Wikipedia talk:Deletion process/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Suggest mandatory relist after re-open

The process for re-opening a deletion discussion is in my view poorly defined, and can and sometimes is done silently by a silent reversion. The close/re-open can be a sometimes be a contentious event. While comments can be left in the history it is actually not reasonable to expect all users of all experience to read them, and the element of surprise ... I thought I seen that discussion was closed .... and now it isn't can sometimes happen. A silent removal effectively removes the event from the discussion which is supposed by be write-only log of the discussion. I am minded rather than silently closing re-opening via revert should be followed by a mandatory re-list using XDFcloser with a suitable comment as per the example [1]. To avoid any ding-dongs I would also recommend any re-opened XfDs should be closed by an admin. I would suggest changing at WP:NACD by adding something similar to "The re-opened discussion must have a mandatory relist using XDFcloser with an appropriately detailed explanation given." after "Closures may only be reopened by the closer themselves; by an uninvolved administrator in their individual capacity, giving their reasoning; or by consensus at deletion review.". It may also be prudent to add "Discussions which have been re-opened should only be closed by an administrator". Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:57, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

This seems like pointless busywork, CREEP, BURO, or a combination of all three. If a discussion ends up at DRV and is re-opened, it's generally relisted. If a non-admin (or even an admin) is questioned about their close, and they agree to re-open, it's generally relisted. Forcing a relist with some sort of Scarlet Letter in the relist note isn't necessary. Primefac (talk) 20:25, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Well from a mostly AfD particpant viewpoint I disagree. We do seem to agree that general and possibly best practice is to use an XDFcloser relist and I see no issue of the problem isn't occurring after DRV re-openings. I douby anyone would try to use anything but XDFcloser for other operations on an AfD. While in the [2] RandomCanadian did use a note to explain the re-opening it almost read a little like a delete !vote (I perhaps technically incorrrectly followed it with an explict relist; partially to check out the process which I almost never perform). There was another case recently where a possibly inexperienced closer closed a case that had been silently re-opened a few hours before; an explicit relist would likely have been let run for at least 48 hours to gather further comments. Soften my comments on the explanation if necessary but please suggest best practice for this non directly scripted operation. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree it is instruction creep. In the case of DRV, it seems more like WP:COMMONSENSE that doesn't need mentioning (especially since it always happens). Using XFDcloser is not mandatory; and if people want to relist it manually they are free to do so (though why anyone in their sane mind would do so escapes me). Regarding "mandatory relisting", this would not be appropriate if the discussion was closed prematurely (eg. an invalid speedy keep; or an outright attempt a disrupting the process) - we should still trust editors to exercise common sense. Regarding the undone close which prompted this (mistakes happen), my note is not a delete !vote (otherwise I wouldn't have labelled it a Note), more like an "arguments presented above have no merits in the current case, so next closer should take notice of this, but I haven't done a search myself to verify if there's something else to substantiate them". I'm also reluctant to relist a discussion which I originally incorrectly closed without taking time to verify the source mentioned and in which I made a !vote (even if said !vote is a neutral note). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't know about the "admin-only" part. If there is a clear new and clear consensus that emerges after a relist/re-open, it would be appropriate for anybody to close it as allowed per WP:NAC and also a bit per WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. If it remains controversial, then non-admins should of course abstain per WP:BADNAC. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I have come across a use-case this morning where a mandatory re-list by Synoman Barris would have been pragmatically stupid : [3], to some extent because the AfD was recently opened with no participants. Taking on board comments WP:CREEP comments etc. I still would suggest "The re-opened discussion should normally be relisted using XDFcloser.". To state the obvious the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GeoTrust has escalated but because it can be argued I contributed to the escalation I cannot present it as evidence here. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:59, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Proposal - limiting use of WP:XFDCloser to those on a list, similar to WP:AFC tool user list

Notice: Discussion is taking place at Wikipedia talk:Non-admin closure#Proposal - limiting use of WP:XFDCloser to those on a list, similar to WP:AFC tool user list (permalink). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:30, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Template:AfDh up for deletion

Please comment at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020_October_11#Template:AfDh if you are so motivated. Primefac (talk) 03:15, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Process for links to deleted pages

Guidance is needed on how to handle links to deleted pages. In many cases it is appropriate to replace the link with text rather than simply deleting it, e.g., in lists of products. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 15:41, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

It's rather context-dependent. For what it's worth, WP:XFDCloser does give the option of "delink or remove line" when a link is part of a list entry. Primefac (talk) 15:43, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

From a non-admin point of view, if the remaining link would be a "desirable red-link" then leaving it intact is the way to go. This can easily happen if a notable topic's article is deleted as a blatant copyright violation. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:39, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletes don't usually result in unlinking backlinks, at least as far as the admins I watch/know goes. Primefac (talk) 16:40, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion: admins only or any user?

Unclear from the article. Can anyone post a speedy deletion template?

Cheers, Fredlesaltique (talk) 05:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Like anything on Wikipedia, the deletion process is open to all users and anyone can nominate an article for deletion, though only admins can actually press the delete button.

See also WP:CSD: Anyone can request speedy deletion by adding one of the speedy deletion templates. – Joe (talk) 08:53, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

@Joe Roe: Thanks! The Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion article was what tripped me up; I'll see if I can propose slightly clearer wording. Cheers, Fredlesaltique (talk) 11:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Discussion on proposed bot for restoring redirects to undeleted pages

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Bot requests § Restoring redirects to recreated pages. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:02, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Why do DAB pages get discussed at AfD instead of RfD?

The table at WP:XFD, and the first paragraph of WP:AFD, specifically state that disambiguation (DAB) pages should be discussed at AfD (and therefore not at RfD). I must admit I am surprised by this.

DAB pages almost never have any notability issues (though the target pages might), whereas that is usually the crux of the issue at AfD. On the other hand, DAB discussions can often rely of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC issues, in which case the choice of venue is fairly inconsistent; if a page starts as a redirect to a primary topic and you think it should be a DAB, you bring it to RfD, whereas if it starts as a DAB and you think it should be primary-redirected, you bring it to AfD.

The only reasons I can think for such a policy are technical: Twinkle cannot nominates pages that are not redirects to RfD, and I assume the RfD closer script has a similar limitation. Searching the archives, I found only this thread, from 2006, with a grand total of one question and one "I am not sure" answer.

My imagination is fairly limited so there surely are good reasons that DAB pages should be discussed at AfD. Can someone enlighten me?

By the way, I have brought a couple of DAB pages to RfD (violating this policy), including this one today (the nominated page is a redirect but the discussion will probably be mostly about the target DAB page). (Clearly I will not do that again if there is a good reason against it; I just did not know of the policy and went with RfD because it seemed obviously the thing to do.) Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 17:28, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

In my ideal world, we would have two forums for discussing the fate of mainspace pages: Articles for Discussion (AfD) for discussing solely whether a standalone article deserves to remain, and Titles for Discussion (TifD) for discussing titling and primary topics. So proposals to delete, merge, or redirect actual articles would go to AfD. Proposals to delete or reformulate disambiguation pages; delete, retarget, or reformulate redirects; or move any page should be brought to TifD (RfD and RM would be abolished). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:37, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Contradictory language regarding non-admin relistings

The following sentence, from the opening paragraph of § Closing discussions that run their full time, seems contradictory:

Usually, both closing and relisting are administrator actions, but experienced users in good standing may often relist pages.

