for significant talk page activity. JoJo Eumerus mobile (main talk) 18:23, 23 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Merkür'ün soyundan gelen, who started editing 18 October and has 133 edits nominated Bijli Pasi for deletion. They couldn't actually tag the article for deletion, because it's extended confirmed protected due to discretionary sanctions on caste-related articles, but the bot came along and tagged it. This seems like a lacunae in the guidelines to allow an editor who can't edit the article to nominate it for deletion, so I'd like to have more eyes on it. Jahaza (talk) 20:49, 26 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

I think this is exactly the sort of thing that we have extended-confirmed protection in order to prevent. The current interpretation of REQUESTAFD here seems to be that editors are free to request (and therefore have executed) the nomination of (unprotected) articles without objection. However, this appears to be principally intended to offer a measure of access to unregistered editors (and those who don't want to deal with Twinkle) rather than a method of breaching critical protection mechanisms.

There's no explicit mention of page protections at REQUESTAFD, and I'd really find it doubtful that we'd consider someone unfamiliar enough with site guidelines to edit a page, but nonetheless allow them to nominate it for deletion under effectively the same playbook. That gives way too much leeway to SPAs to torch what we've already determined to be a common object of hatred/disdain at their personal discretion.

CSGinger14 (talk) 21:35, 26 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

You are talking about a different thing.

• Jahaza said that the bot should not tag articles that have already been nominated at AfD by a non-EC if they are protected due to discretionary sanctions.
• You are saying that users should not create an AfD for articles protected due to discretionary sanctions on behalf of non-EC users

I don't think there's anything to change here. Maybe it could noted at WP:REQUESTAFD that those nominating article son behalf of others shouldn't do it unless they also think the article should be nominated, but I don't think this has ever been an issue. FaviFake (talk) 10:13, 27 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Hello. In accordance with WP:REQUESTAFD, I am requesting that an experienced editor create an AfD for this article on my behalf using the following rationale: I propose deleting this article because 

Rwood128 (talk) 15:51, 27 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Rwood128 Welcome to AfD! You need to explain to us why you think the article should be deleted if you want it to be nominated. FaviFake (talk) 16:02, 27 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

I assume you intended to finish the above with "...because the stub does not establish the notability of this subject outside of Ukraine." per your edit summary. Wikipedia doesn't really take into consideration where notability is established, it's more of a question of hom much independent reliable sources have to say about a subject that matters. The article certainly doesn't satisfy that, and the Ukrainian Wikipedia article on the subject seems to be likewise lacking anything in the way of sourced secondary commentary. Rather than starting an AfD though, it might be better to at least leave a note on the talk page about the lack of secondary sourcing, in case anyone is watching (the article has only seen relatively minor edits over the last decade), and then WP:PROD it if you don't get a response in say a week or two. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:06, 27 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Honestly this looks like a borderline WP:CSD A7 page. I've watchlisted it for now. But if significant improvements are not forthcoming in the very near future it's going to get tagged for deletion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:11, 27 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

I'd have though that a shipping register for a country that, prior to the annexation of Crimea, had some fairly major Black Sea ports, might stand a chance of meeting notability criteria - but we most definitely need secondary sources, not least because the current situation needs documenting, given later events. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:36, 27 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Rwood128 FYI the article has been unPRODded. Let us know if you would still like to nominate it. FaviFake (talk) 23:54, 28 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

He's making a series of nominations that don't match our notability policy. There's no reason to make that suggestion. Jahaza (talk) 00:02, 29 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

An admin above literally said the page was borderline WP:G7, which is a lower standard than notability per the policy.

Their request was not fulfilled and I'm just letting them know. FaviFake (talk) 00:08, 29 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

The admin failed to do any basic research, as did the OP, and so did you. You're still responsible for your edits even if an admin suggests them. Jahaza (talk) 00:11, 29 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Well then I take responsibility for PRODding an article. Please forgive me!!! FaviFake (talk) 00:16, 29 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

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

Please finish the merge request I tried to start. I left my reason at Talk:2026 South Dakota Attorney General election. ~2026-58478-96 (talk) 14:01, 3 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Unarchived: This was added to the archive without action, so I have unarchived it here. Umby 🌕🐶 (talk) 05:54, 9 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

@~2026-58478-96  The article has been nominated on your behalf. You can follow the discussion and respond to others' comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2026 South Dakota Attorney General election. Discussions normally run for at least seven days. If you have any questions about how the process works, feel free to ask on this thread! FaviFake (talk) 17:20, 11 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

