Wikipedia talk:Deletion process/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Requesting move of two pages

I think the page move request malfunctioned slightly, possibly because of the redirect. I'm requesting a move of two pages, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Administrator instructions (which redirects here) to Wikipedia:Administrator instructions for Articles for deletion (or any similar name anyone might propose) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes to Wikipedia:Common outcomes of Articles for deletion (or similar).

Most pages regarding the AfD process have their own pages, not subpages, like Wikipedia:Deletion policy,Wikipedia:Deletion process, Wikipedia:Guide to deletion, Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines to cite in deletion debates, Help:Before commenting in a deletion discussion. "Administrator instructions" and "Common outcomes" follow the format of an AfD on articles named Administrator instructions and Common outcomes. Naming should be more uniform. Incidentally, an Administration: namespace might make sense. Шизомби (talk) 04:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

• I don't see the point (not broken, don't "fix"). These are reasonable subpages, just like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today, which isn't an AfD discussion either. Don't move. —Кузьма^討論 14:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support. I think uniform naming is encyclopedic. Further, I think Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes looks at first glance like an article called Common Outcomes is up for Afd. It should have its own page. ɳoɍɑfʈ ^Talk! 18:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Rant against WP deletionists

There's a huge rant against Open Software deletionists over at Ubuntard, e.g. One does not succeed at Wikipedia by adding content. One succeeds by reverting un-sourced edits, and nominating pages for deletion. They even have a group for this, the Association of Deletionist Wikipedians, who, in their utter lack of logic, seem convinced that adding content to Wikipedia dilutes it. cojoco (talk) 00:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

And? Stifle (talk) 10:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Request for help re deletion process

A current AfD nomination is messed up procedurally and I'm not expert enough to know how to fix it. If someone would look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talk:Michael Dutton Douglas -- see my "Comment" there for elaboration of the problems -- it would be appreciated. Thanks! JamesMLane t c 15:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

All sorted, I believe. Thank you, –xeno^talk 15:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Oops! [1] Obviously not. Thanks =) –xeno^talk 20:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that, between the two of us, we've finally gotten it right.  :) But you did the parts I wouldn't have had a clue about. JamesMLane t c 20:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Second relist or "no consensus"?

I have been doing closes and relists in AFD for over 2 years and until recently, I have been closing a lot of AFDs which, after 2 weeks, have no "delete" !votes but little participation aside from the nominator as "no consensus" per WP:RELIST and WP:NPASR. I started doing this soon after AFD went from 5 to 7 days. I did this for 2 reasons...

1. WP:RELIST states Users relisting a debate for a second time, or relisting a debate with a substantial number of commenters, are encouraged to write a short explanation (in addition to the {{relist}} template) of why they did not consider the debate sufficient.. I interpreted this to mean that it's preferable to close an AFD one way or the other after 2 weeks unless there is a good reason to relist it again and for most AFDs I couldn't think of one.

1. When AFD was on a five day cycle, an AFD relisted twice would be open for 15 days, on a seven day cycle, an AFD relisted once is open for 14 days. I believe 2 weeks is long enough to discuss the fate of most articles.

However, one editor objected to what I was doing and opened an ANI discussion. While generally, there was support for my closing AFDs without participation after on relist, the original poster made a valid point. I was the only one doing this. I still feel that this is the right thing to do but our policies and guidelines are suppose to be "descriptive", that is they should reflect what is common practice, not what a few editors participating on a guideline talk page think should be common practice. Should we continue to have language in this guideline discouraging multiple relists? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ron Ritzman (talk • contribs)

I don't think you are doing anything wrong (except forgetting to sign your posts). I'm told this has come up before, but I'm going to throw it out there again: Why not just put your name forward at WP:RFA and make it official. I realize we are here to discuss non-admin closes, not you, but I also realize I'm not the only one who thinks you would be a good admin. Anyway, I agree that two weeks is long enough and a third week rarely makes a difference. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Actually, it isn't even "non-admin closes" I'm trying to discuss here. (I'll leave the issue whether or not I should be an admin on my talk page) The issue is whether or not to close an AFD lacking participation as "no consensus" or relist it for a second time. However, I can see how not being an admin might have some additional drama generating potential as some editors have an emotional reaction to seeing "no consensus" and "non-admin closure" in a closing statement. Traditionally, "no consensus" means the AFD is contentious and close and contentious AFDs should be closed by admins. However, a "no consensus" close due to lack of participation is a completely different animal. In most of these nobody but the nominator is arguing for deletion. There just isn't enough comments in the discussion to say "the result was keep". The issue is how long do we keep an article listed at AFD before we say "there's nothing to see here, move on". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

As a non-admin, closing such might be controversial... as an admin, its no big deal. Admin's could close it early, keep, delete, etc without people thinking twice. Ok, there are times where people will goto DRV, but for the most part, admin closes are perceived with more authority/acceptance.