...Which is it? Is relisting usually an administrator action, or do experienced users often relist pages? If experienced users "often" relist, then I don't think we can claim that it's "usually" an administrator action. OTOH, if it is the case that admins "usually" do it, then the expectation would be that experienced users only "sometimes" relist pages. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 11:32, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Fair point. Removed the "often". Primefac (talk) 12:07, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

@Primefac: I don't see the contraction here. Usually means more than 50% of the time, and often means more than 10% of the time. Admins can "usually" do the closure, while non-admins can "often" do the closure. Where's the contradiction? Dr. Universe (talk) 19:42, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Maybe not contradictory, but it doesn't really make any grammatical sense. Primefac (talk) 23:09, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I disagree that it doesn't make any grammatical sense. Let's see if others agree with you that it doesn't make grammatical sense! Dr. Universe (talk) 01:16, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, it's been changed for seven months now, and you're the first person who has said anything. I'd say that's good enough. Primefac (talk) 01:23, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: Follow example of TfD and non-admins to "close" some "delete" outcomes

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.

---

Proposal: Change WP:NACD so it applies to AFDs that require technical abilities they do not have.

Suggested trial period: 6 months, subject to early termination.

Rationale:

• The number of new admins each year is much lower than it once was. Allowing this will free up admins to do other tasks.
• Non-admins are already allowed to close some discussions that result in "redirect" or "merge."
• Non-admins with the "page mover" user-right are also allowed to close some discussions that result in "draftify" and "userfy".
• In cases where the non-technical criteria of WP:NACD are met, there is no reason not to extend this to all qualified editors.
• The delay serves 2 purposes: 1) it makes it easier to undo the action if a mistake is made, and 2) it makes it a little easier for a human editor or bot to follow the redirect during the first 24 hours.
• WP:NACD already has provisions that restrict this to experienced, uninvolved editors familiar with AFD who are making "non-close" calls.

Suggested implementation detail

• Replace the AFD'd page's content with a new "Deletion pending, per [discussion page]" template for 24 hours. In the case of "draftify" or "userfy" this would include the new page name. After 24 hours, automatically replace the page with {{db-g6}} with |rationale=[outcome] per [discussion page] using {{update after}} or a similar template.

Support (NAC)

1. Support as nominator. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Oppose (NAC)

1. Strong oppose. As this is a perennial proposal, User:Tavix/non-admin closes is an essay I wrote on the topic. In fact, I would much prefer that the TfD loophole be closed (the original discussion was to allow "orphan", not "delete", but I digress). -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:11, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

   Extended discussion moved to "TfD closing" section below. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:59, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

2. Oppose regretfully. AfD is not TfD. Anecdotally: I'm one of the most active non-admin closers at TfD, yet I have never closed a single AfD (although I'm active as a participant). The reason, quite simply, is I think non-admin closes at AfD can be dubious and lead to a lack of trust in the outcome. AfD tends to attract editors who lack experience to close AfDs ime, and often I've seen AfDs closed by non-admins which give me the feel that the closer relied on vote count and didn't analyse the actual discussion properly (eg Special:Permalink/1004982984). This leads to a lack of trust that the correct outcome was reached. DRV is not an argument against this: not every close is appealed to DRV, but that doesn't necessarily make it a good close; a lot of closes can come down to closer's discretion, where there's multiple possible valid closes which would've been upheld at DRV, which is why it's important to have trust that the closer knew what they were doing. In contrast, at TfD it's relatively rare that inappropriate NACs made, and when they are it's reversed by an admin (usually Primefac), and only a couple of non-admins close, with not really any irregular closers that I can think of. AfD is a far bigger throughput, a larger range of guidelines and precedent which needs to be considered, and a lot more non-admin closers with varying experience.
   FWIW, I strongly support non-admin closes in most areas, but I think deletion and conduct cases are exceptions. I see TfD as an exception where the conditions allow it to work, rather than the rule. I would be interested in seeing this tried at CfD though, which tends to end up quite backlogged and I think NACs could work there. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:17, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

   Commenting without !voting (for now); I find this take interesting, because the matter of NACs on the minor XfDs is a point where people routinely contradict one another without seeming to notice. WP:NACAFD itself -- where people interested in NACs are often routed -- sternly claims it categorically inappropriate for non-admins to close XfDs other than AfD and RfD without 'extraordinary experience'. (Personally, I've made some CfD NACs.) Vaticidalprophet (talk) 13:26, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

3. Strong oppose, and quite certainly not for any bias against NACs. An inappropriate delete is one of the most damaging things an admin can do on Wikipedia; the primary purpose of RfA is to make sure people don't get the delete and block buttons who would horribly mistreat them. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 13:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
4. Oppose While a keep remains in the purview of all editors, a delete has very little review. Can't take a chance here. Lourdes 14:40, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Neutral (NAC)

Discussion (NAC)

• The list from January 27 has more than a few that would qualify under this criteria. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
• This should probably be advertised as an RfC and listed at T:CENT, imo, as it's a drastic change in the status quo. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:27, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

TfD closing

Moved from oppose #1. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:59, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

1. Though I oppose this proposal, I disagree strongly with your essay. If I recall, you were also strongly opposed to NAC deletes and soft-deletes at TfD, yet it went through anyway and history shows that 99% are not problematic; it works and keeps the backlogs low. I think that essay is more based around idealism rather than any practical realities or evidence, also evidenced by the fact that afaics you've only closed one day of TfDs (Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 July 15), whilst active TfD admins seem to be in support of the concept. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:26, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

   No, it doesn't work, it just creates unnecessary work for the admins who have to both check that the closure is "correct" and then carry out the deletion themselves, when it is just as easy for them to actually make the close. Since you cannot carry out any "delete" closures you make, your closure does not have any "effect" until that admin comes in, and if the closure is disputed for any reason, you'd have both the closer and the admin to deal with. I disagree that it helps with the backlogs—for one because the same amount of templates are being deleted either way. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:38, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

   Most of the admins that execute my TfD delete closes do not close TfDs themselves, they just patrol the G6 category, so that's not true. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

   So you're unnecessarily cluttering CSD... -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

   WP:G6 is the relevant policy page (Deleting templates orphaned as the result of a consensus at WP:TfD.), along with precedent. If you disagree with the policy & consensus you could {{rfc}} and raise your concerns. CAT:G6 is rarely "cluttered", and it's certainly better than leaving discussions unclosed for weeks. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:50, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

   You missed my point. If the TfD were instead closed by an admin instead of yourself, you wouldn't need to get CSD involved with the closure. It would be less complicated and more efficient. By the way, it's nothing against you personally, it's simply the fact that you cannot actually delete templates. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:51, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

   Plenty of TfDs I've closed haven't been closed for weeks. After I close and tag them, they're deleted in hours. But again, if you disagree with the policy & consensus you could {{rfc}} and raise your concerns. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

   (edit conflict) Personally, I don't see a bit of a backlog as an issue. Truly problematic templates (vandalism, advertising, BLP vios, etc.) would most likely meet a WP:CSD criterion and wouldn't need TfD so there's really no need to rush. If a backlog gets long enough, then that would be a great opportunity to show "need" for the admin toolkit at RfA. By the way, I heard you the first time, you don't need to repeat yourself. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:09, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

   As an admin at TFD, no, I absolutely endorse NAC closes for "orphan"/delete at TFD. --Izno (talk) 19:48, 3 February 2021 (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.

