Wikipedia talk:Deletion process

Search broken

The Search all deletion discussions function just keeps saying "An error has occurred while searching: Search request is longer than the maximum allowed length." Oktalist (talk) 23:15, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Q about the current setup. Can we easily, button-push search 9 or 18 pages about deletion

• WP:Articles for deletion
• WP:Stub types for deletion
• WP:Miscellany for deletion
• WP:Deletion review
• WP:WikiProject Deletion sorting

and about copyright WP:Copyright problems and about discussion

• WP:Categories for discussion
• WP:Redirects for discussion
• WP:Templates for discussion

for any phrase of interest, say an article title?

A No. But on the actual page of interest, where we have the template that posts its review status, we can easily integrate three search links into it

• discussion
• deletion
• copyright

Then mention this here for reviewers to go there and use the three search links. Those search links are here, so they look for this page Wikipedia talk:Deletion process. They work there to find all mentions of themselves in the WP or WT namespaces or archive subpages. Three search links, one for each intitle parameter, each searching two namespaces for the fullpagename, up to 100 results on one page.

Why? (Besides the char cnt limit), CirrusSearch intitle parameter does not currently recognize OR. InputBox is not currently able to wrap or glue the query terms we need.

I will replace the misinformation after implementing the template changes. — Cpiral§Cpiral 05:34, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

So many templates Too many changes. (See scores of 'em at Wikipedia:Template messages/Deletion, Wikipedia:Template messages/Disputes, and Wikipedia:Template messages/General.) Search links on the page of interest might be best for all concerned, but other ideas are

1. Delete the Search all deletion discussions section?
2. Put some new instructions there instead: how to use the search link?
3. Provide for a template on the page of interest: A new template, {{search-afd}}? A changed {{Search deletion discussions}} template? One of these would provide temporary search links there if simply previewed, but permanent if transcluded.

Most of the notices naturally point to a discussion page. But also having a search showing all mentions of the page in project space is a good idea. — Cpiral§Cpiral 00:22, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposal: AfD with no participants should be relisted indefinitely, not closed, until there is at least one other participant

Having just wasted time with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martine van Loon and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marvin Litwak (wasting, since I now have to consider spending ~5 minutes of my time remoninating them) I've looked at WP:CLOSEAFD and WP:RELIST and it seems that the practice of closing AfD's after 2 weeks (two relistings) of no participation is based on

Relisting debates repeatedly in the hope of getting sufficient participation is not recommended, and while having a deletion notice on a page is not harmful, its presence over several weeks can become disheartening for its editors. Therefore, in general, debates should not be relisted more than twice. Users relisting a debate for a third (or further) time, or relisting a debate with a substantial number of commenters, should write a short explanation (in addition to the {{relist}} template) on why they did not consider the debate sufficient.

Well, let's think about this for a moment. What is the proof that "its presence over several weeks can become disheartening for its editors"? I am not aware of any research for this (and I speak as a contributor to Wikipedia Research Newsletter). Vast majority of AfDs do not involve the creator or major participants (I am not talking about controversial ones, I am talking about your average AfD). There is nobody being discouraged, instead the notice may serve to draw some people into discussion. Clearly, not very efficiently, but I doubt that people get discouraged. This is a baseless assumption that cannot be assumed unless proven.

Now, what is happening is that we don't have enough volunteers to comment in AfDs, so some get ignored, if they slip through the cracks - in other words, if they don't appear at the right time to be noticed by one of the dozen or so people who comment at AfDs. They then go back to languishing in their problematic state until they are usually relisted few months or years later, making one of our few precious active volunteers waste time through the relisting process.

I therefore think that the unproven claim of discouragement by an ongoing AfD notice is outweighted by the familiar problem of time waste through having to relist an article. I suggest that the above paragraph is removed, and that we keep relisting discussions until there is at least one other participant.

At the very least, given that we have Category:AfD debates relisted 3 or more times, which can be monitored, but not Category:AfD debates relisted 2 or more times, I'd suggest that we change the RELIST recommendation and our practices from relisting twice to relisting three times.

Finally, I wonder if we can have a page that could be watchlisted that would be updated by the bot and would list nominations that have had no participants for 2-3 runs, like WP:AA, that we, active AfD particpants, could then easily flag and prioritize? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:40, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

• Or we could just treat them as PRODs. Just another option. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:13, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
• If an AfD has been relisted twice and had no participation, I don't think a third relist is going to help. If you look at the ones that are relisted three times, most end up being closed as no consensus anyway. Relisting indefinitely until there is at least one participant will just clog up AfD and waste people's time. I agree with Someguy1221, they should be treated as PRODs. If no one has objected after two weeks, WP:NOQUORUM should be followed and the AfD should be either relisted a third time at the closer's discretion, closed as soft delete or closed as no consensus with NPASR.
  I like the idea of a page for monitoring nominations with no participants. That could be a useful and might decrease the number of AfDs that go two or three relists with no comment. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:46, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
  • These can be found using User:Cyberpower678's current AfD listing, though unfortunately that's not currently being purged of closed discussions: Noyster (talk), 10:28, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
    • Thanks Noyster, I'd not seen that before. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:42, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
• Agree with Someguy1221: if nobody has opposed seven days after the first relisting then it's uncontroversial, so treat as WP:PROD. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:49, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose The AFD process does not scale because it concentrates all the discussions in one place. It is already dysfunctional and the proposal would cause it collapse completely as you'd get an ever-increasing number of Flying Dutchmen which would result in a template overload. Instead, people should be considering alternatives such as pure wiki deletion. Andrew D. (talk) 09:01, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
• Note. There was a proposal last year to treat AfDs that don't receive participation as PRODs. The number of relistings was subject to an RfC in 2010. – Uanfala (talk) 09:02, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose As noted by several people above, AFDs with no objections are functionally WP:PRODs anyways. If anything, we should spell that out more explicitly, that AFDs which lack comments are treated as uncontested PRODs. --Jayron32 13:46, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Do you want to break AFD? Because that's how you break AFD. I'm not opposed to relisting in general, but am opposed to requiring indefinite relisting. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:55, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose I support the idea of treating them like PRODs, but when this has been mentioned in the past I recall there was some opposition to it. I closed one of the two AfDs above because I've been trying to help with the backlog here. As mentionuned already, a third realist rarely results in enough !votes to do anything other than close as no consensus. From a functional perspective I honestly think a speedy renomination might draw more comments than another realist (though that is just speculation). TonyBallioni (talk) 14:08, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
• For reference, as a semi-frequent AfD closer I either skip, relist (if there is only one or no relists or if the deletion rationale is questionable) or delete with a cite to WP:SOFTDELETE (if there are at least two relists, a reasonable deletion reason and no dissent). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:32, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. Barring a previously removed WP:PROD, they should be treated just like proposed deletions because they are functionally equivalent. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:39, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
• Comment – Lots of oppose arguments suggest that such discussions should be treated as expired PRODs (also known as "soft deletion"). However, that is not what happened with the two AfDs that Piotrus cites above, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martine van Loon and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marvin Litwak. They were both closed instead by non-administrators as "no consensus without prejudice against speedy recreation". Perhaps what we really need is to amend WP:NACD to only allow administrators to make the determination whether to close as soft delete or to close as no consensus. This is coming from a non-admin who has made such "no consensus without prejudice" closures in the past: I typically only made such closes when there was one clearly expressed opposition to deletion (similar to a deprod), but no other comments beyond that and the nomination. If there was a discussion with no comments at all besides the nomination, I would save the closure for the administrators so that they may decide whether to soft delete, which seems to be the preferred outcome. (TL;DR: If there have been no comments to an AfD besides the nomination, non-administrators should not close it.) Mz7 (talk) 01:31, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
• 'Oppose. In both cases, I would say it was Piotr's fault. Weak non-nominations like that, "I think", "it seems", would be better speedy closed for failing to make a deletion rational. The nominator should be championing the proposal, not throwing questions out there. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:58, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

  And both of these nominations ask questions, so could also have been closed as WP:SK#2 WP:NPASR disruption, as AfD is not a forum to pose questions.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:48, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

  I wouldn't go for WP:SK#2, just #1. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:26, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

  And I would !vote to overturn any speedy keep closure of either nomination at DRV. There is very clearly a deletion rationale in both nominations: that the available coverage does not satisfy WP:GNG. "It seems" and "I think" are extremely common phrases used for politeness – yes, they could be eliminated to make the nomination sound more assertive, but an argument is definitely still being made. Mz7 (talk) 03:56, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

  An AfD nominator is supposed to give reasons for deletion. Not meeting the GNG AND there being no merge target is a good reason. Someone thinking there may be a deletion reason is not a deletion reason. The nominator should present evidence of having tried, not just throw up questions for later reviewers to do the work. When Piotr does that, it is no surprise at all that AFD reviewers pass it over. And if he keeps doing it, maybe unscintillating is right, he is disrupting AfD with half-arsed nominations. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:26, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

  But alternatively, support barring Non-Admins from closing uncontested XfDs (or at least non admins who have not discovered how to use {{db-xfd}}.) They should !vote instead. A non admin providing the first responding !vote is far more valuable than providing a non-close. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:38, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose  AfD volunteers are not the problem.  Reading these AfDs occurs in seeing that the community has clearly expressed an opinion.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:48, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - As a frequent AFD closer I more or less close on 2 relists as relisting for a third time achieves absolutely nothing, When I used to do relisting I would relist for a third time ... and found it to be an utter waste of time, But anyway I do agree on that we should treat them like prods - If no one comments after 2 weeks/at the end of the 2nd relist then softdelete them. –Davey2010^Talk 03:19, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose- Treating them equivalently to a non-disputed PROD is a better solution. That, incidentally, is what should have happened with the two articles that prompted this discussion. Reyk _YO! 09:33, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

  Looking at the first, "Be sure you have a valid reason for deletion. Consider alternatives to deletion like improving the article, merging or redirecting" was not met, and so the nomination wasn't even good enough for PROD. The nominator was not sure there was a valid reason. The subsequent redirect shows that AfD was the wrong step. WP:BEFORE had not been followed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:07, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

  Today I learned that asking rhetorical questions is a sign of indecision. Reyk _YO! 12:02, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

  There is a subtlety to rhetorical questions that doesn't survive brevity and text-only communication. Knowing that the nominator is reliable is an underlying premise to your position, a premise often not true. On face value, the nomination is a gut reaction without any work done. Nominators should champion their proposal, assert their case, so that others can simply check. As an xfd reviewer, I resent nominations that require to reviewers to do more work than the nominator. Nominators should state a proper deletion reason in simple explicit terms, not in subtle rhetoric. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:12, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: If, instead of either closing or relisting, the person reviewing the AfD would assess the nomination and add an opinion of their own, then all AfDs would have at least one opinion in addition to that of the nominator: Noyster (talk), 10:28, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

  Yes. Relisters should comment, not relist, unless there is some point to relisting. Usually, relists are pointless. If a relister has done the bare minimum of reading the discussion and determined that it is not ready for closing, they should be required, at a minimum, to say why it is not ready. Ideally, they should identify an open question preventing a Soft Delete. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:20, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

• Oh, non-admins closed them this way? In that case, I'm just overturning them in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator, as that is fairly clearly something akin to WP:Relist bias. Non-admins can't delete, so they close like this instead of leaving them for an administrator who can treat them like a PROD. Non-admins shouldn't be closing such discussions. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:16, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

  That's a very valid point too, Rob. Non admins obviously are biased against closing as "soft delete". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:23, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

  Do you feel better for doing that ? ... Admins also closed this way and have done since atleast 2015, If admins treated these like prods in the bloody first place these wouldn't needed to be closed as such but hey you're the "experienced" admin who knows absolutely everything!. –Davey2010^Talk 23:23, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

  Oh BTW BU Rob13 you've missed one. –Davey2010^Talk 23:25, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

  @Davey2010: First, that one was redirected to a valid target. Second, I'm not quite sure why you're upset. You, yourself, stated we should treat them as PRODs above. I'm equally critical of the administrators who relist discussions like these, and I've stated my opinion on that before. WP:NACD, a guideline, states "Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to admins". WP:NOQUORUM provides no less than five possible actions for "no quorum" discussions, so it's clear such discussions are "close calls". Ergo, non-admins should not close them, per an existing guideline. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:29, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

  I'm upset because you didn't bother asking me first - I appreciate technically admins can revert anyone however it's common courtesy to ask them first (and had you asked I would've reverted instantly), That aside had this been an admin you wouldn't of reverted at all, I agree I do but seeing plenty of admins close this way you just assume this is the way it's done and as I said above If admins closed them as delete then I obviously wouldn't of ever touched them in the first place, Unfortunately plenty of editors have closed this way because many have simply seen admins do it and assume it's the correct way. –Davey2010^Talk 23:39, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

