Wikipedia talk:Deletion process

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

Soft deletion[edit]

What exactly is soft deletion? And when would you use it? It is very poorly explained here. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 14:23, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

If someone nominates an article for AfD and after several relists the discussion receives no discussion or very little discussion, the closing admin can close the debate as "soft delete" and delete the article. But afterwards, if anyone wants the article restored for any reason whatsoever, the article will be restored (same as pretending like the article was never nominated for AfD but was instead deleted under PROD). Formerly (like several years ago), admins were advised to close discussions with little participation as "no consensus," but it didn't make a whole lot of sense given that if they had nominated it under PROD, the article would have been deleted already. So the change in policy was made. -- King of ♠ 05:35, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
There's continued misunderstanding. It sounds like it will be something less than deleting, but it simply is deleting. There's no way anyone besides admins can see the former article in order to decide to ask for its restoration. An editor commenting in the RFC below, assumes, perhaps reasonably but incorrectly, that "soft deletion" means just courtesy blanking the page. It is not just that, the page is entirely gone. It's not saved in a Drafts area or anywhere regular editors can see it. --doncram 02:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

"No quorum" closures[edit]

There appears to be no consensus. Disclaimer: technically I've been plenty involved in the AfD process (including closing them in situations where this proposal would have applied to me). However, given I genuinely couldn't care less and the fact that the outcome of "no consensus" is fairly apparent below, it seems safe enough to make this call. If someone else feels more qualified to close instead, please, by all means. :P --slakrtalk / 03:18, 19 March 2015 (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.

This was raised at a recent RfA. How should AfDs be closed in the absence of discussion? According to the No quorum section this is left to the closer's discretion. They can "keep" with no prejudice etc., soft-delete, or follow the nominator's proposal (usually this will be a normal delete), or indeed do something else. However, most of these cases are currently being closed with the article kept. (I found 12 in the last week that didn't have anyone voting "keep" or arguing to keep; all closed as "keep""no consensus" without action, having the same effect as "keep", by five different people). So if a PROD is placed and nobody objects, the article gets deleted: if an AfD is opened and nobody objects, the article is likely to be kept, even though the proposed deletion will then have had more exposure and usually been up for a longer time. Where's the logic in that? Proposal: that WP:QUORUM be redrafted to recommend soft-delete unless the closer gives a reason to take another course: Noyster (talk), 16:26, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Support Since it was my RfA where the question was asked, I will share my answer.[1] While I do think closer discretion should be retained, my own preference in such cases would be a WP:Soft delete, per the logic you have just expounded. In effect this was an uncontested PROD, and it had greater exposure for a longer time than a PROD. IMO it should be treated like a PROD, i.e., deleted but restorable on request. BTW I am wondering: in the dozen cases you found that were closed as Keep, how many were NAC closures? I will share my own recent experience as someone preparing for RfA: People who aspire to adminship want to do NAC closes at AfD to establish a record of competence at them. And some people just like to do NAC closes for whatever reason. This can result in a kind of competition to find and close the (really very few) AfD discussions that are eligible for NAC closure. Basically, there aren't enough "obvious keeps" to go around, for all the people who want to do NAC. I wonder if this creates a kind of incentive to close these no-quorum cases as "keep"? This is just speculation, I don't have any evidence that it's the case. --MelanieN (talk) 18:10, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Since you ask Melanie, two of the closers in my sample were admins and three not, but I didn't raise this intending to point fingers at particular people, rather to urge a rethink of the guidance that anyone closing these non-discussions is working to, whether admins or not. Congratulations, by the way: Noyster (talk), 18:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Oh dear! Looks as if this thread on how to close AfDs with no quorum is going to get ... closed with no quorum!: Noyster (talk), 13:33, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
@Noyster: I just noticed that you said those dozen examples were closed as "keep". Were they actually closed as "keep", or was it "No consensus, NPASR"? I don't see "keep" as one of the options at WP:Deletion process#No quorum, and if people are closing such discussions as "keep" they are not following policy. --MelanieN (talk) 19:03, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
OK, the closure notices don't say "the result was 'keep'", they say "the result was 'no consensus'" but the effect is the same: no action is taken and the article sticks around. People may well be discouraged from trying a second AfD after the first one failed, not due to any arguments to keep the article but for mere lack of interest. My suggestion is for the default action in such a case to be soft-delete rather than none: Noyster (talk), 23:01, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
And I agree with that suggestion. It would be nice if a few more people would chime in here. Does the lack of participation mean nobody watchlists this page? And if nobody watchlists this page, what effect would it have to change the guideline even if it is decided to do it???? --MelanieN (talk) 23:13, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Good point: according to the Page information link this page has 237 watchers but we don't know how many are currently active. I've crossposted to Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion, a page at least equally appropriate, which nets us another 1,460 watchers: Noyster (talk), 23:39, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
User:Noyster, if you have the data could you provide links to the 12 AfDs you mentioned above, where an AfD with no Keep votes was closed with No consensus? Having some examples could make it easier to think about this issue. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 23:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Here they all are then, all culled from one week of deletion logs:
: Noyster (talk), 00:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

RFC (quorum)[edit]