WP:NACD vs. WP:NACAFD (Can a non-admin ever close as no consensus?)

WP:NACAFD (essay) is stricter than WP:NACD. Going by the former, non-admins can only close a clear keep, but under the latter, they can also close as no consensus, when that outcome is is not a close call / controversial decision. And indeed, in some (but not very many) cases, no consensus closures are not close calls or controversial. Therefore my question is: Can a non-admin ever close as no consensus? This would mean that the categoric stance of NACAFD regarding keep as the only allowable NACD outcome is in collision with the guideline. — Alalch Emis (talk) 22:13, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

@Alalch Emis: Generally speaking, essays are allowed to be stricter than guidelines and rules; indeed this is often their express purpose, but no one is (technically) bound by them. NACAFD, an essay, can recommend that you only close a clear keep, but only NACD has the force of "wiki-law", as a guideline; closes of no-consensus under NACD, therefore, might be more likely to get overturned at deletion review, but are still legitimate actions on the part of the closer, as long as they abide by NACD. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:57, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Application of WP:SOFTDELETE beyond AFD

Hi, two other administrators (Primefac and Izno) and I have conflicting views regarding the application of WP:SOFTDELETE, specifically for a "soft delete" result outside of AFD (see User talk:Explicit#Soft deletes at TFD for context). As I stated there, I have always interpreted SOFTDELETE as extending to any XFD venue where discussion was not forthcoming; at the administrator's discretion, it allows them the option to uncontroversially delete a page due to little to no participation, where a page can be restored upon another editor's reasonable request. Primefac shares this view. However, because of the wording of both WP:NOQUORUM/WP:XFDcloser (the closing administrator should treat the XfD nomination as an expired PROD... and Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). and WP:SOFTDELETE ("article" instead of "page"), Izno has argued that "soft delete" does not appear to be option that can be applied to WP:TFD and, by extension, other non-AFD venues because there is no PROD-like process for pages other than those specifically written as articles and media files. We would like to seek clarification regarding the matter and, if needed, modification of the guideline to be more inclusive. ✗plicit 03:48, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think this has been explicitly discussed before but, ironically, in the 2016 discussion that led to SOFTDELETE being added, the proposer noted that it was already "the norm at WP:TFD" and WP:RfD. – Joe (talk) 06:36, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Interesting! If there is no opposition, I plan to replace "article" with the word "page" to be more inclusive, given that this was already a practice even before the WP:SOFTDELETE section even existed. ✗plicit 10:56, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I can't speak for TfD, but at RfD nominations for deletion that get no participation are closed as either "delete" or "soft delete" at the closing admin's discretion. Thryduulf (talk) 00:04, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I have always understood SOFTDELETE as not limited to articles, but to any XfD with insufficient consensus, and have said so, unchallenged, a few times recently at DRV. (such as Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 October 31) Jclemens (talk) 23:22, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

While deletion principles apply strongly to mainspace content, and less strongly to not-really-content like categories and templates (unless your interest is the template code itself), NOQUORUM and SOFTDELETE are implied by WP:SILENT WP:CONSENSUS, and WP:CONSENSUS is kind of important everywhere. If the TfD achieved a weak consensus, such as WP:Silence, then if someone comes along later with a counterpoint, then the CONSENSUS thing to do is to revisit the weak discussion, or just reverse its outcome and allow the discussion to restart if&when someone cares. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:42, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

One of the issues that TFD needs to wrestle with that is not applicable to many (any?) other of our deletion fora is that a deletion there may impact many pages. Separately, TFD is one of the places where a non-admin may close as delete (a practice I endorse, so I mention it only as a possibly interesting factor). Most cases of templates for which a soft delete would end up occurring for lack of a quorum are those used on only a few pages, but still, sometimes the uses of the template will not trivially be able to be 'returned' to the articles on which they were used prior to the soft deletion.

(I have no comment on the other XFD.) Izno (talk) 01:08, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes I think I agree with all of that. What it means is that following a NOQUORUM late substantive new argument, the deleted template or category should be undeleted, but that does not mean automatic re-adding the template or category to the pages it was removed from. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:39, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

@Izno: Non-admin closures resulting in delete are also made at WP:CFD, which can also potentially affect hundreds, sometimes thousands, of pages. I'm not sure if NACs that affect that many pages happen in practice, but such an occurrence is possible. If the NAC is particularly bad or just contested, any uninvolved administrator can revert that closure per WP:NACD. I imagine these would occur rather quickly and not after a significant time has lapsed. Are there any recent closures from TFD—even those closed by admins—which can be used as examples of instances where templates might "not trivially be able to be 'returned' to the articles" if a soft delete is overturned? ✗plicit 04:38, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2021

Expand the shortcuts in the WP:XFD section to Wikipedia:Deletion venues and Wikipedia:Deletion forums since the namespace shortcut followed by a full title seems... unbalanced (is that the right word?). 172.112.210.32 (talk) 23:52, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm having trouble understanding what exactly you mean by "expand the shortcuts". Could you elaborate? ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 05:33, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Currently they show as WP:Deletion venues and WP:Deletion forums. The abbreviation for the project namespace comes before a full title redirect. 172.112.210.32 (talk) 15:40, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Nevermind. They've been reduced to DELV and DELF. 172.112.210.32 (talk) 15:42, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Edit request - page is very obtuse about closing the process

Hello. Could someone who understands the process make a section outlaying the accepted steps for closing the procedure? I've been looking up and down this page, and it was only when someone told me it was a seven day thing and that someone unconnected to the request had to do it that I could word-search to find those bits. And I still can't find anything about removing the notice if everyone thinks it should stay. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 21:11, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@TiggyTheTerrible: Do you mean this section #Closing discussions that run their full time? There are links for administrators who are deleting or determining consensus; and just under those links are instructions on how to relist, and a section on WP:NAC. (please ping on reply) Happy editing--IAmChaos 18:59, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I've closed your request, if you want to reopen it, remove the |A from the template

Ah. Oh. Thank you. I'll see myself out lol. Tiggy The Terrible (talk) 19:16, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion - "please verify" vs "must verify"

Based on the strength of the language used in the speedy deletion policy and the way that policy is interpreted, I changed the sentence "Before deleting a page through the speedy deletion process, please verify that it meets at least one of the criteria for speedy deletion" to "Before deleting a page through the speedy deletion process, administrators must verify that it meets at least one of the criteria for speedy deletion" (italics to highlight the change here only.). This was reverted by Spartaz saying this feels a bit like process creep. I disagree and feel that it more accurately reflects the way speedy deletion works and is intended to work (e.g. RHaworth was deysopped for (in part) persistently failing to verify that pages tagged for speedy deletion actually met the criteria. What do others think? I'll leave a notice about this discussion at WT:CSD. Thryduulf (talk) 22:31, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

• I disagree that the language needs hardening. Obviously admins need to check what they are deleting but hardening the language isn’t necessary and RHaworth had multiple warnings and challenges so was clearly and outlier. We shouldn’t write policy for outliers. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:36, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

  This is not writing policy for outliers, it is using RHaworth as an example that demonstrates what the community expects administrators to be doing. Thryduulf (talk) 23:57, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