  @Davey2010: I apologized for not consulting you directly first. I took your comment above supporting this general idea as indicative that you would support such an action. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:44, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

  BU Rob13 - I support the proposal of treating 2/3 relists as soft delete but I don't support being reverted the way you had although I understand the reasons why etc etc, But anyway no worries and I apologize for getting abit annoyed with you, Anyway it's all in the past, Shit happens as they say lol, Anyway happy editing :), –Davey2010^Talk 01:31, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

  @BU Rob13: commenting here as the other non-admin involved. I would have been fine treating it as a soft delete (but I now see the PROD you placed on Martine van Loon has been contested and the page converted to a redirect.) I just want to echo Davey2010's concerns here though: there has not been a consistent application of soft deletes on these articles by administrators. For those of us who try to help out with the non-controversial closes, it does look like this is the correct way to close something that has been relisted twice without comment and the WP:NAC essay even lists it as a valid thing to do. I am 100% behind treating AfDs with no discussion after a certain period of time as PRODs, and will refrain from closing double relists with no discussion in the future, but we should be more clear on how we are treating these cases in general, because as I think this discussion is showing, there is a general consensus for soft deletion. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:01, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

  @TonyBallioni: As you were writing that, I was writing the formal proposed language below. As for the essay, I'm quite surprised to find that there. I've removed it, as it's clear from this thread that such closes are controversial. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:06, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

  "is a general consensus for soft deletion" subject to the AfD having a substantive and persuasive nomination meeting at least the requirement of WP:PROD#Nominating point 1, and the deleting admin using their discretion to agree with it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:09, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

  @SmokeyJoe: See my proposed wording below. While I've noted that "soft deletion" is the "typical" outcome, I've quite literally stated they should be treated like expired PRODs and wikilinked to WP:PROD. This is to make it clear that the closing administrator can exercise discretion, as always, on whether to delete or not. They should have a decent reason if they're declining to delete, though. In other words, I'm proposing soft deletion as the default outcome, but not the only outcome. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:14, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

  Yes, thank you. I would like to also emphasise my main reaction to the OP, which could be: "An AfD nomination should be at least as comprehensive as a minimal PROD rationale". I think the whole problem here may be rooted in the problem of too-soft deletion rationales. Softly worded deletion rationales are not very easy to respond to usefully. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:18, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose, it would then depend on the initial proposal. If the person who filed the AfD was in fact arguing to delete the article, their argument was sound and policy-based, and no one has objected to or refuted it after the maximum time has elapsed, that is a "delete" result. If their argument was poor or not based in policy, or it was a "procedural" nomination where the nominator wasn't arguing to delete, that's a "no consensus" result with no prejudice against speedy renomination. We already do too many relists, let's not just keep at them. At some point, it comes time to call the discussion closed. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:43, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. Formalistic in the extreme; these should be treated as expired PRODs. Neutrality^talk 19:51, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose In favor of the below alternatives. If no one is commenting then either there's no consensus for deletion or there's a consensus of one, like a PROD. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose – The "soft delete" idea below is much more elegant. — JFG ^talk 21:41, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support. The problem is lack of participation in AFD. That problem should be solved by, for instance, neutrally listing AfDs that lack participants at WikiProjects or other boards/pages. Or set up a board specifically for AfDs without participants. Nowadays, in my opinion, we have far too many rabid deletionists on Wikipedia who AfD scores of articles without doing the least bit of WP:BEFORE. Softlavender (talk) 07:16, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose indefinitely relisting. We'll end up otherwise with a 16,000 backlog like New Page Patrol that even after the recent campaign, users are not in the slightest bit interested in addressing. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:28, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose, the backlog can get bad enough already without infinite relists... ansh666 19:11, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - At some point the discussion has to end, especially if no one bothered to drop by to discuss. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 13:12, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - This seems a solution in search of a problem, I haven't noticed an uptick in zero-discussion AfDs. After two relists, treat them like PRODs. Carrite (talk)

Counter-proposal: Treating these like PRODs

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

In a case like this where there is a clear super-majority for one option, a closer needs to make it clear that they have reviewed all the discussion, not merely counted noses to come to a conclusion. In particular, I reviewed the "oppose" !votes below for any points that other editors may have overlooked, especially policy, legal, or technical reasons that would overrule consensus. I see no arguments that would fall into those categories. There are arguments about deletionist/inclusionist bias and requests for clarification on details (e.g., number of relists) which may need to be addressed in the normal WP:BRD cycle. Accordingly the consensus is for treating this type of AfD discussion like a PROD (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

---

No-one's formally proposed this solution above, but it certainly has received a lot of support. Let's see if there's actual consensus for it. I propose changing the text of WP:NOQUORUM to the following:

If a nomination has received no comments from any editor besides the nominator and the article hasn't been declined for proposed deletion in the past, the closing administrator should treat the AfD nomination as an expired PROD. Generally, this will result in soft deletion (see below), but administrators should evaluate the nominating statement as they would a PROD rationale. See WP:PROD for more details.

If the nomination has received very few comments, has received no comments but appears controversial to the closing administrator, or has been declined for proposed deletion in the past, the discussion may be closed at the closer's discretion and best judgement. Common options include, but are not limited to:

• relisting the discussion (see the section 'Relisting discussions');
• closing as "no consensus" with no prejudice against speedy renomination (NPASR); and
• closing in favour of the nominator's stated proposal.
• Soft deletion is a special kind of deletion which may be used after an article's deletion discussion. If a deletion discussion sees very little discussion even after being relisted several times, the administrator can close the discussion as soft delete and delete the page. However, in this case, the article can be restored for any reason on request. If your article was soft-deleted, you can request it be restored at Requests for undeletion. The closer should make it clear the deletion is a soft delete as part of the close, ideally with a link to this guideline.
• There is consensus among the community that problematic or likely-problematic articles with an appropriate redirection target may be blanked and redirected by any editor if there are no objections. This similarly applies to deletion nominations as well; if no editor suggests that the corresponding article should be kept, then redirection is an option.

References

Note that most of the text is the same, but I have cut out a "special case" where no comments have been made other than the nominator, in which case the nomination will be treated as an expired PROD. In the spirit of our current PROD process, articles that have had a PROD declined will not be considered as expired PRODs, since PRODs are meant to occur only once per article. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:03, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Turning this into an actual RfC to get more input. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:53, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

• The text should repeat the first PROD requirement, reworded:

  The nominator was sure there is a valid reason for deletion. The nominator considered alternatives to deletion like improving the article, merging or redirecting.

  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:13, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

  @SmokeyJoe: I'm trying to avoid repeating the entirety of WP:PROD, as that would get quite wordy. There's lots of other things that could be added here as well. How about changing the last sentence of the first paragraph to "Generally, this will result in soft deletion (see below), but administrators should evaluate the nominating statement as they would a PROD rationale. See WP:PROD for more details." (bold just to emphasize changes). ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:16, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

  I've made the proposed change to the above proposal, explicitly referring editors to WP:PROD and noting they should use their discretion, assuming it addresses the above concerns. Please let me know if it does not, SmokeyJoe. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:48, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

  It's good, thanks. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:28, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support, though I assume that it is understood that "the closing administrator should treat the AfD nomination as an expired PROD" means that the article is not a past declined PROD, meaning it is not listed in Category:Past proposed deletion candidates. For such cases, it might be good to find a way to advertise them, or for potential closers to be even more strongly encouraged to !vote instead of relisting. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:32, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support this makes sense. It will reduce the number of unnecessary relists and decrease the bureaucracy and backlog at AfD. Overall I think it is good for the encyclopedia. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
• Caution – We also have to balance the scenario where an AfD simply slips through the cracks—i.e. people would be interested in commenting, but they just haven't seen the discussion. Many, many AfDs that receive no comments in the first seven days ultimately result in an alternative to deletion not suggested by the nominator after one or two relists. This proposal would have deleted each one of those. Mz7 (talk) 16:30, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose  An AfD discussion is reviewed many times by many editors, including administrators, and each of these decisions is a decision that comment is not needed.  Relisters are not mindless robots.  So while a PROD is related, the community has not weighed in on a prod.  In an AfD, the closer can use judgement to consider why the community has not weighed in.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:58, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Noting my support for my own proposed change, now that I've turned this into an RfC. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:54, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support - this makes sense, and something like this has a loose precedent at RFD, where it was unproblematic.Tazerdadog (talk) 07:47, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I should note this is the norm at WP:TFD as well, where it's also unproblematic. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 08:09, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: The structure and wording of the proposal need to be made a lot clearer. Virtually all the existing text has just been copied over, leaving a confusing mish-mash. Since the nominator's preference should always be "delete" (otherwise the nomination is invalid), what this proposal seems to boil down to is "closing as soft-delete is recommended in most cases, but other closing options are: no consensus with NPASR; relist; redirect; and other actions not specified here": Noyster (talk), 11:18, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support --Jayron32 11:55, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose There is no evidence that there's a need for this so I took a look at a recent day's worth: November 12. There were 66 nominations and only two of them seemed to have no comment. The first case was closed early as some sort of IAR. That was effectively a comment treated as a supervote. The other case was a repeat nomination. The first discussion established that, while the article had some issues, the subject was notable. The repeat nominations seem to be cases of WP:KEEPLISTINGTILLITGETSDELETED and we should not encourage hopes that editors can keep nominating something that they just don't like until everyone gets heartily sick of it and the article is then deleted by default. In neither of these cases was deletion the correct outcome and it is our long-standing position that we do not default to delete.
  What ought to happen in the small number of cases which attract no comment is that the editor who wants to close should instead exert themselves to actually investigate and make a comment. Editors who don't have enough know-how to do this should not be making closes as these are not supposed to be just a mechanical matter of pushing buttons.
  Andrew D. (talk) 13:12, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support - I see no reason why these should not be treated as expired prods. If nobody objects, we can assume that the deletion is noncontroversial, just as expired prods are. Avenues to undeletion would remain available in the very rare case of something falling through the cracks. Neutrality^talk 19:51, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose, as it removes closer discretion. Esquivalience (talk) 21:43, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  • @Esquivalience: Part of the proposed text changes above states that the administrator can choose any of the existing potential outcomes when the discussion "has received no comments but appears controversial to the closing administrator". The intention of that text is to allow closers to continue exercising their discretion. Could you clarify how you think discretion is being removed and whether a change in wording might change your mind? I think it's quite clear that admins retain discretion, but if you don't believe it's clear, I'm happy to alter the text. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 11:19, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support: Speeds up the overall process, making lives easier for everyone on the encyclopedia. If this were proposed, then no consensus closures will be greatly diminished, as I believe a determining decision should be made as opposed to none. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 13:56, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support - I fail to view any reason as to why these undiscussed AfDs should not be treated in the same manner as expired prods. If nobody objects(and nobody supports), we can safely assume that the deletion is warranted & non-controversial.In any case the button to delete would remain available in the very hands of the closing admin and he can comment and refuse the argument of deletion in the rare case of something fishy(suppose a less-viewed article is marked for deletion etc.)/non-warrantable(subject has notability/sourceable etc.)Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 10:17, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support This seems like a reasonable alternative. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:28, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - No matter how limited discussion is, the result of the discussion should remain within the closer's discretion. If there's no consensus towards a specific outcome, even is said consensus (or lack thereof) is due to a lack of quorum, is still no consensus. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:00, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  • ... which is why soft deletion allows any dissenting editor in the future to go to WP:REFUND and get the article back. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:29, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support absolutely. I stand by my proposal made a few months ago. SSTflyer 11:11, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support Looks a sensible solution to the multiple relists that keep occurring with absolutely no participation. Lourdes 13:53, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
• Conditional support for cases where the article was neither deleted in the past (per PROD or this proposed policy) and not discussed previously at AFD for the past year (to counter the WP:KEEPLISTINGTILLITGETSDELETED strategy - give time for consensus to change). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:43, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  • @Od Mishehu: I hesitate to list those further restrictions out (avoiding instruction creep), but I think they're both covered by "has received no comments but appears controversial to the closing administrator". I would be very surprised if any administrator interpreted that phrase any differently; it's really just common sense. Is that sufficient? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:32, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Only logical: one vote to delete (nom), no objections. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:55, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support. This strikes me as a common sense approach and still gives the closing administrator a range of options to choose from as opposed to prescribing a set, mechanical procedure. WaggersTALK 08:55, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support – Sounds like a fair and unbureaucratic solution, which should be making everyone's life easier. — JFG ^talk 21:41, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
• Conditional support (only if reslisted twice and still receives no input) I have now struck my original comment to make it clear that I will support only if the AFD has not received any input after 2 relists. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:00, 25 December 2016 (UTC) Support This is a clean solution per WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:12, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support - but the community should be looking into why such articles are being created in the first place or sent to AfD. Only experienced users who are regularly involved with the physical viewing of the 1,000 or so articles that arrive every day are likely to know the answer to this. UNqualified page patrollers ostensibly do not familiarise themselves with any instructions, policies, or guidelines. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:01, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support per WP:Silence. If no one, not even the article creator, saw a need to defend the article (as in the case of an expired PROD), it can safely assumed that there is consensus by silence to delete it. In all event, at least two users agree with deletion: the nominator, and the closing admin, so that's 2-nil. --Dps04 (talk) 11:13, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
• Pinging Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 69#Treat uncontested AfDs as uncontroversial deletions participants who have not commented here: Omni Flames (talk · contribs), Bellerophon (talk · contribs), Davey2010 (talk · contribs), Robert McClenon (talk · contribs), SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs), Dps04 (talk · contribs), Seraphimblade (talk · contribs), Jbhunley (talk · contribs), Opabinia regalis (talk · contribs), Steve Quinn (talk · contribs), IJBall (talk · contribs), Satellizer (talk · contribs), Hamid Hassani (talk · contribs), Fastily (talk · contribs), Darwinian Ape (talk · contribs), SMcCandlish (talk · contribs), Malcolmxl5 (talk · contribs), Notecardforfree (talk · contribs), ansh666 (talk · contribs), Atlantic306 (talk · contribs), Herostratus (talk · contribs), Mz7 (talk · contribs), Fieari (talk · contribs), Mark viking (talk · contribs), Lankiveil (talk · contribs), Jkudlick (talk · contribs), Shoy (talk · contribs), Michig (talk · contribs), Thincat (talk · contribs), Hobit (talk · contribs), Blythwood (talk · contribs), Hydronium Hydroxide (talk · contribs), Montanabw (talk · contribs), Jclemens (talk · contribs), llywrch (talk · contribs), Kvng (talk · contribs), Carlossuarez46 (talk · contribs), st170e (talk · contribs), Maile66 (talk · contribs), Aoziwe (talk · contribs), Jjjjjjdddddd (talk · contribs), Softlavender (talk · contribs), Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs), Masem (talk · contribs), Alansohn (talk · contribs), Kudpung (talk · contribs), and GermanJoe (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 07:09, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