As for two vs 3 weeks. If I don't feel that there has been enough discussion after 2 weeks, I close as no consensus. I NEVER reopen a 3rd time and think its a waste of time. If there is no consensus after 2 weeks, close it.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 13:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I seem to recall some discussion on either WT:AFD or this talk page about codifying relisting criteria or providing limits to relisting. I don't recall supporting that change, but the discussion might have some helpful thoughts for us today. As I read it, WP:NAC (not a guideline, but might as well be one) is bent toward one general thought: contentious closes should be left to those who have some putative support of the community and have been nominated to represent the community in some fashion (admins). Non-contentious closes could be done by almost anyone else with a good head on their shoulders. I think we make something of a category mistake in treating "no consensus" closes as de facto contentious. There is a political consideration at hand, too. In most cases (I don't keep up w/ the BLP business) "no consensus" means the article stays and we have a social norm against renominating articles too early. I might object to a NAC of "no consensus" because the franchise is broadened for editors to determine that an article could be kept (whereas an admin might have discretion to note that no one objected to the nom. and delete it). I don't think such a political objection could be made in good form, but that doesn't mean it couldn't be made. To wind this up I guess you could edit WP:RELIST to suggest that a 2nd relisting in the absence of any reason to extend debate isn't preferable to a no consensus close. Or you could run for adminship if you are sure no one else does this. :) Protonk (talk) 01:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I tend to favor any AfD for a PROD-eligible article with no participation after one week as a de facto PROD. I'm all in favor of things not being relisted more than once without a really, really good reason, and have had no objections to anything I've seen you do so far, Ron. Jclemens (talk) 02:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I've suggested that twice 1, 2 and it was rejected twice. However, the second proposal did eventually lead to WP:REFUND. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose any changes. If there is insufficient participation to establish consensus, the AfD debate should be allowed another week. If there is still insufficient participation after the second week, then close as "no consensus". Such articles closed as non-consensus keeps are open to a renomination at any time. One possible reason for a lack of participation is that the debate may be listed under the wrong category. Some editors generally only check articles listed in certain categories, whilst other do it by day. Mjroots (talk) 07:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I take the point about articles listed in certain categories, and it's something that has been bugging me for a long time -- are we really sure that we have the categories right? Is there a guide somewhere that tells me where an article about 'history' should go? Dougweller (talk) 13:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• A straw poll has been raised about this at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Relisting straw poll. Stifle (talk) 13:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

An administrator's "discretion" in an AfD

The deletion of the article on the Seinfeld episode, The Cartoon (Season 9, Episode 13) raises a question as to the scope and manner of exercise of an administrator's "discretion".

In this case, even though the vote was 3:2 in favour of keeping the article, in deciding to delete, the administrator's reasoning was:

"The result was delete. While the pure votecount is evenly matched on each side, Herostratus's comment is pretty much a delete !vote, and vinciusmc/meshach's proofs by assertion fail to impress. I have considered this closure carefully and will not be amending it; feel free to DRV if you disagree. Stifle (talk) 10:05, 7 August 2010 (UTC)"

However, Herostratus clearly voted to keep:

"Keep. Cruft. We have articles on all the other Seinfeld episodes, it appears. Future generations will doubtless thank us. Herostratus (talk) 04:19, 7 August 2010 (UTC)"

Is the administrator's discretion so wide as to be exercised in this manner?