Per the above, when deletion discussions have no comments what should the administrator do? Soft delete, keep, or some other action? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 21:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Enforce nominator's opinion, provided that the possible closer doesn't have a contradicting opinion. If no one comments in the deletion discussion, the closer usually assumes that there is no contest to the nominator's opinion. If the possible closing admin/non-admin has an opinion that differs from the nominator's while reviewing the discussion, then it should be voiced in the discussion instead of the discussion being closed. In other news, I'm not sure why we're discussing this; I would believe that my belief is common sense, and has also been the way that it has been for ages. Seriously, this discussion, to me, seems like a solution looking for a problem. Steel1943 (talk) 23:58, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
See the section above, in which User:Noyster checked a dozen discussions where there was minimal participation and no "keep" !votes, but all 12 were closed as "no consensus" - which of course defaults to keep. --MelanieN (talk) 00:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
@MelanieN: Wow, it seems that we really do have a problem here, given that it seems common sense results may vary. In that case, I bid this discussion to carry on valiantly. Steel1943 (talk) 00:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
...Provided that Noyster answers EdJohnston's question above. Otherwise, I'm questioning the validity of this claim. Steel1943 (talk) 00:31, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, for a sample I just scanned through a single day's log: January 30, 2015. There were two no-quorum discussions closed as "No consensus": Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loud Tour (R5) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reputation Lewis. There were no no-quorum discussions closed as "delete". --MelanieN (talk) 00:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support making soft deletion the recommended option. Also, I've seen a lot of requests on WP:UNDEL for soft-deleted articles get rejected. AfD closers need to be explicit about when they mean soft deletion by actually using the words "soft delete" as opposed to just "delete," and UNDEL patrollers should feel free to restore an AfD with zero participation (not one, or two, for those cases the deleting admin has discretion over soft vs. hard and when not explicitly specified it is assumed to be hard) even if soft deletion is not specified. -- King of ♠ 06:32, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Soft delete - if nobody opines, it might as well have been an uncontested PROD. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:14, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Repeating my support comment from the discussion above. I believe closer discretion should be retained, but the recommended closure should be "soft delete", since the result of the discussion is pretty much the same as an uncontested PROD. Also, if the consensus here is to recommend "soft delete", we need to figure out how to convey that consensus to current closers. Right now they all seem to be closing no-quorum discussions as "no consensus". --MelanieN (talk) 17:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support soft deletion as the default option when there is no quorum, per MelanieN. There's nothing to stop a closer from specifying something like "on request, may be restored by any admin". Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:06, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support soft deletion as the default option, but leave regular old delete available to the closer's discretion. Reyk YO! 10:34, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose There is no quorum for consensus but I would expect closers to consider soft delete in these circumstances. Spartaz Humbug! 11:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Consider the first of the examples given above: Altai. This seems to be a tedious technical wrangle about disambiguation and so it's not surprising that most editors would soon decide that they had something better to do than get tangled up in that. But the word Altai is clearly deserving of disambiguation as it's a significant region and people in Asia. So, we should not let tiresome wikilawyering of this sort drive off contributors to the point that it damages the project. There are usually obvious alternatives to deletion in such cases and it's no bad thing if the nominator has to fall back on those. Andrew D. (talk) 15:15, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree that the Altai discussion was correctly closed as "No consensus." IMO that really wasn't a "no quorum" case, because multiple people participated in the discussion; it's just that none of them said "keep" or "delete". The proposal here would encourage a "soft delete" close in the type of case where there is no comment at all except for the nomination, such as this one. And this proposal would not REQUIRE a soft deletion; closer discretion would be maintained and would obviously have been used in this case. --MelanieN (talk) 15:31, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Prods can be declined, whereas AfD nominations usually cannot, with the exception of withdrawn noms with no delete !votes. Prefer to leave discretion regarding closures as it presently exists, rather than forcing delete closures for AfD discussions that receive no input. For admin closures, WP:SOFTDELETE always remains an option in these cases. NORTH AMERICA1000 15:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
True, AfD nominations cannot be declined, but a "keep" comment can be made, which takes the discussion out of the realm of "no quorum" that we are discussing here. --MelanieN (talk) 14:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Soft Delete - I recently nominated an article that had no !votes and was closed as "No consensus", After reverting the close - the afd got 1 delete !vote and was subsequently deleted - I firmly believe with or without that !vote it would've been soft-deleted which brings me on to the next point - More often than not I see the "no votes" AFDs being closed as No Consensus when it's obvious half can and should be soft-deleted,-
So personally I think No consensus type AFDs should be closed and soft-deleted by Admins only - If anyone had an issue we always have WP:DRV and WP:UNDELETION, Anyway that's my 2¢ on it. –Davey2010Talk 15:54, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Soft delete If there is a deletion discussion and nobody objects and the reasoning is valid then it should be soft deleted at the admin's discretion. Such a deletion should be reversed upon a reasonable request. Chillum 18:18, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
and the reasoning is valid That's a good qualifier, and it's why we will still need closer discretion. If they feel the nomination is not well based in policy, they could and should close as "no consensus". If the nomination seems completely bogus they could even close it as "keep". --MelanieN (talk) 19:10, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Soft delete. In agreement with Chillum here that soft deletion at the admin's discretion and reversion on reasonable request is the appropriate way to go. I would also encourage closers to make a !vote themselves rather than closing a discussion that has no !votes other than the nomination. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:00, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support soft deletion as default. Entirely agree with the logic that it should be treated as though it were an uncontested PROD. I disagree with the wording in the subsection below, but will address it there. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:03, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Soft delete as per previous commenters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon (talkcontribs)
  • Oppose Rule creep. This is not a common problem, and can easily be solved by renomination. A few frustrating non-deletions is not adequate case for introducing an entire new procedure. Soft close is sufficiently new that it would have to be incorporated into the procedures at many places, and I think at the vey least a fuller discussion would be needed with adequate notice to the whole community. DGG ( talk ) 21:24, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose delete (soft or otherwise). It creates opportunity for abuse. Should be more input than the nom and closer. If there is no participation, try again. Not such a bad worse case: try again. -- GreenC 21:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I thought that soft delete was the status quo already...apparently not. I'll see if I can find the discussion(s) that led me to believe so. ansh666 11:43, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose There's a few common cases where SOFTDELETE is counterindicated, it is often the right answer, but not uniformly so. Also per DGG. --j⚛e deckertalk 05:11, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Arriving here late, I see the discussion below may have reached a conclusion (not to make a change). I agree with that. I observe that the cases where there are no votes--and/or where I don't vote--are ones which are difficult, where it would take substantial effort to figure out what's best and/or to express a new kind of reasoning. Or maybe there's some feeling that the nomination is wrong, or there will be an unfair practical impact on some editor(s), or drama is likely, or the timing is not right. These are generally NOT just like PRODs, it is generally clear that there should be a discussion before deleting. These either need to be dealt with, by us facing the difficulties, or closed no consensus. No consensus effectively means either that keeping is the right thing, permanently, or keeping is right, at least for now. I appreciate MelanieN's summary that the consensus is not to change. --doncram 00:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose - No consensus is just that no consensus. That said, if you want to add to the closer's toolbox to be able to "soft delete" (which I presume is merely a courtesy blanking of the page) I don't mind that (especially in the case of a BLP), but it should definitely not be the automatic result of a no consensus / no quorum close. - jc37 00:43, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - on the occasions when leaving the article visible would cause actual harm to the encyclopedia, I imagine there is already a speedy deletion reason which can be invoked. Bringing an article to AfD indicates either that the proposer thinks discussion is necessary before it be deleted or a prod was rejected, in neither case is there implied support for deletion without discussion. In the case of an article which has been edited by several editors, there is presumably some implication that they think it should be retained, even if they are not watching it (I tend to avoid editing an article if I think it should be deleted, since my time will have been wasted). --Mirokado (talk) 02:58, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Attempt to clarify exactly what is being proposed[edit]