  Thanks; I would have missed this, and do care.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  11:40, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

  Thanks for pinging those editors, Cunard. I had no idea that discussion existed. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:54, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

  Thanks for the ping Cunard. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 13:12, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support, without prejudice against caution. As I said in the earlier discussion, this is essentially the same as a prod, and the "an admin might not agree with the deletion and might not want to perform it" is a self-fixing concern: the admin can just !vote keep, thereby completely mooting the "this is an unchallenged AfD nomination" scenario. That said, I don't see any problem re-listing unchallenged AfDs a single time, in case someone does come up with a non-deletion fix. But the higher-up-this-page proposal to relist them forever? Um, no. (Specifically per WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY.)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  11:40, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
• oppose Too easy for things to slip through. If the nominator wants to prod it after there are no comments at the AfD, they can do that (assuming it is eligible for a PROD). Hobit (talk) 12:38, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

  @Hobit: No, it's not. Per WP:PROD, third paragraph: "It must not be used for articles PRODed before or previously discussed on AfD." --Redrose64 (talk) 22:26, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

  Fine point, I was worried about people using an unattended AfD as a way to "reprod" and article, but didn't think about the fact that the current AfD would be in issue. Still going to stick with the "oppose" because IME easy calls get someone to !vote, it's the hard calls that generally don't. But yeah, I'm wrong.

  Nah, User:Redrose64, User:Hobit. If the AfD received no comments, it was not "discussed on AfD". I think actually that Hobit's idea is good. An AfD nomination that receives no comments should be fed into the PROD system, but not immediately deleted. No comments means the AfD review system has failed. There is a separate PROD review system (a few editors review them), and that system should be allowed to run its usual course without prejudice. I guess this means that an admin closer may softdelete, and a non-admin closer should be advised to PROD the article. My first preference would be for the non admin closer to !vote. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:37, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support. This seems like a no-brainer. Arguments against this look like the similar types of excessively WP:BURO arguments used in the past. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:15, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support - Easy support, If an AFD has next to no !votes then it should have the option of being SOFTDELETED. (Thanks Cunard for the ping - I had indeed missed this so thank you :)). –Davey2010^Talk 13:27, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support mostly I think if I understand all of the above after my quick skim of it all. A couple of possibly extra conditions though. If it has come to AfD for whatever reason rather than a PROD then it is more serious than a PROD, so perhaps after the first relisting and no comment the last ten non bot editors of the article should be pinged as part of the second relisting. If still nothing then yes just PROD expire it. However, if it has already been PRODed and that was contested, then it cannot be treated as a PROD because an article cannot be double PRODed, so in that case the article stays and has to wait until it can be rePRODed before it can be reAfDed or PRODed. If we treat it as a PROD then it must be treated in all aspects as a PROD? Yes to soft delete / easy retore. Yes to restricting to Administrator closure. Aoziwe (talk) 13:30, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support this saves the need to relist again and again Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:05, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support but I'd like to see a couple things changed:

  "received no comments" → "received no comments advocating a particular outcome" (many people comment just to drop a source, ask a question, remark on a contributor, etc.).

  "hasn't been declined for proposed deletion in the past" → "has been neither declined for proposed deletion or nominated for deletion and kept" (may be obvious, but why not make it explicit).

  Along the lines with the first: "very few comments" → "at least one comment advocating a particular outcome but insufficient participation to determine consensus" (may require tweaking the sentence organization)

  I'd like to see NPASR removed if this passes. What reason would there be that wouldn't be counter to this proposal? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:15, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

  • @Rhododendrites: I don't particularly disagree with any of these points (except perhaps the utility of NPASR in cases where relisting is no longer appropriate but the discussion seems possibly controversial). On the other hand, I think tinkering with the text at this point would make it harder to find consensus. We're two weeks into this discussion. I think we should revisit these more minor details after this is closed, assuming there's consensus for this change. Alternatively, at least some of these suggestions (such as the addition of the past "keep" exception) may have potential as WP:BOLD additions after this discussion closes. I try to avoid altering the wording of proposals even when the change appears likely to be uncontroversial after this many comments have been made. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:01, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
    • @BU Rob13: To be clear, my support is not conditional on this changes, and I agree that attempting to change the wording of the RfC would make a mess. My hope is that if this proposal is successful, tweaks like these will be uncontroversial (or, at least, the gist of them). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:50, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
• Comment if this goes ahead, it perhaps should be limited to articles that have gone 3 weeks without comment regarding deletion as comments do come in at the last minute in a number of cases. Atlantic306 (talk) 14:30, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support A good idea, that will help with deletion processes and reduce backlog at AfD. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 16:18, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support, with the caveat that the closer should consider commenting, relisting, or otherwise advertising the AfD, and only resorting to soft deletion if it seems very unlikely to see further participation. ansh666 19:11, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support: formalising my !vote of 08:49, 18 November 2016 at the initial thread. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support pretty sure I've supported this proposal or something like it a few times now :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:56, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support, seems eminently sensible to me. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:47, 6 December 2016 (UTC).
• Oppose, as I understand the proposal it allows a closer to mechanically convert quiet AfDs to completed PRODs. Someone has to vouch for having taken care of WP:BEFORE before anything is deleted soft or otherwise. I would support allowing anyone to convert an AfD to a PROD at any point so long as there has been no AfD discussion and PROD requirements are met. As a technical note, PROD policy doesn't allow proposing deletion of a article nominated for deletion. I would support adjusting this to allow quiet AfDs to use PROD. So, in effect, I actually support the proposal but I think the 7-day PROD review period should still apply if this option is to be used for quiet AfDs as there are different reviewers for the different deletion processes. ~Kvng (talk) 11:20, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

  Why is the 7 days of an AFD not enough when there is an AFD banner at the top of the article, but the 7 days of a PROD is enough when there is a PROD banner at the top of the article? Can you explain the inconsistency of your rationale? --Jayron32 11:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm suggesting that if you're going to convert and AfD to a PROD, PROD policies should be used from there forward. AfD and PROD policies may be inconsistent with each other. I don't think that is something we need to address as part of this proposal. Just follow the applicable policy. WP:PRODPATROLLERS such as myself would like to have the 7-day PROD period to review before these things are deleted. My participation at AfD is topic specific so it is unlikely I will have already seen an AfD before it is converted to PROD. ~Kvng (talk) 17:36, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Jayron, 7 days is ok for prods because prods, by their very nature, are supposed to be obvious and unlikely to generate any controversy. AfDs, on the other hand, are there because their claim is possibly controversial... the most common AfD reason, for example, is lack of sources (in the article), but this means that in order to verify that the deletion is valid, people need to go and actually look for sources. This simply takes time, and it takes more time than prods require. Fieari (talk) 23:44, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Can you point to where I proposed that Admins would automatically delete these without looking critically at them? Because I was not aware THAT was the operating procedure with PRODs, and if it was, then PROD is broken beyond repair. If, however, PROD works as it is supposed to, where the admin looking at the PROD makes their own assessment as to whether to delete or not, and could possibly just remove the PROD and note the rationale was invalid, I fail to see why an admin would ALSO not be just in doing that with a dead AFD after 7 days. You've not made ONE argument why an admin SHOULD respond differently to an AFD. If admins deal with PRODS appropriately, that is use their own judgment and sometimes also not delete the article if it doesn't deserve it, you have not made a case why they could ALSO not do that with an AFD. --Jayron32 01:18, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

PROD is intended to work as you say. Administrators are supposed to validate grounds for deletion. And I assume they do this. On the other hand, there is no reasonable way for a non-administrator to check whether or not this is actually happening. So we have 7-days for non-administrators to have a look at this stuff before it goes behind the curtain. ~Kvng (talk) 14:48, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. PROD and low-input AfD are different and are watched by different people with different ways of approaching. By all means if a low-input AfD doesn't generate a decision, close as no consensus and then send it to PROD if you like. If low-input AfD are to be treated like prod, then the following ought to be allowed: "Well, its been re-listed twice, and there there's still only one vote plus the nominator. But I support the article, so -- treating it like a PROD -- I'm contesting the deletion request and therefore removing the AfD banner and saving the article". Right? Herostratus (talk) 19:20, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - Thanks for the ping. As I understand this proposal, it is suggesting that after 7 days, instead of relisting, just go ahead and softdelete as if it were a prod and the admin agrees with the proposer's reasoning. I strongly oppose this idea. AfD is understaffed (undervolunteered?) and all too often, there just aren't enough eyeballs... it's not that no one cares about it, it's that no one has even looked at it. I think it wouldn't be so bad if articles relisted three times could then be treated as prods, but for the first week? Absolutely not. Do not do this! Repeat: I would consider a policy of treating AfDs that have been relisted 2 or 3 times as if they were prods to be okay, but NOT after 1 week. For those asking why it matters, since the admin basically gets a vote him/herself? It's because AfD has an active minority population who may be a little bit trigger happy on proposing deletions, and who will claim deletion criteria (such as non-notable) without doing due-dilligence first... so the proposed reasoning looks good, but with some actual research, it should be kept. This simply takes TIME. And 1 week is not enough. Fieari (talk) 03:24, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support if and only if the AfD has been relisted twice and still not received comment (i.e. after 21 days). — Jkudlick • t • c • s 13:12, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. This seems to be a move in the direction of more deletionism, mergism and redirectionism, of which we have too much already in encyclopedia. I have seen many uncommented afd's where it was certainly controverial to delete said article, yet commentators are sometimes too busy to comment or may have glanced over it, or may have felt that since the discussion was not leaning in any direction, they were fine with it as seeming neutral-leaning. I believe this proposal will destroy the process of articlea creation since article creation isn't easy and takes a lot of time. If this proposal gets the go-ahead I will see it as a slap int ehface of content-creators, and another sign that content creators are treated horribly by Wikipedia. Not all content creators are savvy enough to go retrieve a deleted article. And it is a hundred times harder to start an article from scratch than it is to improve an existing one. The only way in which I might support this proposal is if the article creator is considered to be an automatic keep vote, although even that is iffy. This proposal is so horrible that I am considering never contributing to this Wikipedia again if it passes. All the "support" voters are clearly unaware that the AfD process has a vigorous community of trigger happy nominators, some of whom nominate articles merely to get their edit count up. I can only see Wikipedia going downhill from here if this passes. It seems that this has enough votes to pass, hence I will conclude that Wikipedia (as it stands now) is an enemy to the content creator, and are treated as if they are discardable. The proposer falsely assumes that all wikiedians log into their account at least once a week, hence verybody must have seen the deletion-banner. Proposals such as these are the reason why there is a knowledge ga in wikipedia, with tons of possible articles uncovered. Whats the point of creating an article when you have the horrible choices of (a) creating a stub know stubs are easy meat for deletion (b) creating a comprehensive that takes a ton of time and energy (c) leave a noteworthy topic uncreated without any hassle whatsoever. 92.19.191.33 (talk) 13:52, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support with the additional condition that the debate has been relisted in an attempt to get more participation. The idea makes sense: such a deletion nomination has been uncontested and is presumably uncontroversial. As it stands such a debate would likely be closed as no consensus, which doesn't benefit anyone. If the closer does feel that the nomination is flawed or controversial then they do have the option of leaving a comment in the discussion, at which point the debate would no longer fall under these conditions. Hut 8.5 22:16, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support Leaving it to the closer's judgement should resolve most problems. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 07:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support The same result would have occurred if the nominator had not sought the community's input, and just placed a PROD tag. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 23:17, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support, these days it is easier to get something deleted via PROD than via AFD. Renata (talk) 23:39, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Neutral – I've thought about this for a long time, and I cannot bring myself to either support or oppose as it is written. Since the 30-day mark just passed by, I figure I might as well jot down my thought process. This proposal affects AfDs that receive no comments after seven days (not after two or three relists as some others have suggested), and I fully understand the objections to that: as I pointed out in a comment above, many many AfDs are closed with an alternative to deletion that was not considered in the first seven-day listing period. This is because most AfD patrollers only look at "today's log"; given the high volume, it is easy for an AfD to remain unnoticed on its first day, and a relist brings the discussion it back to "today's log" for another opportunity to be seen. On that same basis, I opposed the proposal earlier this year to "treat uncontested AfDs as uncontroversial deletions".