Rainjar (talk) 11:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Seems the admin thought he'd make the decision himself rather than listen to what other people have said. The idea that a keep vote was really a delete vote is a bit bizarre (I think it's clear what the argument was - we have articles on all the episodes, so why make this one a gap in our coverage?) But admins know how to convert their mops into deadly weapons when the mood takes them - the place to complain is WP:DRV, not here.--Kotniski (talk) 11:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The deletion review was initiated yesterday. Several of those endorsing the decision rely heavily on an administrator's discretion. If by exercising "discretion", an admin can interpret an express "Keep" vote as a "Delete" vote, delete an article on one episode of a long running and popular series while leaving articles on the other episodes untouched (all of which episodes are a featured list on Wikipedia), and ignore a relevant WP:OSE, then perhaps the scope of the discretion itself needs to be re-examined. Rainjar (talk) 09:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I don't think there should be "discretion" in the sense that some people understand it - to substitute one's own opinions for those of the discussion participants. But an admin should be noting the strength of the arguments, not counting votes. I always feel that discussion closure (in the rare minority of cases which are in some way difficult) should not be a one-step process - the admin should explain their proposed reasoning first, and at least give participants a chance to point out any potential errors in that reasoning.--Kotniski (talk) 10:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Anyone with a shred of common sense can read sarcasm into Herostratus' AfD opinion, as he clarified in the DRV. I see no merit to this claim of "abuse". The closing admin made a decision, and we have DRV to review such decisions; the process is working just fine without resorting to finger-pointing like this. Tarc (talk) 14:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• You've already raised this at DRV, please keep the matter there. Stifle (talk) 19:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

NAC "no consensus" closures

I would like to modify a sentence in WP:NACD from its current form "Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to an administrator" to: "Close calls, "no consensus" closures and controversial decisions are better left to an administrator." I think that a "no consensus" closure is almost always a "close"/"controversial" call and thus is best left to an admin. While I could imagine a few situations where it is obvious that the correct outcome is "no consensus", my impression is that such situations are relatively rare. On the other hand it would be beneficial to have a more precise language in WP:NACD: non-admin closures are often done by relatively inexperienced users and they do rely on the specific language of WP:NACD for guidance. Nsk92 (talk) 14:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

It's more common then you think. Here are 5 of mine from this month. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. In all of these there were no delete !votes aside from the nom. However, this no consensus NAC was improper. Rather then a blanket ban on "no consensus" NACs, these need to be judged on a case by case basis. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that in the 5 AfDs above "no consenus" was the correct outcome, but I am still not sold on the idea that it is necessary for non-admins to close such AfDs. While in general I am not a big fan of the instruction creep, in the case of WP:NACD having fairly precise language is important for the reasons I mentioned. You are an experienced user and you know what you are doing, but many people doing NAC closures are relatively inexperienced users, often those thinking about running for adminship in the future. Such users often rely on the specific language of WP:NACD, rather than on he benefit of experience, in performing non-admin closures. For the sake of making matters clear to them and avoiding possible confusion (as well as subsequent challenges to problematic NAC closures) I think the language of WP:NACD really needs to be rather precise. While a blanket ban on "no consensus" NAC closures would marginally increase the number of AfDs that have to be closed by admins, it would, IMO, still be beneficial for the reasons of providing more precise language and helping inexperienced users avoid bad calls such as the attempted NAC closure [2] that you mention above. Another possibility is, instead of a blanket ban, to add an extra bulleted item to WP:NACD dealing specifically with "no consensus" NAC closures and explaining in more detail when such closures are/are not appropriate. Nsk92 (talk) 15:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Some of those making bad NACs are already ignoring the part where it says Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to an administrator. I don't think they will abide by additional language barring "no consensus" closes. Furthermore, I would like to keep the actual "guideline" on this as simple as possible because we already have WP:NAC as a common interpretation of the guideline. In short, I think that the language you suggest would impede the careful NACers and not stop the careless ones. However, let's wait and see what others have to say. I appreciate the complements though :) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Ron Ritzman. NACD and NAC already contain enough discouragement to warn off non-admins who bother to read and understand them. I have seen plenty of bad NACs, but few egregious ones. In terms of damage at RfA, my impression is that the poor NACs have to form a pattern, either among themselves or with other issues such as overall impulsiveness. No consensus covers two very different things: split consensus ("controversial") and insufficient consensus. Insufficient discussion (currently being discussed at WT:Articles for deletion#AfDs with little or no discussion) might be treated differently, narrowing the definition, which would shift me toward supporting Nsk92's proposal. Flatscan (talk) 04:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• I made a comment on this same debate elsewhere, but it is a category mistake to assume that "no consensus" always means "contentious". NAC prohibits and should prohibit non admins from making contentious closes, but there are some pretty boring "no concensus" closes out there. Protonk (talk) 04:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
  • That may be so, but, as I said above, IMO it is desirable to have the language of WP:NACD be more precise and to provide a bit more discouragement for doing non-housekeeping NAC closures at all. The reason is that NAC closures are often performed by fairly inexperienced users who do not yet really know what they are doing. Such users tend to rely more rigidly on the actual text of WP:NACD rather than on the benefit of experience in understanding how the deletion process works, and they should be discouraged from closing AfDs where substantial judgement calls are involved. Tightening the language of WP:NACD may marginally increase the number of AfDs that have to be closed by admins but it would prevent considerable aggravation coming from having to challenge bad NACs, from ensuing WP:AN threads etc. Nsk92 (talk) 05:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Contradiction about "no consensus" result for FFD

