Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion

AfD request: Patrick Knapp Schwarzenegger

A Hollywood lawyer who is also Arnold Schwarzenegger's nephew.

Apart from one interview the sources contain only trivial mentions of him from Hollywood magazines, either being named as a legal representative or because of his relation to Arnold.

The only in depth coverage is an interview he did with the German language Call Magazine. I can find very little info about this magazine and it does not seem particularly notable. ~2025-40999-05 (talk) 11:13, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think an AfD is the answer as per WP:INVALIDBIO and WP:ATD-R you can redirect to Arnold Schwarzenegger. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:27, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re-requesting this deletion as the blank and redirect has been reverted by an IP user. Per WP:ATD-R I think we need a full discussion. ~2025-42075-48 (talk) 23:02, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Knapp Schwarzenegger (2nd nomination). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:43, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Signing after closing?

Curious: When reading closing arguments/conclusions of AfDs, I sometimes realize that I forgot to sign one of my comments (like here bullet 3). Is the "Do not modify" on closed AfDs an absolute rule so that such signing should never be added? Or is the "not modify" connected to the comments that belong on the Talk Page or Deletion Review instead? Thanks! -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 00:01, 22 December 2025 (UTC) (I remembered to sign this one)[reply]

Eh, I'd say minor fixes like that are usually okay. I don't know why SineBot didn't get it...does it not work anymore? It might be best to use the {{unsigned}} template so long after the fact though. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:47, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Deacon! -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 02:14, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AfD request: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_the_Woo

Not to delete on Fox News 12 years ago

I don’t know where to put this but he was on fox news 12 years ago when he got banned from Disney here. It was on fox 4 won’t let me post the link. Mrcamp75 (talk) 21:09, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You should place this comment at the specific deletion discussion for the article you are referring to, as this page is the page for the entire Articles for Deletion process, and many articles are nominated for deletion every day. The URL for the deletion discussion will be of the format https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ARTICLE_NAME_HERE Iffy★Chat -- 21:20, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AfD request: Circus Baby

Redirected multiple times for lack of notability. ~2025-43709-54 (talk) 13:05, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It has been protected so that only extended confirmed editors can redirect. That should stop the sockpupppets. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:47, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"Draft:Wikipedia:Alternative für Deutschland" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Draft:Wikipedia:Alternative für Deutschland 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/2025 December 29 § Draft:Wikipedia:Alternative für Deutschland until a consensus is reached. Sugar Tax (talk) 22:25, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Matthias Sention Sr. Suggested for deletion

The subject of this article is not notable. He appears to be the ancestor of one of the editors of the article, but is otherwise only one of many early immigrants to New England.Lois Hacker (talk) 22:49, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AFD request: Lunatic Lateral

Please renominate for deletion - I left my new reasoning on the talk page. ~2025-44120-31 (talk) 16:56, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A user just removed the tag from the article despite my attempt to get an AFD (sorry about the Switch, my browser got deleted.) could one be started? ~2026-14183 (talk) 17:13, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Primefac (talk) 18:35, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Calling for a close

Re the edit summary at [1] ("we don't create sections in afds") I can find no such rule in WP:AFD or any other policy or guideline. I may have missed it though, we have a lot of policies and guidelines, and a few essays that have become de-facto guidelines.

There is one very good reason why a call for close or close request should be in a separate section. The editor who closes a discussion has to be someone who is not involved in the discussion. By definition such an editor is unlikely to see a call for close comment in a discussion that they are not participating in, and those who do see it can only second or oppose it, not act on it.

I could not find a previous AFD example, but calling for close section have a long tradition on Wikipedia, and this is the first time that I have seen anyone object to one. Here are some examples:

So, does such a policy exist? If not, should it? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:17, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