  I recognize, however, that this proposal is different than the one earlier this year. It does not impose a rigid requirement that AfDs must close as soft delete after seven days. What it does is ask the closing administrator to more strongly consider soft deletion as an option once no comments have passed after seven days: i.e. deleting if there is no obvious reason not to. This proposed practice is technically not disallowed under current guidelines: PROD-like "soft deletion" is an option that closing administrators should consider, among the options to relist the dicussion and to close as "no consensus without prejudice against speedy renomination". However, in current practice, uncontested nominations are typically relisted on sight.

  Now, it might streamline the process to "just treat them like PRODs", and such a change would be welcomed. That's the primary reason why I hesitate to oppose "officially". But what I can't seem to let go of is the fact that they're not PRODs. There should be a reason why a user would consciously decide to forgo the PROD process and choose to create an AfD, and that should be that the user believes it is controversial and wants to see a consensus on the matter. I fear that users will start ignoring the PROD process since uncontested AfDs would become functionally the same, with the convenient exception that a random IP cannot remove an AfD notice. I would support the proposal wholeheartedly if it were tweaked to recommend PROD treatment after one or two relists. Mz7 (talk) 07:44, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support I really like this option. AfDs in areas of low community interest can struggle to garner much comment. The Prod system is a good one and I really like the guidance offered in the second half of the proposal. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:46, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
• Strong Support It would seem to me that if there is no one fixing the problem, the notability may be a problem (admittedly it may merely be a problem with interest instead). Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:51, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support- this seems a sensible solution. But I would not want administrators to be forbidden from closing them as regular delete at their discretion. Reyk _YO! 08:58, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support This seems like a good way to streamline our processes and reduce bureaucracy. I'm not worried about articles being mistakenly deleted because of a lack of eyeballs, since with fewer relists clogging up the AfD queue we should be able to get more eyeballs on each article. --Cerebellum (talk) 21:14, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
• Note to closer: Please see my comment below. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:12, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
• Strong support The admin closing the AfD is probably more knowledgeable about guidelines than any of the participants anyway. Laurdecl ^talk 11:34, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support defaulting to delete after a finite number of relists (say 2, as others have proposed above) has not generated any input. Weak support defaulting to delete after 1 week (too short but better than relisting mindlessly). Deryck C. 17:28, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. In my opinion the issue is not the articles themselves, but rather low participation at AfD. We need to figure out a way to increase participation (by experienced editors) at AfD. For myself, I realize that I forget about AfD because it's out of my mind unless I have seen something at a noticeboard or Wikiproject or someone's talkpage. There needs to be a system of listing orphan AfDs at WikiProjects or other locations to drum up participation. Or maybe there should be a reward (like a barnstar) for excellent and thoughtful and repeated AfD participation. Or remind people via the Signpost. or at CD. Or have a drive. Or etc. There's a reason we have PROD, and there's a reason we have AfD. No need to confuse or conflate them, in my opinion. Softlavender (talk) 10:43, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support after at least one and preferably two relists. Stifle (talk) 14:40, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
• Weak Support per Neutrality, with the preferences that a proposed deletion template hasn't been previously removed, and that the discussion be relisted twice. Of course, deletion in this manner shouldn't be an applicable result if the page has survived a previous deletion discussion, which I'm taking is implied. The previous sentence and first preference above per Wikipedia:Proposed deletion#Deletion #4 "never previously proposed for deletion, never undeleted, and never [previously (in these cases)] discussed at AfD" due to the the statement "treat the AfD nomination as an expired PROD". Though I'm supporting this as an improvement over the current system, Kvng makes some compelling points, hence the weak.— Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 06:36, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

• oppose (strong if that means anything) An admin evaluating a deletion discussion with no input (or not enough), should do one of the following things: 1) If they agree with nomination, vote to delete (and the next admin passing by will have a clear deletion to perform); 2) If they disagree with the nomination, vote keep/merge/... (and the next admin passing by will have a no consensus/keep to close); 3) If they are surprised that no one commented, then relist (but this should be a much rarer option than currently, as the first two options should solve many such issues) 4) If they have no opinion, do nothing (there is more work to do, move on). I think this is quite simple. I ca not understand why admins should be making ano wo/man decision justice - we're not Judge Dredd, are we? - so instead of increasing our discretionary powers, why not increase our collaboration levels? Nabla (talk) 10:58, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Clarification: Minimum number of relists

I agreed to this on the assumption that we treat them as PRODs if and only if they have not received any !votes after 2 relists (essentially a 21 day period). Is this correct? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:19, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

You may want to read the exact text of the proposal in this section. --Jayron32 13:16, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Comment: You could have just answered. By my reading of the proposal, this is not how it would work. The proposal seems to be suggesting that after 1 week, instead of relisting, simply softdelete immediately (if the admin agrees with the proposer). My !vote for this RfC is above with this in mind. Fieari (talk) 03:24, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I have modified my !vote accordingly. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:01, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose as blameless vandalism. The penultimate wp:vandalism is to delete a good page, where regular editors cannot even view the page to confirm purported content problems. But the ultimate Vandalism (with a capital "V") is to allow an enemy to merely nominate an opponent's page, or any page, wait 7 days, and voila! ExpiredPROD deletion, with no one to blame for vandalism. The enemy nominator can claim "merely nominated" and the deleter can claim "merely policy" to delete backlog of retro-PROD pages. The fallacy of the above Support !votes has been to ignore the aftereffects once automatic retro-PROD becomes law, and XfD logs become flooded with hater nominations. These automatic XfD ideas are like a powerful move in a Chess game, which would give a hater even more weaponry when opponents are on wp:Wikibreak or at holiday events focused on family and friends (like now?). In a Chess game, look several moves ahead and then not make a foolish move with disasterous consequences. Strong Oppose. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:01, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
  • PRODs can be reversed extremely easily—in fact, the WP:PROD policy states that administrators can undelete PROD-deleted pages automatically on request at WP:REFUND, no reason is necessary. This proposal would work the same way: deletions under this system could be reversed automatically on request. As for flooding the logs with hater nominations, more editors patrol the XfD log than the PROD categories in my experience, so it would actually be easier to slip a PROD through the cracks if you used the system we already have. Is this happening right now? Mz7 (talk) 17:08, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: I think this point is very important. I think a large majority, including myself, support treating AfDs with low participation as uncontested PRODs. But just from the opening statement, it wasn't obvious to me this would affect the number of relists to be done, and it seems there is disagreement about that too. So a second RfC on how many relists to do may be in order: the options could be zero (without a good reason to do otherwise), one (without a good reason to do otherwise), two (without a good reason to do otherwise), or perhaps up to admin discretion? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:12, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

  No, look again at WT:Articles for deletion/Archive 69#Treat uncontested AfDs as uncontroversial deletions.  The proposal there was, "I propose that AfD discussions which have been open for more than a week (168 hours) without any "keep" votes (policy-based or not) be closed as soft delete..."  The close was, "There is a consensus against deleting articles at AfD that have no input other than from the nominating editor."  Unscintillating (talk) 22:29, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

  I see that you are anti-soft deletion; just to clarify, my comment is intended to be anti-soft deletion as well to curb its effect given that the proposal passes, while still being broadly supportive of the idea. My comment is moot if the proposal doesn't pass. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:04, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

  No, your OP was to state the need for additional RfCs.  Your and my personal opinions are irrelevant in the immediate context.  I'm being very black and white that the current proposal is not about softdelete after one week, and that the participants as a whole understand this, even if there are questions.  If you still want more RfCs, technically you could go for two weeks, but I think that would be missing the point of the first RfC.  The current understanding at AfD is now three weeks, and IMO that is the default interpretation of the current proposal.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:37, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

  That was my interpretation too, until I read the comments of people like Mz7, Lourdes, Fieari, Jkudlick, etc. which seemed to imply the original proposal was suggested soft deletion after just seven days (by supporting it for cutting down on the number of relists, opposing it for the same reason, or supporting conditional on the two-relist tradition being preserved). So no, I don't think the participants as a whole agree on what exactly is being proposed. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:52, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose reference to relists. Better to specify "listed and open for 21 days" than for two relists. Mindless relisting is already a curse, it should not be entrenched as required for routine deletions. In fact, a relist should count against auto-deletion, as by relisting the editor has implied that further discussion is needed. If it were such a simple case for deletion, the relister could have and should have !voted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:10, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

  I disagree that relisters should necessarily participate. You need a different mindset when participating vs. closing AfDs, and most relists are done by closers who would be bogged down if they tried to participate in a few AfDs while going down a massive log trying to close debates. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:48, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

  A relister should be qualified and prepared to close if it is ready to close. Relisting a discussion that is ready to close is the wrong thing. If an AfD nomination 7 days old, with no objections, is not convincing enough to close, then there must be something to it. Anyone can AfD anything, and sometimes it is done poorly or unwisely. By relisting, a relister attests that there is something to it. This means that it should not be deleted if no one agrees. If the relister doesn't want to explain why it is not ready for closing, then the relister should leave it untouched. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:23, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

  I assume you are just referring to a normal AfD that happens to get no comments at all after 7 days right? That is a quite unorthodox view and does not represent current practice (WP:RELIST clearly states "the discussion has only a few participants" as one of the valid reasons to relist), though you're free to propose it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

  Current practice is pretty stupid. If an unparticipated AfD discussion is a clear delete, it should be closed as such. If it is not a clear delete, it should not default to delete. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:43, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

• Questions I support the closure of no-quorum discussions as a soft delete after two relistings. I don't entirely understand the proposal here. Are you saying that a no-quorum discussion should (not may) be closed without any relistings if there was no previous PROD? I would oppose that change for multiple reasons. One, I think an AfD nomination should be given more than one week for people to see and comment on it; AfD is supposed to be a more community participatory process than simple PROD. Two, I don't favor "shoulds" in this situation; I think admin discretion needs to be maintained. To me the ideal progression of such an AfD is, relist twice, then close as soft-delete - or no-consensus NPASR if the admin feels the nomination statement is weak. I do think this kind of call should be made by an admin and not done as a non-admin closure (which biases the decision toward no consensus because the non-admin does not have the option of soft deletion). --MelanieN (talk) 17:16, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Another proposal: restrict non-admin closures

I made a comment about this above, but the argument essentially boils down to this: When an AfD discussion has received no comments besides the nomination, closers are currently advised by WP:NOQUORUM to weigh between three options: 1) relist, 2) close as "no consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination" (NPASR), and 3) treat it like a PROD and close as "soft delete", which allows any editor to ask for undeletion at WP:REFUND.