I'm confused about what should be done at WP:FFD if the result of the discussion is "no consensus"—should the file be kept or deleted? At the top of Wikipedia:Files for deletion (in particular, in Wikipedia:Files for deletion/heading), we find the following text, added a little over a year ago by J Milburn [3]:

Files that have been listed here for more than 7 days are eligible for deletion if there is no clear consensus in favour of keeping them or no objections to deletion have been raised. To quote the non-free content criteria, "it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created — see burden of proof."

On the other hand, Wikipedia:Deletion process#Files for deletion page has the following text, added in this form about two and a half years ago by Doug [4]:

If the discussion failed to reach consensus, then the file is kept by default (however, see #8 below), but the decision should generally include a reference to the lack of consensus, in order to minimize ambiguity and future confusion.

How should this contradiction be resolved? Does the answer depend on whether the file is free or non-free? —Bkell (talk) 03:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I remember having this discussion before: Wikipedia talk:Files for deletion/Archive 6#No consensus. There was, ironically, no consensus in the discussion. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Note our non-free content criteria- it is the responsibility of those wishing to include non-free content to demonstrate that it is necessary. If they are unable to demonstrate that it is necessary (IE, if there is not a consensus to include it) the image should be deleted. J Milburn (talk) 08:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I know that is what NFCC says, but Bkell's confusion is over the current deletion process guideline, which suggests differently. It's true that NFCC is a policy and DP is just a guideline, but the last attempt to change DP to match NFCC went nowhere - and both policies and guidelines are secondary to consensus. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, both guidelines and policies are generally "descriptive". They "describe" what's already been done and what's already agreed to. However, WP:NFCC is an exception. It's one of the few policies, another being WP:BLP, that's enforced "prescriptively". Therefore, those advocating "no consensus" defaulting to "delete" have a good case. IMHO it should depend on the situation. In an FFD on a non free image with more or less split !votes, if the "keep" !voters provide a plausible interpretation of the policy that supports keeping it, then "no consensus" should default to "keep", however, if all the keep !votes are simply ILIKEITs, (they think it makes the article look cool or something) then the image should be deleted. The former is quite common if NFCC 8 is the issue because reasonable people can disagree on whether or not an image "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic". I can also see it for images of people who recently died or buildings recently demolished. Are they replaceable with a free image? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with most of what Ron says; however, ILIKEITs shouldn't be "no consensus" defaulting to delete, but rather just "delete" results since the keep !voters failed to raise any plausible objection. Truly legitimate "no consensus" results should be rare, and if they occur, should all default to keep. So there may not be a contradiction after all. Excuse me for comparing apples and oranges, but NFCC is a far higher bar for non-free image inclusion than notability guidelines are for articles. If defenders of an image manage to barely reach that higher bar, then NFCC doesn't prevent a "no consensus" close from defaulting to keep. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

That's one thing I haven't thought of. Perhaps in most of the cases where the closing admin said "no consensus default to delete", he should have instead just said "delete". A "true" no consensus close where both the "keep" and "delete" arguments are sound should default to "keep". Also agree with the "higher bar" thing. We want "more" articles (preferably good ones) and deletion of articles is a "necessary evil" but we should want "less" non-free images and should be doing everything possible to replace them with free images and only keep them if their absence would be detrimental to the reader's understanding of the subject. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 17:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I particularly agree with King of Hearts on this matter. I have rarely closed a discussion anywhere as "No consensus" for exactly this reason. It does exist though and I have closed a few but most if not all were User Page MfDs. A single argument based strongly in policy should overcome dozens of opposing arguments which have no such basis apparent, no matter how vehement; although closing such a discussion will almost certainly result in a DRV, but that's what admins get paid the big bucks for.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 20:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