• Must is unambigous expectation language. I like the improved version, although I grant that admins should all know this regardless. Jclemens (talk) 22:48, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
• It's unclear what actual ongoing problem this proposed change is intended to solve. I'm wary of any change that mechanises the admin role instead of letting discretion and good judgment remain part of the process. Reyk _YO! 03:04, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

  Your comment implies that "discretion and good judgement" mean there are times it is acceptable for an admin to speedily delete a page without verifying whether it meets at least one speedy deletion criterion. Please can you elaborate on what those situations might be and where policy allows for this? As for what problem this is solving - admins not verifying that a page meets speedy deletion criteria before speedy deleting - it happens often enough (see DRV) that strengthening the language here to match the strength of the language at WP:CSD is worthwhile. Thryduulf (talk) 10:25, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

  Gunge like this absolutely should have been speediable and I'd defend any admin who uses discretion and good judgement to speedy delete it or similar gunge. Reyk _YO! 08:20, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

  Why did that need to be speedily deleted or even taken to MfD? If there is a BLP issue then remove the problematic text (requesting Oversight if needed) and just leave it be until G13 happens - which is basically the point of G13. Thryduulf (talk) 11:40, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

  Why wait six months when we can deal with it today? Reyk _YO! 01:36, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

  I don't remember that draft. Was it unsourced? I maintain that "unsourced BLP" should be a sticky BLPPROD in every namespace.

  Was there a BLP violation? In that case, WP:BLPDELETE applies. I accepted consensus that BLPDELETEs are to be hidden under code G10.

  If neither of the above, eg it is reposted information from the subject's social media, then 6 months for G13 is appropriate, because "deal with it now" incurs editor overhead cost exceeding the problem with it sitting, harmless worthless noindexed, for 6 months. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:54, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

  I can't see the contents now because I'm not an admin but IIRC the creator was also up to some shenanigans that called for prompt attention. Possibly fidgety edits just to reset the G13 clock? Certainly enough to make the participants of the XfD opine that speedy deletion was called for. Reyk _YO! 02:05, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

  No one said "speedy" but you. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:12, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

  Objectively false. Ivanvector argued that the A series of CSD should apply here. Legacypac, LX31, and (by implication) jni also called for a CSD template here. Reyk _YO! 02:19, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

  I was looking at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Bryce Morgan. I see you inferred, somewhat reasonably, but differently to me.

  We went through a few rounds of pushing for A11 and A7, A11 especially, to be extended to draftspace. The proposals were routinely defeated. One counter is that it may take a couple of days for the author to get back to the draft, and a few more words can make something out of an A7 or A11. Immediatism if it applies to mainspace is very hard to extend to draftspace.

  From there, I have moved to promoting BLPPROD in draftspace, in all namespaces actually. There is an option that is between MfD and Speedy. "Speedy" is not required. jni's comment would be satisfied by BLPPROD, which allows the author to add a reliable source, and the outcome is decided without an MfD.

  To date, all MfDs where I have !voted "delete as an unsourced BLP" have been deleted if a reliable source was not added in seven days, with the exception of one case where it was judged that the unsourced draft was the user's autobiography (I guess it should have been moved to their userpage, I don't argue that BLPPROD should be used on main userpages for the user's self-introduction). SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:43, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:JK Llamera. Unsourced BLP, but no consensus because it is an autobiography, which is odd, because drafts have often been deleted with a contributing reason that they are autobiographies. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:49, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

• I don't believe the policies allow – or the community expects – administrators to be able to use speedy deletion for pages that don't meet any speedy deletion criteria. But that's what the page already says, no? I don't know if it's just me, but doesn't "please verify" mean exactly the same thing as "you must verify"? Regardless, I think it's usually best to avoid the imperative and have declarative statements instead, so a wording like "administrators must..." is preferable here, but that change would probably need to involve the rest of the page as well (it uses the imperative a lot). – Uanfala (talk) 15:36, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• Agreed with the comments above, hardening amounts to scope/instruction creep. Admins should already be doing this anyways, not a helpful change. -FASTILY 02:14, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

  No, it's not CREEP in any sense of the word, rather it's actually stating the actual expectations. No admin should be speedily deleting a file that doesn't meet at least one CSD ever. If there was such a case, IAR could be invoked, but I'm pretty sure no such need exists because the various CSDs cover every situation in which it is appropriate to delete a file without a discussion. Jclemens (talk) 06:51, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

  Now that you mention it, IAR is a good reason to not change the wording. Claiming that "the various CSDs cover every situation" is frankly ridiculous given that criteria have been modified/removed as recently as last year. -FASTILY 07:55, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

  IAR is never a reason to speedy delete anything. Speedy deletion, by policy, can only when the deletion would be uncontroversial. The only occasions deletion is uncontroversial is when the page unquestionably meets one or more of the speedy deletion criteria. IAR is only for cases that uncontroversially improve the encyclopaedia - deleting a page that does not meet the CSD criteria is always controversial. If you think there is something that should be speedy deletable but is not then draft a proposal that meets all the requirements of WP:NEWCSD and get consensus for it. If there isn't consensus that things should be speedily deletable then they should not be speedily deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 11:44, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

  Name one proper IAR speedy deletion ever, please. The criteria are changed because the community decides what they're sick of seeing at AfD, or because the CSD criteria no longer fit the current state of the encyclopedia. Jclemens (talk) 00:27, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't think Aisle information for Coles (Burwood, NSW) fitted any CSD reason exactly, but I stand 100% after my IAR speedy deletion. I hope no one will claim that deleting that page didn't improve Wikipedia. Still, it wasn't nonsense, a hoax, one of the A7 categories, an attack, a copyvio, ... Why else do we actually have IAR? Fram (talk) 12:00, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

That was a completely inappropriate speedy deletion because there was absolutely no reason why it couldn't wait for the AfD to close. Yes it would have been deleted (possibly SNOW deleted) but so what? What was the rush? What harm was it doing to have it at AfD for a few days? The reason we have speedy deletion for things that are not actively harmful (attack pages, copyvios and similar) is because we get so many of those things that they would clog up the relevant XfD - if there were many of these things then the AfDs would show a need to construct an objective criterion to speedy delete them (in this case probably an extension of A7), if they're all getting speedy deleted then there is no evidence of need (and WP:IARUNCOMMON applies). If there aren't many of them then they aren't harming things to have them at AfD. We have IAR for things other than speedy deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 12:22, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I hadn't noticed that subrule at WP:IAR, "We have IAR for things other than speedy deletion.". I'll have to reread that policy again then, as I apparently did something "completely inappropriate" even though it was out in the open for anyone to see and no one had an issue with it at the time. Perhaps I should have started another AfD for List of retail layout tables then as well? Sometimes nipping very bad ideas in the bud is better than letting pointless burocracy rule. But feel free to start a DRV for these, might be an interesting discussion! Fram (talk) 13:29, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

It's not worth a DRV because the right outcome was arrived at through the wrong process. Yes, you should have started an AfD for that list for two reasons (1) PROD had been objected to so deletion was not uncontroversial; and it didn't meet any CSD criterion so deletion wasn't uncontroversial.