AFDs have a duration of at least 7 days. The AFD in question is contentious. What is the reason for calling for a close so soon? Especially opening a new section? Does calling for a close really warrant all that attention that it merits a section? Who are you to even decide that it warrants a close? Bringing up multiple non-AFD close requests won't help the case. Creating a section calling for a close on an AFD, especially one that doesn't meet WP:SNOW, doesn't make any sense. Skyshiftertalk 15:27, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It makes sense to me, for the reasons I gave in my call to close. The AfD was posted on 27 December 2025. It is now 3 January 2026 -- seven days. I do not expect any call for close to be acted on in less than a day, and indeed I would object it it was. You need a few days at least to allow other editors to agree or object. You might want to post your objection there; the closer is unlikely to read this discussion.
Re: "Who are you to even decide that it warrants a close?" I am actually forbidden from deciding that it warrants a close because I participated in the discussion. All I can do is request that an uninvolved editor look at it.
Again I ask, what policy are you enforcing? This looks like a rule that you made up. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:49, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If it has been seven days, then an uninvolved admin will review the AFD in due time. That's how AFD works. Just wait. Skyshiftertalk 16:02, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
After the AfD has been open for the requisite period of time (7 days), it will be added to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old by Mathbot. This is done periodically, so it won't show up in this list until typically a little bit after 24 hours (I can't recall the intervals, but I typically see it updated around midnight EST on my watchlist for one period). After it is included on that list, admin and non-admin closers will review the discussion and then decide whether to close or relist the discussion. @Guy Macon.
Refer to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Administrator instructions#Closing out an AfD log page and WP:CLOSEAFD. It is never necessary to specifically call for a close. Katzrockso (talk) 19:16, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Good to know. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:38, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if any such policy and I think sections on AFDs should be avoided if only because they clutter up listing pages. I will say I think they should always be a level lower than the AFD header itself so on pages such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 December 27 they section doesn't should up as a "false" AFD. I have in the past properly put sections inside the AFD and probably would have here if I had seen it before this discussion. So Guy Macon, I suggest at a minimum change the "===" header to "====". Skynxnex (talk) 17:15, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I will be sure to do it that way from now on. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 18:29, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
While unnecessary, I genuinely can see no harm in this - there's cases where a call for an early close can be made, cases where a call for a close can be made where closure is overdue. An uninvolved editor/admin can respond - essentially all AfD closes will actually be early or overdue depending on how precisesly one measures the seven day period. Awhile back (cannot remember how long) there was some concern over closes happening half a day to a day early - since then as far as I can see we've been pretty clear on sticking to a full seven day period. This is currently listed in the 27 December log for closure, it will be dealt with in due course (although not be me having now expressed a related opinion on the topic, broadly defined). Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 00:29, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Influence of severe weather on American politics

can someone finish the AFD I set up? I left my logic on the talk page. ~2026-93172 (talk) 15:13, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Done by Bobby Cohn --pro-anti-air ––>(talk)<–– 18:36, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

New AfD sorting tag for suspected AI-generated articles?

With the promotion of WP:NEWLLM into guideline status, which states that large language models should not be used to generate new Wikipedia articles from scratch, there have been an influx of nominations/comments citing the guideline as a rationale for deletion.[2]

Detecting AI-generated content and judging whether its reparable, is whole another skill set than determining notability and would benefit from attracting experts. In fact, a 2025 preprint found that a panel of five human evaluators misclassified only one out of 300 writing samples.

A new AfD sorting tag for "suspected wholly AI-generated articles" make such nominations more discoverable. Ca talk to me! 02:07, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

fyi, regarding AI-detecting experts, I don't want to sound too egotistical, but those of us active at WP:AIC have an ever-expanding wealth of experience in identifying AI-generated text. I encourage you (and everyone) to ping me or to post at WP:AINB if you need help identifying text as AI-generated. Athanelar (talk) 14:12, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Is being LLM-generated grounds for deletion at AfD? I wasn't aware that was the case. NicheSports (talk) 19:29, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It can be, particularly when augmenting a WP:TNT argument. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 19:47, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. But is it generally accepted as a valid reason, even for LLM-generated articles covering topics that are clearly notable? Edit: I think most articles that are LLM-generated with insufficient human review should be deleted, but want to understand how the community is currently handling this post WP:NEWLLM NicheSports (talk) 19:53, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that WP:TNT (an essay) is uniformly accepted as a deletion argument. Jahaza (talk) 19:58, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned within, that essay essentially forwards a WP:DEL-REASON #14 and WP:ATD-E argument. AfD is not a strict criteria-based process like with speedy, editors make reasoned arguments, those arguments are considered and evaluated per consensus. I've personally made at least one AfD nom of an LLM article myself which, in part, utilized a TNT argument here back in May 2025. The article was deleted. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 21:01, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense. I certainly support the approach for such articles NicheSports (talk) 21:17, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template for afd talkpage