To clarify the change I made in February 2008, since it has been quoted above: I had just merged the IfD instructions to DelPro and was making them otherwise consistent with the rest of the DelPro instructions. This line exists in all of the instructions except RfD and SfD (the latter of which did not exist at the time of the merge) and it was added with a lot of other material for the simple reason that it was in the others. Some other active XfD/DelPro folks and I had discussed the merger in general; however, no particular thought went into this particular line and I don't believe the specific clause was discussed anywhere at the time.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 20:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• I would also note that any change to the DelPro instructions based on this discussion would also result in a change to the Deletion Policy, in particular the paragraph:

  The deletion of a page based on a deletion discussion should only be done when there is consensus to do so. Therefore, if there is no rough consensus the page is kept and is again subject to normal editing, merging or redirecting as appropriate. Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus may be closed as delete.

  --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 20:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Should IP users be allowed to do non-admin closures?

See Wikipedia talk:Non-admin closure#Should IP users be allowed to do non-admin closures?. –xeno^talk 18:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Discuss there, not here

Proposed icon change for deletion notification templates

Please see Template talk:AfD-notice#CENTRALIZED DISCUSSION - Replacing icon (File:Ambox warning pn.svg), Herostratus (talk) 04:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Interesting discussion, no consensus achieved, RfC initiated: Template talk:AfD-notice#Request for Comment Herostratus (talk) 17:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Closer options

If there are no comments other than the nominator, most XfD discussions can be closed in favour of the nominator's stated proposal (usually one that changes the current state of the page - such as delete, merge or rename).

When an articles for deletion discussion still has no "keep" !votes and at most one "delete" !vote other than the nominator, the closer has the an additional option to close with a result of soft delete. In other words, while the article is deleted, it is treated as if it were an uncontested PROD; anyone may ask for its restoration at requests for undeletion or at an administrator's talk page, and recreations are not subject to speedy deletion under G4. (Compare to a "hard delete"; the default delete result, where automatic undeletion and recreation are not permitted.) The closer also has the option, at his/her discretion, to close the discussion as a no consensus. When a no consensus result is due to lack of participation, the closer may specify no prejudice against speedy renomination. In such cases, if anyone wants to immediately nominate the article a second time, he/she is free to do so.

I removed the above two sections from the relisting section because they seem to be more about the general options for a closer. (And I like the soft delete idea.) Isn't there a better place to note this? - jc37 22:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that most of the second paragraph could be moved to step 8 of the AfD section, just above the final bullet point about relisting "if not enough discussion took place to determine a consensus or lack thereof". I'm not sure (yet) where would be the best place for the "no quorum" clause. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 06:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. (And I think your proposal below may resolve this even better.) So please be bold : ) - jc37 16:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for a revised outline

This page serves as a detailed guide to the deletion process, and it is not surprising that it contains a lot of redundancy (most of it is, in fact, useful). I think, however, that some of the redundancy could be eliminated by separating content about the general principles of the deletion process from content about the specific steps required for different XfDs. Also, much of the information about general principles that apply to all XfDs is located near the end of the page, after the sections containing step-by-step instructions. Consolidating this information in a single place nearer to the beginning of the page could be helpful, as it would provide useful context for anyone reading the step-by-step instructions.

So, with this in mind, I would like to propose a revised outline for this policy:

• Speedy deletion

  Merge Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Procedure for administrators into the current section, and remove it from WP:CSD to consolidate instructions for admins on one page and leave WP:CSD to focus on the criteria

• Proposed deletion

  Link to Wikipedia:Proposed deletion#Deleting

• Deletion discussions
  • General principles
    • Common outcomes

      A brief discussion of the process for implementing the common outcomes of "keep", "delete" and "no consensus", which is relatively similar for all XfDs. The less-common outcomes of "redirect", "merge", "rename", "userfy", "disambiguate", "keep and cleanup", "convert to list/article", etc. can be discussed in subsequent sections as they are not always the same for different XfDs (e.g., the process for renaming a category at CfD is very different from the process of renaming a user page at MfD).