There isn't a subrule at IAR because it isn't needed because, as I've explained, nearly everybody understands that IAR is only for uncontroversial actions. WP:CSD (which it seems you might need to reread) is explicitly only for uncontroversial actions and speedy deletion of anything that does not meet a speedy deletion criterion is, by definition, controversial. 19:54, 13 January 2022 (UTC) Thryduulf (talk) 19:54, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. This is precisely the sort of gunk that an administrator showing initiative and good judgement can and should speedily delete. Reyk _YO! 21:15, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Nope, there is never a justification for speedy deleting a page that does not meet the criteria - doing so is an abuse of the administrator privileges in every case because it is explicitly against policy. Either a page meets one or more criteria or it may not be speedily deleted, there are no other options available to anybody. Thryduulf (talk) 01:06, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

So you keep asserting. However, I do not agree with or believe your assertions. If you think this was an abuse of speedy deletion, take it to DRV. Reyk _YO! 01:30, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree, but it shouldn’t be under G6. We should create a new log code for IAR deletions. So left field a creation that no one ever imagined it. I’d have gone with G11, Coles is a supermarket, and this would have been information to attract you to using their shop. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:25, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

A rule for IAR speedy would be a guaranteed failure of WP:CSD points 1 (objective) and 3 (frequent) and likely point 2 (uncontestable). If it's so left-field that nobody ever imagined it, and it doesn't meet any existing CSD, then either it's going to be a snow delete at AfD or there wont be a consensus for deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 19:58, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I do not advocate a rule for IAR speedy, in fact I would be against it, it being directly contrary to IAR. I am advocating for a log code for deletions that are contrary to deletion policy, as written. Better to be honest about the deletion not matching a CSD criterion than to hide it under G6. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

No page should be deleted contrary to the deletion policy. Ever. For any reason. That's why we have a deletion policy. Thryduulf (talk) 11:11, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Thryduulf appears to read the following prominent policy line seriously.

The criteria for speedy deletion (CSD) specify the only cases in which administrators have broad consensus to bypass deletion discussion, at their discretion, and immediately delete Wikipedia pages or media

I agree. No page should be deleted contrary to the deletion policy. Thryduulf is performing admirably as a moral anchor.

The question is what to do when a page is deleted contrary to explicit policy? Some go to argue the standing of the policy pages, WP:IAR vs WP:CSD. I prefer to argue that every policy as written is prone to be inaccurate, often lagging practice, and the solution is to update policy to reflect accepted practice, with a lean toward articulating best practice.

In these cases, good practice is to report practice policy mismatch, meaning to tag them in the deletion log as IAR deletions, do not tag them as G6. For SPI/LTA DENY deletions, create a new code. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:51, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

You don't seem to fully grasp what the three letters IAR actually stand for, as you argue that an IAR deletion isn't allowed because it violates some rule. Calling it an abuse of administrator privileges is just ridiculous. Fram (talk) 07:57, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

IAR is for actions, contrary to rules, that uncontroversially improve the encyclopaedia. Deleting pages contrary to the deletion policy is always controversial and is not an improvement to the encyclopaedia - if administrators could just delete any page they thought should be deleted then the speedy deletion policy would simply not exist. Thryduulf (talk) 11:14, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

• Use of the word "must" rather than "please" will not make speedy deletion any less subject to IAR, as the applicability of IAR is not dependent on the strength of language in the rule being ignored. (This comment is not taking any position on the opposition of IAR to speedy deletions) Thus, much of the discussion above is irrelevant and I see no reason to object to Thryduulf's wording change. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:56, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

  For what it's worth, I did a database query and found a total of 402 deletions in 2022 whose edit summary does not directly reference one of the standard deletion processes. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:38, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

  It is not a requirement to reference the particular speedy deletion criterion a page is being deleted under when speedy deleting a page (whether it should be is a whole different argument), and not every deletion not referencing a process will have been a speedy. However, that does seem like an extremely high number that should be investigated. Thryduulf (talk) 01:09, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

  Agreed. I've manually filtered out ~30 entries that referenced an established deletion process in a way that my original database query missed, and posted the rest as a table at User:Pppery/deletions. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:05, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

  @Pppery: Thank you for that list. I've looked at about the first 15 there and not found any errors. I've put some comments on the talk page. Thryduulf (talk) 11:22, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

• 'Please' sounds better than 'must'. You catch more flies with honey... -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:16, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  • You've never written policy for a living, have you? I have. Shall and must are the rule of the day; being nice introduces ambiguity, which in the corporate world means lawsuits. We don't have to worry about that here, but it's still a best practice. Jclemens (talk) 02:27, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Jclemens, you asked for an example of a proper IAR speedy deletion. User:Clintric/sandbox this page was speedily deleted on 1 September 2015 along with hundreds of others. As far as I'm aware none of them met any criterion for speedy deletion, but the deletion was right, proper and indisputably for the benefit of the project.

The present wording seems to be working adequately, and changing it won't make it work any better. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:36, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

@Justlettersandnumbers: user:Clintric/Sandbox looks to have been deleted per G5, it was also tagged for G4 (recreation) and G3 (spam). So, that's not an example of an IAR speedy deletion, let alone a correct one. Thryduulf (talk) 11:10, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Clintric/sandbox was deleted without referring to misleading CSD code.

I have proposed a few times that these well-justified LTA/SPI deletions by checkusers and their clerks should be explitly allowed for them, as opposed to WP:DENY-failing XfDs, and give a code to discourage abuse of the G6 code. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:15, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Well G6 is certainly the most overloaded and very likely the most abused CSD criterion (it is not a catch-all). I've proposed splitting it a few times but that has not gained traction other than very minor things (G14 and R4 were split but that's it so far), so I certainly wouldn't support adding anything to that criterion for LTA/SPI uses. If you can craft a proposal for a new criterion that meets all the WP:NEWCSD requirements though then propose it at WT:CSD and see what the consensus is. Thryduulf (talk) 18:46, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

On the subject of G6, there have been a total of 1817 G6 deletions in 2022. Of those,

1. 329 are of pages in ClueBot III's userspace.
2. 264 are deletions of dated maintenance categories
3. 193 are deletions per WP:BOTN#Double redirects for user's scripts
4. 183 are deletions using the default summary when an admin moves a page to a title that is already occupied
5. 156 are deletions of subpages of Template:Infobox road (these all have the edit summary of literally [[WP:CSD#G6]]). There's a vaguely related discussion at Template talk:Infobox road#/translation subpages orphaned.
6. 96 use the default summary from {{db-error}}
7. 91 are deletions of of pages in the article talk namespace by Tassedethe. The typical context for these deletions is that they move an incompletely disambiguated page to a more disambiguated title, retarget the mainspace redirect left behind from that move to a disambiguation page, and then delete the talk page redirect.
8. 53 are deletions per a deletion discussion
9. Only 12 are of subpages of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations (and of those 12 3 are deletions to make way for moves, usually followed by a restoration of the deleted page to complete a history merge)

   ... thus one wonders whether the hypothetical new criterion for SPI deletions would pass the frequent requirement.

10. 443 don't fall into any of the above criteria.

* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:37, 16 January 2022 (UTC) (updated 22:15, 16 January 2022 (UTC))

Thanks. On #9, 9 SPI deletions, agree that's not many.

I think I see a lot that are non-perfect log comments, and misattributions to G5, G7, and the files to commons should have been F8?

I am not getting much sense of "abuse".