Non-administrators are not capable of deleting articles, so "no consensus NPASR" and "relist" are the only outcomes technically available to them. Administrators are the only ones capable of a "soft delete" closure, and accordingly, they are the only ones capable of factoring that into their evaluation of the discussion. Rob mentioned above that this is a natural extension of the "relist bias" documented at this essay. Therefore, I propose a restriction on non-admin closures to be added to WP:NACD as follows:

• If an AfD has received no comments besides the nominator and the discussion has been relisted at least twice, the discussion should be closed by an administrator so that they may weigh the option of soft deletion.

Mz7 (talk) 07:03, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

• I updated the NAC essay to read as follows: AfDs with little or no discussion may be relisted if they're relatively new, but should not be closed as no consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination by non-admins if there is a reasonable basis put forward and there was no opposition as the closing admin is likely to Soft Delete the article. It would make sense for the text in both places to reflect the same sentiment. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:06, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for updating the essay! Mz7 (talk) 15:55, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
• The question proposed was a bit different, but what I said at, WT:Articles for deletion/Archive 69#Treat uncontested AfDs as uncontroversial deletions was,

  This proposal would make more sense if AfD nominations were typically sincere efforts to prepare the community for a deletion discussion...

  Another point to consider here, is that if the community has no interest in an AfD nomination, then the community has spoken, and what it has said is that there is no need for a discussion.

  In summary, I could support this proposal were it limited to AfD nominations that explicitly state that they are proposing deletion, and were the closing administrator to stipulate that the nomination had sufficiently prepared the AfD community as per the edit notice give to AfD nominators."

    Unscintillating (talk) 22:30, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
• I see a couple of problems with this text.  "Reasonable basis put forward" already has a guideline, which is WP:BEFORE.  How many notability AfD nominations right now show evidence of WP:BEFORE D1?  So this is currently an almost non-existant sets of AfDs that would be affected by this proposal. 

  Another problem is the words "likely to Soft Delete the article", which is not neutral wording, and might make a closing administrator think that he/she is supposed to be soft deleting articles.  Given the community input that does not consider that discussion is needed, the bias if any should lean to policy, which to preserve content contributions.

  I'm also unclear on what problem this is solving.  We already know that administrators can soft-delete articles from a NAC closure.  Where are the examples of a problem that is being solved?  I looked at the "relist bias" essay, but the example is contrived.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:30, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree that Spartaz's wording could use some tightening, and I have no problem with allowing administrators to choose between soft deletion and NPASR, depending on the nomination itself. But only an administrator should be making that judgment, since only an administrator can properly factor in the option of soft deletion (since they are the only ones that have the ability to close that way). It might be true that administrators can summarily overturn "no consensus" non-admin closures as "soft delete" per WP:NACD—and BU Rob13 did this on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marvin Litwak above—but in practice this is rarely done, and nominators are left to decide between speedily renominating (starting the cycle all over) or giving up. At some point, we have to say, "just delete it." If you want it back, you only need to ask. Mz7 (talk) 04:11, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support as proposed by Mz7. If NAC are still allowed to make the other two closure options, per 'low-hanging fruit they probably will and it will be too late for an admin to make a more appropriate closure. There is often talk of allowing such decisions (and New Page Patrolling) to be made by new and/or inexperienced users who are drawn to maintenance tasks and get it wrong, but there still remains a huge gap between them and vetted admins. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:22, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support as commonsensical, and not in competition with the above proposals (rather, the above proposal that has a lot of support).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  11:43, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support - Makes sense. If there's any possibility for an outcome that requires admin tools, an admin should be the one making the call. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:17, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support, though I'd add a clause to cut down on third relistings as well, if that's still a problem. ansh666 19:05, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
• Not so sure as per WP:CREEP, assuming the above section passes. I was going to oppose, but in writing my rationale and reading the rationales of others, I'm not 100% sure anymore. I don't have any quarrel with the content of this suggestion, but think about the context here. In my proposal above, we're making the default admin action "delete". We already don't allow non-admins to close as "delete", and we strongly discourage non-admin closes at deletion processes that are likely controversial. The default of soft deletion makes clear that non-admins cannot close these types of discussions, so I don't feel any strong need to add text spelling that out. If a non-admin can't understand that they shouldn't take action on discussions where the outcome is "soft delete" by default, they likely don't have the competence to close discussions whatsoever. Note also that my proposed text in the above section states "closing administrator" when it comes to the alternative options, so this is already in there in a somewhat subtle manner. I guess I just need convincing on the necessity of this? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:55, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  • After thinking about this a bit more, I have to oppose due to the instruction creep issues. Additionally, I believe that enumerating many specific use cases where non-admins can't close discussions may have the unexpected side effect of giving the appearance that the list is exhaustive. It's better to keep things in more general terms like "controversial vs. uncontroversial" and correct the occasional mistaken editor as necessary. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:03, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
    • This was something I came up with in the original discussion following Piotrus's proposal. If your proposal passes, and it looks like that's where it's heading, I'm totally fine with withdrawing this one to see where things go. Mz7 (talk) 22:58, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose as unnecessary instruction creep. Shooing the occasional overenthusiastic helper into something else more suited to their skillset isn't so difficult. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:20, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:CREEP. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 13:12, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support WP:CREEP should not be used to oppose beneficial instructions. Admins are the most qualified to close AfDs and the only editors able to soft delete articles. Laurdecl ^talk 11:41, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:CREEP - Adding to what BU Rob13 said in the second sentence of their oppose, I generally oppose specific restrictions or allowances (e.g. Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Allow FFD discussions to be closed as delete via NAC) regarding non-administrator closures at individual deletion venues. Furthermore, though in most circumstances I'm not a fan of NPASR closures, a non-administrator may weigh soft deletion as an option and choose not to close a discussion if they believe that is a reasonable outcome. I agree with Opabinia regalis as well, though I'd have phrased it differently. Lastly, if the page in question has survived a previous deletion discussion, no consensus and relist would be the only reasonable outcomes. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 04:01, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support When the choices are "delete" or "no consensus", a non-admin is naturally going to choose "no consensus" because that is the only one they can implement. This decision needs to be made by an administrator, and the NAC instructions should clearly say so. --MelanieN (talk) 17:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Yet Another Proposal: Create a new CSD criteria for AFD's without Participants

I'd make a different proposal in these cases: I'd lobby for the creation of a csd X3 category stating in essence that after three relists at afd with no participation of any kind an article should thereafter be treated as speedy deletion eligible for criteria given in the afd nomination.

Under this scheme then administrators would be given the latitude to make executive decisions concerning the fate of individual articles provided that they were deleted under the (as yet to be created) X3 criteria explicitly noting the executive decision in question was made because of a lack of participation at afd in addition to whatever reason(s) was/were given at the afd. This gets around the expire prod proposal above by incorporating the csd aspect into the afd process, which is diplomatically important here. The PROD procedures are laid out at Wikipedia:Proposed deletion, and explicitly state (and I quote) "PROD must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected", however by its very nature afd expects opposition to the process since the community involvement means drawing in people of all wiki-walks of life. By contrast, the addition of an X3 criteria to the existing Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion noting that speedy deletions of an article listed at afd would by their nature be contested, but after 21 days of non-participation it would come down to the admin corp to make an executive decision on a contest article as they would if the article was listed at possibly contested csd's.

Assuming this was adopted the requirement would be to list the relevant afds under the aforementioned category and require admins deleting under X3 to note to the best of their ability the relevant deletion reason(s) from the afd in the other criteria box at afd. Deletion under X3 criteria would be subject to Deletion Review, if participation there judged the article to have been deleted without cause it could be reinstated on grounds of having passed a "reverse afd" which upheld or overturned the X3 deletion. This also simplifies the relist debates, after three turns they can be automatically added to the afd articles (in a perfect world by a bot) and the admin corp can deal with them as they arrive. I am open to hearing general feedback on this proposal, or your reason(s) for supporting or opposing the proposal. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:59, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't think I'm getting the point of this. First, I'm not really concerned with applying the philosophy behind PROD tags to this proposal. This proposal states that no participation at an AfD should be treated like an expired PROD, not that it is an expired PROD. Second, an AfD with zero participation after relistings may have begun with an expectation of opposition, but no opposition developed. Soft deletion and this proposed X3 aren't meaningfully different, except one involves speedy deleting an article via AfD (?). I'm not really getting the point of a CSD criteria here. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 11:16, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. Getting consensus for new CSD criteria is one of the hardest things to do on Wikipedia. While new ones could well be useful, the opposition based on 'too much bureaucracy' usually prevent consensus being built. With additional CSD criteria, I also see increased possibility for misuse/misunderstanding by new or inexperienced users who are drawn to maintenance tasks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Seems too creepy and confusing. As demonstrated above, this does not seem to be a significant problem and, in the few cases, it's readily addressed by the would-be closer making a comment rather than pushing a button. Andrew D. (talk) 08:43, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per both of the above, and as a bureaucracy increase.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  11:44, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose as would add to regular backlog at CSD. Atlantic306 (talk) 14:22, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose, the description kind of defeats the purpose of it being a CSD. Let's stick to PROD. ansh666 19:03, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - No need to create a CSD criterion for something that an admin already has the discretion to delete, or not delete. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 13:12, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose – confusing and unnecessary. Laurdecl ^talk 08:44, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Overall discussion regarding the various proposals

• Comment: In my opinion, the problem with these various proposals is that they make it too easy for an article to get deleted without anyone adequately doing WP:BEFORE. To counter this problem, I propose that it be required for all articles facing any sort of deletion to have the Template:Find sources or Template:Friendly search suggestions placed on its talk page. And require that any admin utilize those links before actually deleting. And I must say I'm concerned that so many admins do not even have their Google search results set to 100 results per page (here's how to do that), and so they only see a bunch of spammy garbage for their first several pages of results, and they don't ever even get the correct number of Google hits. These are all problems that result in many articles on notable subjects being deleted simply because of the increasing lack of participation at AfD. Softlavender (talk) 07:30, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

If it goes to a soft delete you know that anyone can get the content restored at any time without argument? But I do agree that exactly as we do with prod the deleting admin needs be diligent in what they decide to delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:43, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

At an AfD, {{Find sources AfD}} is transcluded at the top. As with expired PRODs, administrators are expected to evaluate the rationale and exercise their judgement to determine whether they should soft delete the article or choose to act as any other editor and remove the PROD (or, in this case, cast a keep !vote, relist, or any of the other suggestions that are retained in the proposed new text). At some point, we do have to trust our administrators to behave properly as already documented at WP:PROD. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:49, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Just remarking that I've seen admins going through cat:expired PROD and deleting them as fast as they can load the deletion interface. There doesn't seem to be very much 'BEFORE' being done, and FWIW, unless the PROD itself is obviously contentious, the value of deep in-depth BEFORE (for a PROD) is debatable (not that PROD deletion is an area where I work). Most of these problems arise upstream and are all problems that result in many articles on potentially notable subjects being deleted simply because of the increasing lack of participation at NPP, and the predilection for the low-hanging fruit in the feed by inexperienced patrollers. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:40, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

• I patrol prods. The process is supposed to be reserved for uncontroversial cases but one often finds it being used inappropriately in cases that seem to be mostly WP:IDONTLIKEIT. As a fresh example, see food blogging. Notice that this is a fairly new topic and it has a long list of references which seem, at first glance, to be reasonable. Notice also that the nominator removed most of the prose and then prodded the article on the grounds that it didn't have much prose. WP:BEFORE was not followed in this case because there seems to have been no consideration of alternatives to deletion such as just marking the topic as a stub. Andrew D. (talk) 09:50, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

The editor was using AWB which of course is wrong for NPP. I've left them a message. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

• Question - If we consider an AfD with no participation to be treated like a prod (a proposal I supported)... what purpose does actual prod continue to serve? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 06:37, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

• A smooth transition between AfD and PROD I think is probably a good thing. PROD will still be relatively light weight, for supposedly easy cases, but can be stopped without any reason. AfDs that are unanimously deleted probably should be PRODded? PRODs that are challenged probably should have gone to AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:28, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

• The only distinction I see is that it can be stopped for any reason, whereas at AfD the expectation is that you articulate a policy/guideline-based argument for keeping/deleting. It seems like if this passes it would be easier to just allow a specific kind of AfD participation along the lines of "deprod", avoiding a noquorum close being treated like a prod by taking same action (symbolically) as would be necessary to remove the prod. Effectively just combines the two processes in a way that's not just more efficient but more sensible (in that it allows one to be "converted" into the other rather than starting and closing one process, then starting and closing another). I suppose this could be a subsequent discussion -- I just see prod as losing relevance with this. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:11, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

• An AfD with no other participation can be killed off with a mere "Keep, worthy topic, nominator's rationale is unpersuasive". Assuming no other comments, and that no bad faith assumptions can be made, no closer could reasonable close as "delete" without supervoting.