    • No quorum

      If a nomination does not receive comments from at least one editor other than the nominator, the discussions may be closed in favour of the nominator's stated proposal (see special considerations for AfD, i.e., "soft delete") at the closer's discretion and best judgment (see Relisting discussions).

    • Relisting discussions
    • Non-administrators closing discussions
  • Step-by-step instructions
    • Articles for deletion
    • Miscellany for deletion
    • Categories for discussion
    • Files for deletion
    • Redirects for discussion
    • Stub types for deletion
    • Templates for discussion
• Deletion review
• Special situations
  • Transwiki
  • Untranscluded discussions

The primary change is the addition of a section, which consolidates material that is currently spread out throughout the guideline, about general principles to keep in mind when closing any deletion discussion.

If the idea seems like one worth considering, then I could prepare a draft for closer review. Thoughts? -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 07:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Please do. I would be happy to help edit if you would like. - jc37 16:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll create a draft page tomorrow (it's quite late where I am). Any help would definitely be appreciated. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 06:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Here it is: Wikipedia:Deletion process/Draft (for the most part, each edit consists of a change to one section, so the changes to each section can be viewed by comparing the revisions individually). Although my proposal would involve editing the venue-specific instructions, I have not done so at this time because I did not want to alter, without consensus, the "Administrator instructions" subpages which are transcluded in Wikipedia:Deletion process. It is for this reason, also, that the table of contents of the draft page is quite messy (if there is consensus to implement the revisions, the clean up will take only a few minutes). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 03:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, it has been over a week with no objections, so ... silence = consensus? :-) -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 03:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Guess so (support) NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 04:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done! -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

After deletion

I will be thankful, if someone reply me, if after the deletion of the article the template appear that the article was deleted and the part of the first sentense. The same tample appeared both on the page of the article, and discussion page. I hezitate that the abusive content was truly deleted, because the insulting words are read in the template of the deletion. Thank you in advace, --Zara-arush (talk) 10:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you referring to a deletion summary (as here, for example) which contains abusive content? If that's the case, then it should be possible to redact that summary if it falls under one of the criteria for redaction. Is there a particular page which you have in mind? -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 03:49, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Relisting discussions

In the final paragraph of WP:RELIST, it states the follow:

When relisting a discussion, it should be removed from the log for its original date (this does not apply at Categories for discussion) and moved to the current date's log where the discussion will continue. Scripts such as User:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD automate the process.

I'm assuming this is because, unlike WP:AFD and WP:MFD, all nomination made on one day are all listed on one page (Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 November 9, for example); AFD and MFD get completely separate subpages (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Example and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Example), and those are transcluded on the their main pages. In theory, the same rule above should apply to WP:FFD, WP:PUF, WP:TFD and all venues which don't create separate subpages for separate nominated pages, right? I ask because of a recent incident that occurred at WP:FFD, specifically here. Basically, administrator SchuminWeb (talk · contribs) relisted the aforementioned discussion on the October 31 log and removed it from the original October 23 log. Nearly 48 hours later, Leevanjackson (talk · contribs) reverted SchuminWeb's removal edit on the October 23 log, where the discussion continued for the following week. At the same time, the discussion also continued on the October 31 log, where the result of the discussion led to the image's deletion. It was then brought to my attention that the deletion of the image didn't exactly match up to the discussion, which is when I found out about this mess. I then left a note on SchuminWeb's talk page asking him to relist discussions in the future without removing it from the original log, where he responded and said that WP:RELIST only mentions CFD to use this procedure and that his removal of the discussion from the October 23 log was supported—or, more accurately, the non-removal of the discussion was not supported—by this guideline. [5]

And this is why I'm here, asking for clarification. I'd argue that WP:RELIST applies to any venue where the nominations are split up by daily logs, not independent subpages. If my view on the matter is correct, I think it would be a good idea to expand WP:RELIST to list all the venues which use the CFD method, or at least explain that venues that split up by daily logs such as CFD all follow the same method. If my view is not correct, I'd like to ask why CFD is the only venue which gets special treatment. — ξ^xplicit 05:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, this needs to be clarified in the documentation. One of the other problems, I believe, is that people don't generally watch these XFD log pages. Thus why this out-of-process reversion went undetected for so long. While the matter that initiated this is now moot due to a speedy renomination, this will eventually come up again.