Would it be true, that for G6 deletions that aren't matches for another code, that they do not involve deletion of others' non-trivial edit histories? SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:05, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

In my experience G6 is almost always used for something that is maintenance related on either a backend page or a file/template that doesn't neatly fit into any of the categories, but is clearly not a substantive deletion needing 7 days of discussion at whatever forum. If you want to put it another way, do you really think there is community consensus for 450ish additional XfDs or in the last 16 days, most of which would be concentrated at MfD if I had to bet? Based on the nature of what these tasks are, you're not going to be able to list out every possible usage where it would be completely uncontroversial because many of these would be one-offs. As I said the last time splitting up G6 was proposed, G6 is essentially the codification of IAR as a speedy deletion criteria for backend tasks that do not affect how readers interact with the project, and the community is fine with it being used as a catchall for these type of tasks. The opposition of the community to splitting up G6 and the lack of DRVs on this topic essentially confirm that point of view. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't know why you so often come back so agitated and argumentative back at me. Agreed, Pppery's list makes it look like there nothing much to get excited about, and send backend page deletions is exactly what G6 is for and it would be absurd to send the stuff to MfD.

I think you are misreading past discussions that noted that "G6 is a catch all", to "G6 should be a catch all".

My interest here is to look into the very opaque-looking G6 deletion culture. I sometimes speculate on code improvements that could improve that clarity. Today, I am not seeing anything being proposed, to to be proposed, except for a distaste for IAR deletions of drafts that someone doesn't like. Distaste doesn't mean unjustifiable.

Anyway, I thought I asked a simple question. Are all of these G6 deletions deletions of pages without a non-trivial edit history, having separated out the ones that should have been G5, G7 or F8?

I do strongly disagree that "G6 is essentially the codification of IAR as a speedy deletion criteria". G6 is, or should be what it says it is, and "for backend tasks that do not affect how readers interact with the project" should reflect the wording of G6 and removes the deletions from being labelled IAR. G6 is a rule, and if it fits G6 it is not IAR. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I actually agree with almost everything you said and think we're saying the same thing (though, I disagree on the culture thing re: G6, I don't think anyone thinks much about them since they're usually so straightforward.) Sorry if I came off argumentative, the intent was to say what normally it is - backend maintenance tasks, and it is a catchall for that.

The point on deletion discussions was more a reference to Thryduulf's view that it should not be a catchall and should be split up. There's definitely not a consensus to split it up, that's been rejected directly before, and I think his interpretation of policy doesn't have community consensus either (i.e. if you put it to an RfC for G6 to have a finite number of uses that are clearly enumerated it would fail.)

I don't think the community wants it to be used for controversial things that impact content or how people interact with the project, but I do view it as essentially saying If there is a backend page where deletion is obviously uncontroversial, the task could be described in ordinary English as being maintenance related and having nothing to do with content, and deletion would improve the way the encyclopedia functions, admins are authorized to delete without discussion. That was an on the fly definition, and I'm sure there's things that could be quibbled with in it, but I think if something generally met those criteria, if it was taken to DRV it would never be overturned, and I certainly don't think the community wants hundreds of more XfDs a month on things that no one is objecting to on substantive grounds. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:56, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

OK good. I sometimes find you difficult to read. On SPI, I was motivated by MFD nominations of SPI and LTA pages by editors who seemed to have no business clerking them, and my view is that if any such page needs deletion, an SPI clerk or better should just do it (usually partly per WP:DENY). G6 didn’t seem to cover dubiously ill-advised LTA subpages, and I meant to suggest broadening their authorisation to delete pages. Maybe better codes could help, I sometimes wonder, and it is not my intent to have more worthless pages go through MfD.

On the User:Fram IAR deletion of a ridiculous draftspace page, this is very similar to how User:DGG has been exploring approaches to such things, ridiculously unsuitable pages discovered in new page patrol, not worth MfD, but which irk to leave them because they know the pages are going to waste more people’s time down the track. It’s an open question. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Arbitrarily defining others' non-trivial edit histories as the page having more than 10 deleted revisions by anyone other than the deleting admin, 176 G6 deletions in 2022 meet that criterion. Of those,

1. 116 are in ClueBot III's userspace.
2. 10 are deletions per a deletion discussion
3. 13 are deletions of subpages of Template:Infobox road
4. 4 (Zone X, Bokura ga Ikiru My Asia, Talk:Thừa Thiên Huế province, Ace Edition) are using the default summary when an admin moves a page to a title that is already occupied
5. 2 (User talk:Paknur/Archives/2009/July/Archives/2009/July/Archives/2009/July/Archives/2009/July/Archives/2009/August, Adam and the Amethysts (version 2)) use the default summary from {{db-error}}
6. 2 (Category:Unreferenced BLPs from December 2010, Category:Unreferenced BLPs from June 2007) are deletions of dated maintenance categories
7. 1 (User:49TL/VOA/monobook.js) is per WP:BOTN#Double redirects for user's scripts
8. 0 are subpages of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations
9. 0 are by Tassedethe
10. 28 don't fall into any of the above criteria.

Note that the thing I am comparing is the total number of deleted revisions the page has, so not including revisions that are later restored, and including revisions deleted by earlier (or later) deletions. So it's not a perfect comparison, but you get the idea. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:38, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Pppery. That's a satisfying answer. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Worth pointing out that anytime splitting is discussed one of the reasons it is not split is because the community does view it as a catch-all and does not want to decrease the flexibility to use it in this way. I know its your view that this is an abuse of policy, but I think its worth noting that your view is probably the minority position in the community based on past discussion on this topic (not trying to call you out, by the way, think you know I have a very high opinion of you even when we disagree. Just worth noting that past widely attended discussions have not endorsed that POV re: G6.) TonyBallioni (talk) 18:00, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

There has never been a consensus to deprecate G6 into separate narrow criteria as a single action (I don't think it was ever a formal proposal, but an informal discussion that did not progress based on the expressed opinions), however later discussions about splitting off individual parts have gained consensus so it's not clear that there is a consensus against splitting. The last WT:CSD discussions on large scale splitting were quite a few years ago now - even the individual split discussions were in 2018. There has never been a consensus that G6 is or should be a catch-all, indeed treating it as such requires interpreting other parts of the CSD policy in ways that are clearly against community consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 11:05, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

There was a formal proposal at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 69#Proposal: Replace G6 with explicit finite criteria, which was strongly opposed, although I would likely support a variation of it if it were re-run today. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:36, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

We do not have a good way of getting rid quickly of impossible material; the full procedure of AfC and MfD is much too cumbersome, and waiting for them to disappear after 6 months risks an automatic restoration. Removing the right to an automatic restore risks the permanent deletion of drafts which would make decent articles if only they were followed up. What we really need is another speedy criterion, but after years of trying I have been unable to formulate one that does not amount to amount to relying upon an experienced admin being sensible. What I think we need in the short run is a return to not speedy deleting even the most obvious trash unilaterally, but requiring one person to nominate (who need not be an admin) and another to delete. I have urged considering this an absolute requirement, but there is still the sort of vandalism which really does need to get removed quickly, and again, after years of experimenting and suggesting I have been unable to find a clearly stated criterion that would not amount to using discretion. Finally, I have fallen into doing the worst of them unilaterally myself. Looking at my recent unilateral deletions I find "__ __ is an NPC from __. He is really cool " and "Computer shop in .... You can purchase any kind of computers and computer accessories." which I did as G11. I don't think this is good practice. I think however it is necessary and I feel very impatient towards AfC reviewers who merely decline such nonsense and leave it to be looked at at least 2 times and removed later . But I do try to find some other reason than G6. I realise what I've written here may sound a little confused; it reflects my own indecision about hwat to do. If I had a real way to resolve this, I would have proposed it long ago. DGG ( talk ) 01:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