I find it is often helpful in a discussion like this to try to come up with the exact wording that is being proposed. Here is the section currently:

Current version:

If a nomination has received no comments from any editor besides the nominator (or few in the case of AfDs), the discussion may be closed at the closer's discretion and best judgment. 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 often used after an articles for 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.nd 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.

Here is what I think we are talking about with this proposal. An important point with this proposal is that soft deletion would NOT be forced or required. It would simply be made a more prominent suggestion in the options available to the closer.

Proposed version #1:

If an AfD nomination has received no comments from any editor besides the nominator, even after two or three relistings, the discussion may be closed at the closer's discretion and best judgment. If the nominator proposed deletion and their rationale is valid, the article can be considered equivalent to an unopposed PROD and can be closed with a Soft deletion. A soft delete result means the article is deleted but can be restored for any reason by any administrator on request. If your article was soft-deleted, you can request it be restored at Requests for undeletion.

Other common options which may be used at the closer's discretion 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, if it was not deletion.

This is just a first draft; comments welcome. MelanieN (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

To me the draft above reorders the list without really implementing the proposed changes above. In other words, the same options are presented without clear preference. If the nomination is valid, it should be considered as an uncontested prod. If it's not a valid nomination to begin with, it should be speedy kept. And, as always, it should be implied that if a would-be closer strongly disagrees with a deletion, he/she can decide not to be a closer and instead weigh in, thus removing soft delete as an option. What about:
Proposed version #2:

If an AfD nomination has received no substantive opinions or analysis from any editor besides the nominator, even after two or three relistings, the discussion may be closed at the closer's discretion and best judgment. If the closer determines the nominator's rationale to be valid, the nomination is considered equivalent to an unopposed PROD and can be closed with a Soft deletion. A soft delete result means the article is deleted but can be restored for any reason by any administrator upon request. If your article was soft-deleted, you can request it be restored at Requests for undeletion. If the closer determines the nominator's rationale to be invalid, it can be closed as Speedy Keep (see above).

I left out relist option because it's already presented as having been relisted "two or three times". I left out the NPASR option because that seems like what this proposal addresses directly. I left out the [hard] deletion option because, well, our premise is that there's no quorum for that. I also changed "If an AfD nomination has received no comments" to "If an AfD nomination has received no substantive opinions or analysis." I think that's closer to what we mean by "comments", which is otherwise much more broad and inclusive of administrative notes, off-topic comments, very general neutral questions, etc. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:31, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. This is more prescriptive than what I thought was being proposed. (As I said, that's why it's important to get actual language into the proposal.) In effect this eliminates the "no consensus NPASR" outcome. It's true that this discussion was inspired by what appears to be currently universal use of the "no consensus" option, and the feeling by supporters that "soft delete" would be more appropriate in most cases. But I believe "no consensus NPASR" should still be available per closer discretion - although I would like to see it used more rarely, and with a closer comment as to why they did not choose "soft delete". That's why I reordered the options but did not prescribe; I thought listing "soft delete" first implied it as the default, with the others listed as options, with closer discretion maintained. I do agree with your improvement to the first sentence. Hmmm, thinking further about it... how about adding an option "if the closer feels that the article should be kept or that consensus to delete has not been reached, they should post a !vote instead of closing"? Because if the feeling here is that these are unopposed PRODs, but the closer doesn't agree with deletion, they are in effect opposing the PROD - which reopens the discussion, and if no further comments are made, it allows the next closer to choose "no consensus".--MelanieN (talk) 23:29, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Would you mind putting this addition into context? It sounds good, but I'm unclear whether it negates/replaces But I believe "no consensus NPASR" should still be available per closer discretion. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Since the proposer said "recommend soft-delete unless the closer gives a reason to take another course," I don't think they are trying to remove NPASR as an option - it merely requires explanation as to why they deviated from the norm. -- King of ♠ 06:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
The RfC just asks "Per the above, when deletion discussions have no comments what should the administrator do? Soft delete, keep, or some other action?" I understood "per the above" to mean "per the issue raised above".
The scenario being discussed is one without the variables of a typical AfD, so it doesn't make sense to me why we would have multiple viable ways to close if consensus emerges on a default action. In other words, how would we articulate what kinds of scenarios would make sense as NPASR if the scenarios by definition do not vary except in the validity/quality of the nomination? Wouldn't it just come down to closer preference (i.e. where we are now)? If I understand MelanieN's latter idea correctly, it would present soft delete as the default action while presenting a clear course of action if the closer feels it should be closed as no consensus. That makes the most sense to me. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:25, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I kind of dropped the ball here. You are correct that I kind of changed my tune halfway through - I started out wanting to maintain the No Consensus option and ended up saying they should !vote. How about this for a more prescriptive set of guidelines? And we can ask people in the discussion above, do they want to keep the No Consensus NPASR option, or do they want such cases to be closed as soft delete as general practice? Here's a version of the guideline that does NOT offer No Consensus as an option. I guess this is Version 3. --MelanieN (talk) 02:10, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Proposed version 3:

If an AfD nomination has received no substantive opinions or analysis from any editor besides the nominator, even after two or three relistings, the discussion may be closed at the closer's discretion and best judgment. Recommendations:

  • If the closer determines the nominator's rationale to be valid, the nomination is considered equivalent to an unopposed PROD and can be closed with a Soft deletion. A soft delete result means the article is deleted but can be restored for any reason by any administrator upon request.
  • If the closer determines the nominator's rationale to be invalid, it can be closed as Speedy Keep with an explanation.
  • If the closer feels that deletion is not the appropriate outcome for whatever reason, they can cast a !vote with their opinion, and allow someone else to close the discussion (which now is no longer a no-quorum discussion).
Sounds good to me. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
As minimal modifications of this, (1)if the admin thinks it should not be deleted, it it ought to be keep, not SK. SK implies there is something wrong with the nomination, not just that the admin disagrees. (2) An argument agains the deletion , proposing am ere or the like, or something other than deletion , is an opinion whether or not in bold. Some of the examples presented here ha such opinions. Any reasonable challenge is a reason for not considering the afd uncontested. (3)There needs to be a formal requirement for at least 2 relistings.
But in any case, I quite frankly this is rule creep. The situation is not the common. Theo obvious thing to do is to simply renominate a month later. That almost always gets enough attention. DGG ( talk ) 21:21, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
This wording works for me. Might change "If the closer feels that deletion is not the appropriate outcome" to "If the closer feels that the nominator's rationale is valid, but that deletion is not the appropriate outcome, they can...". Otherwise we could consider an invalid rationale as "whatever reason". Not a big difference practically speaking, though. @DGG: I think the SK scenario is when there's something wrong with the nomination (invalid) rather than the admin disagrees (which is the third scenario). Is there another wording you'd recommend other than "rationale to be invalid" that would make it clearer? --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I actually do think "speedy keep" is a misnomer; the discussion has presumably been at AfD for two or three weeks and is ready to close, so a simple "keep" would be appropriate; there is nothing "speedy" about it. They should explain, in a comment or their edit summary, why they chose that option. I'll strike out speedy keep - better yet, I'll try to summarize the discussion here in a fourth proposed wording.
I am getting the feeling that people want "no consensus NPASR" to continue to be an option in this kind of situation, even if "soft delete as an uncontested prod" should be the recommended outcome. This situation (no quorum) seems to come up a couple of times a day. Recent research has suggested that all or almost all such cases are being closed as "no consensus", thus defaulting to keep, by both admins and non-admins. The discussion here is an attempt to change the culture, so that "soft delete" becomes more of an option - perhaps the norm - rather than the time-wasting need to renominate for deletion or the retention of articles that nobody thought it worthwhile to keep. --MelanieN (talk) 22:30, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The phrase "speedy keep" is a little weird, yes, but still seems appropriate. If I nominate an article with the rationale "I don't like it" and nobody notices for three weeks, surely it still qualifies for Speedy Keep. This is the same situation. It should almost never happen that an invalid deletion rationale goes unnoticed -- and is even relisted two or three times -- for so long such that the first person to act on it is the no quorum closer...but if it does happen, it would be a speedy keep. There is likewise nothing "speedy" about a CSD much of the time except insofar as it can be done without discussion when appropriate. Such is the case here.
I am getting the feeling that people want "no consensus NPASR" to continue to be an option - Those supporting above, other than King of Hearts, look to all be favoring soft delete by default, for the AfD to be treated as a prod, and/or to say, as Chillum, that it should be soft deleted at the admin's discretion. Certainly those opposing want to retain NPASR, but I don't think that's what you meant. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point or improperly reading into the opinions above. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:53, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Version 3 omitted the No Consensus option entirely; Version 4 restores it. I am thinking in terms of the possible. If we propose to outlaw No Consensus and make Soft Delete the rule - that is probably beyond what is possible. We are looking for consensus, and even if that is the majority opinion of people who have commented here (which is not clear), there are still some who disagree. This is not a vote. Our goal is consensus if possible, rather than majority rule being imposed over minority opposition. What I am trying to do - what I always try to achieve with these exercises in multiple draft versions - is to work toward a wording that pretty much everyone can accept. In this case I think a re-ordering of the existing options, and a re-emphasis on what is recommended, might well be acceptable to everyone. --MelanieN (talk) 23:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
A no quorum situation simply lacks the variables involved with most decisions made by admins/closers all over Wikipedia that call for such gray area: assessing consensus, evaluating arguments, interpreting policy, etc. Instead we have a standard scenario that (assuming we get out of the way whether the nomination was valid in the first place) should have a standard result rather than left to the personal inclinations of whoever happens to be closing. A PROD is a very similar scenario not just in the sense of being about deletion but also because when a PROD expires, it's a very matter-of-fact scenario wherein the "closer" acts based on very few variables: is the PROD valid? If yes, then delete or remove it as would anyone else. There aren't enough variables for something like "removing PROD without prejudice to someone immediately re-adding it". The same is true here. The would-be closer can effectively take down the PROD notice upon expiration by weighing in at the AfD or close a standard way (a standard way for which we can hope this thread will generate a consensus). --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:48, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

How about this? Proposed wording version #4, restoring the No Consensus option:

If an AfD nomination has received no substantive opinions or analysis from any editor besides the nominator, even after two or three relistings, the discussion may be closed at the closer's discretion and best judgment. Recommendations:

  • If the closer determines the nominator's rationale to be valid, the nomination may be considered equivalent to an unopposed PROD and can be closed with a Soft deletion. A soft delete result means the article is deleted but can be restored for any reason by any administrator upon request.
  • If the closer feels that the nominator's rationale is valid, but that deletion is not the appropriate outcome for whatever reason, they can cast a !vote with their opinion, and allow someone else to close the discussion (which now is no longer a no-quorum discussion and not eligible for soft-delete).
  • At the closer's discretion the discussion can be closed as "no consensus NPSAR", but they may wish to add a comment explaining why they did not choose "soft delete".
  • If the closer determines the nominator's rationale to be invalid, it can be closed as Keep with an explanation.

