Wikipedia talk:Deletion process

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contradiction between WP:NACD and WP:RMNAC[edit]

I have noticed this issue for a while, so I'd like to propose an update to the section at Wikipedia:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions (WP:NACD) to match the non-admin deletion process stated at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Non-admin closure (WP:RMNAC). I propose that this page be updated to state that non-admin closures at Wikipedia:Requested moves that require the page be moved over a redirect that needs to be deleted be allowed. This is how WP:RMNAC is essentially worded, so here is the text I propose be added to the section WP:NACD redirects:

Exception: A non-administrator may close a Requested move discussion to "move" if the move requires that a redirect be deleted in order to perform the move. (See Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Non-admin closures.)

--Steel1943 (talk) 19:56, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

It would probably be better just to say "there are exceptions; please see these pages". That avoids duplication. --Izno (talk) 20:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
See the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Amakuru#Neutral for the context of this request. WP:NACD and WP:RMNAC both seem straightforward. It's WP:BADNAC that needs to be edited, as it conflicts with the instructions given at WP:RMNAC. Note that a move is not a deletion, and the two processes have different rules. WP:BADNAC conflates the two, which is causing a contradiction. Bradv 20:36, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
A deletion is a deletion (the scope of this page), regardless if the discussion is actually about deleting the nomimated page, but rather a different page that needs to be deleted to complete the close's result. So, Izno's idea seems feasible. As a result, WP:BADNAC could be updated as well. The goal is to remove all contradictions, and the one here is a major one of the bunch. Steel1943 (talk) 20:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
This page is about deletion discussions, not just deletions in general. Bradv 20:47, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
The first sentence on this page, The deletion process encompasses the processes involved in implementing and recording the community's decisions to delete or keep pages and media., doesn't clarify that this doesn't apply to WP:RM. In a move request, the community may form a decision to delete a page to move another page to it. It's in scope of this page, and saying that this information proposed above should not be included because the scope of this page clearly doesn't include RM is a bit misleading, especially to those who do not completely understand Wikipedia. Steel1943 (talk) 20:52, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Agreed with the "there are exceptions; please see these pages" approach. Way too many policypages already contain duplicate information, and it has a pesky tendency to POVFORK over time. This can create very nasty messes.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  06:24, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Anchor in heading[edit]

@JJMC89: Hello. In revision 730386650, you've written "{{anchor}} shouldn't be used in headings".

Why? And says who?

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 16:52, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa: From Template:Anchor#Limitations: If the template is added to a section title then the code will appear in the edit summary window when that section is edited, as in "/* {{anchor|Issues}}Limitations */ New issue". Also, when the section is saved, browsers may not return to the section. Consider using <span id="..."></span> directly, rather than using the anchor template, when in a section title. — JJMC89(T·C) 19:18, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Codename Lisa (talk) 04:09, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Search broken[edit]

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)

DREADFULLY unclear and unhelpful article[edit]

I want to nominate an article for speedy deletion. I am looking for the procedure for this. I don't have time to become an expert on Wikipedia. I have commented on the article's Talk page of my intention. Grounds for the dfeletion are Wikipedia's standing as a reliable resource. Please see Talk page for details: Over to you cogniscenti out there. LookingGlass (talk) 15:37, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

AfD voting templates[edit]

Please see discussion at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#AfD voting templates. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:56, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

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

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)
  • 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. ~ Rob13Talk 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. –Davey2010Talk 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. ~ Rob13Talk 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!. –Davey2010Talk 23:23, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
    Oh BTW BU Rob13 you've missed one.Davey2010Talk 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. ~ Rob13Talk 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. –Davey2010Talk 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. ~ Rob13Talk 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 :), –Davey2010Talk 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. Face-smile.svg 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. ~ Rob13Talk 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. ~ Rob13Talk 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. Neutralitytalk 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)

Counter-proposal: Treating these like PRODs[edit]

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[1] 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.


  1. ^ Usually articles unreferenced for years.

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. ~ Rob13Talk 01:03, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Turning this into an actual RfC to get more input. ~ Rob13Talk 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). ~ Rob13Talk 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. ~ Rob13Talk 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. ~ Rob13Talk 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. ~ Rob13Talk 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. Neutralitytalk 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. ~ Rob13Talk 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. ~ Rob13Talk 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? ~ Rob13Talk 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)

Another proposal: restrict non-admin closures[edit]

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)

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

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.

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. ~ Rob13Talk 11:16, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Withdrawn below for further refining on the essay's talk page. ~ Rob13Talk 07:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

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[edit]

  • 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. ~ Rob13Talk 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? ~ Rob13Talk 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. ~ Rob13Talk 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. ~ Rob13Talk 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[edit]

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. 


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

=== NPASR ===
NPASR means "no prejudice against speedy renomination".

Unscintillating (talk) 23:13, 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. ~ Rob13Talk 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)