If leaving a draft for G13 would be harmful for the project but it does not meet any speedy deletion criterion then nominate it at MfD. I have yet to see any evidence that there exist pages that need to be removed quicker than 6 months but for which an MfD is too cumbersome. Every time someone has tried it has turned out that the page is either speedily deletable already or there is no actual benefit to the project to removing it before the G13 clock expires. If one of these drafts is restored (repeatedly) then it should be taken to MfD. Viewing CSD as a shortcut for a "cumbersome" deletion process also feels like the wrong attitude - CSD is explicitly the exception not the rule. If the routine deletion processes are actually "cumbersome" then the way forward is to fix them so they aren't, not to try and find some way of speedy deleting more things. Thryduulf (talk) 11:14, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

You are not responsible for removing every bit of useless nonsense from Wikipedia. If you can't CSD it legitimately, then do not: you have not been assigned to be a sole arbiter of what belongs or doesn't, you have been delegated certain responsibilities by the community which include carrying out CSDs as written. To the extent that you're speedily deleting things that don't meet those criteria, you are not using your admin powers as assigned. So stop--it's not "on you" to make Wikipedia perfect, it's up to the community to design or implement more streamlined deletion processes as it sees fit. Jclemens (talk) 16:54, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

If I were still an admin, I would have IAR speedy deleted Worthington Advance. As I'm not and draftifying didn't discourage the editor, I tagged it as a "test page" which it isn't really... Having a Prod or AfD for this is complete overkill, but just because this type of nonsense isn't common enough to warrant a CSD category doesn't mean that it isn't speedy material of course. Fram (talk) 16:33, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

That's nice, but I don't see how it meets any speedy criterion NOR do I believe it should have been deleted without a discussion. this was also a hot mess, but is a GA now. Just because neither you nor I can see any benefit to the way the article is right now doesn't mean that it's incapable of being an asset to the encyclopedia--which is why CSD have to be indisputable. Jclemens (talk) 16:44, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support people arguing here that IAR is a reasonable thing in the context of a speedy deletion make it clear that the language needs to be firmed up. I'm seeing a similar argument at DRV right now (which is why I came to the talk page) so it's current admins who are apparently reaching way outside the bounds of CSD to do deletions. I honestly don't think the change from "please" to "must" is going to help a lot. But A) it may help some and B) it helps make it clear that the community doesn't think this is an optional thing. I'd rather add something here about the community's expectation that admins follow the rules-as-written and list things that aren't speediable. But "must" will do for now. Hobit (talk) 23:38, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

  I usually agree with you Hobit, but given how badly some admins repeatedly mangle speedy deletions, do you really want to give them a blank check to do more of that? I can't see it being a net positive for the encyclopedia unless we want to run an "internal affairs" cadre of admins whose job it is to police and reprimand admins making such decisions badly. Jclemens (talk) 07:14, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

  I think we're somehow talking past each other. I want to see all CSDs actually meet the requirements of CSDs. At the moment I feel people are too "fast-and-loose" with the rules. I think I've said that and I think you have the same viewpoint. Where are we miscommunicating? Hobit (talk) 14:56, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

  Ah, yes, rereading your prior post, I see what I missed. My apologies. Jclemens (talk) 18:18, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

  Good to know it wasn't on my end. And I just did the same thing to someone else, no worries :-) ... Hobit (talk) 18:57, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

• I think this problem can be helped with “sticky prod.” It takes just 7 days and avoids arbitrary deletions. A draft is marked sticky prod and this works the same way as regular prod, except that the page creator is not allowed to remove the template. Anybody else can. It means that the page creator needs to find a second editor who agrees that the draft is worth keeping. Jehochman ^Talk 12:32, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I'd certainly support that. I would even be fine with an admin-placed, admin-removed level of sticky prod, I think. Jclemens (talk) 21:48, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

  Something like a sticky prod for drafts would only work if there was a central listing of pages this had been applied to. Sort of like article alerts, but (AFAIK) almost no drafts are tagged for wikiprojects so that wont necessarily work. Thryduulf (talk) 20:54, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

  Easy! We add a category to the template and transclude the category listing into a relevant page with good visibility. Jehochman ^Talk 21:58, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

  In your dreams. Most WikiProjects are inactive. Non-members of WikiProjects have been tagging for WikiProjects removing a basic function of members. Auto-transcluding prodded drafts on to WikiProject pages may as well be a notice inside a filing cabinet in the basement. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:25, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Should Wikipedia:Copyright problems be listed here?

I think it should, since deleting articles that have been listed there for more than 7 days seems to be an established deletion process, and doesn't fall into any other category.

I noticed it was missing when comparing the criteria I used to exclude entries from my table of possibly invalid deletions with the content of this page. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:56, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done Since evidently no one else cares. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:12, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Non-admin closures

Policy currently says Non-administrators should limit their closes to outcomes they have the technical ability to implement. I propose to remove that restriction and have a symmetrical situation where a non-admin can close any discussion where the consensus is clear. When the result is delete', a new CSD category for "Consensus to delete at XfD" could be used to tag the article, linking to the discussion. An admin then performs the technical deletion. This would more effectively distribute the workload in an era when the number of administrators is decreasing. In my experience CSDs are significantly faster to process than XfDs. Jehochman ^Talk 19:25, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I have no opinions on the proposal, but I will note that {{db-xfd}} does already exist. Primefac (talk) 19:33, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

• This is a perennial proposal that has been discussed to death. I've written an essay on why I feel this is a bad idea at User:Tavix/non-admin closes. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:36, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

  We must consider, why does it keep coming up? The required template already exists. When there’s an obvious consensus to delete, why not? I’ll read the essay to see if that answers my question, but I’d also like to hear other opinions. Jehochman ^Talk 22:54, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

  The answer is at Lie-to-children.

  Generally the worst closes of discussions occur with inexperienced non admins who defend their right to close the discussion because the rules say they can.

  There is more to a good close than “obvious consensus”. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:28, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

  Generally speaking, people shouldn't be closing discussions for things they don't have the ability to actually do. And I wouldn't delete an article based upon "consensus at XfD" without verifying that the interpretation of consensus is actually correct—which basically means I would be closing it anyway, and saving no time. If I'm going to push the button, I won't do so without verifying for myself that it's the correct course of action. Non-admins handling clear "keep" outcomes to keep down the backlog is much appreciated, but it ought to stay to that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:54, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

  There’s something illogical. If the keep close is wrong, there is harm. If the delete close is wrong, there is also harm. Why are we willing to run one risk and not the other? If it’s {{db-xfd}} the admin checks that there’s a closed discussion and implements. The person closing the discussion remains responsible for the close. As a practical matter, if this is being done by a recognized user, you can trust them. If it’s somebody unknown, you might double check their work. If they do a good job, you leave them an encouraging message and after a while this editor becomes a good admin candidate. Our admin pipeline is insuffient, many people think. Why not encourage editors to become more involved? Jehochman ^Talk 00:06, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

  I agree. There are a lot of BADNACs that were closed as “keep” and “no consensus”. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:09, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

  Seraphimblade would take the time to verify the close as correct, but others might not. Some admins have been very fast to clear out CAT:CSD. The worst offender was desysopped, but I’m sure the behaviour continues.