Comment regarding "rule creep": I don't see this as a new rule, but rather a re-ordering of the options currently in the guideline here. Right now the guideline recommends: relisting; closing as No Consensus; "closing in favour of the nominator's stated proposal" whatever that means; or (fourth and presumably last) soft delete. I am mostly trying to change the priority or order of the listed options, so that "soft delete" is the first thing a closer thinks of rather than the last. --MelanieN (talk) 22:48, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that "keep" makes sense at all for the last as it has implications for future nominations. Again, as my comment above, this means that a nomination as "I don't like it," if it makes it to a no quorum close, would be closed as "keep" rather than "speedy keep" as invalid. I don't understand including the third option unless some kind of explanation is given for when it could be an option. The only reason I can see of including it as an option is for the sake of those who don't like the idea of deleting in no quorum cases (making this thread moot). Other than that, it seems like it would have to be based on either the article or on the nomination, both of which are addressed by the other options here. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:02, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I do think we need to allow for the opinions of people who just don't like the idea of deleting in no quorum cases. And I don't think that makes this thread moot. This thread is about ENCOURAGING people to use Soft Delete, or even making them aware that the option exists. If your only acceptable outcome is to abolish No Consensus and replace it with Soft Delete, then this thread is indeed futile - because that idea is not going to pass. On the other hand, I am hopeful that we COULD pass a proposal to make Soft Delete a more visible and even encouraged option - while leaving No Consensus as an option for those who prefer it. As for Keep vs. Speedy Keep in the (likely very rare) case of an invalid nomination which has somehow survived unchallenged for three weeks, I am open to either. --MelanieN (talk) 04:10, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Here you're saying "abolish" and previously "outlaw", which is pretty loaded language. Nothing on Wikipedia is "outlawed" because there's always the caveat to ignore all rules if necessary. Regardless, what is the practical result of making soft delete "a more visible and even encouraged option" if no consensus is "an option for those who prefer it"? Flipping that, the closer's preference has more practical significance than the community's preference. Documented encouragement would mean it's the community's preference, but that's immediately negated by "no consensus an option for those who prefer it". Saying it comes down to the closer's preference makes the decision arbitrary based on the individual who closes it. Whatever is stated about soft delete should preclude personal preference. The problem is, as I've said above, preference is all there is when multiple options are given and there's no role for judgment (i.e. a standard situation with nothing in its particulars to judge). Regarding what can/can't pass, I can't agree. The majority of support opinions above look to be supporting, at weakest, "it should be soft deleted at the admin's discretion" which is quite far from a basis on preference. Yes, yes, majority isn't everything, but I'd like to think that if some consensus can be reached about what is preferred by the community, that it is implemented in a way that has real practical effects. Anyway, with this I'm feeling like I've posted more than my share to this thread so will sit in the timeout chair until others have had a chance to weigh in. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Still oppose re-reading the discussion, I think this is a classic example of how wikipedia process works: find a minor problem,and propose a complex solution. And in fact,as often the case for complicated fixes, it is counterproductive to the basic purpose of deletion policy: it puts borderline articles where they will not be found to be improved, instead of where they will be found to be improved; it is a direct contradiction to the basic rule that deletion is the last choice among possible solutions. DGG ( talk ) 05:16, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
To get back to my motivation for starting all this: if you oppose here, you should a fortiori be challenging the PROD system, which achieves the same result (deletion if no-one including the closer objects) with less visibility. The laudable attempt to find a consensus wording seems to be complicating the issue and paradoxically taking us away from consensus. To repeat: Proposal: that WP:QUORUM be redrafted to recommend soft-delete unless the closer gives a reason to take another course. Finally, "no consensus" shouldn't be the closer's verdict in AfDs with no participation; that term is more suitably applied where there was a debate which did not reach consensus. It should be either "no quorum: soft delete" or "no quorum: <keep NPASR/ keep / merge / etc> <rationale>". However, we can draft guidance all we want, but in the end someone has to apply judgement in each case, and in no-quorum cases no-one else has helped: Noyster (talk), 11:53, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I am abandoning my attempt to promote this idea, or to find a consensus wording for it. To me it seemed obvious that an AfD where no-one comments but the nominator is the equivalent of an unopposed PROD. In fact it seemed even more delete-worthy than an unopposed PROD, since it had more eyes on it and for a longer time - and in all that time nobody said they thought the article was worth saving. But if someone as experienced and respected as DGG disagrees, then it is simply not going to happen. Those of us who proposed this idea should instead focus on trying to make sure there are fewer discussions with no consensus. --MelanieN (talk) 22:30, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
    I like the concept, the problem is the implementation. I think rather than go about it this way, try to see if you could get support for the following: "Any page which was deleted as a result of Delete in an XfD, which had no commenters other than the nominator, may be considered a "soft delete", which means it is to be treated like a Prod, that is, that it may be restored upon request. An admin is obviously free to not grant the request at their discretion. (As a volunteer project, no admin is ever "forced" to use the tools.)" - This way, we're not relying on any closer in the past to ever have known about "soft deletion". - jc37 04:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


  • Please can someone post a link to a "soft-deleted" article so we can see the difference between that and a "deleted" article? Although I occasionally click on deleted article redlinks to find the deletion discussion I have never until now seen the term "soft delete". --Mirokado (talk) 03:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
The term 'soft delete' is used in closing the discussion, Mirokado, see [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. There is no difference in the actual deletion of the article except it will be restored on request, usually at WP:REFUND. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:51, 22 February 2015 (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.

practice and instructions for RFD analog to "old AFD" notices[edit]

On articles AFD'd but kept by "Keep" or "No consensus", there are clear instructions at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Administrator_instructions#Carrying_out_the_AfD_close about posting notice using template {{old afd multi}} at the Talk page of the article. In practice the posting is almost always done, AFAIK.