However, I would like people to think quite carefully before codifying any extra steps, however, as closing the discussion on one page and then relisting leaves incomplete discussions all over the place, and makes unnecessary extra work for admins, with having to do a close for a discussion that's not finished as well as the relist. Considering that the vast majority of relists are completed without issue, it would seem to make more sense that in the rare case where a relist is reverted out of process like this to deal with it individually and either (A) discount the reversion and subsequent comments as out of process (like when I tell people on my talk page that whatever comments they are making on my talk page to prop up an article that is nominated for deletion will get them nowhere since the discussion is being conducted at whatever location and not my talk page), or (B) consider the discussion as irreparably fouled and speedily renominate. Seriously, how often is it the case where something like this happens? SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Procedural closures

I added a section for procedural closures (diff), summarizing the main situations when a deletion discussion may be closed with what amounts to "no outcome". There may be other situations or exceptions which I've forgotten, so please edit away. Cheers, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Some of these overlap with WP:Speedy keep. I can see how the listed cases could be useful, but is a separate class of closures necessary? There's a lot in common, and sometimes "procedural close" is used as a euphemism for "speedy keep". Flatscan (talk) 05:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Except that a "speedy keep" could be for reasons other than just procedural.

Plus, the close isn't always enacted "speed[il]y" : ) - jc37 06:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Addendum: I just read over Wikipedia:Speedy keep. That page seems to refer (mostly) to inappropriate behavior. Not procedural closes. - jc37 06:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Removed sentence

• The nominator withdraws the nomination or fails to advance an argument for deletion—perhaps only proposing a non-deletion action such as moving or merging, and no one other than the nominator has yet recommended that the page be deleted.
• The nominator withdraws the nomination or fails to advance an argument for deletion—or is only proposing a non-deletion action such as moving or merging, and no one other than the nominator has yet recommended that the page be deleted.

I listed both versions above.

First, if it's saying that the nominator is not proposing delete, then it shouldn't say "other than the nominator".

Second, this all just falls under WP:SNOW, and I don't think we need to list every example.

That said, I welcome discussion on this. - jc37 17:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Previous discussion (from prior to the merge) at WT:Speedy keep. I still don't see any reason to remove this particular criterion - it seems perfectly valid (as long as it does actually happen occasionally), and it's far from obvious that it falls under SNOW (at least, not the way SNOW is currently described).--Kotniski (talk) 17:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

(e/c)Jc37, I think you still are reading it wrong. It has nothing to do with SNOW. It's saying something very uncontroversial. If the nominator withdraws the nomination, or hasn't actually argued for deletion in the first place, and no one else has has yet !voted delete, then it can be speedy closed. That's it. Happens all the time and it's the least controversial type of speedy keep. Gigs (talk) 17:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I added a section for withdrawn nominations (you're right in that that should be conveyed.)

But no, I don't think I'm misreading it. as i said at WP:Speedy keep, this either a.) falls under SNOW or b.) doesn't sound like a good "general rule" to "speedy" the closure.

Just as it says under SNOW: it should never be used when the close is "likely", and this would seem to fall under that. - jc37 17:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

This has absolutely nothing to do with SNOW in any way, shape, or form. It is about the case where no one actually wants deletion, not even the nominator. Your addition doesn't address the case when the nomination hasn't actually put forth an argument for deletion, such as when they have argued for merge. As well, it sets a new standard for withdrawn nominations, forcing them to stay open when everyone else has !voted keep. We spent quite a while working on the old wording to cover all the uncontroversial cases. Gigs (talk) 17:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Then the issue is the wording, because I see it conveying something more than a bit broader than what you're saying you're intending.

As for the withdrawn nom section, we can clarify it, but if there are substantive comments, even if the nominator has been banned the discussion may stay open at closer discretion - that's LONG standing common practice. - jc37 17:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I would prefer it to say something like "if there are substantive comments advocating deletion". If the nomination is withdrawn or void and everyone so far has not advocated deletion, then closing it should be completely uncontroversial. As well, nominations that don't actually advocate for deletion of an article are still missing from your new wording. Gigs (talk) 17:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I just saw Kotniski's edit to the page, and I think I see where the issue is.

You're both focused on this being for AfD, when this has to be general for all XfD.

For example, a nomination of "merge" would be appropriate at CfD. and a nomination of "move" at MfD.

So it sounds like you're talking about "wrong venue" (at least in that edit).(WP:RM, in this case, for example.) That's already covered under procedural closes.