Is there some sort of standard template, explaining the purpose of an afd talkpage, that can be put on those pages? Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/American hybrid warfare against Greenland during the second Trump administration made me wonder. "The discussion is not taking place here, if you wish to comment, go to the other page." or something like that. If there isn't one, should we make one? Perhaps even include it in the automated process? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:02, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Right place could perhaps be used. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:28, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know if there's any existing template. My sense from looking at AFDs over the past few years, the number of AFDs that end up with talk pages are a tiny minority so probably does not make sense to automatically create them. My memory is the rare time an AFD has been semi/extended-protected is the main time and then having a header might make sense.
I'm not very conversant with Wikipedia:Editnotices but I wonder if it'd be possible to make a group edit notice rooted at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/ to have a similar message as you proposed? Skynxnex (talk) 19:40, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Something like at Wikipedia talk:Help desk is an option. Like you say, automatic creation is probably unnecessary. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:55, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

AfD: India at the 2026 Winter Olympics

The article lacks significant coverage in reliable, independent sources and fails to meet the general notability guideline. Multiple claims are unsourced or cite non-reliable references, and the tone is non-encyclopedic. RomeoSingh2010 (talk) 14:45, 10 January 2026 (UTC)RomeoSingh2010[reply]

@RomeoSingh2010@ ~2026-22695-7 (talk) 15:13, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

3rd or more good faith nomination for an article - ok to ping prior editors? And Use of AI

There have been no complaints, but I pinged ALL editors involved (excluding administraion work) in prior nomination discussions (not the current one on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Solomon_family_(3rd_nomination) and added a summary of the prior discussions. I did (with a lot of fiddling) use AI to create the list. Wakelamp (talk) d[@-@]b 12:40, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why use AI? AI-creep on Wikipedia is a real thing. Could have just cut-and-paste or another method. Thanks, just my two AI cents. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:47, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think pinging is ok though?
(I too loathe AI with a passion because it removes the humanity that is so much of wikipedia
So, I contemplated not mentioning AI (because I knew it would side track) but I thought I would admit all my sins). Wakelamp (talk) d[@-@]b 13:06, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Go, and sin no more. Personally I think alerting all editors who discussed the topic in the previous nominations is fine, and there may be a guideline OKing it, but I haven't memorized the full rules and regs. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:29, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's fine to notify people who've participated in previous discussions (WP:APPNOTE). I don't think you need to list out how they !voted, though (people can check the old discussions if they're curious). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:13, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

2022 AFC Championship Game and 2023 AFC Championship Game

please nominate both articles for deletion. My logic is: “Both articles are for AFCCGs not shown to be independently notable, and only Super Bowls are guaranteed articles.” ~2026-30901-1 (talk) 23:15, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Both tags were removed as you did not complete the instructions - Unregistered users placing this tag on an article cannot complete the deletion nomination and should leave detailed reasons for deletion on (the relevant article's talk page) and then post a message at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion requesting that someone else complete the process. If the nomination is not completed and no message is left on the talkpage, this tag may be removed.
Please try again... - RichT|C|E-Mail 01:42, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Rich Smith, I added logic to the talk page. (Note new users still cannot create AFDs for 4 days). Can you finish it now? --KansasCity021 (talk) 02:19, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused, what policy or guideline are you quoting? - Adolphus79 (talk) 03:53, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Adolphus79: Editors do not get pings for replies like this :) Tagging KansasCity021 - RichT|C|E-Mail 09:26, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User:KansasCity021, looks like other AFC Championship games simply get redirected to that season's playoff page. For example, 2021 AFC Championship Game gets redirected to 2021–22 NFL playoffs. You don't need to "delete" those articles, you can be bold and merge them. I betcha if they went through the deletion process, the consensus would be "merge" anyway. I'd support that bold merge. Just follow the steps at Wikipedia:Merging. Masterhatch (talk) 08:10, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Masterhatch: I tried removing the tags and starting a merge discussion but I can’t, so can you either create the AFD or nominate a merge for me? ~2026-31669-3 (talk) 13:36, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the deletion tags. You can either boldly merge it yourself or start a merge discussion. Note, if your bold merge gets reverted, don't revert back. In that case you would have to start a merge discussion. For the record, I support a merge. Masterhatch (talk) 18:36, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Masterhatch: I began the merge discussions. ~2026-32871-8 (talk) 22:19, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
allikas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:AFD