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

Please finish the merge request I tried to start for this article. I left my reasoning at Talk:2026 Arkansas Attorney General election. ~2026-58478-96 (talk) 14:03, 3 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Unarchived: This was added to the archive without action, so I have unarchived it here. Umby 🌕🐶 (talk) 05:54, 9 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

@~2026-58478-96  The article has been nominated on your behalf. You can follow the discussion and respond to others' comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2026 Arkansas Attorney General election. Discussions normally run for at least seven days. If you have any questions about how the process works, feel free to ask on this thread! FaviFake (talk) 17:20, 11 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

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

Hello. In accordance with WP:REQUESTAFD, I am requesting that someone else create an AfD for this article on my behalf using the following rationale: I propose deleting this article because "Other than the routine coverage and movie reviews, no significant in-depth coverage to statisfy WP:NBIO for inclusion on Wikipedia ~2026-58506-99 (talk) 14:45, 3 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

I have reviewed the sources and found two that could apply toward Notability, including a feature on the subject of the article. Since this request is the nominator's only post on Wikipedia, I recommend denying this request for AfD. Rublamb (talk) 19:57, 3 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

 Done @~2026-58506-99  The article has been nominated on your behalf. You can follow the discussion and respond to others' comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sumanth Prabhas. Discussions normally run for at least seven days. If you have any questions about how the process works, feel free to ask on this thread! FaviFake (talk) 22:05, 3 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

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

Hello. In accordance with WP:REQUESTAFD, I am requesting that someone else create an AfD for these articles on my behalf using the following rationale: I propose merging these articles because Eros International plc is barely even good enough and is just too mere, too differentiate Eros Media World and in accordance with the article before, Eros International plc and Eros Media World are literally the same company and Eros International plc was the former name for both ErosSTX and Eros Media World, from what I can tell, they were both founded in Mumbai, India, except one has moved to the British Isles and both are lead by the Lulla group and it barely even follows WP:SIGCOV and is just WP:COATRACKing and it's something not too special if we are seeing the real, otherwise, big conglomerate. It should have been the main article prior to my request. Bollywood and Hollywood are not the same type of luxury as Hollywood operates both film studio and television network while the other of course displays Indian stories. --~2026-47089-17 (talk) 23:47, 3 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

@~2026-47089-17  The article has been nominated on your behalf. You can follow the discussion and respond to others' comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eros International plc. Discussions normally run for at least seven days. If you have any questions about how the process works, feel free to ask on this thread! FaviFake (talk) 17:20, 11 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

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

Hello. In accordance with WP:REQUESTAFD, I am requesting that someone else create an AfD for this article on my behalf using the following rationale: I propose deleting this article because the subject is not notable enough to warrant a page. There is little information about them apart from a few news articles. There is not enough evidence that they had any major influence in Canadian policy aside from being present on national councils, thus I believe the individual is not notable enough and the article should be deleted. There is not enough significant research to satisfy the notability guidelines. ~2026-55372-22 (talk) 02:52, 5 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

@~2026-55372-22  The article has been nominated on your behalf. You can follow the discussion and respond to others' comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Habon Ali. Discussions normally run for at least seven days. If you have any questions about how the process works, feel free to ask on this thread! FaviFake (talk) 17:20, 11 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

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

Hello. In accordance with WP:REQUESTAFD, I am requesting that someone else create an AfD for this article on my behalf using the following rationale:

The subject does not appear to meet Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline (WP:GNG) or the notability criteria for organisations and companies (WP:NCORP).

The references currently provided do not appear to demonstrate significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent secondary sources. Several are directory-style listings or brief mentions rather than substantial coverage focused on the company.

Additionally, parts of the article contain promotional language that raises concerns under WP:NOTADVERTISING.

I would therefore appreciate an independent assessment of whether the subject meets Wikipedia's notability requirements and whether the article warrants deletion.

Thank you.

MossyKestrel47 (talk) 14:34, 5 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

The page is now up for a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FunTech (computer school). -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:45, 5 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

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

Hello. In accordance with WP:REQUESTAFD, I am requesting that someone else create an AfD for this article on my behalf using the following rationale: I propose deleting this article because the source is entirely based on 1 source that is derived from the opposing side in battle , and lacks any indpendent coverage or sources about it, so i ask for the deletion of this article, thanks Shav al doki (talk) 15:27, 5 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

User:AriuCH draftified it. DMacks (talk) 12:50, 11 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

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

Hello. In accordance with WP:REQUESTAFD, I am requesting that someone else create an AfD for these articles on my behalf using the following rationale: I propose merging Sandy Hook Pilots Association into Sandy Hook Pilots and redirecting the former title to the latter.