What it sounds like you want is something where the closer can decide to speedy close a nom at AfD which doesn't have "delete" as its main thrust. (Something that may be common at AfD, but is absolutely not appropriate at many other XfD venues.)

Sounds like an AfD exception.

I'm going to look over the page to see where we can try to shoehorn that in somewhere. I don't think that this is the spot, but not sure. - jc37 18:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I've never seen a move nomination at MfD (it's a true deletion venue like AfD), but your point is valid in that some venues do allow non-deletion discussions on potentially controversial normal editing operations, and that wasn't really taken into account by the old wording. Gigs (talk) 18:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Userfication (or moving to mainspace) = moving.

Anyway, I was about to add to the "wrong venue" section:

• (This includes any nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for discussion which does not suggest the deletion of an article.)

But as I was thinking about it, I have seen quite a few AfD discussions which don't end up with a Keep/delete/NC result. Merges and redirect results, in particular. (Alternatives to deletion.)

Any ideas on how to make this succinct but still be inclusive of those situations? - jc37 18:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure that reframing AfD as "articles for discussion" has ever really caught on. I supported the idea the last time it came up, and I even made some changes to the speedy keep policy to reflect that a deletion rationale need not be provided, but I self-reverted those changes when the practice never caught on. I would think that most people still expect a deletion rationale to be provided by the nominator, even if the eventual outcome is a different editing action. If you want to pick up the drum again on widening the scope of AfD, I'd support you, but it looks like policy isn't going to wag the dog on that one, we'd actually have to get people to change the practice. Gigs (talk) 18:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I've proposed in the past getting rid of AfD altogether (and having discussions - without prejudice as to the eventual outcome - about the future of articles on the article talk page, where they would logically be expected to be), but that didn't get much support either. (I think some people love the keep/delete debates - they serve as a kind of wikisport.) Anyway, yes, it should say something like "no-one has proposed a valid argument for any course of action which is covered by the venue in question", though hang on, this page is titled "deletion process", so it shouldn't really cover other XfD discussions where D doesn't stand for Delete...--Kotniski (talk) 18:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Nod about Articles for discussion.

The main complaint seemed to be that (at the time) AfD was backlogged, and broadening it would just add to the backlog. (I disagree in principle, and from experience.)

That aside, if there is a difference of opinion about whether AfD should be "delete noms only", then it needs to be discussed and not be in the guidelines anyway. (At the very least it shouldn't be a speedy criteria - the examples at CSD and SNOW would seem to support this.)

"no-one has proposed a valid argument for any course of action which is covered by the venue in question" - you'll get the anti-process faction up in arms against that : )

And I'm all for a rename. This page just underwent a lot of redesign, restructure and clarity (see further up). The goal is to have this page actually match common practice in how such things are resolved in the process (compared to the guide for deletion, which deals with noms and what an editor should expect in a discussion). If we can get most of the guidelines covered on these two pages (and maybe a third technical "how to close a discussion" page) I think we'd be doing everyone a great service.

So a rename may eventually be in order. But for now, just trying to make sure we get most of the obvious kinks out of the system : ) - jc37 18:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I added to the wrong venue bullet:

• This includes when there are no valid arguments for any course of action which would be covered by the venue in question.

But I think it's too vague, and needs tweaking still. Ideas? - jc37 19:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Tried: "This includes when the discussion has no substantive arguments for any course of action which would be covered by the venue in question." - It's better, at least... - jc37 19:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks OK to me. Gigs (talk) 19:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Note that WP:Speedy keep has been restored and the merge has been challenged. Renewed discussion is happening over there. Gigs (talk) 00:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

So now we seem to be in a situation where we have two, substantially different, lists of speedy keep criteria. This is the sort of thing that's bound to happen when we try to maintain redundant pages. I really see no reason (or even any argument advanced by anyone) as to why we need a separate page titled WP:Speedy keep. (But if we are to have one, then this page should simply refer to that one for the speedy keep criteria, not try to duplicate them itself.) --Kotniski (talk) 09:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm in favor of taking the version that Colonel Warden restored [6] and moving those criteria here, and again completing the merge (someone else do the redirects this time, I'm getting tired of doing them). Colonel Warden said he wasn't opposed to the merge as long as we kept criteria 1. Gigs (talk) 21:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)