  I think the appropriate use of db-xfd is only for demonstrating competence in the month preceding the launch of your RfA. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:07, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

At WP:AFC we have a process where experienced editors can ask permission to serve as reviewers. What if we did the same thing at the deletion process? If you are an experience user you can ask to be allowed to close XfD discussions. If an admin puts your name on a list, you can proceed. This isn’t a user right; it operates on the honor system. This would resolve (1) the "perennial" issue, and (2) the existing concern about bad NAC closes. Jehochman ^Talk 00:10, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I think the old culture, of editors with enough experience to be trusted to close discussions, that these editors get given formal adminship, is the way it should work. If we can’t do that, then a non technical “qualified closer list” could work. It could be called RfA_½. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:42, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

RFA has gotten pretty strict, and I don't see any quick path back to the "old culture," much as I'd like that too. A "qualified closer list" would help people gain experience and improve their chances of passing RFA. Another benefit is that it would curtail the "worst closes." I think this would be a net benefit. Jehochman ^Talk 01:42, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Experienced users who want to delete things (ie: close XfDs as delete) should go to RFA and become administrators. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:53, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

That would work if only we had a time machine to 2007. Jehochman ^Talk 01:42, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Even today, Wikipedians who are well experienced with XfD almost always pass RFA. Anyone that I would support to be in this group you are proposing I would also support to be an administrator so they might as well actually gain the ability to carry out such closes. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:54, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

There are several classes of people who this proposal could include. (1) There are would-be admin candidates who are under 18 who have trouble passing RFA and frankly shouldn't pass RFA because we don't want to have minors dealing with toxic content (and toxic users). Experienced minors could really help out here until they can pass RFA. (2) There are former admins, people who just got tired of the grind, but might still like to help and have incredible experience. (3) Believe it or not, we have some great editors who have no interest in ever becoming an administrator. Nevertheless, they might be willing to help out with closing discussions. Jehochman ^Talk 02:21, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

1) Plenty of minors have been admins, and I don't see a minor admin as a problem. It's a nuanced topic, but Tamzin explains it well here. 2) If a former admin wants to help out closing discussions, there's no reason why they shouldn't request the bit back so they can actually carry out discussions they want to close as delete. If they are tired of the grind, they don't have to dive in all the way. There are hundreds of admins who don't use their tools that often. 3) If someone has no interest in being an administrator then they have no business closing discussions, which is *administative* work. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:38, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Email me offline if you want to discuss why your perspective on #2 is... incomplete. Jclemens (talk) 06:51, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

No thanks. My comment specifically is for someone "tired of the grind" in which case they would not be under a cloud and can pick their tools back up where dropped them off and continue adminning. It does not include former "for cause" admins, for which this would not be a good program for them anyway. -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:07, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I think you’re making a lot of assumptions. People have all kinds of different reasons to be or not be an admin, but they still may be able and ready to help. Why not be inclusive? Jehochman ^Talk 13:10, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

The person you are describing can help by particiating in XfDs. A thoughtful, well-written argument that helps build consensus is the backbone of XfD and is easily the most helpful role therein. On the other hand, closing a discussion as delete when they can't actually carry that out is not helpful. -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:34, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I’m now we’ll informed about your opinion, even though I may not agree with it. How about some opinions from other editors? Jehochman ^Talk 15:48, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm pretty checked out from AfD, but my understanding from dipping in or seeing recent discussions is that the problem is lack of participation driving a lack of ability to process the queue. Allowing non-admins to close discussions as delete really only results in non-problematic outcomes if there's a rich enough response that it's difficult to argue against the close. The set of articles where there is a lot of discussion about their deletion and yet no admins to effectuate the community decision (which is itself easy enough to infer that it need not require an admin) is unknown to me (like I said, pretty checked out)--but that seems to me to be the sweet spot this proposal would impact. I think the reason we have the admin requirement is someone needs to be *responsible* for deleting an article and it can't just be Joe Nobody who could vanish tomorrow (ie. they cannot be held responsible, even if they could in theory be responsible). It also probably can't be an admin who executes as csd, because that deletion will eventually be held to be janitorial. I'm sure there will be pathological cases where an admin deletes a css-xfd in seconds when the NAC was obviously inappropriate, but there's a serious split in responsibilities here that leaves essentially no one in charge of fixing a screw up. That's not really an opinion one way or another, but it's a thought I hope. Protonk (talk) 18:21, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Lack of user engagement with the XfD process results in lots of inconclusive results, relisting, weak results, yes? My thesis is that if we give editors more responsibility they may be more likely to engage in the process. If I’m looking for an XfD to close and I find one with too few votes, I may add my vote before moving on. Jehochman ^Talk 18:42, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

AfD does not have a shortage of admins and thus has no need for non-admin delete closures. It's other venues like CfD, where no admin has closed any discussion in the last two weeks and there are ~300 open discussions (!), where non-admin delete closures are useful (and are in fact being actively employed). I think in an ideal Wikipedia I'd agree wirh Tavix, but as long as we have situations like that, non-admin delete (or merge, which for categories usually involves a deletion) closures are a necessary evil. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:45, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

As someone who makes a fair number of non-admin closures at AfD, I don't really see a need for any changes. There is rarely a significant backlog at AfD, and when there is it's usually the difficult and complicated discussions – discussions that non-admins shouldn't be closing in any event – that wait the longest. If there's a straightforward consensus to delete, it's usually implemented quite promptly, at least in my experience. I also agree with most of Tavix's points, and I'd add that, if anything, making non-admin closures easier only reduces the incentive for qualified candidates to run at RfA. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:40, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Understood. What about other types of XfD, as indicated by Pppery’s comment? [4] Should we update the page to reflect actual practice? Jehochman ^Talk 12:15, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, I'm not too active at most of the other XfDs, so I'm probably not the best person to ask. I do occasionally close at MfD, and I rarely see too much of a backlog there. If non-admin delete closures are in common practice at CfD (where the backlog is genuinely a nightmare) or anywhere else, I certainly have no objection to mentioning that on this page, but you'd probably be better off asking the "regulars" at those venues first. Best regards, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:30, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

• ...Guess I'll put my $0.02 on this discussion, since I'm posting it everywhere anyways: I think Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/Large should have their protection levels downgraded to template protection for reasons that are rather self-explanatory upon arriving at the aforementioned pages. Steel1943 (talk) 02:16, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
  • The protection for CFD/W cannot be lowered due to the fact that it would give non-admins the ability to delete categories, as the bot deletes the categories after it is done processing them (for some sections). -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:21, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
    • ...To compare, that's not really a problem at WP:TFD since non-admins are allowed to close discussions to "orphan", and the result and process is exactly as stated above except the deletion is performed by an admin instead of a bot. Steel1943 (talk) 02:32, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
      • With orphaned TfD closures, the deletion is carried out by an admin who has been vetted by the community and entrusted to carry out such deletions. A bot cannot perform that check. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:34, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Tavix's concerns aside, the function of the page has nothing to do with templates so template-editor-protection is inappropriate, although it was briefly applied in 2016. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:03, 10 May 2022 (UTC)