For articles RFD'd, there are no corresponding instructions at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Administrator instructions. Template {{Old RfD}} exists, but is it used in practice? (I think it is not usually used, but am not sure. It was not applied in one recent RfD that I followed.) Surely it should be used, always, when the redirect is not deleted, right? Or at least when the RfD discussion is essentially a request for deletion of the redirect?

BTW, on articles MFD'd, there are instructions in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Administrator instructions (item #5 there), about using {{old MFD}}. And I ask here because Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion/Administrator instructions redirects to this Wikipedia talk:Deletion process page. --doncram 05:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Probably off-topic in this section, but can we also add Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Administrator instructions to this discussion? Ottawahitech (talk) 16:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I put a AFD up but it didn't go on the page[edit]

So I put up a AFD for Zsolt Turi which indeed did get it, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zsolt Turi but for some reason it said error and didn't get on the page-seems to be a error there. (On another note yesterday a page I put up as a XFD didn't even get one for some reason until I redid it, and titles with ? don't seem to go through XFD) Wgolf (talk) 14:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I see you're using Twinkle - make sure that you wait all the way until the script redirects to the discussion page before closing the tab and/or window - this will allow it to complete all steps of the task successfully. And if you did do that, well...then I've got no idea. ansh666 17:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Procedural question on relistings[edit]

When an XFD is relisted, does that mean there's no consensus either way? And if there's no consensus either way, that defaults to keep, right? So what happens if no one comments after it is relisted? Is it a delete, no consensus, keep or what? Is it allowed for anything to be deleted on a relisted XFD that had no comments after it was relisted? –HTD 16:25, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Its a bit grey, When AFD was better populated a relist was less common and was more more for deadlocked discussions so we did tend to be harder about no commentary after a relist = no consensus. Now we are struggling to get enough participation a relist is often just an attempt to get a bit more participation. In this case if there is a relatively clear consensus once its clear we won't get anymore comments we can go ahead to clear it but obviously the closing admin should be more open to challenge about the close when the participation is a bit on the low side. Spartaz Humbug! 18:18, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Hmmm, I was going to reference something, but I realize someone else responded on the discussion, but not a separate vote but a reply to his delete vote that was unanswered; other than that no one else commented. The reply was above the notice of relisting so I didn't spot it. Is this a good enough reason for a DRV? –HTD 18:37, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
      • Depends what the arguments were. What AFD is this? Spartaz Humbug! 18:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
        • Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 April 3#Template:United States Squad 2002 FIBA World Championship. TL;DR: It's WP:IDONTLIKEIT vs WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. –HTD 18:43, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
          • Hmm TFD is a bit broken and very slow to close and arguments can be arbitary but this isn't one I'd want to hang my hat on for DRV to change the outcome. This looks like a clear participation relist and the close given several users voting to delete and only one real keep voice is well within the closing admins discretion. Honestly? You are most likely wasting your time but are welcome to give it a whirl and see how it goes given that TFD is a bit broken and DRV can be a bit random on both T and C deletions. (If it helps to know what I'm basing this on, I have been a DRV regular from 2006 and was the regular DRV closer for a long while so I do have a feel for the way DRV goes). Spartaz Humbug! 18:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
            • I know it's not a vote count, but basically it was 3-1 with 1 "comment". 2 had some valid deletion arguments as far as deletion arguments go, with just one stating actual policy, and the third one was just a single sentence vote because of "navbox creep". The keep was me (HA) citing WP:OSE and longstanding precedent elsewhere. I know that DRV isn't "XFD round 2" but for certain procedural things in case an admin missed out on something. At the very least I'm expecting a reopening of the XFD and see how it goes from there. –HTD 18:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Request for comment[edit]

Your comment is requested at WT:Templates for discussion#RfC: Proposal to allow non-admin "delete" closures at TfD. --Izno (talk) 19:14, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

"Previous voted..."[edit]

The edit made here seems to stem from the same idea as WP:INVOLVED though as Black Kite notes INVOLVED doesn't quite fit the bill since it seems to extend notions about administrators to closers of XFDs. Maybe it's creep to discuss it in this context. @Northamerica1000: who removed it (I'll let others decide whether it was a bold or a revert), and @MSJapan, Black Kite, AndyTheGrump, Andy Dingley, Reyk, and Timtrent: who participated in the original discussion. --Izno (talk) 14:00, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

  • See the RfC directly below this thread, and please comment there. North America1000 14:07, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Relisting process – Should relisting discussions automatically exclude users from any !voting in the discussion?[edit]

Responding to the request for closure at WP:ANRFC. Consensus is against including anything in the guideline about relisting and !voting at this time. That said, there is also general agreement that in some circumstances it's not a good idea, and that some caution is advisable when doing so. Sunrise (talk) 20:15, 28 July 2015 (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.