Noting User:Jayron32's question above (11:52, 6 December 2016) on times, these two open-AfDs vs age snapshots (1 & 2) tell me that 7 days is NOT the standard run time for an AfD. Nearly all AfDs run for two weeks, and are closed in the third or fourth week. If instead of relisting unparticipated AfDs for a few weeks, the relisters converted week old trivial to PRODs, I think this would be a good thing.

A further wish would be that it is easier to review editor's track record in AfD and PROD nominations. I know there is tool for AFDstats, but it is a bit hard to find and slow to use, and Wikipedia:Twinkle creates a "PROD log" entry for editors using twinkle and not opting out of logging. I wish this sort of logging was mandatory, becuase most of the problems are caused by very few people. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:40, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Prior PRODs and soft deletion

Unscintillating just made a change which states that an article which has been previously PRODded is still eligible for soft deletion (thus making it different from a true PROD, which it would be ineligible for). My question is: Does this represent current practice and established consensus? We had a discussion over this on my talk page, but I'll paste the relevant bit below:

Hmm, this is far more interesting than I thought. I initially added the language about soft deletion being similar to PROD in my implementation of straw poll consensus in March 2011. This wording is removed unilaterally by Black Falcon in February 2013, in a long series of edits in an attempt to clean up the page. In November 2013 Callanecc makes a change which includes a statement that contested PRODs may be soft deleted as part of implementing RfC consensus, but then self-reverts hours later when others argue that consensus was not achieved and he agrees. So it looks like at this point there is absolutely no guidance on whether contested PRODs that are sent to AfD may be soft deleted. If you guys have any leads, I'd be glad to hear them.

— King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:20, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't really care either way but this is something that we have to get sorted out. Also, would the existence of prior AfDs (as opposed to PROD) inhibit a subsequent AfD from being soft deleted? On this issue however I would say yes, especially if the previous AfD had a strong consensus to keep or a no consensus after a long debate. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• As for what I intended the post to mean, I intended it to mean that soft delete is simply one of the options for a closer, without regard to previous soft deletes and PRODs.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
• I for one support Unscintillating's change. It seems common sense to me and checking page histories for PRODs would waste admin time. Laurdecl ^talk 08:46, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support admin discretion on this matter (so don't care about prior PRODs). — JFG ^talk 22:59, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support The rationale for a soft deletion is similar to the rationale for a PROD, but the process is not the same and does not have to follow the same rules. The rationale is, delete because the article has been tagged for possible deletion for at least a week (commonly a week for PROD, three weeks for an AfD with two relists) and no one has objected. Basically, if this is an article that had a valid deletion rationale from the nominator, and no one objected during a period one to three weeks, it can be soft deleted without further ado - subject to later restoration upon request by any administrator. --MelanieN (talk) 16:59, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Request for comment regarding upgrading the Wikipedia:Non-admin closure essay to a guideline

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The Wikipedia:Non-admin closure is an oft-quoted essay amongst editors frequenting deletion discussions. The discussions about upgrading this to an essay perhaps first took place in the year 2008 and ended with no consensus to upgrade the same; one reason was the instruction creep within the current essay. Another reason was that the essay, at least in the opinion of some, had a few statements that went against current policy.

• Should the Wikipedia:Non-admin closure essay be upgraded to guideline status, with the community working on the essay thereon to reduce the instruction creep and modifying any statements imminently conflicting with current deletion policy?

Thanks for the time. Lourdes 03:10, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes/No/Any suggestions would be welcome

• Yes In my opinion, this is a viable option, provided the community puts some time into the essay and cleans it off material conflicting with current policies or guidelines. Thanks. Lourdes 03:10, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
• Moral yes but realistic no for now. I'd rather have a large discussion cleaning it up on that essay's talk page right now. We shouldn't approve this as a guideline before going through it comprehensively. Hell, there's a discussion right now about changing something. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:25, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
• It should, yes, but I fear it may not be perfect yet. I think it has excellent advice, to a reasonable reading, but it may need carefully generalisation, or definition, for applicable to all XfD processes, plus DRV, as well as RM and MR, and maybe even better, to RfC. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:31, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
• Yes but I would like a comprehensive run through for clarifications before it is granted. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:24, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
• No, on the basis that I still think that the closure of admin-related discussions should be done by admins. The fact that RfA is broken means that it should be fixed, not the rest of the project modified to create a "two-tier" system of users, where non-admins which could have easily passed RfA in 2005 must be supervised by admins from 2005 as some sort of quality control. I will commend the authors of this essay for not explicitly allowing admin overturning of an NAC because it's done by a non-admin, but things like tagging (NAC) after the close would still be done I assume. No thanks. Make most of 'em sysops, I say. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 07:56, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
  • @Ajraddatz: The reality is that most non-admin closers, even competent ones, either (a) won't pass RfA, many because they aren't interested in content creation, or; (b) aren't interested in RfA, because of how toxic/demotivating it can be. It just takes a quick glance at our RfA numbers this year (the worst ever!) to see that this may not be a viable solution. We may be stuck in a situation where the people opposing RfAs think we should just have non-admin closures, and the people supporting RfAs think we should have more admins. Since the bar of consensus at an RfA is much higher than at an RfC, there's a lot of overlap there where we're stuck in limbo with the worst possible solution – no non-admin closure guideline and no additional admins. What then? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:36, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
    • I don't think we'll get to the worst case scenario. We're at a point where almost everyone agrees that RfA in its current form is broken. That's a recipe for change! I wouldn't want to waste it by creating additional bureaucratic rules to accommodate not having more admins. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 18:55, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
• No per WP:CREEP. I've seen a prediction that Wikipedia will fossilise as it gets increasing tied up in red tape so that no-one can do anything. This seems to be coming true so it's time to roll back this trend. I attended an editathon yesterday where we were trying to train up some new users. They were quite a worthy crowd; fairly smart and keen. But one of the main outcomes was that the organiser got blocked by an over-zealous admin. And I expect that most of the recruits will be defeated by the mountain of bureaucracy that they now have to climb. Tsk. Andrew D. (talk) 10:33, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

"the organiser got blocked "?! Tell us more. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:33, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Username violation Special:Log/WienerLibraryWIR Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:58, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I quite agree with your argument, Andrew. It would be much easier for new users to understand how our admin-related discussions work if it is just admins closing them. But I'm afraid that I can't let your comment here stand without pointing out how many RfAs you oppose these days. I'd be glad to walk you through how to use the sysop tools someday on a test wiki, to show you that it isn't a big deal and that you don't need to oppose absolutely everyone :-) -- Ajraddatz (talk) 18:43, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

• Time, as usual for me to get on my high horse: I wish we didn't even have the concept of a non-admin closure. Non-admins should be able to close any discussion at any time without fear of having their judgement called into question. Non-admin closures are not substandard, and not to be "flagged" as such by anyone as though because an "admin" didn't close the discussion, it is somehow less valid. If it doesn't involve a block, a deletion, a page protection, or changing permission flags (which is all admins can do that others cannot) then it shouldn't be off-limits for anyone. The idea that non-admins have to self-identify when closing discussions, or that people should have the right to question a closure merely because the person who closed it doesn't have the admin bit, is abhorrant to all that Wikipedia is. --Jayron32 14:25, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
  • @Jayron32: Oddly, I simultaneously consider myself one of the more supportive editors of non-admin closures in the past and one of the most critical editors of them recently. The problem is that non-admins are generally not great at identifying when a close may be within their technical ability but only if they close in a specific way, even though the discussion could sensibly be closed an alternative way that's outside their technical ability. This leads to bias. See my writings on this topic at WP:Relist bias. On the other hand, I don't think non-admins should need to self-identify, and I've pushed for admins to be able to close all discussions at TfD and CfD, where the next step doesn't involve deletion itself. I think we'll always need the idea of a non-admin closure, but only because some non-admins don't do it well. There are several non-admin closers who I would trust to close discussions without any oversight or guidance, because they know to stay away from the ones where their lack of tools will influence their decision. But the set of non-admin closers I trust to do that will never be the set of all non-admin closers. I don't think the bias issue is something that can be swept away easily. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:31, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
    • There are lots of admins who also make bad calls on closures. --Jayron32 16:20, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I think the fundamental principle you're getting at – and one I agree with – is that, when challenging a non-admin closure, the challenger needs to present an argument against the merits of the closure itself; a closure should never be overturned on the sole basis that the closer was not an administrator. But Rob is right that the lack of tools does bias non-admins, which is part of the reason why non-admins shouldn't be closing complicated discussions: they often involve weighing between an option they can implement and an option they can't. Mz7 (talk) 16:47, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
• @Lourdes and Iazyges: Based on how these discussions tend to go, I really don't think this is going to pass. I'll leave it up to you, certainly, but I think this should be withdrawn. If this is pushed forward, it will likely not reach the bar to become a guideline and the community will have no appetite to reconsider in the near future. Instead, we could go to the talk page and give this potential guideline the thorough once-over that we all agree it needs before bringing this to the attention of the community. I can't give more than a moral support sight-unseen as to what the revisions it may need will be, and I strongly suspect enough editors will feel the same way that it's worthwhile revising the essay now rather than later. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:38, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
• meh I don't think it would be a bad idea to have an official guideline on NACs, but this essay as it currently exists isn't it. I would say shelve this proposal and fix the essay first. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:50, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
• BU Rob13, I'm fine with what you write. Let's archive this and take this up on the talk page of NAC and improve it. Thanks. Lourdes 01:09, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
  • @Lourdes: Given your comments, I've boldly removed the {{rfc}} template. Feel free to revert if you want the RfC to continue. Best, Mz7 (talk) 02:37, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Revising WP:NPASR and renominations by the same nominator

A look at the history of the WP:NOQUORUM WP:NPASR shows that it has been there a long time.  I would say that the original purpose no longer exists.

There is a competing long-standing idea that renominations after a no-consensus close should wait for two months.  We recently had a renomination take place after a month and a half, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/UrbanClap_(4th_nomination) that received broad objection.

There is a idea new to me recently proposed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 November 20 by User:Knowledgekid87 to change WP:NPASR to say, "no prejudice against speedy renomination by someone other than the original nominator (NPASR)."  This has broad applicability for relist problems that have been around for a long time.  But, I don't think that this should apply to WP:NPASR, and I am proposing a different fix below.

WP:NPASR remains an important concept for procedural closures, but even there a problem exists if a review goes to DRV and someone is already starting a new discussion.  And commonly for speedy closes, it is expected that the same nominator is empowered to improve and renominate.

In the midst of all these issues, I propose moving WP:NPASR out into its own section, and allow a WP:NOQUORUM No-consensus to default to an expectation of two months before renominating.  The other issues here would need separate discussions. 

Proposal

Create new section below WP:NOQUORUM, removing the existing NPASR text from WP:NOQUORUM

=== NPASR ===

{{Shortcut|NPASR}}

NPASR means "no prejudice against speedy renomination".

Unscintillating (talk) 23:13, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

• Quite the contrary, there appears to be broad consensus just above here on this very page to close these as soft deletion. Obviously, oppose this. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:52, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: In regards to the word "contrary", there is nothing "contrary" to be seen.  If you want to rewrite WP:NOQUORUM, you can't delete WP:NPASR, as it is a widely used acronym and needs to be defined somewhere, so this proposal doesn't conflict with changes to WP:NOQUORUM involving PROD.  Please state a problem that has more detail than "obviously".  Unscintillating (talk) 00:14, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Above, there is support that instead of NPASR closes, we should generally see soft deletion in cases of low participation. Here, you're suggesting we require or expect (It's unclear which?) two months after an NPASR close before deletion can again be considered. The former pushes deletion closer to the present, and the latter pushes deletion farther into the future. These outcomes are at odds with each other. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:37, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support: I do not wish to be flaked by merely following existing guidelines any longer. Proposal on its own also sounds perfectly reasonable. You have my support. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 00:46, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose We don't do fixed time periods on anything. This is too bureaucratic. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:43, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
• Support instead refining the meaning or NPASR to mean "by another editor". Closing "noquorum" only to see the original nominator and sole participant immediately renominate is obviously an absurdity. It was implied by commonsense, but now is worth documenting. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:57, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per both Rob13 and Spartaz, who are more concise than I would be. >;-) As someone who wanders into AfD instead of dwelling in it (i.e., as an average editor), it doesn't matter one whit to me who nominated something at that XfD or any other, only the pro and con arguments are of import.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  11:49, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - In the example given where there was an objection after the same person renominated after a month and a half, the previous AfD was not closed as NPASR -- it was simply no consensus (with participation). If it were NPASR, it's pretty common, in my experience, for the nominator to turn around and renominate it without pushback (although many encourage waiting in such a scenario). If someone did so for a third time, it might start to attract sideways glances, but I haven't encountered that. Regardless, no problem with someone renominating in the case of an NPASR. No comment at this time regarding whether a different person should nominate following a no consensus with participation. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:22, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:NOTBURO and the false premise uncovered by Rhododendrites. ansh666 19:01, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

• False premise?  What are you talking about?  NPASR is 0 months, and the example I gave is 1 1/2 months.  0 months is not the community norm for a no consensus discussion, and the original reason for the no consensus noquoroum to be NPASR (IMO) no longer exists.  How is eliminating an obsolete practice that competes with and confounds an established practice, bureaucracy?  Unscintillating (talk) 03:12, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

• I don't quite understand this response, but to clarify, the false premise Ansh666 refers to is that in this section you linked to a discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UrbanClap (4th nomination), which, given the context, seemed to be offered as an example of an AfD renominated after NPASR (or otherwise of unknown relevance to the present discussion). It was not, however, renominated after an NPASR close, but a no consensus close. Hence it it doesn't make sense as an anecdote to build an NPASR-related proposal on. NPASR is only when there isn't a quorum -- in that case, there was plenty of participation to establish a quorum, hence no npasr. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:36, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

• This is a discussion of normative behavior for "no-consensus" AfDs, as specifically applied to noquorum no-consensus closes.  I established at the start of my argument that the current reason for having noquorum no-consensus NPASR is obsolete.  Please reread the development of the discussion; verify the history; and include that knowledge, or my opinion of that knowledge, in your analysis. 