The two articles substantially overlap in subject, organizational history, and pilotage history. Sandy Hook Pilots is the broader article and is the more appropriate location for the material.

Any unique, reliably sourced historical material from the Association article—particularly material concerning the 1895 reorganization and the transition from sailing pilot boats to steam vessels—can be incorporated into the surviving article. Useful historical images can also remain in the surviving article.

Several other items in the Association article, including employee and sales figures, leadership information, headquarters/building information, and the stated founding location, are inaccurate or outdated and should not be carried over without reliable sourcing.

I am affiliated with the Sandy Hook Pilots and therefore have a conflict of interest. I previously proposed the merge on the article Talk pages and neutrally notified relevant WikiProjects, but received no substantive response. P.Jackxon (talk) 16:19, 5 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

@P.Jackxon  The article has been nominated on your behalf. You can follow the discussion and respond to others' comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandy Hook Pilots Association. Discussions normally run for at least seven days. If you have any questions about how the process works, feel free to ask on this thread! FaviFake (talk) 17:20, 11 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

At closed AfDs, links to deleted articles may still appear blue. Null editing may not make the blue links turn red, so one may need to do "action=purge" instead to force the blue links to turn red. GTrang (talk) 02:29, 7 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Prakriti (disambiguation) was deleted by Pppery even though multiple article titles with the word "Prakriti" in the title existed. I think that we might want to add language to WP:BEFORE to encourage checks prior to such elimination. Thoughts? --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:33, 7 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Both of the uses on the current disambiguation page appear to be partial title matches. I would assume a check was performed and Pppery concluded that there were no valid entries to disambiguate. It could have been speedy tagged to get a different set of eyes. (Arrived here trying to investigate the question you asked about a 2009 page move.) Dekimasuよ! 03:14, 7 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

I deleted the page because it was a one-entry DAB page. See User talk:Pppery#Prakriti (disambiguation). Since WP:BEFORE is part of the instructions for nominating pages for AfD discussions it doesn't apply to speedy deletions. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:16, 7 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

WP:PTM aside, I don't see an assertion of notability for current entry Prakriti Manohari either. Sources indicate only that it exists. Dekimasuよ! 03:37, 7 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

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

Hello. In accordance with WP:REQUESTAFD, I am requesting that someone else create an AfD for this article on my behalf using the following rationale: I propose deleting this article because it seems like there aren't enough reliable sources about this band.

Hoard of Peace (talk) 09:05, 8 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Hoard of Peace  The article has been nominated on your behalf. You can follow the discussion and respond to others' comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ordo Equitum Solis. Discussions normally run for at least seven days. If you have any questions about how the process works, feel free to ask on this thread! FaviFake (talk) 17:20, 11 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Would any of the editors who work here on AFD be interested in giving advice on the Wikipedia:Articles for improvement project or helping out? It was recently added to the Main Page but there are only a few users working on the behind-the-scenes areas. NewAccount7295 (talk) 14:18, 8 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

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

Hello. In accordance with WP:REQUESTAFD, I am requesting that someone else create an AfD for this article on my behalf using the following rationale: I propose deleting this article because it does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I could find no significant, reliable sources discussing the band. None of the other criteria laid out in WP:MUSIC are fulfilled either. TigrisGraduate (talk) 16:21, 9 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

@TigrisGraduate  The article has been nominated on your behalf. You can follow the discussion and respond to others' comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Blind Owl Band. Discussions normally run for at least seven days. If you have any questions about how the process works, feel free to ask on this thread! FaviFake (talk) 17:20, 11 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

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

Hello. In accordance with WP:REQUESTAFD, I am requesting that someone else create an AfD for this article on my behalf using the following rationale: I propose deleting this article because: It is an entirely promotional article with practically no substance. I attempted to fix the overtly biased language in the latest edit, but almost the entirety of the articles claims I could not find a source for. Fails WP:BIO and WP:V. The article is written as a promotional resume/CV and lacks reliable, independent secondary sources to verify the subject's career or notable achievements. Much of the text is unsourced puffery.