Recently an edit was added to the Deletion process page that stated, "Users who have previously voted in a discussion should not relist it, and users who have relisted a debate should not subsequently vote in it." (diff). This addition was based upon the fifteen-hour discussion at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 68 § Question on an AfD procedure..., which was in part about one AfD discussion. I reverted this change because it is rather abrupt and could have significant chilling effects upon users that contribute to AfD, particularly regular contributors who work to keep the backlog down. At this point, requesting community input regarding this matter via RfC. North America1000 14:06, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose – As worded, this limits users to too great of an extent. For example, if an editor relists a discussion as a part of routine AfD log maintenance, they should not be forbidden from later participation in a discussion. Additionally, if a user participates in an AfD discussion by !vote and the discussion has received little or no other input, or if new compelling arguments or sources are presented that were previously nonexistent in the discussion, etc., that user should not be limited from relisting in efforts for a clearer consensus to be obtained. In instances of AfD discussions with little or no input that require relisting, this type of addition to the guideline would also force users to consider whether or not they want to contribute to the discussion on the spot, adding unnecessary complexity to the process and creating an unnecessary barrier to keeping AfD running smoothly. Also, relisting is not the same thing as closing a discussion, and should not be considered as such. With AfD receiving less and less input nowadays, it seems too abrupt to further limit participation in this manner. North America1000 14:06, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Order matters Relisting after having made a comment on the substance of a discussion is problematic, a relisting essentially says more discussion is needed for a close, and thus a close immediately after, does sort of contradict the relist, even if not prohibited. Thus you should not relist a discussion you have !voted in. However I see nothing wrong with relisting, and then becoming WP:Involved in the substantive discussion, so long as a relisting was justified at the time you did so. So lets say there are three delete !votes, and no keeps; you should not relist because in its current state it should probably be closed delete, but you may vote !keep, and that may be enough for someone else to relist it. If instead its nom pluss 1 delete !vote and one keep, it would qualify for relisting, and after you relist it, there is no problem with voting either way. Monty845 15:10, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I used to !vote and relist on the same AFDs but was told I wasn't supposed too, My logic was If you've !voted in an AFD, Come next week your going through the entire log to relist and see the AFD needs relisting despite you voting - The easiest thing to do is relist instead of leaving AFDs here & there & to a certain extent being a pain, I continued to moan here but wiped it as was all off-topic so we'll leave it there, –Davey2010Talk 16:10, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • My thought on this is that it follows from the same principle as WP:INVOLVED, and I'm not sure that the practicality is worth being seen as being involved. What comes to mind regards Monty's "order matters":
    • For "!vote, then relist", the bad actor scenario here is that someone objects to the apparent consensus in a discussion (at whatever date; don't forget that some things are relisted more than once) and then decides that the consensus is not in his favor, and so prevents an uninvolved person (admin or no) from making the decision to relist by relisting it himself. This is clearly something that we should want to prevent from occurring.
    • For "Relist, then !vote", I think this is just a point of semantics to distinguish between the two. Whether the !vote appears above or below the relist, you still look INVOLVED to have relisted it yourself. Though perhaps I'm taking the case of "these actions are occurring near in time to each other".
  • I don't know whether I oppose the wording or agree with it, however, so this is just some idle thoughts. --Izno (talk) 17:07, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Circumstantial - the addition (and honestly, WP:INVOLVED as well) pretty much assumes bad faith (or the assumption of bad faith, or...you know) - the situation is almost never that black and white. I think that there should be a warning that relisting and opining on a discussion, in whatever order, could be seen as improper, but that it should not be forbidden except for egregious offenders. Also remember that a relisted discussion can be closed at any time, not only 7 days after the relisting. ansh666 21:02, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Relisting != closing. Relisting can not really be tainted by a !vote. Yes, editors should exercise some caution when relisting AfDs they have !voted in; however they can be closed at any time and by any administrator or non-admin in the case of clear cases (disagreements can be discussed), not necessarily in seven days. This would be instruction creep at best. Esquivalience t 22:15, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - First of all, it wasn't a "recent change" - the edit was made by me six weeks ago, based on the statement that BOLD would cover it. Here's the link to the AfD that spawned the discussion and led to the edit: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Adarsh_Liberal. The originator of this discussion (Northamerica1000) was the perpetrator of the issues that led to the edit, so this discussion is either disingenuous on his part, or he's hoisted himself on his own petard. TL:DR is: that AfD was 0-3 (inc. nom) after the initial 7 days. It was relisted (by NA1000) instead of closed. The votes then went to 0-5, but the article was relisted again by NA1000, who then voted keep not three minutes later. That is nothing but biased administration. Now he wants to have the policy edit overturned so he can continue to decide unilaterally what should be kept in this community project. Moreover, the edit was not to prevent "!voting", it was to prevent any voting in an AfD by those performing procedures, and vice versa, because INVOLVED wasn't strong enough on this matter. Anyone who relists a discussion should not be participating in it, because the votes matter to the discussion. In point of fact, my change was to address exactly what happened here, because as far as I am concerned, that AfD was going to be relisted until NA1000 got his keep/no consensus. MSJapan (talk) 00:50, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
I admit that regarding the above-linked discussion, it would have been better for me to have provided my !vote and to not have relisted it, leaving the decision to relist for another user. You're misinterpreting my intent here, though, which was innocent and to simply allow time for the new sources to be considered. It's not necessarily uncommon for discussions to be relisted when new sources are presented. For example, see this discussion, whereby an admin deleted an article and then reverted their close because new sources were posted around the same time it was being closed. Also, your vote count above is incorrect (diff): for starters, the first relist occurred after one delete !vote occurred, which along with the nomination, totaled two. Perhaps you misread the comment following the nomination as a delete !vote? North America1000 01:47, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
And that first comment was basically a keep opinion, though based on potentially faulty reasoning, making the first relist very reasonable. ansh666 03:21, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Too much logical fallacy here. What happened on another AfD is not germane to this discussion. Finding sources is not what happened here. Debating minutiae only derails the discussion. Off by one vote or not, I saw no issue with the first relist at any time (and stated such). A clear consensus was reached after the first relist, as there were no keep votes. The AfD was relisted instead of closed, with the relister voting contrary to the consensus after the relist. That is a problem, because it appears biased even if it's a mistake. To summarize the situational issues as to why I made the change:
1. Vote and relist/close - if clear consensus is there, there is no need to vote. If there isn't, the person is either creating consensus and closing or voting against the trend and relisting, in either case appearing to manipulate the AfD in support of their position.
2. Relist and vote - If a consensus has been reached, relisting is unnecessary, as is any additional voting. If consensus has not been reached, relisting and voting either way appears biased, as above, and more so when the relister's vote is against the trend.
That is the underlying issue behind the change to the policy page here, as INVOLVED doesn't cover this. I see no problem with adjusting either policy, but the opportunity for issues is too great if there is a requirement to remain neutral - if you look at the discussion on AfD, Black Kite closed several AfDs that fit the pattern I pointed out. It wasn't just one instance. This is one of those cases where if there appears to be a problem, there is. People fixing backlog should be doing admin tasks, not voting on AfDs, because AFAIK, no votes either way still can be closed as delete because there were no objections. We've got lots of precedents for AfD, but what happened in the Adarsh Liberal AfD shouldn't be one of them. MSJapan (talk) 19:12, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment – I feel that what has occurred in other AfD discussions is relevant toward this discussion, in part because changes to deletion policy should be based upon consensus, with consideration being allowed in this discussion toward precedents at AfD that exist, rather than based upon a bold edit to the Deletion process page per one AfD discussion. As I have stated, there is precedent for the relisting of discussions in which new information or sources have been presented, or ongoing discussion/commentary has occurred that was previously not present before a first relisting. As such, people that have participated in such discussions should not be automatically prohibited from relisting by default. Some examples of relisted discussions that were leaning toward or had a consensus that were relisted per new content presented in them are listed below.
I understand the notion of a person who has participated in a discussion that is leaning toward a particular outcome who has !voted against that outcome not relisting it, but I still feel it's too drastic to outlaw any relisting in discussions that an editor has participated in, particularly those that 1) do not have a clear consensus, and would likely be relisted anyway by another user, 2) when new sources/information etc. have been presented that has a reasonable likelihood to significantly counter previous arguments. I also think that a user who has previously relisted a discussion should not be forbidden from later participation, which is unnecessarily prohibitive, with chilling effects. As stated above, the change to the page, which stated (diff):
"Users who have previously voted in a discussion should not relist it, and users who have relisted a debate should not subsequently vote in it."
is too far-reaching and prohibitive, forces users to consider whether or not they want to participate prior to relisting, and does not take into account various circumstances that may occur. North America1000 09:10, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not sure what problem this solves. Someone relisting a discussion going the "wrong" way and then voting in the hopes that it will stay open long enough to attract votes to their position? That may be a problem but I don't know if it rises to the level of needing a policy to proscribe it. Protonk (talk) 16:52, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose for reasons given by Northamerica1000 and Protonk, though some clarification of 'inappropriate' re-listings might be useful.Pincrete (talk) 17:55, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: Another reason why relisting then !voting may be beneficial is because many assess notability by looking at the references alone, without searching for sources. Often, I come across AfDs with a consensus to delete, yet when I look for sources, they are blindingly obvious, I could just merely vote on the 7-day-old AfD and hope that the closer doesn't do a raw vote count, but it would make sense to relist then vote, as new sources are available, and it requires more discussion. Esquivalience t 02:51, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment – Also, as a related concept, at WP:DRVPURPOSE #3, it states that deletion review may be used "if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page". This is similar to the notion of relisting when new sources become available in an AfD discussion. North America1000 07:07, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment – Another AfD relisted per new sources presented in the discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Invoicera. North America1000 07:43, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't think the commenters should relist, but the other way around seems relatively harmless. What we actually need is for people to stop hitting the relist button because it's "close" and they want to give it another whirl around rather than close no-consensus. Stifle (talk) 10:38, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I think it's good practice not to relist discussions you've participated in, but I don't think it needs to be codified as such. The counterpart, about not commenting in a discussion you've relisted, is seriously problematic in the way it discourages participation in the discussion and/or AfD upkeep. I see a questionable relisting once in a while, but I can't think of any example in which it seemed like the person relisting was doing so in pursuit of a particular outcome. The language that already exists implies this, but I might be able to support some brief language along the lines of "If consensus emerges from the discussion, the debate should not be relisted in pursuit of a different outcome." That at least would address the problem, insofar as a problem exists, directly. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:41, 27 July 2015 (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.