  I also established that we have two community standards for no-consensus re-nominations, and the result is whiplash for those who get caught in the competing rules.  I established that there is community sentiment to fix the problem, which appears in the title of the discussion.  I established in the example which caught your attention, that the default community norm for no-consensus renominations is and remains at two months.  As for the "anecdotal" issue, the AfD that started this discussion is an NPASR, and you have the links to that AfD.  So I have also given an example of NPASR. 

  If you want to come up with new justification for having noquorum no-consensus NPASR; please also address the issues of competing community standards, and the need to retain NPASR unchanged for procedural closes which allow a re-nominator to fix errors in the previous AfD.  Further, please address the issue of the need to break out NPASR from its current location.  Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 14:08, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

• You seem to be a bit confused, normal "no consensus" and "NPASR" are not the same thing. ansh666 08:20, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• @Ansh666: No, you can look at the Project Page, and see that No Quorum#No Consensus is tied to "WP:NPASR".  Part of this proposal is to unbind these two different things.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:20, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

• Maybe I should be a bit more clear. Just like a square is a quadrilateral but a quadrilateral is not necessarily a square, NPASR is no consensus but no consensus is not necessarily NPASR. No consensus closes are NPASR only when there is no quorum, not by default. ansh666 04:17, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

• @Ansh666: As to your last sentence, this sounds correct, and certainly it helps to agree on the current meaning to move forward. 

  But you are also saying "NPASR is no consensus".  This part is incorrect and this erroneous coupling is one of the reasons for this proposal.  WP:NPASR has meaning independent of No quorum#No consensus.  NPASR is an acronym that means, "No prejudice against speedy renomination.  Specifically, WP:NPASR is commonly applicable to Procedural closes and various parts of WP:Speedy keep.  The definition of the acronym needs to be split out.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:02, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

• I understand what you're getting at now, but I don't see what the fact that NPASR also applies to other forms of closes in a common-sense fashion has to do with the original proposal, which is making NPASR no longer apply to no quorum closes. ansh666 18:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, if you look at the proposal itself, I think you will see that it is elegantly simple.  But maybe we should focus on splitting out NPASR, and get that clarified as being an acronym.  Unscintillating (talk) 07:04, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. I was one of the original proponents of NPASR, and I've always envisioned it as a way to cut down on endless relisting. In practice, most AfDs closed as NPASR are not renominated, so it's not a big deal for me even if the original nominator immediately sends it back. If they care about it that much then frankly they deserve a second hearing, and let's worry about this only if it becomes an issue; it's already much better than endless relisting which can be thought of as automatic, indiscriminate renomination regardless of whether the nominator is even following the discussion anymore. (By the way, there shouldn't be too many NPASRs in the first place because soft deletion should be used whenever viable.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:22, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I was looking today at an old reversion of WP:Deletion policy, and I saw in there that the NPASR concept, not necessarily with the same words, predates WP:Deletion process.  You've raised many interesting points, although I sense that there is no longer an expectation of an endless discussion like there may have been then.  Unscintillating (talk) 07:04, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

This page is listed as a candidate for speedy deletion - why?

For some reason this talk page is listed at the category Category:Speedy deletion candidates with talk pages. I can't figure out why. Can anyone locate whatever anomaly here is causing that listing, and fix it? Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 16:38, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Fixed. Bradv 16:46, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Good eye! --MelanieN (talk) 16:53, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Bold edit

I reverted a bold edit, but I got reverted without any discussion. If you want the edit to stay in then we need to discuss this and get consensus for it, see WP:BRD. @Ansh666: (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 09:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

It would be a bit bizarre if any editor could close any discussion at any stage, and then claim that a mod is required to undo that close (but this is happening). (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 09:58, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

The sentence was inserted just a year ago by Esquivalience. After such a time lapse its removal looks less like a case of BRD than one of unexplained content removal. However, there may be grounds for reviewing this stipulation; could you support your case with a couple of examples?: Noyster (talk), 11:52, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

IIRC it was the result of a RfC; I will check and get back to you later today. ansh666 16:55, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

@The Quixotic Potato: looking back through talk page archives, this stipulation has been in the guideline since at least 2008; the most recent edit was mostly just a rewording. The closest we have to a formal endorsement is this RfC. See also Wikipedia:Silence and consensus. I've restored the content. ansh666 23:41, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

@Ansh666: Thank you. I have specified that it is about deletion discussions. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 23:46, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

@The Quixotic Potato: that is not at all true. The RfC was clarifying specifically for deletion discussions, but it does still apply to all non-admin closures. ansh666 00:25, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

@Ansh666: Do you have any evidence for that claim? I don't think you are correct. Please discuss instead of reverting. Talkpages are important. I removed the words "or another appropriate venue" that you added, because deletion review is the appropriate venue for deletion discussions, and you seem to be trying to change it so that it would apply to all discussions anywhere (which is of course outside of the scope of this page). (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 00:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Somehow forgot what page I was on; the current wording is correct for deletion discussions. The phrasing at WP:NAC in each section is correct for those types of discussions. Sorry about the confusion. ansh666 07:48, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• Non-admistrator closures may only be reopened in the following manners: by an uninvolved administrator in their individual capacity, giving their reasons in full (but not solely because the closer is not an administrator per this RfC; de facto in regard to non-deletion discussions, at least by what I found offhand) per WP:NAC; by consensus at deletion review in the case of deletion discussions, by consensus at move review in the case of requested moves, or by consensus at the administrator's noticeboard in the case of other discussions per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 02:03, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
• I have followed NAC closes for a long time. Any NAC may be undone by any WP:UNINVOLVED admin (UNINVOLVED is generally required for admin actions), if they find fault with the close. Merely being an NAC is not sufficient reason. Their reasons "in full" is an overstatement, they only need to give a good reason. Often it is diplomatic to not provide "every reason in full detail". Also note that nothing is fully prescriptive. A particularly bad closing action may be BOLDly undone in some circumstances, a consensus anywhere (not just at WP:AN, and there are caveats such as in providing sufficient notifications) can justify anything, and WP:IAR. NB. A good NAC is one for which there is no conceivable justification in reverting. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:12, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Agreed for the most part: "[The uninvolved administrator] only need[s] to give a good reason", "A particularly bad closing action may be [bold]y undone [per WP:IAR]" (though dropping a note at WP:AN would probably lead to an uninvolved administrator reopening the discussion in their individual capacity if it is particularly bad which is the best road to take), and a consensus in other places may be adequate to reopen a discussion in some cases. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 13:04, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Restoring participant-reverted NACs

• Closures may only be reopened by an uninvolved administrator in their individual capacity, giving at least one good reason, or by consensus at deletion review.
• If a participant reopens a non-admin closure, any editor other than the closer may restore the closure.

These statements seem inconsistent. Can I get clarification of when a non-admin can reopen a NAC? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Please be aware that the inconsistent verbiage (the second example you show above) was added by an editor, without discussion or consensus, with this edit. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:33, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

We're making up rules as we go, someone late compared to actual practice. "If a participant reopens a non-admin closure, any editor other than the closer may restore the closure" is an instruction to edit war over a close. How about: "Reverted NACs should be reported to WP:ANI if an administrator is not already involved". I think that even if an INVOLVED administrator objects to an NAC, it should be unclosed for an admin to close. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:42, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

So you're proposing any editor who is a participant can reopen a NAC without having to go to del review? That will require rejigging the first point. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:02, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I believe this isn't contradictory, NeilN, although perhaps also not clear. It says that NACs can be overturned by an uninvolved admins or deletion review. If an involved discussion participant reverts an NAC closure (which they should not), anyone can restore it, even those who are involved, due to how blatantly incorrect such a revert would be. Where do our readings differ? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:04, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

No, User:NeilN, I did'nt mean to say that. A NAC should not be reverted by a non-admin, just as a non-admin should have no reason to revert a NAC. If a NAC is reverted by a non-admin, it probably should go straight to ANI, because someone is doing something wrong. The proper way to challenge an NAC is to talk to the closer first and open a DRV discussion second. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:44, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe: Okay, so why have the second point at all? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Cut it. It is not that it is true or untrue, it is the sort of thing that is generally good advice, but it is serving no useful purpose. Advice at WP:NAC telling NAC-ers to not edit war over their closes, but to take challenges to WP:AN, or DRV or MR, would be more appropriate. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:08, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Onel5969: This edit seems to be where it originates from. Perhaps Unscintillating can offer some insight. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 03:16, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Godsy - Exactly. Prior to that edit, and the further edit which I indicated above, the parameters were clearly limited to admins. Hence the ambiguity was added by a single editor. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 04:36, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @NeilN: Under the current wording: Closures should only be reopened by an uninvolved administrator or by consensus at deletion review or WP:AN (deletion review in the case of deletion discussions). If a closure is reopened otherwise, which is inappropriate, anyone except the closer may restore it. That aside, I would support doing away with or reforming the second bullet point, and would not support allowing involved administrators to overturn non-administrator closures. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 03:16, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: My reading: "Closures may only be reopened by an uninvolved administrator in their individual capacity, giving at least one good reason." Full stop. "Or by consensus at deletion review." Full stop. These two points preclude any other method for reopening a NAC including involved and uninvolved regular editors. So, why the "any editor other than the closer may restore the closure" restriction against undoing a supposedly improper action? Just to prevent edit warring between the closer and the involved editor? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:18, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I have put back the existing cinsensus as there was no consensus for the change and, as noted here, it was contradictory and encouraged edit warring. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Here is what WP:Consensus states, in oldid=767216503

===Through editing=== Consensus is a normal and usually implicit and invisible process across Wikipedia. Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus.

Posted by Unscintillating (talk) 00:39, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Since it was disputed it obviously had no consensus. Don't be such a tool. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:10, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• Here is an AfD in which Spartaz has posted in which he doesn't comment about the use of the text from WP:NACD to reclose the participant-opened NAC.  This is the discussion, diff that led NeilN to start a discussion about the use of RFPP, after which participants were left on their own to attract an admin.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:17, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Nice job personalising the discussion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:10, 28 February 2017 (UTC) - By the way the revert was a response to [DRV] that was inevitable because someone disputed the NAC - the closer reverted back and the close came right back to DRV. I think the weakness in the close was shown by the fact that after some further discussion the final close by an admin was a merge not a keep. Its 2 years ago. I don't remember what I did yesterday so what is your point? Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:18, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Do admins no longer need to give a reason for their re-opening of NAC?

• There is a quiet change by Spartaz that has nothing to do with the previous discussion.  He has removed the requirement that administrators must give at least one reason for re-opening an NAC.  I noticed while reviewing the history for the above discussion that he has argued before that admins shouldn't need to explain why.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:17, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I would oppose that change, but I also note that WP:ADMINACCT requires them to explain why they took that action if asked. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:34, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • It could put back but what admin is just silently going to reopen a NAC? You'll at least get a couple words in the edit summary like "rv sock". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:19, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • It used to read "giving their reasons in full"; that was changed to "giving at least one good reason". I think at least "giving their reasoning" is due. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 03:28, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
    • I like "giving their reasoning". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Guideline on relist template comments

I've begun to notice a practice at Afd relistings of relist notices bearing the comment Redirect or delete?. It's currently displayed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rogue (musician), by @J947:. It had also been added to a different Afd by a different editor -- an adminstrator, @Kurykh:. In that case I raised a concern on his user talk page at User_talk:Kurykh#AFD_relisting:_Tourism_in_Ahmedabad and he chose to remove the comment, which was then reinstated by J947 at the next relist. I think this is a worrisome trend. While WP:RELIST encourages editors to give a reason for the relist, I think we should be advising editors about using the comment section of the template to appear to "winnow down" or predetermine the list of viable options going forward, including that of keep. Certainly experienced editors are unlikely to be swayed by this -- but less experienced participants at Afd might be. It might even be seen as a form of canvassing. I believe we might need a statement that if comments are to be included in the relist template, they should be neutral as to desired outcome. Anyone agree? I should also add that I've never seen a real need to add comments to a relist template at all -- and this seems to be a fairly new thing which I believe may cause more problems than it solves. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:57, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• I see that J947 has graciously amended his relist statement in the above case to make it clearer that redirect or delete are not the only remaining available options. I still wonder if the current statement at WP:RELIST should not offer some guidance on using this template in a neutral way. If there are no objections, I may try to formulate a line.... Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:16, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

  Actually, there's an additional problem with the guidline. Relist comments are encouraged, either inserted in the template or in addition, but right now those two elements are not stated together. I think my copyedit makes things clearer. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:22, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

  Okay, going back to my original concern, I've now added a line: However, if adding comments within {{relist}}, please keep in mind that this is a Wikipedia administration template, and should not be used to give priority to one's own desired outcome. How does this sound to people? If this meets with approval, I may consider adding it to WP:AFDFORMAT, too, as it would clearly pertain. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:48, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Listing of past AfDs

When an article is listed at AfD, a bot turns up and puts a message on the talk page listing previous AfDs and their outcome as at here. The boilerplate text suggests reviewing the past AfD's before re-submitting. However.... if like me you are not an admin, you have no sight of the old AfDs until after the nomination is complete. Is there perhaps a prescience bot that could alert non-admin editors when they simply have it in mind to start an AfD, or could the Bot be tuned to display its message ASAP after the recreation of the article and not wait until yet another AfD is logged?  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   20:04, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Why not RFC on XFDs?

Why should it be against the rules to start a request for comments on a deletion discussion such as Wikipedia:Diffs are for Stiffs? In this case I think the wider community might have found it funny enough to squeeze into Wikipedia:Devil's dictionary, while the specific consensus against it seems to have been a teeny bit po-faced :( Siuenti (씨유엔티) 11:24, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

XfDs are already seeking broader community input on deletion. They run for a set amount of time, are listed prominently, etc etc. There's no need for an RfC. Further, an RfC would be a tad disruptive to the XfD process because they usually run a month whereas an XfD runs a week. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 12:19, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Miscellaneous for deletion are listed prominently? How would someone come across them? Siuenti (씨유엔티) 23:24, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

What Siuenti (talk · contribs) has not mentioned is that this was already discussed at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment#RFC an AFD. See WP:FORUMSHOP. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:09, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I thought the whole point of RfCs was to seek wider input when discussion has ground to a halt (because someone dragged the thread off-topic, as you appear to be doing). Siuenti (씨유엔티) 23:24, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, for threads that are not widely advertised. But XfDs are widely advertised. Also, what do you mean by "because someone dragged the thread off-topic, as you appear to be doing"? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:53, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating myself "Miscellaneous for deletion are listed prominently? How would someone come across them? " and please try to stay on-topic. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 20:03, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Repeating a request to stay on-topic when Redrose64 (talk · contribs) has not said anything yet off-topic seems, well, off-topic. You raised this in multiple places, making FORUMSHOP a valid link. I will answer your repeated question, however, with another: How would some-one come across an RfC if they did not have the tools or experience to come across a MfD? At least MfD discussions are linked directly and prominently from whatever is being discussed. RfC's have no such requirement. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:19, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

For example, someone might share a certain sense of humor and be watching the RfC listings but not MFD, and not realize that a deletion discussion is taking place where being unfunny is a criterion. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 20:58, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

And, to continue your example, an editor such as that would then try to use an RfC as an end-around to appealing the MfD they missed? Is that the situation you are hypothesizing? Such an editor would best be advised to simply use the deletion appeals process already in place. This would especially be the advisable if the editor in question was, hypothetically speaking, recently returned from a block over deletion discussion and guideline modification issues. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:12, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

In this particular hypothetical case, an RfC during the MfD might have attracted eyes of neutral editors with an opinion on the humor which wasn't swayed by ad hominem considerations. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 21:17, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

"Might have" is a slim hook to hang this example on. If neutral editors are looked-for, the Deletion Review forum is designed specifically to provide a second look from such editors. Creating new policy or procedure options to address singular examples is generally a bad idea. American legal circles use the phrase, "Bad facts make bad laws," specifically to warn against this type of policy alteration. As there is already an appeals process in place, having RfC on MfD's is essentially asking to institute an Interlocutory appeal process to appeal to a wider section of the community. There are enough byzantine processes here without further complicating deletion processes. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:30, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

So if "neutral editors are looked-for", one must wait until the !vote has been resolved? Siuenti (씨유엔티) 21:37, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Why not? There is no deadline, after all. If the goal is truly to produce a high-quality encyclopedia, then timing is not an issue. While making one's case as well and as dispassionately as one can during an XfD is all well and good, sometimes they don't work out. Make a new set of arguments to a new set of editors at DRV. Otherwise, we are just being too sensitive about "our" contributions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:44, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

So don't get neutral opinions, get the wrong answer, go to DRV and make a new set of arguments to a new set of editors? When the only thing wrong with the old set of arguments was they couldn't overcome ad hominem considerations? Siuenti (씨유엔티) 22:02, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

You can take the above advice or you can reject it. I'm not going to change it if you keep asking the same question in different ways. It's clear you don't like it. That's fine. I'm just another editor like yourself; you don't have to listen to me if you don't want. It's also clear you feel personally aggrieved. Speaking as a fellow editor that has not had any previous interaction and thus had no preconceived ideas about your editing prior to today, I urge you to put those feelings aside and WP:DROPTHESTICK. Feeling like a victim of such attacks will neither gain you anything nor help build an encyclopedia. Neither is pretending that there is a substantive, structural issue here going to salve such feelings. Best of luck. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:12, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Heh, it looks like someone's being swayed by ad hominem considerations, just for a change. Thanks for playing :) Siuenti (씨유엔티) 22:17, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Let's try Mireille Issa, I'd really like more input on that AFD because it will answer the question "was all the effort at WP:PNT worth it". However if I put an RfC tag on it folks will be like "no forum shopping, take it to DRV" I imagine. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 22:17, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

If you start a DRV whilst the AFD is still open you will certainly get that DRV speedy closed for forum shopping. DRV is only for use when an XfD has been closed.

There are legitimate ways of bringing an AfD to a broader audience, and these include the Article Alerts system. This can be triggered by the use of suitable infoboxes, but it's best to ensure that the article's talk page bears appropriate WikiProject banners. So, is either {{WikiProject Biography|s&a-work-group=yes}} or {{WikiProject Lebanon}} present on Talk:Mireille Issa? If not, why not? If it does have these banners, the AfD will be listed by a bot at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Science and academia/Article alerts and Wikipedia:WikiProject Lebanon/Article alerts respectively. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:10, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

This thread is not about DRVs it's about RFCs. Presumably those tags aren't there because the editor who knew they belonged there didn't bother to add them, too busy perhaps. It strikes me that an Rfc might attract the attention of editors who not only know what tags to add, they even have spare time to add them, who knows.

However, this particular Afd was already listed at list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions and that didn't seem to make much difference. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 21:01, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Of course it didn't. The page does not exist. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:46, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Are you like 7 years old? Look at the AFD for what it was listed under and how difference that made. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 00:04, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

So the editor that has complained vociferously that "their" article was deleted because of ad hominem attacks and personal animosity has now posted a personal attack. As Yoda might say: "The irony, strong it is with this one." Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:18, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Stay on topic please, if you want to start a new thread about how awesome my irony is use my talk page ktx. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 00:57, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Wow. Davish Krail would be proud. You can say "stay on topic" all you want when another editor points out your nonconstructive behavior. Not one single editor is obligated to follow your request. If you call another editor a 7 year old, that seems highly off-topic, to say the least. No editor is required to agree to your terms of the discussion as a prerequisite for participating in such discussions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:14, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, you are not obliged to stay on topic, but that would be to the benefit of the project so we can move the discussion forward. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 02:07, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

If you really want to "benefit the project and move the discussion forward," you'd stop complaining about an essay that was deleted over a month ago now. Allow me, if you will, to refer you to a widely-supported and well-accepted essay. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:12, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Try to keep up, we are talking about Mireille Issa now. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 02:15, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

That seems a bit off topic, I thought we're supposed to be discussing Why not RFC on XFDs? -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:19, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Mireille Issa is at AFD and I would like to put an RFC tag on it to get more input (see above). Siuenti (씨유엔티) 02:22, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense. RFC tags are for talk pages. Have you tried article alerts or deletion sorting? Those are relevant ways to "advertise" an AfD. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:29, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

But they didn't appear to work. See above. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 02:33, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Of course they work. You need some patience. You can't expect a flood of people flocking to your run-of-the-mill AfD at once. A few editors is standard for this sort of thing. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:37, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I would particularly like this AfD to get the "right answer" because it is relevant to WP:PNT, the question is "are people spending hours rescuing things that should be deleted anyway?". If the AFD result is a clear "keep" then it seems it was worth it, if clear "delete" then maybe not worth it, and think about reforming WP:PNT. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 02:52, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

If you want to make an RFC regarding WP:PNT, the correct place to do so would be at WT:PNT. -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:02, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Well yeah, but this article being kept or not would help tell me what to ask in the RfC. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 03:09, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Then be patient and wait for the AfD to resolve. I can assure you that a single AfD is not going to make or break an entire process. -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:18, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

If you let me get a quality result from this single Afd it will help me fix the entire PNT process, which at the moment appears to consist of massive amounts of effort for almost no positive result. Just waiting will probably end up with a "no consensus" result which is completely useless, and a result with low participation is hardly any better, especially when existing policies, guidelines and/or precedents are not being applied very strictly by !voters. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 06:52, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

@Siuenti: You called me "7 years old" when I pointed out that the page that you linked - list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions - does not exist. This demonstrates to me that not only do you not check the facts, you consider fact-checking to be childish - which is itself a childish attitude. At 02:33, 29 May 2017 (UTC) you claimed "they didn't appear to work", "they" here presumably being Article alerts and Deletion sorting. At 11:10, 28 May 2017 (UTC) I showed you how to get the AfD listed at Article alerts: but I see that the two banners that I mentioned have not been added to Talk:Mireille Issa. It bears two templates: {{blp}} (which should not have been used directly, per its documentation) and {{WPWW|importance=low}}. Of these, the first will not trigger Article alerts, but the second will; and so the AfD has been listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women writers/Article alerts - which doesn't exactly have wide exposure. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:52, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

So Wikipedia:WikiProject Women writers/Article alerts doesn't exactly have wide exposure. RfC's however do have wide exposure I believe. You are saying that a different wikiproject(s) tag might generate wide exposure, what project(s) exactly? And how do I know a priory how much exposure they generate? Siuenti (씨유엔티) 13:44, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

So what every other editor is telling you, @Siuenti:, is that you are becoming Wikipedia's very own Don Quixote de la Supresión. Your quest to ensure that everyone else that participates here achieves your "right" result is not going to happen. Your frequent misstatements and rephrasings of other editor's statements are not going to force reality to conform to your expectations. Leave this "debate" be and, oh, I don't know, maybe try to actually improve articles so that deletion is not a concern? Just a thought. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:55, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Ad hominem / off topic, just for a change. Bonus points for literary allusion. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 19:08, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I didn't say "different" at all, I intended it to be read as "in addition". Also, to your question "what project(s) exactly?" - I have already answered that, at 11:10, 28 May 2017 (UTC). Please note that the spelling is a priori, since it's Latin. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:03, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Alright, one of those debates got 7 participants, that would be cool. Let's see if we can break the tie at the AfD. Siuenti (씨유엔티) 19:08, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

RfC on holding RfCs within XfDs

Should it be permissible to start a request for comment within an ongoing deletion/merge discussion? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:22, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

• No, because as I noted at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment#RFC an AFD, an WP:XFD is by its very nature a "request for comment", albeit one with rather narrow boundaries - we are inviting people to comment on whether or not the page should be kept/merged/redirected/incubated/transwikied/renamed/userfied/deleted/etc. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:22, 29 May 2017 (UTC)