Bitbound (talk) 03:00, 10 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Looks like you managed to create Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Damien Top directly yourself. DMacks (talk) 12:49, 11 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

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

Hello. In accordance with WP:REQUESTAFD, I am requesting that someone else create an AfD for this article on my behalf using the following rationale: I propose deleting this article because

Nomination rationale

I am nominating this article for deletion because the subject's notability has not been established in accordance with Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline (WP:GNG).

The article contains extensive biographical claims, including professional positions, academic credentials, fellowships, publications and organizational affiliations, but does not appear to provide sufficient reliable, independent secondary sources demonstrating significant coverage of the subject.

The article's existing notability and biography citation warnings also highlight the unresolved sourcing concerns.

In particular:

• The article does not adequately demonstrate significant coverage of the subject in reliable, independent secondary sources.
• Institutional affiliations, professional positions, personal websites and organizational biographies do not, by themselves, establish encyclopedic notability.
• The article needs independent sources that discuss the subject in depth, rather than merely mentioning or listing his activities and credentials.
• The burden is on demonstrating that the subject meets Wikipedia's inclusion criteria, not simply documenting an impressive professional résumé.

Unless substantial independent secondary coverage can be identified, I do not believe a standalone biographical article is justified.

Relevant policies and guidelines: WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:RS and WP:BLP.

Proud&Queer (talk) 17:05, 10 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Proud&Queer Did you use an artificial intelligence program to help you write this nomination statement? FaviFake (talk) 17:20, 11 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Indeed. The subject seems clearly notable, though the article has probably COI and referencing issues. Johnbod (talk) 17:30, 11 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Who are you responding to? I asked @Proud&Queer how they wrote their nomination statement. FaviFake (talk) 19:38, 11 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

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

Hello. In accordance with WP:REQUESTAFD, I am requesting that someone else create an AfD for these articles on my behalf using the following rationale: I propose merging these articles because the latter is an identical WP:FORK of the former with less content. Hsnkn (talk) 21:44, 10 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Hsnkn  The article has been nominated on your behalf. You can follow the discussion and respond to others' comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rada'a. Discussions normally run for at least seven days. If you have any questions about how the process works, feel free to ask on this thread!FaviFake (talk) 17:20, 11 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EDP445 (3rd nomination) This was snow closed and then taken to DRV. The conversation at DRV had one response when I saw it, I reviewed the close, determined it was a BADNAC and vacated. However, I did not realise an editor had not understood DRV procedure and created a 4th nomination in the meantime. I procedurally closed the 4th nomination and I've merged the contributions from the 4th discussion (as there was a single substantial contribution and response) to the 3rd discussion. However, I'm uncertain of the next steps - at present the article is not showing a deletion discussion header to the open 3rd discussion and the talk page is showing the fourth discussion as closed. If I delete the 4th discussion and revert the last edit on the talk page, will this produce the deletion discussion header on the article? Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 11:00, 11 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

The banner on the article is completely independent of the contents of the page's talk page.

I've restored the banner for the 3rd discussion from the article's history and removed the 3rd and 4th discussions from the banner on the talk page. (I don't know whether an AfD subpage can or should be speedily deleted.) FaviFake (talk) 12:39, 11 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, sometimes one forgets it's still possible to do lots of things manually round here. While I know I can delete the 4th AfD subpage, I'd appreciate input on whether I should (to me it seems strange to leave it). Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 14:39, 11 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

I've deleted the fourth nomination, which seems to have cleared up the linking issues on the third nomination, although apologies for the minor inconveniences yesterday, did not mean to break the internet.</sarcasm>. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 20:49, 13 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

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

Please nominate this article for draftification with the reasoning: WP:TOOSOON, as evidenced by no Dem even being speculated by the media yet, also no other 2028 race has an article right now. TennesseeStands (talk) 15:54, 11 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

@TennesseeStands  The article has been nominated on your behalf. You can follow the discussion and respond to others' comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2028 United States Senate special election in Tennessee. Discussions normally run for at least seven days. If you have any questions about how the process works, feel free to ask on this thread! FaviFake (talk) 17:20, 11 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

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

Hello. In accordance with WP:REQUESTAFD, I am requesting that someone else create an AfD for this article on my behalf using the following rationale: All of the media coverage of Davis has to do with his involvement in an unexpectedly close election to the United States Senate. I do not believe he is sufficiently notable to warrant having his own page. All relevant coverage of him, such as his policies, his background, etc. can reasonably be put on the page for the election itself. OutlawRun (talk) 21:35, 11 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

 Done @OutlawRun  The article has been nominated on your behalf. You can follow the discussion and respond to others' comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamie Davis (politician). Discussions normally run for at least seven days. If you have any questions about how the process works, feel free to ask on this thread! FaviFake (talk) 20:27, 12 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

wives of Genghis Khan and Genetic descent from Genghis Khan articles should be merged as sections of Chinggisids. they are 3 standalone stubs of near identicle info so not controbersial or requiring nomination but dont know how merge/redirect ~2026-59888-11 (talk) 17:57, 12 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

@~2026-59888-11  Done FaviFake (talk) 20:24, 12 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

merge and all my cleanups of repeat info on Chinggisids were removed when merge template says "Any editor can perform a merge. If merging is obviously needed and is not controversial, editors are encouraged to be bold and simply do it themselves by following the merging instructions. You do not need anyone's permission or prior discussion to proceed, especially if the merge satisfies one or more of the reasons to merge articles." no famous (trump, musk) has a standalone pg for their wifes and 2 speerate pages of idenical info of their children. children is obviously traced by wives/mothers, a seperate identical page for their sex life is redundant. genetics pg and genetics section alone is 95% repeat. if 3 identical pgs on immediately family is deemed as not repeat info, should at least be nominated with cleanups not erased to pre-merge erasure version @FaviFake ~2026-60223-14 (talk) 16:34, 14 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

@~2026-60223-14 The page also says "While bold merges may be reverted entirely, the process and the discussion after the revert often result in better articles.". Could you kindly give me a clear nomination statement that I can use for nominating the article on your behalf? Start like this:

I propose merging [[Wives of Genghis Khan]] and [[Genetic descent from Genghis Khan]] into [[Chinggisids]] because ...

FaviFake (talk) 17:22, 14 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

TY Wives of Genghis Khan and Genetic descent from Genghis Khan proposed for merging as sections into Chinggisids: Genetic descent from Genghis Khan pg and Chinggisids#Genetics section are 95% identical/repeat info; both page/section would never exist without/are not independent of the mothers ie Wives of Genghis Khan (that page info further introduced/repeated in Genghis Khan#Family), creating 3 short stub/oprhan-like pages plus 1 section repeating family (plus List of Mongol consorts pg), requiring 3-4 pg links in every infobox/section across pgs to read what was already cleaned up into/on 1 pg (improperly erased/rv to pre-merge). . every other royal family house infobox pg only needs 1 page, ie House of Saud, British royal family, even Trump family ~2026-60223-14 (talk) 20:11, 14 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

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

Hello. In accordance with WP:REQUESTAFD, I am requesting that someone else create an AfD for this article on my behalf using the following rationale: I propose deleting this article because

	This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I request nomination of List of Loyola Law School alumni for deletion under WP:NLIST and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. The article largely consists of a self-promotional categorized directory of alumni, with limited independent sourcing establishing the encyclopedic significance of the group as a standalone subject. The presence of individually notable alumni does not establish the need for a separate list. I request community review of whether this article satisfies Wikipedia's standards for standalone lists or primarily functions as an institutional alumni directory.

AA8675309 (talk) 19:55, 12 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

 Not done. Write in your own words. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:18, 12 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

It is requested that an edit be made to the semi-protected project page at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. (edit · history · last · links · protection log) This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "Please change X to Y". There is a moderate backlog of edit requests. Please be patient. Currently, there are 54 pages with edit requests waiting in the queue. The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user. Change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected, or put on hold. You may also wish to use the {{subst:ESp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

Hello. In accordance with WP:REQUESTAFD, I am requesting that someone else create an AfD for this article on my behalf using the following rationale: I propose deleting this article because

The criteria of this list are arbitrary. The opening paragraph narrows the title's scope to an undefined "Western European military block[sic] industry". It includes numerous models produced by both non-European and Eastern European nations, so the carving out of Belarus, Russia and Serbia in this case seems to be primarily based on geopolitical allegiances. Perhaps more permissible if articulated as, "List of tanks produced or developed by the European Union defence sector", but I think it's generally redundant due to existing country-based lists of tanks. The list also pivots to talking about tank guns, and the See Also contains similar articles with related problems, many of which have already been culled.

Bip3587 (talk) 08:09, 14 November 2026 (UTC)Reply