Seven Days Rule and Discussion in a Nice Tone / Stop Fast Deleting[edit]

Maybe it's just me, but the admins at the German Wikipedia are very rude. Some of my articles were just deleted over night. It wouldn't be so tragic they were deleted, if I would understand why, and when I had a chance to explain my side of of view and they theirs (discussion). When then the better argument would be for a deletion, I would take it calm and say, well that's it. A lot of users, like me, are spending hours and entire days on creating articles/make articles better. So yes, it is hard when a Wikipedia article is deleted, but if it's understandable it's all right.

But German Admins use the "fast deleting" the whole time. And no, I am not spending hours on creating vandalism or things like that. I think it's rude when one person delete an entire article on their own - just because he had a bad day, the wife left him or something like that. It would be nice, if hard working people would get a Seven Day Chance to explain and discuss why/why not it should be deleted.

The German Admins just say "don't relevant, deleted" all the time. And well, the problem is, that deleted means gone forever. At other accounts I've written a lot of complex Chemistry/Physics/Mathematics (since I've studied it with a Phd). Really "basic" for bachelor/master students at those fields. But well, they are all gone, because one admin disliked Science (or what so ever).

I think we user should have some kind of protection from Admins. I think, that a Seven Day politics should be used much more at German Wikipedia. And hopefully some international Admins could fire the German ones and get some better people for the job. I think the fast deleting should only be for **Vandalism** and nothing more. And then let the arguments speak seven days, and based on the arguments and meanings of the Wikipedia community, the decision should be taken.

PS! I think people should be more friendly at the internet. They write thinks, they never would say to us at the face. And some of these Users are Admins. I don't like to get sentences like "this is shit and no one cares about it" - I have put a lot of effort in my articles, like the most. If it's not good enough, the community and author should together try to make it better. If it can't be better, you could at least be so kind to use a good tone and say "I don't think it is relevant, becaus ...". Everyone could live with that. --Basiliussap (talk) 21:01, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia, we can't do anything about the German Wikipedia. ansh666 22:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
No personal attacks also applies to users on the other Wikipedias. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. If you want, propose at the German Wikipedia, as we aren't Meta-Wiki, but such a rant would have scant success - I suggest you make it less critical. Esquivalience t 02:43, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Userpage[edit]

If you delete a userpage will it delete all of its subpages? I would like to delete a former userpage from a different account I had. StanCubed (talk) 17:51, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Clarification on reference to WP:TPO[edit]

Wikipedia:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions has two mentions of "appropriate notice as per WP:TPO". What specifically at TPO is this referencing? An expansion on the details would help, as it is not readily apparent to me. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 21:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC)